> "distributor". If we conduct a bit of research, however, we clearly see
> that artists are far from being unanimous on this question. Many consider
BS.
Creator's position is extremely simple in this regard: any artist can, under
today's legal situation, provide his/her stuff for free. Some do, some don't.
There are two groups:
(1) those that do provide stuff for free and about who usually no one heard
about and whose stuff very few bother downloading (usually no one invested in
making them popular);
(2) those that make money on their stuff and *don't* provide it for free and
whose stuff is the object of p2p downloads (usually label invested in
manufacturing popularity);
There are shades, but not many, in-between.
So artists have voted, any lip service nonwithstanding: if they make money on
the stuff and live from it they will not provide it for free. If someone knows
a counter-example I'd like to be enlightened. And spare me of the "evil label"
concept. No one renews contract at gun point. There is *nothing* from stopping
any creator from not renewing the contract and offering the future stuff under
any flavour of 'sort of free' license. Except desire to make money.
This appropriation and co-opting of "artist's position" by wannabe docile
saviours of analog/digital/creative commons is rather sickening, in the sense
that it constructs virtual reality and consumes brain cycles better spent
elswhere ... hell it made me waste five minutes of my time.
end
(of original message)
Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows:
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
