quoted 22 lines From: Josh Steiner <joschi@eds.org>> From: Josh Steiner <joschi@eds.org>
> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:03:26 -0800
> To: Jeff/Ninja Tune <jeff@ninjatune.net>
> Cc: idm@hyperreal.org
> Subject: Re: [idm] Indie Ethics
>
> Jeff/Ninja Tune wrote:
>
>> Look the way I see it, if someone spends money to create something and they
>> put it in the marketplace to profit from that creation then anything that
>> doesn't involve the exchange of money for it qualifies as a form of
>> stealing.
>>
> so its stealing if i'm walking down the street and a guy drives by
> blasting amon tobin? do you guys have a system setup to take these
> royalties payments? how am i supposed to track all the songs i "steal"
> on my walk to work? thats rediculous. you cannot charge me for
> learning the information you put into the public. you can only charge
> me a for a service you provide be it a concert, or a nice shiney cd+art,
> or *gasp* hi-quality .ogg files downloads from your speedy trusted
> servers. suggesting that the information creator has control over the
> disemination of that information is obsene and fascist.
I never said that was stealing. There's a difference between hearing
something and having a reproduction of a physical piece of work on a
hard-drive.
quoted 14 lines If they wanted to give it away for free then it should be their>
>> If they wanted to give it away for free then it should be their
>> choice as to whether they want to do so, not arbitrarily decided by people
>> with access to the ability to do so.
>>
> you cannot control what i hear. period. if you want to make money,
> provide a service that i find worth paying for, there is no other way.
> laziness on the part of artists/labels expecting to reap money off of cd
> sales alone while not adapting their business model to follow the times
> is not a compelling argument for squashing my rights of free expression.
>
> furthermore, ninja tune literally built its entire catalog off of
> "stealing" the intellectual property of other artists, how dare you
> suggest this stops with you.
We can debate all day on the merits of sampling, but it can start with the
fact that you have no idea as to what samples we've cleared/paided for. It
can end with the fact that sampling is an art form which re-arranges
pre-existing work into new context and pieces of work. It's a big difference
and two very different arguments.
quoted 7 lines I'm not going to get all heavy about it as I see all sorts of negative and>> I'm not going to get all heavy about it as I see all sorts of negative and
>> positive aspects to file sharing/swapping (mostly positive at this
>> particular juncture of its history), but can we at least admit that when one
>> obtains something for free when that thing exists in the physical realm with
>> a price tag attached then it technically is stealing.
>>
> no, i can't. the implications of this statement are too draconian.quoted 9 lines And yes copyright laws were made by the people standing to benefit from>> And yes copyright laws were made by the people standing to benefit from
>> them, but then murder laws were presumably made by the people who didn't
>> want to be murdered, and that whole allowing woman to vote law was probably
>> made by some woman who wanted to vote....
>>
>
> the difference is that copyright is a restriction on other peoples
> rights of free expression, whereas putting a piece of metal through my
> head is not a right of yours. they are not comparable.
Some days I really would like to put a piece of metal through someone's
head...it would be very dramatic and possibly qualify as a piece of art.
Fucking stupid laws preventing my freedom of expression.
Jeff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org