I think it's pretty clear the monetary interest the music industry has in discrediting the free culture movement. This article is one battle in that war.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Thomas Levine <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > > -- Alec Story Cornell University Biological Sciences, Computer Science 2012
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
