*** A New World Order: ” And an industry in a state of total disorder & ongoing change”
As our love for the internet increasingly dominates, digital technology’s exponential growth continues unravels the music biz, flooding markets with new playforms, devices.
Thus the once mass audiences of media & entertainment have fragmented, dispersed across a multi plethera of free & paid products, services & channels of reception.
This in turn has driven the heavily regulated ways of the old world of the music business into the ground. An industry that has always been based around a strict, centralised hierarchy, where wealth & power have always been controlled by a handful of high rolling suits at the top has ripples. These industry kingpins, who for so long have determined the successes & failure of so many, are no longer in control of the production, distribution & sales of CDs which they so heavily relied on, drove & profited from.
Dominated by so few, the old world of the industry was also heavily restricted & dictated by the limits of the widely accepted theory of an artists success in relation to the shelf life of a compact disc (or cassette tape / vinyl). Musicians regardless of their talent & popularity with fans, where only as successful as their last release, current radio plays& music clips. & They were always in fear of being axed each week / month / year, knowing that not making the cut of albums on a shelf of a store or bed room. They constantly lived in fear of sudden dismissal, not for failing but for existing in conjunction with other artists. Simply by the interest sparked by another similar song, album or artist, a great musician quickly became yesterday’s news, replaced by another on the come up.
The old way in every way was the wrong way, yet these theories and industry models have dictated the careers & incomes of artists & others within music biz since the beginning of its time.
Having an expiry (shelf life) & being so easily replaceable in a powerful, cut throat industry that most never even crack is one of the many ways of the old world that will not be missed . Today technology has fragmented crowds across an array of multimedia devices providing a wealth of choice for listening to music, viewing media and entertainment and has led to the devaluing physical cds with free download and streaming services & social media, like Pandora & YouTube. File sharing and an array of popular, cheap music platforms and the increasing popularity of music sales in mp3 formats, acoss digital plarforms such as itunes & spotify have played a major part in devaluing the product and dropping the price of recorded music on cds & vinyl.
As a result the few at the top of the old industry structure who retained all the wealth & control also lost the power to dictact the terms of the industry and the labels & agencies who maintained control by enforcing this business structure in the industry & the turn over of artists by their shelf life no longer produced or profited from physical cd recordings, their sales & distribution & could no longer maintain their strong hold.
As a result the music industry crumbled & created a huge power shift to the hungry masses who lay idolling waiting below. Control now lays in the hands of the artists, an army of creators once fighting for a place on the racks of stores & limited shelves of living rooms now had a voice, a platform, an ability to reach out to an audience & endless means of self promotion.
***************************************
The New World: Danger vs Opportunity
**Opportunity is everywhere:
The danger is where should music be promoted? How do audiences connect the loud, overcluttered & fragmented digital world when there is already far too much traffic jamming the endless stretches of today’s information highway?
**Vs the Dangers:
How do artists make $ when CDs have all but died out and traditional methods of profit from music recordings & CD sales have heavily depleated?
A betting man’s game: Surviving in a cutthroat industry, unstable environment & unpredictable future landscape.
****************************************
The new formula: 10% talent + 90% strategy:
Strategic Marketing, self promotion (music/show/image), product/image branding, music/artist management & networking together account for around 90% of actions for success in todays music biz – it is said that only 10% of an artists success comes down to the creative process vs the business process of marketing & promotion & physical roles of performing & touring.
The music essentially is made free as tools for a successful of a career. This is no longer the major part of an artists career. It is now the start, the initial 10% of the task, before promotion & business, before the fight for attention & the stage begins.
By Kaz Turbill (KaZbAhMeDiA)
***********************
See more @MusicClout – Danger Vs Opportunity…
Making it Big = 10% #talent 90%.. The #Music Biz #Today – #Danger vs #Opportunity http://t.co/WihSKpm65g @musicclout
The impact of personal computers, the Internet and new digital media formats on the music industry, copyright laws and consumer behaviours.
[Written Dec 2012 by Karyn Scottney-Turbill - Masters in Media & Comms: Monash University]
ABSTRACT:
Advances is digital technology have revolutionised the very way in which media is distributed and consumed. Digital media innovations have immensely improved the initial quality of audio and visual recordings, as well as subsequent reproductions (Goel, Miesing, Chandra, 2010, p1p1), and have bought about revolution within the music industry, as the debate over legal and illicit downloading rages on. Such new technologies have rapidly altered consumer behaviours, and the industry has been forced to redevelop existing business models, facing serious losses in the retail sector.
FROM CDs to MP3s: Piracy & the Transformation of an Industry –
As such advances in technology lead us to an “era of unprecedented knowledge, cultural reproduction and dissemination, we are challenged to reconsider the fundamentals of copyright law” (Fitzgerald, 2008, p2), and are left to analyse the consequential effects of digital technology and new media. Developments in information sciences in the 1980s, including the introduction of personal computers, made digital technologies like the Internet a reality. The subsequent creation of the MPEG-1 Audio Layer-3 (MP3) format, soon lead to the birth of Napster, the outbreak of the phenomenon of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, Internet pirating, iTunes, and rendered the compact disc all but obsolete (MP3 Developments, 2011, p1-3), with MP3s now the preferred medium. While some prospered from the transition, others believe this technological revolution caused the near death of the music industry (King, 2002, p1and Kravets, 2007, p1).
The music industry “attributes an erosion of sales after 1999 to the illegal copying and sharing of digital files and has taken steps to tighten copyright laws and prosecute violators” (Goel, Miesing, Chandra, 2010, p1), with the losses all but crippling business. In 2009, the International Federation of Phonographic Industry (IFPI) estimated a staggering 95% of downloaded music, within that year had been downloaded illegally (BBC, 2009, p1 and Gloor, Rolston, 2010, p1), without payment to the creators or industries producing it. Yet, others “attribute the downturn to a lack of innovative products and futile efforts by the industry to retain a business model made obsolete” (Goel, Miesing, Chandra, 2010, p1) by progressing technologies, as this is merely a transitional stage of progress, and unavoidable. They believe that such innovations are only capable of destroying business if the industry continues to resist such advances, rather than embrace them (Leckenby, 2003, p25 and Goel, Miesing, Chandra, 2010, p1). This cannot be said for Apple however, who has since secured a strong hold over the industry. Their innovative and successful attempt to secure the new media market was initiated by the introduction of the Apple iPod and the simultaneous roll out of iTunes, their own digital music store in 2003 (Mumbi Moody, 2010, p2).
