FWIW, we've just been discussing over at QuestionCopyright.org whether to do a length rebuttal of David Lowery's open letter [1].
While it would take a while to construct a good response [2], on the other hand a good one would likely get some eyeballs -- including some of the people who saw the original. So it's a great opportunity. If anyone here is drafting such a beast, please let us know, here or via http://questioncopyright.org/contact. A truly well-done rebuttal is something we'd love to run; we've just got other stuff in the pipeline right now that makes it hard to draft a response to this too (lesson #1: number of opportunities will always exceed available resources :-) ). I saw http://piratepad.net/KY6e7xIdkm which is a good brainstorm of ideas, but not, of course, a finished piece. -Karl [1] http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at- npr-all-songs-considered/ [2] http://theoatmeal.com/blog/tesla_response is one rather nice example of how to do such rebuttals :-). Nate Otto <[email protected]> writes: >I love how the " the duration of the copyright term is pretty much >irrelevant for an ethical discussion." is so casually slipped in >there. > >The main thrust of what I've read so far is that it is not government's >responsibility to ensure that artists are fairly compensated. Except >that it is explicitly Congress's job to "promote the progress of >science and the useful arts" through arranging the underlying >principles of the marketplace. > >Governments so far have set up a metaphor of intellectual property to >guide this marketplace, and this article is fully grounded in that >tradition. I think there are problems with that metaphor that are >brought to our attention by what digital technology makes possible. > >In giving advice to people who want to work in the music industry, I >would point to reports like "The Sky is Rising" that Ali linked to and >encourage people to embrace the possibilities of business models not >built on the artificial scarcity of digital objects. It is not moral >to create scarcity out of abundance for the cause of rent seeking. > >This all might not be relevant to SFC's response to the piece, but I >completely agree that this is a moral discussion. > >But not all moral premises are valid. When budgeting morally, what >percent of income does a generation in an average of $25k of debt have >to spend on CDs? As much as their parents could spend? > >Anyway, there is a moral discussion to be had, but it does not start >from accepting every metaphor that guided the music business before it >became possible to distribute all music to everyone who wanted it >without additional costs. > >I may have more to add in a day or two, the next time I come up for >air. > >-Nate > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
