steve wrote:
but I think most rationalizations about file sharing (and especially prognostications about it being "the way of the future") are patently ridiculous or simplistic, and ignore the applicable history of how society has dealt with very similar technological changes in the past.
best,
-steve
i don't think theres a prescendent that gives us a sense that this is just a "blip", or an insignificant development.
Particularly since i think the opposite of what you are saying is true. look at how fast recorded music became ubiquitous in the first place. then look at how fast tapes becasue ubiquitous, then CDs, and now DVDs... and as we speak the same thing is happening with iPods and broadband internet... these things have all dramatically changed the way most people listen to and aquire music and art.
I mean shit, in a couple of years mac has sold like a million and a half iPods at 300$ plus... imagine whats gonna happen when they come down like DVD players have come down (i bought a cheapo DVD player for a project last week for like 40 bucks)...
People that underestimate this are the same people who were saying 15-20 years ago that CDs would never fly cuz who wants to rebuy thier entire collection?
steve wrote:
In the first quotation above, you imply that intellectual property as a concept isn't applicable to music. In the second, you assert a right to enforce that very concept if others are making a profit off your art. You say the distinction is "obvious." The only thing obvious about it is that in the first case, you would have to pay and in the second, someone would be paying you. You like the kind of intellectual property that pays you, but you don't like the kind you have to pay for.
i still feel like that distinction is obvious...
when i do not for profit theatre composition or design work.... i do the same exact work for which i would charge a corporatte theatre or production company a fairly hefty fee. My rationale has always been that i really like doing the work, and time permiting, i do it for fun, and don't really depend on it for the bulk of my income. So if i do a score for some pissy little mom and pop theatre thats working off of a shoe string budget, and no one involved is seeing a dime, i don't care if i get paid.
if on the other hand, i'm working for commerical producers, or scoring an ad, or a video game or flash for a commerical website, the producers are hoping my efforts will contribute to the profitability of thier product... and by god, i want some.
its a similar/related idea. as if sharers aren't profiting off of my music, i don't see how we can rationalize (or more importantly- as i've said a few times ENFORCE) the idea of IP in those cases.
My last post on the last page kinda summed up my feelings about the worth of recorded music. I think sayiing it has worth because of the effort that went into it is bogus. effort doesn't determine worth, market value and scarcity determine worth. Otherwise i could set whatever arbitrary worth i wanted for any of my efforts- creative or commerical... but it doesn't work that way. And as the new generation of listeners grows up with the ease and convenience of sharing, with the only impediment being a stern warning from the industry about supposed implicit worth of this property. Its going to get harder and harder for the industry to satisfactorily answer the question "why SHOULD I pay for this?"
and also, you quoted the excerpt where i said that music exsisted fine for thousands of years with out IP law, which i suppose could have been taken to imply that iam in favor of the COMPLETE abolition of IP as an idea.
i'm not, i just think that perhaps a fairly massive overhaul may be in order.
as much as you think i am overestimating the impact here, i think that the precedent actually tells us that the opposite is true, that in a generation, most kids will probably look at CDs and DVDs the same way we look at wire recorders, so what i'm "preaching" for lack of a better word is conceptual and egislative proactivity.
The reason the industry is in this mess right now is a lack of foresight, and a lack of proactivity. I think its a huge development in the technological and artistic landscapes, and the dismissive "its just like stamp collecting" passivity is how they ended up so far behind the curve, and why they're misspending spending so much time and money grasping at straws now.