quoted 6 lines Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 09:08:46 -0800 (PST)
>Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 09:08:46 -0800 (PST)
>To: idm@hyperreal.org
>From: ben gill <gillette_foamy@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [idm] Life after SoulSeek
>Message-ID: <20030209170846.76936.qmail@web41504.mail.yahoo.com>
>
<>
quoted 16 lines I make no apologies for
>I make no apologies for
>this, it's simply another way of operating that's
>possible now because of technology. Why is the
>traditional system better than the emerging one? Why
>shouldn't labels accept this new state of affairs and
>embrace it? (For instance www.irdial.com). I know
>they're used to getting money from the public for
>their product, but there's nothing inherently correct
>about that process, it's just one of many--as is mp3
>file sharing--as is the labels giving the product away
>and asking for donations--as is majors going back to
>the vinyl/tape formats and eschewing digital media in
>the most blatant greedy capitalist Luddite move ever.
>None of these is the inherently correct method. It
>seems that you want to cling to the traditional way of
>doing business, which is fine, but not necessary.
You are ignoring copyright which is not a force of nature but a historically
recent law constructed with the purpose of allowing businesses like record
labels to exist. Your argument is logically no different to 'I can buy a gun
so why shouldn't I shoot someone in the head - you can't stop me, I can do
it and if I want to I will'. regardless of how easy it is, mp3 sharing of
copyright material infringes people's legal rights. It's quite simple
really. You may disagree with copyright in general which is fine, work to
get the laws changed or move to someplace that doesn't have these laws. Your
disagreement is not with the labels but with the way copyright law works.
(And bear in mind that these rights belong to the artist and not the label
who essentially administers them on the artist's behalf). While I don't
agree that dling mp3's is stealing, it is clearly unauthorised copying. If
copyright law is no longer enforceable (possible but not a done deal), then
the only way the labels can embrace it is to shut up shop. Or they could
become publishing companies as you suggest - a great improvement when the
only way a band can survive is supporting car sales (really sticking it to
'the man'). But we are not quite there yet. The thing that worries me is
that the proponents of freedownloading are not making a serious argument
here and are just inviting all kinds of invasive tollgate-type technology
where every tune you ever listen to will be on a giant corporate database
and you'll only be able to play 'authorised' material. And talking of
Luddites which you seem to despise, you are aware that there is already a
neo-Luddite movement which will let you carry on p2ping?
(
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/26740.html,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/26796.html)
--
ed
http://ww.noiseloop.com
-now accepting submissions
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org