integer on 25 Jul 2000 18:59:41 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] (no subject) |
Eric Miller <eric@OAKTREE.com> >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 hallo Eric Miller <eric@OAKTREE.com> = auear du = konfuszd apropoz z!ntakx ma!z ! = 2 kafe!natd 2 kompl!. altzo = theft v!a teknolog!kl rout!nz = kan ku!te eaz!l! adreszd b v!a teknolog!e. albe!t 01 shortkut 2 elokuensz !t = doesz suf!sz. koupld avec 01 luvl! temperamnt = ultra suf!sesz. = par eczampl = 01 numbr ov l!f 4rmz atemptd 2 p!rat nato.0+55 + addtl. rezultat = dzat dzoze who hav ztolen = hav purchaszd + d!d tzo ultra hap!l!. z - look "i just felt a need to thank you for yr understanding and humanity one last time before ... i extend my apologies once more. i look forward to resolving this whole sticky issue" 2ndl! = 1 kan onl! zteal 4rom 1 odr !nd!v. = konglomeratez != 1 odr. uen 1 = uorkx 4 1 konglomerat 1 = be!ng ztolen 4rom hensz ur obzervaz!e dzat = muzt uork u!lzt at uork = !nd!katv du = be!ng ztoln 4rom. hensz = 01 zplend!d - perm!t zom 1 2 zm!le. 3rdl! - not onl! = 1 01 v!kt!m uen 1 emplo!ee ma!z auss! = 01 1 ueapon uen 1 = 01 emplo!ee = dusz du = ma! konz!dr pozt!ng 01 af!sch on ur `perzonl` haute couture garderoba da +? c!ao.nn. pzb. apropoz tbyfield@panix.com = although = lokat zelv !n d!zkord avec zlkt data - [he != ver! h!.tek = reprezentat!v ov nett!me l!f 4rmz] = dze m!z!vz = uear uel ur!tn hensz = dze kontent ku!te !relevnt !zt. = 4rm = beszr alz. 0 0 0 || KORPORAT KR!EG MACHT 3k0R KUNST N[>] IMF - the International Meme Fund - shear pathway to the core. - promoting meme development. lokomotion. + reinvestment. - meme sekurity + meme transaktions. [>] ||||||||||||||||||||| rekurrent exc!tat!on || ||||||||eusocial.com – – – – – – – – – – – – Ò – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – pro satisfacer le metro – – Ò – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – < 0\ zve!te[z]!ztem \1 > _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold