When someone says things so grossly wrong as to warrant the line-by-line corrections that we are preparing, I generally wonder what drove the person to say such things.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Karl Fogel <[email protected]>wrote: > Elizabeth Stark <[email protected]> writes: > >There's a *lot* to rebut in this article, but one thing that stood out > >to me is how he says, let's pin this on what artists should make, hey, > >it's only $17.82 a month! This is what folks supporting systems like a > >voluntary collective license and other direct-to-artist solutions have > >been arguing for years — a way to cut out middlemen and find ways to > >directly remunerate artists. Sadly this argument falls completely > >flat, as the ~.20 cents per song direct-to-artist scenario is not an > >option for the purchase of most any music today. > > > >And agreed that pinning the death of people who clearly suffered from > >mental illness issues on lack of willingness of a generation to pay > >for music is a cheap shot at best. > > > >I'd recommend that he read Courtney Love's famous article on the music > >industry's pillaging of > >artists: http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/. > > Good points all. > > But I'd also caution: to accept his frame that it's about numbers ("Hmm, > which way makes more measurable/reliable income for artists? Whichever > way it is, must be the best!") is to lose the argument before it begins. > > Numbers are part of the story -- but so is freedom, and people sharing > music they love, and helping artists over the long term by getting the > word out and creating new fans. > > One of the traps of rebuttals is that even as they refute every > individual point, they still end up affirming the overall frame of > reference & assumptions of the piece being rebutted. This rebuttal > needs to refute the worst points (and rhetorical excesses) in Lowery's > piece, but it also needs to completely reframe the issue. > > -K > > >On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:35 AM, abram stern (aphid) <[email protected]> > >wrote: > > > > That'd be fantastic. I've seen the Lowery piece passed around by > > a few bands I like and have a lot of respect for, and don't really > > have the bandwidth atm to craft a pithy response. > > -a > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:11 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 > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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