Underlying the term new media, fundamentally is the digitisation of media and, such new media technologies “come about based upon a ‘platform’ of traditional media which have preceded them” (Leckenby, 2003, p25). This is dubbed “the ‘Transference Phase’ of media development” (Leckenby, 2003, p25) and digital radio is a brilliant example of this, with the successful shift from analogue radio waves to the increasingly popular channels available online and through digital media devices. With the continual reign of digitisation, of the Internet and of new media technologies, many sectors of the media and entertainment are being forced to endure profound transformations within their industries.
Innovations in technology have always led to progressions in the music industry, causing periods of transition to new formats, from existing methods of audio engineering. The industry has come a long way since Thomas Edison’s phonograph revolutionised the world in 1877 and from the introduction radio of in 1923 (Audio Engineering Society, 1999, p4). This medium, originally invented for military communications during the First World War, became the feature of the domestic space from the 1920s (MP3 Developments, 2011, p1-3).
SONY WALKMAN - Pioneers in personal, portable media devices
Before digital technology became a reality in the 1980s, innovations in analogue technologies continued to transform music, with the invention of ‘long players’, or LPs in 1947 (MP3 Developments, 2011, p1-3), and the introduction of the first pocket transistor radios by Sony in 1954 (Audio Engineering Society, 1999, p15), noteworthy as being the first portable, personal media devices. Other notable advances were made by Phillips, who created “the first Compact Cassette tape format, offer[ing] licenses to the world” (Audio Engineering Society, 1999, p15) in 1963, followed soon after by the introduction the Walkman, by rivals Sony, in 1981 (MP3 Developments, 2011, p1-3). That same year, Phillips came back, inventing the Compact Disc, which saw the death of the audio cassette and later, the rise of the ‘discman’ (Audio Engineering Society, 1999, p15). However, the biggest threat and challenge yet to traditional models of production, distribution and reception came about from advances in information sciences during the 1980s.
The development of the 16-bit personal computer, rolled out by IBM in 1981, and followed by Macintosh with their Apple Mac in 1984 (MP3 Developments, 2011, p1-3), initiated the “digitisation of production [which soon] spread through all of the major cultural industries” (Hesmondhalgh, 2007, p 242), paving theway for the Internet and marking the gradual and progressive shift toward the Information Age. Apart from the creation of the personal computer and Internet, one of the most significant innovations altering the music industry, was the invention of the MP3 format in Germany in 1989 (MP3 Developments, 2011, p1-3).
[Image: IBM COMPUTER 1981]
This new media became widely available to consumers in 1998, when MP-3 players, devices to play downloaded audio files (Audio Engineering Society, 1999, p15), hit markets worldwide. MP3s have a lossless quality and the simple format and ease of distribution means the digital medium became rapidly popular and simply the preferred medium of audio consumption (Hesmondhalgh, 2007, p 245 and MP3 Developments, 2011, p1-3).
Then in 1999, in America, a nineteen-year-old college student’s development “proceeded to redefine the Internet, the music industry and the way we all think about intellectual property” (Tyson, 2000, p1), with the invention of his file sharing software, Napster. Once boasting “eighty million registered users, the revolutionary software” (King, 2002, p1), encompassed a search engine of MP3 files, derived from other user’s computers, peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing tools and Internet Relay Chat (IRC) to locate and communicate with other Napster users (Tyson, 2000, p2). This new concept of peer-to-peer file sharing meant users, when accessing music via Napster were in actual fact downloading MP3s from another user’s machine. Collectively, these users had access to thousands of music tracks, and the ability to illegally and freely download them. This sent shockwaves through the music industry, seriously rivaling their previously unchallenged powers of production and especially distribution, and, in doing so, drastically reducing their profits. According to Jeff Tyson (2000) this ‘decentralised approach’, means there was “no central server maintaining the index of users, [and] no easy way to target and stop the use of the program” (Tyson, 2000, p2), presenting an exceptional, unprecedented dilemma to both the industry and the advocators of copyright law.
However, within the first year of its’ introduction, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), representing an alliance of record labels in the United States, began judicial action against Napster. The RIAA, in their filings, argued Napster “should be held liable for enabling millions of users to share music for free, depriving artists and the publishers and producers of music of revenue they are entitled to under copyright statutes” (CNN, 2000, p1). This was seen as the most fundamental case “involving the application of copyright laws to Internet activities” (CNN, 2000, p1) and was presented before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. While the RIAA had the obliteration of Napster firmly in their sights, the wheels of progress remained in motion, and in 2000, Internet provider AOL’s Justin Frankel “released Gnutella, a new file-trading application, into the world” (King, 2002, p1), which AOL subsequently co-opted. Yahoo and Microsoft followed suit, with their own versions of file sharing software (King, 2002, p1), and an already agitated industry was left to face the reality of the infiltration of peer-to-peer file sharing and the seemingly unstoppable dominance of illegal downloading.
