In the paper, “Porous Legalities and Avenues of Participation,” Lawrence Liang mentions how the major label GCI, although technically a rival of the newcomer T-Series, ended up having to hire them to help meet their product demands. I thought this was interesting. In one sense, what T-Series was doing was vaguely legal. They were producing a lot of cover albums, which was allowed under India's IP laws. But they were involved in some other activities whose legality was not as apparent (or believable), especially the illegal obtainment of unreleased film scores and the sabotaging of other companies' cassette tapes.
So for GCI to reach out to T-Series for help in a sense legitimizes their operation. By treating T-Series as a partner, the giant corporation GCI acknowledges them as a company that is on the same level. It gives off the impression that GCI is accepting of T-Series' ways. I don't know if that's a result of my American, capitalist, or global views. Perhaps these companies didn't have to worry about image, and anything that brought in the rupees was fair game (I guess so long as the state was ok with it).
Here and now, I think companies are, and have to be, much more concerned about their image. This makes partnerships hugely important, and it means that the companies that your company hires must also be reputable. When news comes along that an American company's offshore labor, for example, is not being given acceptable levels of compensation or are treated inhumanely, consumers become disloyal to the brand, and may actively protest it.
I'm not sure how well this relates to our theme of Modes of Using or Mobilize, but it got me thinking back to earlier this semester when we discussed how companies are not just companies now. I remember the example about Google's motto "Don't be evil." I think it's pretty cool that consumers care about the brands they support, because it encourages companies to act responsibly.