Hit a NYT blog: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/npr-intern-gets-an-earful-after-blogging-about-11000-songs-almost-none-paid-for/
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Karl Fogel <[email protected]>wrote: > [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 >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