The RIAA was eventually successful and “accomplished its goal of serving Napster with a copyright infringement lawsuit” (King, 2002, p1), but by this point Napster was already a global phenomenon, and easily replicated. Seven years after litigations began, Bertelsmann, one of Germany’s largest media conglomerates was forced to pay “the National Music Publishers Association one hundred and thirty million dollars to settle the Napster case’s final copyright claims” (Kravets, 2007, p1). Bertelsmann was found to have financed Napster, “thereby allowing Napster to continue allowing millions of users to pilfer music” (Kravets, 2007, p1), and was the final junction served in the case against Napster, originally filed in 2000. During the trials, Napster was forced to cease its operations as a free file sharing network and has since been re-launched as a paid music provider. Yet the basic peer-to-peer model it initiated was now unstoppable (Kravets, 2007, p1). In 2010, following the successes of litigations against Napster “the company operating LimeWire file sharing service was found liable for copyright infringement” (Gloor, Rolston, 2010, p6), in another noteworthy case filed by the RIAA, four years prior, in 2006 (Gloor, Rolston, 2010, p6).
Such digital technologies, deemed new media, were set to challenge copyright laws of a number of nations, which in the case of the United Kingdom, had remained unchallenged for three hundred years (Hough, 2011, p1). Copyright infringements are taken very seriously by creative industries and judicial systems. The laws of “copyright apply to works which are still within the period of copyright protection [and the] duration of copyright varies according to the type of copyright material” (Music Australia, 2008, p1). Copyright laws state that the “use of copyrighted material without permission may constitute infringement” (Herreman, 2009, p9) invoking cases of various liabilities against each defendant. Most consumers however, in their ‘format shifting’ of music… from personal collections onto MP3 players” (Walsh, 2006, p1) are unbeknown to the fact they are actively committing such offences.
In light of advancing digital technologies and the popularity of new media devices, some governments have since reviewed Copyright laws, reforming them to discount such behaviours. Such steps have been taken by the Australian government, who in 2006 announced that “transferring music from CDS onto iPods and other MP3 players [would] no longer be illegal” (Walsh, 2006, p1), with the federal cabinet’s ruling defining a momentous change to Australia’s long standing copyright laws. Member of Parliament, Philip Ruddock, in making the announcement, went on to warn of the repercussions of the illegal downloading of copyrighted content. He announced that police would have the authority to issue hefty fines and courts the “powers to award larger damages payouts against internet pirates” (Walsh, 2006, p1), demonstrating the combined work of the police, legislative forces and creative industries, in their tireless attempts to wage a war on illegal downloading.
Many involved in such debates over the legality of copyright infringements, believe Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should be monitoring illegal file sharing and downloading, taking action against offenders, or if not, at the very least, reporting them (Gloor, Rolston, 2010, p6). In 2010, the United Kingdom took such steps, with the introduction of the Digital Economy Bill; a ‘three strikes’ system to be employed by Internet Service Providers, notifying users of violations regarding the downloading unlicensed materials. As the explanation suggests, such violators will be given three written warnings, before disconnecting there services, temporary, or in the cases of serious or repeat offenders, on a permanent basis (Gloor, Rolston, 2010, p7). Other countries have since followed suit, with their own versions of such bills of culpability, including the United States, with the introduction of the SOPA Act in 2011 (The Shontell, 2011, p1).
The actions of the music industry in recent history have highlighted a clear unwillingness to accept what they see to be the converse results of digital formatting. Many have refused to adequately remodel existing business structures to suit the current digital climate, also in denial of the pros of such new media technologies. The exception has of course been Apple, who has not only embraced such new technologies, but has used innovations in digital formatting to accelerate business and profits, and, in doing so, surpassing their once dominant competition. According to Bill Werde, editorial director at Billboard, such moves have secured Apple “80 percent, 70 percent market share in that digital space” (Mumbi Moody, 2010, p2), attained through their online music store, iTunes. Regardless of Apple’s efficacious re-modeling and on-going success in the digital market, other sectors of the industry continue to resist the transition, with few attempts to produce a reasonable online retail market model.
Tony Wadsworth (2009), chairman of BPI has worked tirelessly with governments in their efforts to counter pirating, which is occurring in plague proportions. However, in light of the undeniable benefits that also come with such new media innovations, stated that such developments have “meant music is consumed in more places in more ways than ever before” (The Independent, 2009, p1), which of course is invaluable. Nevertheless, he reiterated the importance of artists and producers getting paid what is due, to ensure fair use and to guarantee the future of the industry (The Independent, 2009, p1).
The outrage of lost profits and issues of piracy have underpinned the slow progression of the industry, to embrace new digital formats. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) “represents the recording industry worldwide, with a membership comprising some 1400 record companies in 66 countries and affiliated industry” (IFPI, 2012, p1) and attributed the profit losses from the retail sector, to a seven precent decline of the world music market in 2008. According to the IFPI, even though digital sales were increasing, they failed to parallel increasing losses from CD sales (IFPI, 2012, p1).
Many notable musicians have joined the debate, and English pop star, Lily Allen on her MySpace blog claimed that “illegal file-sharing was making it “harder and harder for new acts to emerge”, (The Independent, 2009, p1). While there is some truth to this, digital technologies and new forms of social media should not have their role in discovering new talent discounted. The Internet and new media sites such as YouTube and other popular social media networks have actually “been one of the most powerful tools used by artists to share their content… introduce[ing] millions to artists, musicians and personalities that would have never been discovered” (Manarino, 2012, p1) without such services. Moreover, as Manarino (2012) rightfully highlighted, “creators of every genre have discovered the ability to market and publish themselves in a way where they [can] garner viral attention” (Manarino, 2012, p1), meaning such new, digital technologies, in having the ability to put the control of the production of content in the hands of the consumer, have in fact been crucial to the discovery and popularity of many new artists.
Downloading digital music has “seen the return to the singles-driven business of the 1950s” (Anderson, 2004, p10), with consumers now able to avoid the unwanted content upon whole albums. Consumers now have the power to select what music they want, when they want it. While most within the music industry were busily concerning themselves with the detriments of the phenomenon of peer-to-peer file sharing, waging a war against illegal downloading, Apple was getting on with business, and, in 2003 it rolled out its online music store, iTunes. This new concept, “with its’ simple interface, its’ simple concept — 99 cents per song” (Mumbi Moody, 2010, p2), along with the simultaneous introduction of the “revolutionary MP3 device, the iPod (Mumbi Moody, 2010, p2),” were originally rolled out for Apple Macintosh systems only. Thus, initially the success and any future profitability of this innovative marketing concept were drastically underestimated.
