Mike, I addressed this question to some degree in my last response to the University of Oregon topic. Here is a longer response that reaches beyond my admiration for the disenfranchised Industrial subculture.
Six reasons file sharing is compatible with free culture: 1. Monopoly Market Solution Argument: File sharing creates real pressure on the monopolistic market players to use business models that do not rely on locking way culture. 2. Civil Disobedience Agreement: File sharing is a form of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a way for people to send a message that they do not agree with legally locking away culture. 3. Non-excludable Argument: File sharing reminds people that culture is by nature non-excludable. File sharing attacks the core principle of exclusive control of culture. When people see that culture is non-excludable they are more likely to challenge the rational behind the laws that lock culture away. 4. Social Justice, Veil of Ignorance Argument: Should someone be locked out of culture based on their economic standing? No. File sharing creates access for those who can not afford access. 5. Creators Benefit from Access to Culture Argument (On the Shoulders of Giants): Culture grows through building on the past. We are not mere consumers we are participatory creators. Access to culture broadens our set of tools for expressing ourselves and creating new works. 6. Fair Use Agreement: Access to culture is essential for expressing your fair use rights. How can one parody or speak out against that which is locked away from them. Access via file sharing makes commentary and critic much easier and more effective. These are the primary reasons I see for file sharing to be on the table when it comes to freeing culture. I would like to address the software piracy v. file sharing analogy made in the link you provided. Response to Linux v. Windows Argument: Linux can be an equal or better OS then Windows, and thus Linux can be a replacement for Windows. CC Licensed Song X can not be a replacement for "Head Like a Hole" or other locked piece of culture. Art is fundamentally different then invention. One machine can be the equivalent of another, one piece of art can not be the equivalent of another. Closing Note: I am not stating that file sharing is the only, best or ideal way to free culture, merely that it is a way, with some logical reasons supporting it and a lot of people doing it. Why not work with them, instead of against them? I personally and professionally advocate for many different solutions to the current problems related to locked culture. These solutions range from educating people, and organizations about the advantages of freeing their work, to legalizing sampling and non-commercial sharing. At the same time, I respect those who act in other ways to free culture. Brian Rowe 2L Seattle University On Nov 12, 2007 10:02 AM, Mike Linksvayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 12:49 -0500, Gavin Baker wrote: > > Is there another position, i.e. that the RIAA's tactics are wrong, but > > so is unauthorized filesharing? > > > > I won't say that I've never copied a song from a friend. But I feel > > uncomfortable arguing that massive-scale filesharing without the > > artists' permission and without any remuneration is a fully justified > > action. > > Nevermind right and wrong. Is unauthorized filesharing helpful in this > context -- free culture? I think the answer is clearly no. This has > been explained many times, but most recently at > http://blog.gonze.com/2007/11/12/music-is-free/ > > -- > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Brian Rowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] (206) 335-8577 (Cell) Access To Justice Technology Principles www.ATJWeb.org Freedom for IP www.FreedomforIP.org
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
