Jennifer Baek <[email protected]> writes: >I agree, I think Zac did a great job of saying what I'm sure many of >us would have said in a response. And, I really like his responses to >the two comments who tried to object to his article... > >I'm still working on an oatmeal type response. It's taking longer than >expected because his letter is close to 4,000 words! > >I'm having fun doing it, and since I'm pretty adamant about finishing >what I start, I'm going to continue working on it. It's gonna take all >night, but I'll have something for everyone to look at and review by >tomorrow.
Awesome. I will make time tomorrow to read it! -K >On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Karl Fogel ><[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
