integer on 25 Jul 2000 18:59:41 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] (no subject)




Eric Miller <eric@OAKTREE.com>

>hmm...interesting points you've made.  I almost completely disagree, but
>they are interesting points.
>
>In the end, I don't think this argument can hold up.  I think it partially
>boils down to your statement about IP rights being a creation of the
>borgeoise...I just can't buy that. (bad pun intended) Music/film/art is the
>product of their work, of their labor, of their emotional and financial
>investment.  I don't buy any argument that legitimizes self-serving behavior
>by framing it as a class struggle issue.  Taking content without paying for
>it certainly qualifies in my book.  Doesn't matter if you're a bona-fide
>blue-collar member of the proletariat complete with union card and
>oppressive bourgeoisie overlords...if you take what doesn't belong to you,
>you're stealing.  
>
>Same with the concept of Napster not being responsible for theft.  By
>extension, the NRA argument doesn't do too well when you look at the
>situation it creates.  Sure, inanimate guns don't kill people, but it sure
>makes it a hell of a lot easier when you create an armed populace and a
>culture of irresponsible permissiveness cloaked under the veil of "personal
>liberties."  Key word there is irresponsible.  If you give people the tools
>to steal, and tell them it's OK through convoluted arguments that say "what
>costs the artists/companies money and time, you can have for free!" they're
>going to swipe it without compunction.  Not exactly a warm n' fuzzy thing to
>do to the industry, artists included.
>
>I'm sorry, but the bottom line is IF YOU DIDN'T PAY FOR IT, IT ISN'T YOURS.
>Artists invest their lives, and record companies invest money in their
>product.  You can't justify or rationalize away the fact that widespread
>_multipoint_ distribution of content without a quid pro quo is by
>definition, distribution of stolen property.  Intellectual property.  It's
>not about format, it's not about archiving your CDs for portability, it's
>not about making personal copies...it's about the legitimization of a system
>that allows people to take what doesn't belong to them.  It's not open
>source or legitimately free content if the content owner (i.e., the artists
>and record companies) doesn't give explicit permission for free repeated
>redistribution.
>
>There are grey areas.  Used CDs, for example...only the retailer and the
>end-user benefits from that, and it does represent lost sales for the record
>companies and artists.  But there is the critical difference in that there
>is only ONE copy...the person who originally owned the CD no longer has
>access to the music.  it's a one-to-one transaction.  You can't say the same
>for a song you make available via Napster...if ten people download your Cibo
>Matto album, that's eleven copies in existence.  Yours, and theirs.  And
>while many people may eventually buy the album and compensate the artist,
>many will be content to just play it back through their
>computer/stereo/CD-ROM/MP3 player.  That's theft.
>
>On another note, Jeff Carey (quite correctly) commented that most artists
>don't make money off their recordings, and that touring is a bigger source
>of revenue.  True, but that doesn't really change my position.  I don't see
>that "well, they can still make money this way" justifies the "liberated
>content" hijacking of another potential revenue source.
>
>Okay, I actually should work while I'm at work, but this topic just bothers
>me.  In the end, if no one can pursue their art without any means of
>financial support, then artistic diversity will suffer.  
>
>Eric


hallo Eric Miller <eric@OAKTREE.com>

= auear du = konfuszd apropoz z!ntakx ma!z ! = 2
kafe!natd 2 kompl!.

altzo = 
theft v!a teknolog!kl rout!nz = kan ku!te eaz!l! adreszd 
b v!a teknolog!e.

albe!t 01 shortkut 2 elokuensz !t = doesz suf!sz.
koupld avec 01 luvl! temperamnt = ultra suf!sesz.

= par eczampl = 01 numbr ov l!f 4rmz atemptd 2
p!rat nato.0+55 + addtl.  rezultat = dzat
dzoze who hav ztolen = hav purchaszd + d!d tzo ultra hap!l!.

z - look

"i just felt a need to thank you for yr understanding and humanity one last
time before ...

i extend my apologies once more. i look forward to resolving
this whole sticky issue"


2ndl! = 1 kan onl! zteal 4rom 1 odr !nd!v.
= konglomeratez != 1 odr.

uen 1 = uorkx 4 1 konglomerat 1 = be!ng ztolen
4rom hensz ur obzervaz!e dzat = muzt uork u!lzt at
uork = !nd!katv du = be!ng ztoln 4rom.

hensz = 01 zplend!d - perm!t zom 1 2 zm!le.


3rdl! - not onl! = 1 01 v!kt!m uen 1 emplo!ee
ma!z auss! = 01 1 ueapon uen 1 = 01 emplo!ee =

dusz du = ma! konz!dr pozt!ng 01 af!sch on ur `perzonl`
haute couture garderoba da +?

c!ao.nn.





pzb. apropoz tbyfield@panix.com = although = lokat zelv !n d!zkord 
avec zlkt data - [he != ver! h!.tek = reprezentat!v ov nett!me l!f 4rmz] 
= dze m!z!vz = uear uel ur!tn hensz = dze kontent ku!te !relevnt !zt.
= 4rm = beszr alz. 






0
0
0




  || KORPORAT KR!EG MACHT 3k0R KUNST

 
     N[>] IMF - the International Meme Fund
              - shear pathway to the core. 
              - promoting meme development. lokomotion. + reinvestment. 
              - meme sekurity + meme transaktions. [>] 

|||||||||||||||||||||
rekurrent exc!tat!on || 
||||||||eusocial.com

                  
             pro satisfacer le metro           
              

  <
     0\   zve!te[z]!ztem
    \1
        >



_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold