Jennifer Baek <[email protected]> writes: >Here's a draft of what the inline commentary. I'm working on making it >1140px wide instead 2275 px (lol). > >I would appreciate any feedback/suggestions on what else we can >include, especially towards the end of the letter.
Quick meta question: Is a PNG image the planned delivery format? I think that would raise practical problems: it doesn't respond to people's font preferences, people can't copy-and-paste text for quoting from it, blind and visually impaired people can't read it at all, etc. If the issue is finding a way to do off-to-the-side annotation, I suspect there's got to be a way to solve that using HTML and CSS standards, though I'm not an expert. (Maybe someone here is?) A more substantive comment: there's a lot there, and as a reader I'm not sure where to start on it -- i.e., there's no obvious narrative thread to pick up on. That might be an inherent problem with printing all of Lowery's letter and responding to most of his points: it means there's a multiplier effect, because now the reader has to simultaneously follow Lowery's argument *and* the response's argument, which is hard to do. (I thought your answer to his suicide example was great, though.) Best, -K >On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Karl Fogel ><[email protected]> wrote: > > Jennifer Baek <[email protected]> writes: > >I agree, I think Zac did a great job of saying what I'm sure many > of > >us would have said in a response. And, I really like his > responses to > >the two comments who tried to object to his article... > > > Same here. But there was one thing Zac didn't touch on in his > response > to "Rob", so I left a reply, which is now awaiting moderation. In > case > it never makes it through, I said: > > @Rob > > That "choice" argument doesn't hold up as solidly as you want it > to. > People can choose to charge anything they want for things they > control > -- but what copyright does is give one the right to take that > choice > away from others. If I invoke a state-supported monopoly to > prevent > *you* from sharing what you think deserves sharing, then phrasing > that > as "me choosing to charge for my music" is disingenuous. What it > really would be is "me taking away your choice to share with > other > people". > > Defending people's right to take away others' freedom of choice > is an > odd place to invoke a freedom-of-choice argument. > > You for some reason regard that monopoly privilege, copyright, as > some > kind of law of nature. It's not. It's not even that old. It > was a > regulatory experiment designed specifically to support > *distributors* > (not artists), and it is increasingly out of place in a world > where > the greatest friction in distribution is now the regulation > itself, > rather than the physical limitations originally invoked (three > hundred > years ago) to justify the regulation. > > By the way, it's "copyrighted" not "copywritten". > > [Okay, I admit it, that last line was petty. I'm allowed now and > then, > right? :-) ] > > -K > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
