Not to quibble on a minor issue, but... <rant> Zero-cost is a myth, and a dangerous one. It obfuscates material costs associated with cultural production, the investment of labor, as well as the costs of access, not to mention all of the technological infrastructure (which has other costs as well, including environmental ones). These costs are low, but they are real.
Don't get me wrong, I give all my art away for free - but I don't pretend for a minute that Google, the internet providers and high level infrastructure companies aren't making money from me giving it away. Furthermore, many of the 'free' delivery sites (youtube, etc.) have privacy costs that deserve to be factored in. (How much is your privacy worth?) </rant> peace &upheaval, a On Feb 27, 002007, at 2:13 PM, Crosbie Fitch wrote: > > [...] > 2) Many artists who would like to enjoy the zero cost duplication and > distribution services of the Internet don't actually want copyright's > default prohibition of unauthorised duplication and distribution. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
