NORMS, LAWS, AND CODE

EPISODE 13 MUSIC IN PHASE SPACE

WRITE CODE TO CONDITION BEHAVIOR: Consider how does one build relatively complex social systems almost exclusively out of code recognizing the enormous hazards that are associated with building things into the laws of nature

If we want to coordinate a group of people across the music industry to do something online there are only a few basic options. We can try to build agreement, we can set up rules, or we can write code that creates or constrains the possible actions.

Like many people, I am trying to understand how to use online platforms to get Musicians and Management to work together in some productive way. If this attempt at restoring the environmental and cultural foundations of the Music Industry and to see what it actually takes for the non-zero sum and positive sum interaction models to start to take hold, a objective, or even any way to say whether it’s “doing well” or not, then it requires a specific performance from its members.

If there’s a prerequisite is probably a constraint on free choice. The Music Industry outside the Big 4 have some combination of informal agreements, formal rules, and software that makes certain types of actions acceptable or unacceptable, possible or impossible, easy or hard.

NORMS

Norms are agreements about behavior. They define what “good” is, what “rude” is, and what “moral” and “valuable” are too. They can be thought of as more or less arbitrary social constraints on acceptable actions, but they also encourage things we want,

Focus on your craft first. Put in your time, and be great. Write amazing songs and be amazing onstage. Give fans a reason to care about you. Support other bands. Learn how to bring in income, Set yourself up for the long haul; Help out; Whether it’s carrying equipment or promoting the band, always help when it’s needed. Place equal value on each musician, Be on time. Be transparent; I’m talking about money.

Norms are “all in people’s head” yet they are real in that there are social penalties for violating them, such as a failure, conflict with other band members etc.

LAWS

You could say that laws are formalized rules backed by force. In many cases laws are codifications of norms (e.g. the criminalization of theft) along with pre-defined penalties for violation, backed by an authority with both the ability and the will to enforce these penalties. Laws can also govern the provision of rights or reward on copyright, handle labor disputes, contract negotiations, tax filings, and issues related trademarks. Some entertainment attorneys also handle immigration issues for foreign clients engaged in the entertainment business. ▪ Royalty Issues, Compulsory Cover License — Copyright Infringement, Recording Contracts — Publishing

CODE

And then there’s code. Code influences social action whenever people interact with one another through the use of software. Lawrence Lessig has famously argued that code is law. You don’t get punished for “violating” code; you simply aren’t able to do things that your software doesn’t allow.

Code is more like physics, the basic possibilities of a parallel real state. Or it is like architecture, a built world that has virtual cities, which are no less real for being human inventions. Code is the backdrop context that defines what is and is not possible.

Code also influences action in the sense of what is easy or convenient to do. This is James J Gibson the concept of affordance and user interface design.

In short, we can we can convince people, force people, or make certain things possible or impossible, easy or hard. The ability to pull these levers is not evenly distributed among the members of an online community; it’s easier for gatekeeper to promote new norms, laws and rules are typically the creations of site owners or administrators, and code is ultimately under the control of whoever causes it to be written and installed.

So there is a politics here. We can talk about whether a platform is more authoritarian or more democratic, and every choice of rule or code has political implications in terms of who is empowered to do what.

Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace

In his book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Lawrence Lessig, writes that, in order to protect freedom on the Net, we need to take actions to safeguard the values we cherish. Lessig believes that we should not sit idle and hope that the music industry will fix itself. It needs to both top down and bottom up approach. If the music industry is a sovereign entity without ties to the traditional legal system and that this fallacy could lead to the demise of core values

. . To maintain these values and to save the Internet through regulation through network architecture (code);

Because of the legal power code holds, Lessig cautions against the commercialization of code, which he believes will lead to the privatization of law and increased corporate control. He also argues in favor of open-source code which, like the laws governing the natural world, can be examined by everyone.

The nature of the online business model depends on its architecture, and its architecture designed and, hence, changeable.

Some have said the decentralized landscape is inherently not governable; This is fallacy: technology is inherently plastic and changeable. Regulation is thus a function of design.

It’s difficult to enact laws to regulate the Internet as is, but easy to regulate the architecture of the Internet as is. Without regulating the fundamental architecture of TCP/IP, we could, for instance, make architecture consistent with important public values and it should not be left up to commerce, and it should not be left unattended.

. “We must always adopt readings of the Constitution that preserve its original values. When dealing with cyberspace, judges are to be translators: Different technologies are the different languages, and the aim is to find a reading of the Constitution that preserves its meaning from one world’s technology to another.” — Pg. 165

In a world with the right kind of architecture, who chooses the rules?

In cyberspace, sovereigns choose the rules. It is not a democracy. Online, one can find many hints of democratic control, such as ranking blogs and voting up comments, but this is not the real thing. Being a regular member of a website does not give you any more right to over the code — and thereby, the rules — controlling the website.

In cyberspace, we choose our sovereigns, each a set of rule-sets competing for our attention. But as we become more interconnected, cyberspace must become more of a citizen-sovereignty if it is to claim legitimacy in the real-space. “Local” spaces in cyberspace must eventually comply with an international system of oversight, just as individual states comply with Federal regulations.