Michael Wolfe <[email protected]> writes: >I think avoiding bear sex is probably for the best at this point in >time. Maybe later? > >Anyhow, this gets me all sorts of riled up. The frustrating part is >that all 'round the internet, people are calling this "thoughtful" and >"honest" when it's chock-full of malicious rhetoric (pinning musician >suicides on an NPR intern's refusal to pay for music?) and flat-out >misinformation.
That was one of the things that appalled me most about it, yeah. I mean, in addition to Lowery's unacknowledged (and questionable) framing assumptions, he's also indulging in plain rhetorical dirty tricks -- blaming people who share music for musicians' suicides is a *mite* over the line. Rich Jones <[email protected]> >The essay is long enough and has enough which warrants reply that I >think an inline, Oatmeal-style reply would work really well! I've >added the full text of the essay to the PiratePad. Thanks, Rich. Jen, please feel to go between the PiratePad and an in-progress QCO page however is most convenient for you. We'll be publishing on QCO, but you may find it easier to draft (and involve others) in the PiratePad, and for QCO's part we're happy to work at either location. I've sent you your QCO account info by separate mail, btw. I agree with Rich that a point-by-point reply, Oatmeal-style, would work really well here -- but write whatever seems most effective to you. If some other strategy seems better, go for it. To put it mildly, Lowery's piece offers lots of "surface area" for rebuttal! Best, -Karl >For starters, he writes: > > but simply because it is technologically possible for corporations > or individuals to exploit artists work without their permission on > a massive scale and globally > > >The fallacy here is that, of course, "technological possibility" is >what enabled sound recording copyright in the first place. The >copyright system he treats as a moral imperative is young, not ancient >— particularly with regard to sound recordings. The author cautions us >not to conflate technological capability with morality, while hawking >a morality born of technological capability. Don't get me started! > >Ultimately, the piece does little to advance the discourse despite the >press it's getting. This ain't about solutions for supporting and >funding culture; it's about berating young whippersnappers for being >shameless. The only solution is offered in the central analogy: a town >without any moral concept of theft. Disregarding various problems with >the quality of the analogy, let's consider the solutions that he uses >the analogy to propose: > >* Pay for police; or > >* Let theft run rampant. > >His proposed solution (at least by implication) is a police force! It >goes without saying that this poses serious issues from a social >welfare perspective. If the goal is to remunerate artists, how is >policing the best solution? It has high overhead, results in costly >liabilities for end users, shuts down the benefiting third-party >industries the author bemoans as being free riders, eliminates many of >the positive externalities associated with free (both gratis and >libre) information spreading, and is unlikely to significantly provide >artists with better financial footing. In short: the costs of >implementation swamp all benefits. Why should such a complicated and >wasteful solution be preferred? A wealth transfer would achieve the >desired results without the mess. > >I could go on. I do like that he thinks there's a "Free Culture" >corporate conspiracy though. Pretty funny. > > > >On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Jennifer Baek <[email protected]> >wrote: > > 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. :> > > Jennifer > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
