I agree with you... It might be worth it to address that. He's definitely trying to appeal to ones emotions and morality. I got a hint of religious rhetoric. Paying penance?!
I won't be around a computer for a greater part of the day tomorrow since I'm going on a field trip with my internship tomorrow. Everyone, please continue to mark up the piratepad: http://piratepad.net/KY6e7xIdkm After we've brainstormed, we'll work on polishing our response! Thanks! On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Alex Kozak <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry for taking this a bit off track (continue scheming response etc) but > something in the response really upsets me, which is the subtle implication > that culture abundance and loving music contributed to his friend's > suicide. Not cool. > > These guys just seem completely out of touch with our generation. > On Jun 19, 2012 8:57 PM, "Alex Leavitt" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hit a NYT blog: >> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/npr-intern-gets-an-earful-after-blogging-about-11000-songs-almost-none-paid-for/ >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Karl Fogel <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> [Unifying two threads here by adding QCO discuss@ list as a recipient -- >>> we'd been discussing this over there too.] >>> >>> So, Nina Paley just pointed out that the wonderful (and fast) Mike >>> Masnick of Techdirt has posted this quick response piece: >>> >>> >>> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120619/11493419390/david-lowery-wants-pony.shtml >>> >>> I really like Mike's response, but there's an important thing it doesn't >>> do, which is turn the tables on David Lowery's morality argument. >>> >>> Masnick basically says "This is the new reality: get over it, and find a >>> way to work in it, because you have no choice. Asking for anything else >>> is asking for a pony." (Okay, I'm paraphrasing!) >>> >>> That's a useful message, but it's still essentially an amoral -- by >>> which I do *not* mean "immoral" -- argument. Yet I don't see any reason >>> to cede the moral high ground to Lowery. He's the one arguing against >>> people sharing culture, and in favor of monopoly and control, after all. >>> >>> So despite Masnick's excellent job, I think there's a big opening for a >>> deeper and explicitly anti-monopoly rebuttal here, and that it will get >>> some traction. >>> >>> I'm sending this partly for Jennifer Baek's benefit, since she's working >>> on a rebuttal (along with anyone else who wants to, of course). Jen, >>> Masnick's piece is worth reading, and maybe referring to, but I >>> certainly don't think it says everything that could be said. >>> >>> Also, just to second what Alex Leavitt said: "Wow! I'm so glad to see >>> the amazing discussion this has generated." Absolutely! David may have >>> written a bad essay, but he's still generating something good... >>> >>> Best, >>> -K >>> >>> Nate Otto <[email protected]> writes: >>> >I'll take a look at the etherpad later, but I'd caution against doing >>> >a whole point-by-point rebuttal of the letter. I think a concise >>> >response focusing on just one or two main points would ultimately be >>> >more effective. (But I'm no longer a student, and I can't say that I >>> >speak for SFC, only as an independent supporter of free culture) >>> > >>> >The points that stood out for me as asking for response are first: the >>> >main thrust that individuals have a responsibility to pay the >>> >structures currently set up to support artists and petition the >>> >government in support of the "property rights" framing that in turn >>> >supports these entrenched players and to not question whether this all >>> >makes sense in the context of the Internet, which is the best media >>> >distribution system the world has ever seen. >>> > >>> >The second is: >>> >"What the corporate backed Free Culture movement is asking us to do is >>> >analogous to changing our morality and principles to allow the >>> >equivalent of looting." >>> > >>> >Changing the metaphors underlying "culture as property" is a possible >>> >outcome of the Free Culture movement. We are having a conversation >>> >about how to have a free culture where artists can live happily. >>> >Entrenched players may join in, but they have to realize that >>> >"looting" is a word that comes out of their framing of the issue; we >>> >may not accept that framing as what is needed to support a 21st C >>> >(conected) culture. >>> > >>> >-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