Over the next eight years, Apple went on to sell “three hundred million iPods and ten billion tracks via the iTunes Store, leapfrogging Wal-Mart and Best Buy as the world’s biggest music retailer” (Knopper, 2011, p1). This gave Apple the supreme and unchallenged power to set the pricing and the standards of the industry’s inevitable shift to online markets. In 2007, chairman and chief executive of Warner Music Group when assessing the importance of iTunes to music fans due to its dominance, commented that “while Apple’s stock went from eight billion dollars to eighty billion dollars, [theirs] went in reverse” (Knopper, 2011, p1), highlighting the need for others in the industry to find their own competitive business models, for the digital age.
In recent years, in the face of profits lost from illegal downloading, artists and industry professionals have made successful attempts to bolster profits derived from other resources. According to statements made by Tony Wadsworth, chairman and chief executive of EMI, in 2008, “live gigs, merchandising, advertising, digital licensing, broadcast – had grown from £121.6m (11.4% of total revenues in 2007) to £195m (18% of the total in 2008)” (The Independent, 2009, p1). He also stated that “the future business model of this industry might not be based on transactional music sales for much longer” (The Independent, 2009, p1), drawing attention to innovations such as Guitar Hero, as an example of the emergence new profitable ventures. He also mentioned popular rock band Radio Head’s success in their own marketing attempts, selling their latest album online, for as little as the consumer was willing to pay. According to Wadsworth, this move gave them not only a profitable share in their music downloading, but also a newly found popularity from the subsequent media attention (The Independent, 2009, p2).
Regardless of the debates about illegal file sharing, fears about the future of an industry and uncertainties in pricing, it can be said, we are at the point in our creative histories, where there is simply not enough shelf space, nor radio waves for the content that has already been produced, or to suit the desires of every consumer (Anderson, 2004, p4). Furthermore, considering the cost of stock purchasing, leasing, overheads and staffing, “an average record store needs to sell two copies of a CD per year to make it worth carrying” (Anderson, 2004, p2), when the reality, according the RIAA is, less than ten percent of major label CDs become profitable (BBC, 2009, p2). Whilst the directors of long standing, traditional music businesses have resisted progress, refusing to benefit online consumption, the “market that lies outside each retailer is getting bigger and bigger” (Anderson, 2004, p7). The CEO of one digital jukebox company, stated that of the tens of thousands of songs available on his site and others, there is a demand for each and every one of them (Anderson, 2004, p5), impossible for any physical outlet to stock. Therefore these ventures remain unmatched by current fiscal models in retail.
Supporting this argument are the executives at “iTunes, Amazon and Netflix [who] have discovered that the ‘misses’ usually make money too” (Anderson, 2004, p6), stating that over history more mediocre songs have been produced, than hits. Their ability to carry thousands and thousands of these titles, without the overheads of physical retail outlets, swiftly adds up to be highly profitable. According to Wadsworth, as fast as the hugely popular file sharing domain, Raphsody adds tracks to its library, those songs find an audience” (Anderson, 2004, p6), leaving many wondering why others within the industry continue to resist these new digital formats. The progressive shift to new digital media has already occurred, and the digital realm is dominating, like it or not. The question now, is whether they will be able to make such substantial changes to their business dealings, before the digital market destroys them.
Advances in digital technology, have caused the “multiplying distribution channels, declining entry barriers for content producers” (Lewis, 2008, p1), making file sharing software possible and piracy easy. Moreover, “continuous technological advancements, and mounting competitive pressures” (Lewis, 2008, p1), have led to the transformation of entertainment industries, but none more so than the music industry. Music consumption has been revolutionised by the creation of the MP3 and file sharing software, and the industry has been forced to face piracy head on, in the reality of their ever plummeting profits. The Internet has challenged traditional business structures and supplier, consumer relationships within the music industry, rendering retail distribution models almost obsolete. Like Apple has demonstrated, an adequate business structure, suiting the digital climate of the new Information Age, needs to be employed in order to maintain a market share (Knopper, 2011, p1). Moreover, in light of the successful growth of many online music stores, it has been proven that others in the music industry can still win, in the ongoing war, waged against Internet piracy.
Fitzgerald, B, 2008, The Future of Copyright, European Intellectual Property Review, April 2008Sage Publications, viewed 23rd May 2012, http://eprints.qut.edu.au
As the phenomenal growth of digital technology continues, the impact of today’s information laced, technologically based economy also greatly increased the rate and growth of cybercrimes and the capabilities of hackers and cybercriminals (ACM, 2012, p1and IT Business Edge, 2013, p1-5). With the rapid growth of social networking and other cloud-based systems, focus on security and privacy issues has heightened and will continue to be an issue of increased focus (ACM, 2012, p1). Concerning are issues also relate to the countering of such attacks as the “unauthenticated nature of the Internet makes attribution difficult and furthermore has implications on accountability” (ACM, 2012, p1) and continuous developments in cloud-based systems counter the successful implementation counter security measures.
Cloud computing has become a significant part of contemporary society, however “security, interoperability, and portability are cited as major barriers to broader adoption” (NIST, 2013, p1).The widespread implementation and functionality of cloud computing structures are increasing user capabilities and while this is advantageous, it is also extremely dangerous. Now through cloud-based computing systems the scale of harm one can do to many is increasing exponentially (Dorrier, 2013, p1). Historical privacy and security issues that resulted from the creation of the Internet have increased at an exponential rate due to the widespread adoption of cloud computing models. Thus, such concerns and risks relating to cloud systems have become topical issues for the ICCP Foresight Forum (Donohue, 2009, p1-4). Such policy issues raised include “from portability, competition, and innovation to security, privacy and accountability” (Donohue, 2009, p1-4) which are core contemporary issues of cloud computing practices.
