Jennifer Baek <[email protected]> writes: >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.
Really good -- thanks for forwarding! I've put up a piece about it on QCO, basically just introducing Zac's article and then pointing to it: http://questioncopyright.org/zac_shaw_defends_free_culture I really like his robust assertions about the Free Culture movement's ethics. It may at least give the David Lowerys of the world a pause, and the realization that they can't just *assume* the high road but rather have to explain why they think they're on it. Jen, how's your piece coming? (Not meant as pressure, by the way. If you think Zac Shaw said what you wanted to say, that's fine -- but if you're still doing a response, I'm sure I'm not alone in looking forward to seeing it.) -K >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
