Stoked that we're responding (opened up the PiratePad and looking through now). The original piece made me so mad I had to stop in the middle a couple a times before I could go back and finish reading it.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Jennifer Baek <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with you... It might be worth it to address that. He's definitely > trying to appeal to ones emotions and morality. I got a hint of religious > rhetoric. Paying penance?! > > I won't be around a computer for a greater part of the day tomorrow since > I'm going on a field trip with my internship tomorrow. > > Everyone, please continue to mark up the piratepad: > http://piratepad.net/KY6e7xIdkm > > After we've brainstormed, we'll work on polishing our response! > > Thanks! > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Alex Kozak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sorry for taking this a bit off track (continue scheming response etc) >> but something in the response really upsets me, which is the subtle >> implication that culture abundance and loving music contributed to his >> friend's suicide. Not cool. >> >> These guys just seem completely out of touch with our generation. >> On Jun 19, 2012 8:57 PM, "Alex Leavitt" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
