At 03:10 PM 7/18/2002, you wrote:
quoted 1 line P2p a tool. It is not an intrinsic good or evil.> > >P2p a tool. It is not an intrinsic good or evil.
---------
quoted 8 lines Nobody said it was.> > Nobody said it was.
> > ---------
>
>Actually the above was a....thesis, if you will. ;)
>A statement not refuting anyone in particular. I used
>it to simply warm up my primary point - it takes an
>understanding of the motivations behind downloading
>before one can write them off as freeloaders.
I don't think anyone was writing off the whole group of downloaders as
freeloaders. I know many people who d/l to see if they want to buy. I don't
know too many people with brains (especially IDM artists, who get squat for
exposure anyway) who have a problem with that. I know I don't. None of this
is about downloading in general, is it (it wasn't in the case of the post
which started this)? It's about some modicum of respect for the artists
whose music you download. Some artists don't mind, others do. Just as you
can't treat all people who d/l as though the are part of a hive mind, nor
can you do so with artists.
quoted 10 lines I would tell anyone that I downloaded their music.> > >I would tell anyone that I downloaded their music.
> > >Small or large artist alike.. If they have a
> > problem
> > >with it, I certainly can think of greater
> > misfortunes.
> >
> > How glib. So much for giving a rip about what anyone
> > else thinks.
> > --------
>
----------------
quoted 8 lines I do not care, as stated at the end of my initial>I do not care, as stated at the end of my initial
>post, what the artist would feel about me personally
>prior to understanding my motivations *for*
>downloading.
>I refer to the person who posted "Who would be stupid
>enough to tell someone they downloaded someone's
>album?"
>I would.
Go back to the original, anecdotal context.
It was implied (or at least understood to be so) by the person who posted
that the downloader, in this case, liked the record and seemingly had no
intention of buying it. The poster seemed to feel he DID have an idea about
the downloader's intentions or else he wouldn't have posted what he did.
That sort of negates your premise; you seem to be arguing a different case
than the one which was the basis for this thread. While I understand (from
your "thesis" above) that you are developing some kind of platform about
downloading in general, it seems to me like what you are saying doesn't
have a whole lot to do with the anecdote in question.
----------------------
quoted 14 lines That's fine. But some people (as is obvious from the> > That's fine. But some people (as is obvious from the
> > post to which we both
> > allude) who make music do not feel that way.
> > All I am suggesting is that it's a bit selfish to
> > write how they feel off
> > as if it's insignificant - in fact, I'm not
> > suggesting it...I'm stating it.
>
>Okay, so sould we make a list of people who care and
>people who do not care? The reason I think many people
>who do voice this opinion are simply being realistic -
>it is not going to go away, so I might as well seek
>something positive and appeal to my fan's sense of
>fairness. This, as opposed to saying nothing.
I'm certain it isn't going to go away as well. However, I think that sort
of fatalist approach to just about anything is destructive. Imagine that
attitude toward any situation which might have been historically regarded
as unjust : "we can't do anything about it, so we might as well just get on
with life". Since you are inclined to speak up on this end of the issue, I
would imagine that if you DID feel your rights to intellectual property
were being infringed upon, YOU would have something to say about it. I
thought the poster took a pretty mild stance and was basically asking
people to be considerate in their downloading and somewhat respectful to
the artists. That didn't seem like too much to ask from where I sit. In
fact, the way I read what you wrote above (IF I understand what you mean -
and I'm not certain I do), it looked to me like the poster WAS appealing to
his fan's sense of fairness - at least in that he posted to this list. Look
what he got back when he did!
-----------------
quoted 8 lines The only time I will "write off" an artists opinion is>The only time I will "write off" an artists opinion is
>when I learn that their opinion involves a blanket
>generalization of file sharers as wicked people -
>those who would judge simply by the statement "I
>downloaded your album" period. Not why it was
>downloaded, or how it was dealt with after listening
>to it. They have this right to feel this way of
>course, but it is not at all practical in our culture.
Again, I don't think the point you are arguing applies necessarily to this
case. Nobody generalized any group as "wicked" and I believe the poster
thought he HAD an inkling about the downloader's intentions to begin with.
