In Defense of Free Music: A Generational, Ethical High Road Over the Industry’s Corruption and Exploitation http://www.mediapocalypse.com/in-defense-of-free-music-a-generational-ethical-high-road-over-the-industrys-corruption-and-exploitation/
A response to Lowery's letter worth reading. On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Karl Fogel <[email protected]>wrote: > Jennifer Baek <[email protected]> writes: > >Hi, I've attached a screenshot of something I whipped up on > >Illustrator. What do you think? Some feedback on format would be > >great. Content, we'll continue to work on together on the piratepad. > >The content in the screenshot isn't *final*, I just copy and pasted > >what was in the pirate pad. > > > >I created this because it was getting difficult for me to > >conceptualize how we were going to do in line commentary. > > Love that look! > > I think in this kind of point-by-point response, there are two ways to > go... > > One way is what you did in the screenshot -- keep the original content > in the center and put the responses along the sides, using different > visual styles for the two to keep them distinct. > > This keeps the focus on the original content, which has advantages and > disadvantages. It says "Our purpose here is to annotate and deconstruct > what this person said", but it also means that the structure and major > themes of the response are still controlled by the original piece. It > also means readers are re-exposed to all of the original letter, even > the parts that don't need rebuttal or that are repetitive with other > parts that we may be rebutting elsewhere. > > The alternative is to write an essay that says the things you think need > saying, including selected quotes from the original letter inline. In > other words, something like this: > > Dear Emily White, > > You've recently been told that you shouldn't share music -- that > doing so hurts artists and is unethical. You were told you should > change your behavior, and that you should try to get your friends to > change theirs. > > We think you got bad advice. You're not hurting artists, you're > helping them. Although David Lowery was sincere and really believes > what he wrote in his <link>letter to you</link>, we'd like to explain > why he's wrong both about who the copyright system serves, and about > what the Free Culture movement stands for. > > <insert (indented, italicized) first excerpt from Lowery's > letter here. It doesn't have to be the first thing he > wrote in the letter -- it's just the first point you want > to address. In other words, the excerpts from his letter > don't have to reproduce the entire letter; we're here to > serve the Free Culture movement's purposes, not Lowery's. > Obviously we shouldn't use misrepresentative excerpts or > otherwise be unfair, but there is no moral obligation to > reproduce every repetitive thing in his letter either. I > don't even think the excerpts necessarily have to appear in > the same order in which they appeared in his letter, as > long as we don't change the order of his argument or his > logic in such a way as to misrepresent him.> > > Here is the response to the above excerpt. > > <and here is another excerpt from his letter> > > Here is the response to that second excerpt. > > And here is maybe a new paragraph that is not necessarily a response > to any particular part of Lowery's letter, but is just making some > point that you want to make, or summing up what you've said so far. > > <maybe here's more Lowery> > > More response. > > Etc, etc -- you get the idea. > > Again, I think either way can work. I just wanted to offer an > alternative structure for consideration, since you seemed to be asking > for thoughts on structure before thoughts on content. > > Big kudos to you for taking this great discussion we're all having here > and turning it into something useful to the public! > > Best, > -Karl > > >On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Jennifer Baek <[email protected]> > >wrote: > > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-morrison/hey-dude-from-cracker- > > im_b_1610557.html via Katie Baxter > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Aditi Rajaram > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Stoked that we're responding (opened up the PiratePad and looking > > through now). The original piece made me so mad I had to stop > > in the middle a couple a times before I could go back and > > finish reading it. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Jennifer Baek > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >QuestionCopyright.org discussion list > >[email protected] > >http://www.red-bean.com/mailman/listinfo/qco-discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
