Jennifer Baek <[email protected]> writes:
>I like the idea of a response fashioned like the one theoatmeal did.
>Maybe we can do both a visual piece as well as a written piece? 
>
>I'm on board to help out with both in collaboration with
>Questioncopyright. I'm in DC for the summer with too much free time.

Hey, terrific.  I've CC'd the QCO editors list.  Let's make this really
easy: tell me your preferred username, and we'll set you up with an
editor account at QuestionCopyright.org and go from there! :-)

(You'll have others actively reading and commenting, of course -- no one
would expect you to go and do this in isolation.  We can keep this list
in the loop as much as you want too.)

Best,
-K

>On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Karl Fogel
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>    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
>    
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss

Reply via email to