My username can just be: jenbaek. Thanks so much for facilitating this!
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Karl Fogel <[email protected]>wrote: > Jennifer Baek <[email protected]> writes: > >I like the idea of a response fashioned like the one theoatmeal did. > >Maybe we can do both a visual piece as well as a written piece? > > > >I'm on board to help out with both in collaboration with > >Questioncopyright. I'm in DC for the summer with too much free time. > > Hey, terrific. I've CC'd the QCO editors list. Let's make this really > easy: tell me your preferred username, and we'll set you up with an > editor account at QuestionCopyright.org and go from there! :-) > > (You'll have others actively reading and commenting, of course -- no one > would expect you to go and do this in isolation. We can keep this list > in the loop as much as you want too.) > > Best, > -K > > >On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Karl Fogel > ><[email protected]> wrote: > > > > FWIW, we've just been discussing over at QuestionCopyright.org > > whether > > to do a length rebuttal of David Lowery's open letter [1]. > > > > While it would take a while to construct a good response [2], on > > the > > other hand a good one would likely get some eyeballs -- including > > some > > of the people who saw the original. So it's a great opportunity. > > > > If anyone here is drafting such a beast, please let us know, here > > or via > > http://questioncopyright.org/contact. A truly well-done rebuttal > > is > > something we'd love to run; we've just got other stuff in the > > pipeline > > right now that makes it hard to draft a response to this too > > (lesson #1: > > number of opportunities will always exceed available resources :-) > > ). > > > > I saw http://piratepad.net/KY6e7xIdkm which is a good brainstorm > > of > > ideas, but not, of course, a finished piece. > > > > -Karl > > > > [1] > > http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white- > > at- > > npr-all-songs-considered/ > > > > [2] http://theoatmeal.com/blog/tesla_response is one rather nice > > example > > of how to do such rebuttals :-). > > > > > > > > Nate Otto <[email protected]> writes: > > >I love how the " the duration of the copyright term is pretty > > much > > >irrelevant for an ethical discussion." is so casually slipped in > > >there. > > > > > >The main thrust of what I've read so far is that it is not > > government's > > >responsibility to ensure that artists are fairly compensated. > > Except > > >that it is explicitly Congress's job to "promote the progress of > > >science and the useful arts" through arranging the underlying > > >principles of the marketplace. > > > > > >Governments so far have set up a metaphor of intellectual > > property to > > >guide this marketplace, and this article is fully grounded in > > that > > >tradition. I think there are problems with that metaphor that are > > >brought to our attention by what digital technology makes > > possible. > > > > > >In giving advice to people who want to work in the music > > industry, I > > >would point to reports like "The Sky is Rising" that Ali linked > > to and > > >encourage people to embrace the possibilities of business models > > not > > >built on the artificial scarcity of digital objects. It is not > > moral > > >to create scarcity out of abundance for the cause of rent > > seeking. > > > > > >This all might not be relevant to SFC's response to the piece, > > but I > > >completely agree that this is a moral discussion. > > > > > >But not all moral premises are valid. When budgeting morally, > > what > > >percent of income does a generation in an average of $25k of debt > > have > > >to spend on CDs? As much as their parents could spend? > > > > > >Anyway, there is a moral discussion to be had, but it does not > > start > > >from accepting every metaphor that guided the music business > > before it > > >became possible to distribute all music to everyone who wanted it > > >without additional costs. > > > > > >I may have more to add in a day or two, the next time I come up > > for > > >air. > > > > > >-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