Additionally, I don't think it would be **practical** to be upset over
having, say, your CD collection ripped off from your car (regardless of why
the person who took them felt he was justified in doing so, etc.), but I
hardly think that would stop you from being upset about it.
quoted 35 lines Don't miss his point>
>
>
>Don't miss his point
> > though; if the IDM
> > community (and I use the term loosely) dips from the
> > well until it's dry,
> > they only have themselves to blame when there's a
> > drought.
>
>Certainly there is potential that many many parties
>involved will lose capital over the abuses we write
>of, and that would be very unfortunate.
>The whole argument of the well drying up, though? I
>can think of few who sequence with dollar signs in
>their eyes to begin with. Perhaps I only speak for
>myself, but I write music for music's sake as first
>priority. I'm no Nautilis, but I'm proud of what I do.
>If I can raise capitol from it, great, but as far as
>I'm concerned this is not the motivation behind a good
>bit of music out there. I would send cdrs out to
>anyone asking me for one, for no profit whatever.
>Postage, etc. Just as long as they tell me what they
>think. It is not good that the industry will hurt to
>some degree, but the idea of a "well drying up" is
>just impossible for me to fathom. If I did profit it
>would be nice to offset my cost of production, but I
>don't use a studio for anything. I just have a good
>bit invested in home equipment. Some of my favorite
>releases have been done in bedrooms across the world.
>People shouldn't have to resort to this technique, and
>they deserve a return on their investments, studio or
>home alike - this is just simply the reality of why
>the well will never really "dry up" as it may in terms
>of pop music - music explicitly for profit.
Perhaps it won't "dry up" in the way you speak. Imagine a world with more
of the formulated FM radio pap which we all loathe, though. Imagine a world
where your favorite IDM/Whatever artists are NOT nearly as available for
purchase/exposure as they are now. Imagine a world where you HAVE to resort
to mail order direct from every artist (I'm doing a reductio absurdum here
to make a point, which is that your favorite sources like PJ, PBE, FE,
Rioux's, etc. have all given up the biz because distros have given up,
etc.) who can only do the bedroom gig. My question is : CAN you take this
to a point where we put the artists out of biz? Human greed says "yes". Do
we collectively give a shit then?
Please keep this contextualized. This is not a pro RIAA rant; this is a
"let's not chew off the hand of the artist that feeds us and act like they
shouldn't care" rant.
quoted 13 lines And don't miss my point. Other people - who make the> > And don't miss my point. Other people - who make the
> > music and have a right
> > to feel infringed upon IF indeed they do - see
> > things differently...and I
> > would argue that as the artists in question (re: the
> > person who posted),
> > probably have more warrant in feeling what they feel
> > about it than those
> > who "don't give a shit" what anybody else thinks.
>
>We have an equal stake in the methods of understanding
>what we are to invest in - production and support of
>that production.
I'm not sure the stakes are equal. I'm not sure that everyone who is
downloading feels this responsibility, either.
quoted 7 lines The reality (and I stress reality)> The reality (and I stress reality)
>of file sharing provides an enviornment for anyone,
>artist and consumer alike, to make value judgements. I
>do not have to "give a shit" about one's personal
>opinion of my actions, prior to seeking a positive or
>negative justification, to maintain an explicit
>opinion of the subject as a whole.
Nobody said you do. I was simply vying for some level of courtesy for the
artist. It is not a novelty in today's world that I should have to do so -
it is, however (imo), a shame.
quoted 7 lines I will concede that there is something unfair about>I will concede that there is something unfair about
>the artist not having a choice to begin with
>concerning the sharing of their intellectual property.
> This unfairness, however, is simply not large enough
>to offset the potential good that file sharing does
>for me - and many other artists that seem to have a
>positive outlook on it.
My problem with that statement lies in the focus on "me" and the power "me"
has to adjudicate in matters concerning how "unfair" it has to be to the
"other" to be a problem for "me". Looks like that idea of shared
responsibility you conceded to above was subject to a whim which has
suddenly evaporated.
quoted 1 line Thank you for taking the time to respond.>Thank you for taking the time to respond.
No problem. Thanks for considering my response. I will not post anything
back to the list concerning this, so if you wish to continue the volley,
please go private. I think we have pretty much said what we are going to
say, though.
jeff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org