>>>>> "DM" == David McNab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> These posts are on public record and could be admissible in
>> court.
DM> And (in case I need to clarify) that is *not* a threat from
DM> me. I would never initiate or cooperate in any action against
DM> any Freenet developer or supporter.
DM> What I'm saying is that these posts contain email headers. In
DM> sending messages to Freenet mailing lists, one may as well put
DM> the message in the New York Times public notices section,
DM> complete with one's name and address.
No, I absolutely completely agree.
Let me be more clear: what I mean to express is my personal
opinion. That opinion is as follows: a) Nobody owes artists a
living. b) The best art is DIY and almost always goes without
payment. c) I feel no personal or moral obligation to support a
corrupt, criminal* organization like the entertainment business.
Also, 1) I don't speak for Freenet, 2) The aim of Freenet is to
prevent censorship of online publishing and NOT to distribute free
music/images/movies, and 3) (my ultimate point) the aim of Freenet --
a digital world that preserves essential civil rights -- is in my mind
far more important than the profits of entertainment conglomerates.
Lastly: (and more to the original point) I don't think it's the
responsibility of Freenet to figure out a way to bail out
artists. IN PARTICULAR, I resent once again the implication that
Freenet is somehow "unfair" to musicians and it's somehow our job to
develop an ancillary way to pay them.
Freenet is not about sharing music. It's about publishing. We don't,
and shouldn't, have mechanisms for tipping musicians built into
Freenet, just as we don't have a word processor or Egyptian barley tax
calculation program built into Freenet. It's not what we're for, it's
not what we do.
As for ways for artists to continue surviving while making art: the
vast majority of artists already have a way to do this. It's called a
DAY JOB. Personally, I think the de-professionalization of art and
music will make for a lower barrier to entry, and therefore a broader
base of musicians and artists, and therefore MORE MUSIC and ART.
If people feel driven to give money to improve and increase the arts
-- which, like, how could that be a bad thing? -- here are some
alternate suggestions besides some over-complicated digital hoohaw:
* There are innumerable arts organizations in existence that
give grants to artists. Most are losing federal and state
funding. Give them your money.
* Donate to your local public school system's music
program. Many public schools across America have cut back or
eliminated their music, art and/or theater programs for lack
of funds -- this is much more of a threat to America's
artistic life and heritage than any copyright violation
could ever be.
* Go see local bands -- especially at cooperatively-owned
alternative venues.
* Go to raves -- especially ones thrown by rave collectives,
which are usually the best anyways.
* Buy zines.
* Buy something tangible and non-digitizable, like a
sculpture or a painting.
* Start a band.
* Make a mural.
* Write a novel.
The thing is, there's so many other threats to good art, music, and
culture, that we should be spending our time worrying about those, and
not just a few traded files.
~Mr. Bad
* That's not an empty accusation -- the Big 5 record companies have
settled with the Feds, accepting responsibility for collusion and
price-fixing. That's a crime -- worth billions of dollars. Last I
checked, there were numerous state lawsuits against the record
companies, too.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/
freenet:MSK@SSK@u1AntQcZ81Y4c2tJKd1M87cZvPoQAge/pigdog+journal//
"Statements like this give the impression that this article was
written by a madman in a drug induced rage" -- Ben Franklin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
