[Unifying two threads here by adding QCO discuss@ list as a recipient -- we'd been discussing this over there too.]
So, Nina Paley just pointed out that the wonderful (and fast) Mike Masnick of Techdirt has posted this quick response piece: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120619/11493419390/david-lowery-wants-pony.shtml I really like Mike's response, but there's an important thing it doesn't do, which is turn the tables on David Lowery's morality argument. Masnick basically says "This is the new reality: get over it, and find a way to work in it, because you have no choice. Asking for anything else is asking for a pony." (Okay, I'm paraphrasing!) That's a useful message, but it's still essentially an amoral -- by which I do *not* mean "immoral" -- argument. Yet I don't see any reason to cede the moral high ground to Lowery. He's the one arguing against people sharing culture, and in favor of monopoly and control, after all. So despite Masnick's excellent job, I think there's a big opening for a deeper and explicitly anti-monopoly rebuttal here, and that it will get some traction. I'm sending this partly for Jennifer Baek's benefit, since she's working on a rebuttal (along with anyone else who wants to, of course). Jen, Masnick's piece is worth reading, and maybe referring to, but I certainly don't think it says everything that could be said. Also, just to second what Alex Leavitt said: "Wow! I'm so glad to see the amazing discussion this has generated." Absolutely! David may have written a bad essay, but he's still generating something good... Best, -K Nate Otto <[email protected]> writes: >I'll take a look at the etherpad later, but I'd caution against doing >a whole point-by-point rebuttal of the letter. I think a concise >response focusing on just one or two main points would ultimately be >more effective. (But I'm no longer a student, and I can't say that I >speak for SFC, only as an independent supporter of free culture) > >The points that stood out for me as asking for response are first: the >main thrust that individuals have a responsibility to pay the >structures currently set up to support artists and petition the >government in support of the "property rights" framing that in turn >supports these entrenched players and to not question whether this all >makes sense in the context of the Internet, which is the best media >distribution system the world has ever seen. > >The second is: >"What the corporate backed Free Culture movement is asking us to do is >analogous to changing our morality and principles to allow the >equivalent of looting." > >Changing the metaphors underlying "culture as property" is a possible >outcome of the Free Culture movement. We are having a conversation >about how to have a free culture where artists can live happily. >Entrenched players may join in, but they have to realize that >"looting" is a word that comes out of their framing of the issue; we >may not accept that framing as what is needed to support a 21st C >(conected) culture. > >-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
