Wow! I'm so glad to see the amazing discussion this has generated. I'm definitely interested in helping write up a reframing/rebuttal piece later (when I'm actually at a computer).
Sent from phone. - Alex Leavitt On Jun 19, 2012 1:10 PM, "Alec Story" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