Cloud computing technologies have revolutionised the contemporary world with their functionality and online storage and networking capabilities. However, “destructive non-state actors, terrorists, criminals and internationally weak authoritarian regimes can leverage the same tools”(Dorrier, 2013, p1) as developers of cloud-based technologies, but for dangerous and terrifying purposes. Furthermore, deployment of a successful attack on a cloud system enables control over the cloud interface, granting hackers’ unlimited access to stored data and in addition to absolute control over a user’s account (IT Business Edge, 2013, p1-5 and ACM, 2012, p1). Nowadays attacks of cybercrime, scaling up to incidences of cyber warfare can be deployed by any user with access to a computer or even smart phone and the expertise and motivation to resource such instruction from the endless resources now available to them online.
Furthermore, the central function of cloud systems is resource pooling and while such multi-tenanted models are time, cost and user effective, such structures also greatly limit the users control and knowledge of the location of resources provided upon a cloud or the destination of data and sensitive information (IT Business Edge, 2013, p1-5). Cloud computing with its “shared multi-tenancy environment aggravates the traditional security threats” of historical computing and networking practices (ACM, 2012, p1) Pooled resources include storage, applications and processing, memory, network bandwidth and a range virtual platforms and servers (Metz, 2010, p1-2). Thus, individual users and companies using cloud-based systems, no longer hold the power nor have the ability to manage the outsourcing of resources or location of anything placed upon a public or community could, or within the public resources of a hybrid cloud (Anderson, 2010, p1 and Metz, 2010, p1-2). This is a serious issue considering individuals are now accustomed to public cloud models and the majority of professions only have the expenditure and resources to use such platforms over safer private cloud computing models.
Image (2): Key Issues relating to virtual ‘cloud computing’ systems
In early 2013 when addressing Congress, US Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper presented major concerns in the form of a ‘Worldwide Threat Assessment Statement’ (Dorrier, 2013, p2). Here he voiced serious concerns about the dangerous capabilities such technologies present, enabling states, organised groups and individuals, methods to deploy extensive, severe forms of cyber-attacks (Dorrier, 2013, p1). Cloud computing resources are enabled and managed through various control interfaces and as with all network-based systems, they rely on various security measures to protect applications and user information (Adar, Bernard and Huberman, 20??, p1and ACM, 2012, p1). However networking and storage capabilities have also amplified the development and capabilities of surveillance technologies, encryption applications, malicious software and as a result have led to the explosion of information mining techniques and diverse, lucrative data markets (Adar, Bernard and Huberman, 20??, p1). The storage of sensitive personal information in databases and software scattered upon these network systems and subsequently the globe, is highly concerning. Thus cloud computing systems are only truly beneficial and viable if such real privacy and security concerns are properly addressed and effectively managed (Cavoukian, 2011, p2).
Of particular concern for average users is the reality that their digital identities are created by online activities, including information from emails, banking and credit card purchases. Social media, gaming and online shopping accounts along with other information entered by users on various Internet sites all contribute the data available and our digital identities, profiles that are subsequently created (Cavoukian, 2011, p2). These activities leave a “trail of personal information that, if not properly protected, may be exploited and abused”, thus issues relating to digital identity have become a fundamental challenge for contemporary society (Cavoukian, 2011, p2). While this particular site is seemingly harmless, an example of new data collecting applications can be explored by users through Intel’s “The Museum of Me” and some of the results of this data collecting application are exhibited in Image (4) (Intel, 2013, p1)
Adding to concerns about the data and sensitive information stored on and passed on through virtual cloud services are real apprehensions relating to data control, with confusion over the ownership rights of data that is uploaded onto a cloud (Notely, 2011, p1). As these concerns continue to boil, without the implantation of updated legislation or proper reforms to digital copyright, data and service provider regulations, reservations over user privacy, security and data control upon cloud-based systems have been heightened. In addition to these fears are issues relating to the control of data crystals and collection of small traces of sensitive information, data that can form a user’s digital trail and profile, during mandatory identification procedures and online, cloud-based activity (Notely, 2011, p1). While generally speaking, users are free to share their own personal information upon clouds and thus with their providers and related third parties, businesses must not disclose any personal or business information of clients, employees or other companies. However such provider terms are not restricted by current privacy legislations, meaning such policies do not apply to marketing companies and certain categories of personal data, obtained by cloud providers. This means partial customer files and uncategorised business and employee information may be freely uploaded by business and subsequently used by third parties and the service providers with access to the structural layers of a cloud system (World Privacy Forum, 2013, p1-2).
Even more troubling is the lack of policy preventing contractual changes, allowing provider to change the terms and conditions of use, often without notification, let alone the agreement of users. Such self-governing terms laid out by service providers do not apply however to federal agencies however, as the “Privacy Act of 1974 imposes standards for the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of personal information” (WorldPrivacyForum, 2013, p2). Thus personal information contained in Federal files may violate the Privacy Act of 1974, particularly when no set disclosure agreement exists between these bodies and cloud service providers (WorldPrivacyForum, 2013, p2).
From CDs to MP3s.. & 4 & 5.. Hardrives replaced with cloud computing systems. Now its IaaS, SaaS, PaaS… #platforms & networks & a world powered by data centres…
From there the rest is History!!
It’s the NEW world.. the DIGITAL world…
& it’s powerful, unpredictable & accelerating at an exponential rate!
‘How the MP3 marked the beginning of the digital world, the beginning of the end for record sales & changed the music industry forever!’
Multimedia & content production, social media management, network marketing & promotions.
Melbourne, Australia
Follow @KaZbAhMeDia on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest & Instagram!
Digital, Print & Active Promotions
See how can KaZbAhMeDiA help market & promote you or your business.
Digital Media, Marketing & Promotional Services catered to suit your needs
-For once off jobs, short & long term contracts, individual services & bundled deals. KaZbAhMeDiA can plan, manage and monitor your needs, whether big or small!
