Eric Miller on 25 Jul 2000 18:23:24 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] RE: <nettime> Terror in Tune Town |
hmm...interesting points you've made. I almost completely disagree, but they are interesting points. In the end, I don't think this argument can hold up. I think it partially boils down to your statement about IP rights being a creation of the borgeoise...I just can't buy that. (bad pun intended) Music/film/art is the product of their work, of their labor, of their emotional and financial investment. I don't buy any argument that legitimizes self-serving behavior by framing it as a class struggle issue. Taking content without paying for it certainly qualifies in my book. Doesn't matter if you're a bona-fide blue-collar member of the proletariat complete with union card and oppressive bourgeoisie overlords...if you take what doesn't belong to you, you're stealing. Same with the concept of Napster not being responsible for theft. By extension, the NRA argument doesn't do too well when you look at the situation it creates. Sure, inanimate guns don't kill people, but it sure makes it a hell of a lot easier when you create an armed populace and a culture of irresponsible permissiveness cloaked under the veil of "personal liberties." Key word there is irresponsible. If you give people the tools to steal, and tell them it's OK through convoluted arguments that say "what costs the artists/companies money and time, you can have for free!" they're going to swipe it without compunction. Not exactly a warm n' fuzzy thing to do to the industry, artists included. I'm sorry, but the bottom line is IF YOU DIDN'T PAY FOR IT, IT ISN'T YOURS. Artists invest their lives, and record companies invest money in their product. You can't justify or rationalize away the fact that widespread _multipoint_ distribution of content without a quid pro quo is by definition, distribution of stolen property. Intellectual property. It's not about format, it's not about archiving your CDs for portability, it's not about making personal copies...it's about the legitimization of a system that allows people to take what doesn't belong to them. It's not open source or legitimately free content if the content owner (i.e., the artists and record companies) doesn't give explicit permission for free repeated redistribution. There are grey areas. Used CDs, for example...only the retailer and the end-user benefits from that, and it does represent lost sales for the record companies and artists. But there is the critical difference in that there is only ONE copy...the person who originally owned the CD no longer has access to the music. it's a one-to-one transaction. You can't say the same for a song you make available via Napster...if ten people download your Cibo Matto album, that's eleven copies in existence. Yours, and theirs. And while many people may eventually buy the album and compensate the artist, many will be content to just play it back through their computer/stereo/CD-ROM/MP3 player. That's theft. On another note, Jeff Carey (quite correctly) commented that most artists don't make money off their recordings, and that touring is a bigger source of revenue. True, but that doesn't really change my position. I don't see that "well, they can still make money this way" justifies the "liberated content" hijacking of another potential revenue source. Okay, I actually should work while I'm at work, but this topic just bothers me. In the end, if no one can pursue their art without any means of financial support, then artistic diversity will suffer. Eric _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold