In David Morley’s 2012 academic novel ‘The Communication Review’, he makes it abundantly clear that we – as media theorists – should ‘be wary of such a media centric focus’ (p.79). His reasoning aligns itself with the ever-rampant ‘technological determinism VS user determinism’ debate. Morley hardly seeks to offer a definitive end to this debate, rather he poignantly indicates, that like most binary debates the solution is a co-existence indefinable in nature.



Morley’s position adheres to the concept of ‘Differance’ (Wheeler III, 1999), where by the true extent of influence is both deferred and different. By this it can be said that the deterministic debate is irrelevant and that we should instead focus our attention on the current co-existence of new technology and user practices.



Streaming technology is a new and still questionable mode of distribution. Indisputable however is the ever-growing download culture. What is important to understand is that the form this download culture takes doesn’t actually matter, whether it be legal or illegal downloading or whether it be music, literature, news, film or TV, download culture is creating new expectations, new consumer practices and new modes of consumption.



​

In 2000, the Australian Bureau of statistics released their first data set on not only ‘Internet use’, but also specifically what users were purchasing on the Internet. Whilst 21% of Internet users were already purchasing/ordering/downloading music at the time, a mere 7% of Internet users were doing so for Film/TV. (ABS, 2000)



By 2012, 43% of population were purchasing media content online. With younger demographics at around 50% and 65years and above only dropping to 34%. (ABS, 2012)



Whilst these statistics are unfortunately vague, failing to differentiate between DVD purchase and video download as well as CD purchase and music download the trends in data usage and Internet speed reveal a shift towards a service designed for streaming and torrenting.



The volume of data downloaded shows an exponential increase over periods of time as short as six months. In Decemeber of 2011, the volume of data downloaded through ISP’s (Internet Service Providers) with over 1,000 subscribers sat at an already monumental 345,518 TB (Terabytes). By June of 2012 the number stood at 414,537 TB, an increase of almost 70,000 TB of data. Further the usage in December of 2012 stood at 554,771 TB an increase of 140,234 TB - double of the previous six months. (ABS, 2012)



























​

​

​

​

​

​

These numbers show an increase that can only correspond to a growing download culture. The association is clear when considering “more than 60% of Internet traffic consists of consumers sharing music, movies, books, and games” (Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf 2010, p.2). These numbers could not be attributed to any other Internet practice except save streaming.

Further from an un-measurably small number in December 2007; by December 2008, the number of Australian mobile Internet users hit 1.36 million and by June of 2010, an astounding 3.45 million of the population used mobile Internet. (ABS, 2011)



These statistics reveal two things: that download culture legal or illegal is becoming innate to the way we function, the mode by which we consume is prevalently shifting towards the Internet, and that with the ever growing need for mobile internet is becoming a requirement that we as a nation have access to the worlds content at any moment, whenever we want.



There is little disputing the existence of a download culture. However, what are the trends and practices that exist within this culture?



A Danish study, “Digital movie piracy: A perspective on downloading behavior”, utilises social cognitive theory to analyse the download nation. They conclude that “deeply embedded habits” of Internet use correlates “with a higher level of consumption” (2012, p.965). This means download culture is an involved process, that not only shifts the way we consume, but in sense encourages us to consume more.



Further, the “current generation does not seem to harbor many moral qualms about downloading movies” (p.965), hints towards the now innate nature of download culture. Whilst ‘moral qualms’ are usually attributed to anomalies, the indifference downloaders feel to breaking the law reveal its wide spread and accepted nature.



However the lack of moral consideration towards downloading is not due to an adversity to the law with “two-thirds of downloaders” from the study “responded positively to the idea of a service that offers downloads for a nominal fee” and “55% indicating their willingness to download fewer movies through current channels if such a service existed” (p.964)



The desire for legal Internet distribution is one of the most important inferences as it reveals not only a willingness to pay, but also more the desire for a legal mode of on-demand, legal consumption that matches the capabilities of the current illegal model. (SEE LEGALISING THE DOWNLOAD)



If there is a willingness to pay, what then motivates illegal downloading? “Although downloading movies is cheaper than renting or purchasing them” this actually has less of an effect on the extent at which people download as compared with “the motivation to see rare and new movies. A possible explanation for this finding is that buying movies and wanting to see movies are increasingly disconnected from one another.” By this it can be inferred that there is a growing population who have not experienced a cost attributed to TV and Film, but also that “downloaders do not download movies because they would otherwise have to spend money; rather, they do so because they want to see a lot of movies.” (2012, p.965)



This conclusion parallels the previous one; that it is not so much a desire to break the law or to save money as so much as the mode and amount of content we have come to expect. Again it aids the hypothesis that if given a chance to continue to consume content the way they have, the public will gladly shift to paying, or at least to a legal provider. (SEE TO A LEGAL FUTURE) However, in proving that it is not about money, it means that downloading is about a lifestyle and a way of consuming, and along with that comes a range of new expectations.



All this points strongly towards – not what will, should or could happen - rather towards a context from which something will breed. It is clear the type of audience that exists, one that is becoming expectant of on-demand content, an audience that once it experiences download culture whether it is legal or not struggles to return from downloading or streaming and back to broadcasting. Finally it is an audience motivated by content and by a lifestyle, not by monetary advantage. lifestyle, not by monetary advantage.

​

​