(No pressure, no commitment: Assessments & quotes provided instantly.. without the risk or sales pitch!)
Another harsh reminder to all about the volitility of digital media technology & the on-going security risks & privacy issues that users are exposed to on social media networks, cloud services & through our ever increasing habitual internet activities.
The expansion of network technologies, has lead many to the create multiple online accounts & digital media profiles, each requiring the submission of sensitive information & the use of various identity markers. It is no secret that such details can be, and often will be collected & monitored by others, via data mining & surveillance tools, but also by various types of malware & system viruses, often created by hackers, for the purposes of identity theft & cyber crime.
[Though I wont elaborate on the use of such mining/surveillance tools & consumer information collected by other, trusted parties, such as governments, powerful corporations & law enforcers!]
So once again we are alerted to a new wave of #cybercrime as #hackers threaten #digital#networks, user #privacy & #security of consumers online with a new wave of cyber weaponry.
STAY SAFE: Remember to use different user passwords for various online accounts. Use a strong, alphanumeric access code, containing at least on symbol. Change passwords regularly and never provide personal information on profiles and accounts unless it is absolutely necessary.
Keep an eye out for more digital media updates and network tips and security information by @KaZbAhMeDiA.
Follow @KaZbAhMeDiA on Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram & Facebook.
As a result of the expansion of media and technology and current digital climate, appropriately branded the ‘Information Age’, the limited attention of an individual consumer has become a serious consideration in industries and for corporate economies. This concept, branded the ‘attention economy’, must be carefully analysed and then utilised by businesses, as measurement for capital gain. As, in this cluttered, information loaded environment where our attention is placed, its’ limits and the constant diversions we face, are becoming prominent issues in both the corporate world and the daily routines of consumers. As the internet makes access to information almost limitless, its continuous and incomprehensible growth continues to expand the vast fragmentation of consumer audiences. Thus, the attention of consumers has become paramount, as corporations and traditional media industries attempt to coexist with the internet and the exponential growth of digital media platforms and services.
Economic structures are formulated around the input of information in relation to the output of capital gain. However, in today’s modern world, where intellectual property is free and overflowing, the input of information is heavily outweighing the bandwidth of possible consumption. New economic structures need to incorporate the idea of an ‘attention economy’ as natural to capital gain, explicitly addressing how attention (or the lack thereof) affects market profits and consumer business. This includes its impact on the role of advertisers, appearance and entertainment industries and the media and their economic gains in today’s information loaded environment. Moreover, those who do not consider the importance of this new commodity may find their economies crippled by this new form of intellectual capital. As, in this information-cluttered environment of content production and then seemingly endless channels of consumption, the most important commodity to any product-based business or celebrity, is the consistency of direct consumer attention. This however is not an entirely new notion, as industries have been harnessing attention as a force of social production from the early 19th century. Yet due to a rapidity of globalisation, and the vast number of market places and technologies now in existence, overloading us with information, its’ relevance has now become pivotal. In this modern information age, Beller (2006) explains, ‘human attention is productive of value’ and is in short supply with the continuous emergence of new digital platforms and social media networks. The overflow of information upon a multiplicity of platforms for reception, have dawned an era of information and consumer control. Still, the media has ‘always traded information for attention’, so it is not surprising that millions are being invested by corporations and various capitalist industries alike, in an attempt to acquire visibility in amongst the chaos and continue to profit from consumer interest.
The 19th century was highlighted by industrial revolution and era of mass production, thus birthing consumerism; resulting in the relationship that now exists between celebrities, media and industry. The use of celebrity status to promote capital ventures has always been a marketing tool of mass production. The media are the link promoting stardom and in doing so create celebrities. Then, once sufficient audience attention is gained, the capitalist world uses the formation and popularity of celebrity status for capital gain. As discussed by Hellmueller and Aeschbacher (2010), ‘celebrities and prominent people are social constructs, which are a highly complex phenomena, influence by the various forces defining them’ and though complex if executed well, is a formula for economic success. Despite the existence of these principles throughout the last century, the internet has allowed for the flow of free information and, consequently much consideration must now be given to the capital worth of the intellectual property. Moreover, such content is now given so willingly by companies, celebrities and everyday consumers across countless digital platforms and social media spaces in a bid for their own attention and financial gain.
Without reforming current economic structures and relations, the continuous input of content to the current flow of hundreds of messages reaching consumers daily will only contribute to the diversion of attention considered now to be in deficit. Thus, rather than increasing their visibility, it will only add to the clutter. Such a competitive, saturated information environment means many messages are subsequently lost in the chaos, misunderstood or un-actioned, as consequently little or no attention is being placed upon them. Hence a focus on the ability to remove the clutter has led to constant improvements on spam and malware and filtering software, made to reduce the flow of hundreds of messages directed toward consumers each day. They attempt to reduce this information overload to allow a greater attention to be placed on what is relevant and thus useful. Similarly we make a manual effort to reduces the flow of unwanted information with junk-mail files and the constant deleting the unimportant information. The risk of course is that during such filtering processes, important information and vital messages requiring action may be missed, deleted or wrongly interpreted by inattentive or over cluttered minds. A potential for serious issues is subsequently created, and company operations may be in turn be harshly affected. They risk the possibility of irreversible damage to business operations and their reputation, as well as to consumer relation if attention is then directed elsewhere.
The rapid decline of market shares and capital dollars has not only lead to the emergence of theories of a new attention economy, as part of the natural order of consumerism, but also to the unscrupulous mining of attention. Similar to the technologies that filter our digital information, others can measure our online consumptions, and as a result businesses who have adapted to this idea of an attention economy as a new force driving the consumer behaviours, can now harness our attention by collecting such data. Today’s economy is now based upon the actions of the consumer, not the producers, in an on-going fight for consumer attention. Now increasingly segmented, the once mass audience is no longer starved for choice, deciding the channel by which to receive information and their level of interaction shared with each message. Thus, with so many platforms of media begging for our attention, it’s not just a question of how to gain attention but also how to retain it. For as a number traditional media outlets give publicity to some, new media ‘trends’ others.
