Well there's a whole load of things I don't agree with here, but it's nice
to see someone giving it this much thought. I'll try to take my time with
this response and try to make it slightly more meaningful than a flame. I'll
take it point by point.
quoted 15 lines ** A DISCLAIMER: You could be offended by the following. I don't care. **
>** A DISCLAIMER: You could be offended by the following. I don't care. **
>** Good, argumentative comments are welcome, flames >/dev/null . **
>
> I'll touch on the issue of P2P technologies like Napster as well: I
>think I have made my standing quite clear in my previous posts that I do
>not appreciate the way music is disseminated through technology to those
>who only seek to hoard it (collect it in numbers on their hard drives just
>to gloat on their existence and to promote their value as tradeable
>items like baseball cards). I hold originals very, very dear. If I want
>to listen to a record, I search for it, and if I find it I may or may not
>pay an arm and a leg for it, but I won't feel morally challenged because I
>didn't use a morally questionable method of obtaining the works of art I
>consume (although it is debatable whether the latest developments in DSP
>programming technologies can be constituted as art (or music, for that
>matter)).
I really don't understand how you can hold such a dichotomy in your mind.
You object to people hoarding music and then a sentence later admit to
hoarding it yourself. The only difference is that you hoard 'originals'. But
this is recorded art we are talking about. There is no (negligible,
anyhow... it is possible my copy is superior) difference between your
original and my copy because your original is a copy. As for morals, they
are relative and have nothing to do with art. If you are buying it second
hand copy the artist gets nothing so how in god's name is that different to
making a copy. And it is not debatable whether or not 'the latest
developments in DSP programming technologies' consititute as art. If one
artist and one 'reader' (listener) agree then it is art. Unless you want to
use a very poncey definition of art and if you do, I'll stick with my
culture, thanks.
quoted 11 lines The usual counterargument is that the more the music spreads, the more
> The usual counterargument is that the more the music spreads, the more
>people will actually buy it. I do not subscribe to this line of thought,
>because most people are not willing to pay if they don't have to (and
>please don't quote the sales figures of big companies - they do not
>apply to the question at hand - independent labels can't take it up
>the rear like huge music conglomerates can). The second counterargument is
>that the releases may be limited edition and very hard to get or not
>obtainable at all anymore - well, tough. If you really appreciate the
>music, you should be willing to search for it and pay for it. I welcome
>the death of Napster, and I would rather not see any more CDR trade posts
>on the list either.
Trust me, I really appreciate my music. And, so that my favourite artists
(or notartists as you would have it) can continue, I buy as much music as
possible. But after that I have no dilemma about making tapes, minidiscs and
using napster to get more music.
quoted 5 lines If thought simplistically, the wildfire spread of hard-to-find
> If thought simplistically, the wildfire spread of hard-to-find
>electronic music through P2P technologies like Napster is devaluing the
>collections of people like me, who spend time and money procuring the
>originals. And then people even brag about how many gigabytes of
>unreleased/hard-to-get material they have on the their hard disks.
Bad one. But the answer is obvious. Start a hard disk collection yourself.
It just sounds like you are jealous. That's like saying that rich people are
bastards because they make me feel worse about being poor. (Not that I'm
saying rich people aren't bastards ;)
quoted 9 lines Granted, free flow of information is essential to the advancement of the
> Granted, free flow of information is essential to the advancement of the
>information society at large, but works of art should be maintained as
>works of art, be they single originals like Rodin's or limited edition
>releases like Skam records, and thus appreciated and not devalued through
>infinitely reproducible digital copies that don't seem to incur any costs.
>In some instances with independent labels, the monetary losses are not the
>only things to consider - valueless digital copies also erode the culture
>(which some see as good since it challenges the established practices and
>values - I don't. Call me a square).
We haven't proven any monetary losses yet, and I really really don't see how
it's eroding the culture. Changing and increasing perhaps. Jeez, you are a
square (read: elitist)
Hmmm... I do actually take your points. But art is changing, it is being
democratised. And changes in culture aren't really good or bad. Culture is
what we are doing and that's that - we do what we like. I like this. All of
it.
That all came out as slightly incoherent, but I hope the main points came
accross. (It's difficult to engage in serious dialogue when you have to look
like you are working 4 out of every five minutes)
Hew
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org