Some forms of social media networks, such as blogging sites, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube aim to grab a share of our already segmented and therefore deficient attention by creating ‘content communities’ and online connections between consumers. These are attempts to re-group individuals online, not only channelling attention to their sites, but also influencing the information they receive as well as who and what they go on to consume. Furthermore, such channels of production and distribution now enable consumers to add their own input to the information flow. Consequently, consumer based output of information has the corporate world are not only battling each other and various media for consumer attention but also the consumers themselves. So, while businesses struggle to be seen amongst the endless flow of free content offered by celebrities in their own desperate attempts for visibility and attention, the instant celebrity potential now offered to the everyday, active consumer has also proven to be a major issue for the success of old models business and economies.
While the entertainment and corporate world struggle with to evolve with the rapidity of technology and the endless flow of messages, they cannot ignore the move toward an ‘attention economy’ which motivates participation in peer-produced sites online, further breaking down past economic structures. The attention they all require is becoming more disproportional to what they are likely to receive. The further fragmentation of audiences, once united in masses by traditional forms of media have made an immense impact on the capital gains of many. Thus, many celebrities now utilise social media channels to promote their own messages and a greater share of our attention. These attempts are risky and require both output and attention, and in many cases only amplify the problematic relationship between the daily overload of accessible information and our limited bands of attention.
We are in the midst of a technical revolution and furthermore only in the early stages of what have already proven globally to be vast, radical transformations driven by innovations in digital technology. Cloud-based services are not entirely new however, as basic cloud computing structures, including applications like webmail have existed since 1995. Now these applications are part of the first two service layers of now highly complex cloud computing structures.
However the addition of Web 2.0 greatly enhanced these services and user interfaces and the Internet, now centred as a “universal tool of interactive communications” (Castells, 2000, p10). As a result, we are shifting “away from computer-centred technologies to network-diffused technologies” (Castells, 2000, p10), and significantly to enhanced, layered forms of ‘cloud’ computing.
Definition of Cloud Computing:
“Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.” (NIST, 2013, p1).
As computing services, became cloud-based technologies, like electricity obtained from the national grid, software, hardware, online platforms, file sharing and storage facilities became available for purchase, with consumption metered and leased on a pay per use basis. Nowadays, the majority of users online use webmail services and software programs such as Microsoft Word and other “word processing applications whose functionality is located on the web” (Donohue, 2009, p1). Today billions of users across the globe have social media accounts, and also share and store data online and the software, applications and virtual server. The contemporary technology driving our online activities making such daily actions possible are the layered structures of cloud computing systems.
The core to cloud computing is “a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources” (Metz, 2010, p1) such as applications, services, networks, servers and storage, and are accessible via the Internet. Such cloud-based technologies facilitate accessibility and convenience with on-demand access to networks and stored data. These are “rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction” (NIST, 2013, p1) through the outsourcing of software, hardware, networks and infrastructures to online clouds services and their providers.
Essentially, cloud computing consists of five core characteristics; On-demand self-service, Broad network access, Resource pooling, Rapid elasticity, Measured Service:
On-demand self-service: This refers to outsourcing and networking software and services and thus the hardware powering such provisions. This allows users to “provision computing capabilities as needed… without requiring human interaction with each service’s provider (Metz, 2010, p1), such a server access and time and program applications, along with networking and storage.
Broad network access: This feature promotes the various scales of requirements of users, allowing platforms and network access to be catered to a client’s needs, while also enabling users within a network to share programs, storage spaces and data (NIST, 2010, p2). The broad network access of cloud services, means they are widely accessible and compatible, functioning across numerous platforms and devices with network access, such as mobile phones, tablets, laptops and PDAs.
Resource Pooling: Referring to the resources of ‘cloud’ providers and by nature, such computing provisions are “pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model” (Metz, 2010, p1-2) catered to the cloud’s functions and purpose and available to suit a user’s requirements. These include numerous “virtual resources with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to consumer demand” (Metz, 2010, p1-2) along with different physical structural components, or hardware, which is contained in a providers data centre, or sever farm of a third party. Such pooled provider resources include storage drives and servers, network bandwidth, processing memory, virtual servers and online application based services.
Rapid elasticity: This is the ability to scale up and scale down storage, user groups, services and individual user access.
Measured Service: Automatically optimising storage, processes and bandwidth to control active user accounts, allowing this resource usage to be surveyed and subsequently controlled by both the user and the provider of the cloud computing system (NIST, 2013, p1).
Furthermore there are currently four deployment models for cloud computing. These all strikingly different in their networking and functionality include private clouds, public clouds, community clouds and hybrid clouds. Private clouds are the in-house architectural systems of particular organisations, which are cloud-based network structures implemented by businesses for their own internal operations. Some companies may choose to use a hybrid approach, with some processes kept on internal, private clouds, while moving other provisions to a public cloud. They may control their own data centres and servers for the storage and networking capabilities of various core operations, but may also require access to a greater shared pool of services and infrastructures to increase their functions and capabilities upon cloud-based systems.
Structural Layers of Cloud Computing:
Structurally speaking, cloud computing systems are made up of four specific forms of infrastructure and known as the ‘layers of service’ each with different capabilities and levels of user advantages and risks.
Software-as-a-Service (SaaS):
Structurally speaking, cloud computing involves four ‘layers of service’; including three service platforms and the hardware, or four layer. The first layer and most familiar to users is the Software-as-a-Service layer (SaaS) and are regularly Google Apps, Facebook, YouTube and Netflix. This is the application layer and thus includes any applications you can access from the web, that doesn’t require access to a local server.
Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS):
The next layer is the Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) and includes lower-lever services of the cloud servers, such as the operating system, web server and computer language interpreter within a cloud service. The PaaS layer allows developers to build and customise the applications for the SaaS layer of service. The PaaS layer is often termed the ‘middleware’ and includes platforms such as Microsoft Windows, Google App Engine, Azure and Java. Allowing users to “to create, deploy and manage applications over the Web” (Capurro, 2013, p3) the PaaS layer provides the framework and storage capabilities for the SaaS layer.
Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS):
The third layer, Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) is the “Computation (VM) Storage (block)’ (Zhang, Cheng, Boutaba, 2010, p9) and consists of provisions of (virtual) servers that can be accessed on a pay as you go basis). Examples of IaaS layers are Amazon’s Elastic Compute Cloud (Ec2), GoGrid and Flexiscale and provides access to storage, servers and networking services that are paid for as they are used, via the Internet. However, “in practice, cloud suppliers often provide additional services alongside IaaS offerings” thus the boundaries of these layers becomes ill-defined (Anderson, 2010, p1).
Data Centres:
The fourth layer is the central hardware that controls all three layers of service. At the core of all Cloud-based infrastructures are the physical servers, memory, disks, cables, CPU (Central Power Unit) and bandwidth. Houses in mammoth data centres on server farms around the globe, these are the drivers that power each layer of a cloud service.
Key Advantages of Cloud Computing:
With no up-front investment for users, using pay-as-you go models of service, in addition to the low operating costs, high scalability, ease of access, cloud computing models are significant as they are not only popular but revolutionary. The very nature of cloud computing makes these network-based sharing and filing services readily available, and free of the physical constraints of location and time. Moreover, with data, applications and storage space residing within a ‘cloud’ users, especially businesses and larger enterprises can minimise hardware, expenditure and in-house IT professionals. However there are two sides to the development of cloud-based technologies. On the one hand are such significant advantages that have revolutionised computing technologies, but on the other side the sinister risks and serious threats to users.
Assessing the Pitfalls and Risks of Cloud-Based Technologies
In addition to current and future ecological concerns are the ever growing uncertainties brought by endless technological developments and system upgrades, coupled with significant shifts of power and control specific to the development of cloud-based systems. These power shifts continue as network service provider’s fight for supremacy and market shares in a volatile digital landscape where the game and faces are constantly changing. The major competitors and leading developers of data Centre operators and cloud systems are major network names and include service providers, such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook and Ask.com. However the growth of their network-based cloud services, including search engines, online stores, news, product and entertainment sites and social media networks along with third party partnerships for data collecting, marketing and central data centre operations and infrastructures is not all positive. While their immeasurable popularity translates to new memberships and millions if not billions of dollars in company revenue, increasing their colossal market shares, and the subsequent growth and development of services, despite the overall volatility of the platforms, layers and infrastructures, the impact of these network giants on the earth, resources and atmosphere will make these companies infamous for many years to come.
For users, cloud computing services require various forms of identity markers, services that are remain network-based and independent of the individual’s computing hardware or media device, thus enabling “a single sign-on to thousands of online services” (Ceronin, 2012, p1) and access to the storage, memory and networking capabilities of the cloud’s data centre. While currently, “scalability, reliability, security, ease of deployment and ease of management for customers, [are] traded off against worries of trust, privacy, availability, performance, ownership and supplier persistence” more deep seeded concerns including serious security threats continue to be elevated by the very structure of cloud-based technologies and their rapid and incessant development (Sriram and Khajeh-Hosseini, 2010, p4).
Today consumers and businesses have altered standard practices, evolving models for communication and conduct for the heightened performance capabilities if cloud-based network systems. The widespread popularity and deployment of cloud computing and the amazing development of such services has evidently caused a technological revolution. However while industry and society evolve along with cloud computing technologies, unease specifically related to environmental impacts and future sustainability are in constant disrepute.
Furthermore, companies such as Google and Apple have the access and control of services, storage, structures and revenue, monopolising once separate layers and functions of standalone personal computers, servers and previous forms of information computing technologies which are now part of the resource pool accessed upon a cloud system. As the growth of cloud computing providers including social media networks and search engines continues at an increasingly rapid rate, the consequences and ongoing trade-offs for users, such as notions of security, privacy and basic consumer rights once fiercely protected are now traded in for the convenience, performance and scalability offered by network-based user interfaces, cloud computing systems and the data collecting and profiling capabilities created to utilise the endless data trail formed by a stream of information crystals, the constant, excessive by-product of all cloud-based activities. Thus cloud systems become the tool that drives thousands of tiny splinters of information to data mining and profiling companies, including governments, federal agencies and marketers without any restrictions or necessary consent.
Concluding Thoughts
Cloud computing while hugely advantageous, has advanced data collection, profiling and user surveillance tools, exacerbating digital privacy and security issues. For now amongst other issues, “the difficulty is developing a workable strategy for digital privacy and security” to ensure the current user risks are addressed and not spiral out of control (Notley, 2011, p1). Online activities leave a digital trail and along with cookies and IP addresses of the Internet sites accessed, users leave identifiable information with every online action. As concerning as this is, even more troubling is the fact that the majority of users have no idea how data is used, collected and possibly distorted. Unfortunately for now, “law badly trails technology, and the application of old law to new technology can be unpredictable” (WorldPrivacyForum, 2013, p3) and dangerous.
While there are obvious benefits and even security advantages derived from cloud computing technologies and their wide spread implementation these are outweighed by the security challenges they present. Furthermore data centres energy consumptions and cabling infrastructures must be addressed and developments in design to address environmental concerns and the overall sustainability of today’s infrastructures in the future is paramount. However security, privacy and design issues in today’s dynamic and constantly evolving digital environment are challenging. Thus the future sustainability of cloud computing technologies and the risks the present remain to be precarious issues for cloud system providers and users alike.
[Written Dec 2012 by Karyn Scottney-Turbill - Masters in Media & Comms: Monash University]
[Image: IBM COMPUTER 1981]
KaZbAhMeDiA 