>From Jason J. Tar:
>But wouldn't this removal of "intellectual property" status result in Sony
>being free to do that which you objected to so strongly?
I would hope that the distinction would be made between the rights of an
individual with respect to intellectual property and the "rights" of a
corporation. One would hope the draft of this law would not guarantee a
corporation's rights in equivalence to a human being.
>Bother. Wish you would. I guess I just would understand your position
>better if you gave an alternative to corporations, and a means to get there.
Simply because one is critical of the corporate system does not mean that
1) one has any kind of "solution" prepared, nor 2) should one be in the
position of having to come up with one. Oppression of the individual by
corporate groups is simply a bad thing, and pointing it out is a
worthwhile effort. I'd love t come up with a "solution" or "alternative"
to the present system. But, perhaps because I lack political vision and
because I am pretty misanthropic, I do not have one. I am still free to
criticize what I see as clearly wrong.
>However, to begin the removal of such
>systems, one really needs a clear goal and means. And those need to be
>shared, if support is to occur.
Very good if your goal is to be a political demagogue. Kind of
distracting if your aim is to be an artist.
>Perhaps you discredit the abilities of executives a
>bit too quickly? I always disliked the "business" students at my college,
>but that didn't mean that I didn't enroll in and learn from a few business
>courses.
I know I'm guilty of exactly this, and it's good of you to point it out.
Too often do I rail on about how useless these people are. I think this
attitude comes from the overwhelming frustartion artists have in a system
that is so unevenly balanced. When you read about how artist's royalties
are compromised, and how much of the profits from an artist's venture are
never seen by the creator, or how the artist's rights and even ownership
of the product of their own labor is reassigned to a corporation, it does
give one pause.
A lot of us on this list have tried the DIY thing, and a lot of us have
been more or less successful, to the degree to which we were commmitted
to sell a thing. Sure, marketers, admen, and executives can do it better
with the resources and might of corporate power. I'd sure love to
harness that. Can I do so without becoming absorbed by it? Destroyed by
it?
>I think you are both too quick to discredit the abilities and skills of
>business people. They may not be the most ethical, and perhaps that is
>society's fault, but they do have abilities that we benefit from.
>It takes a lot of money to make a movie, start an industry, etc. Who do
>you suggest make the investments? Require the thinkers to also be the
>bankrollers? Expect the bankrollers to do so with no thoughts of return?
>Etc, etc? Organization skills are skills...and thus deserve some from of
>income.
>To take this back to a musical forum, would you really expect a
>label/distributer/whatnot to spend money and time in assisting one in the
>making and releasing of a record/CD/product without some return? They need
>food on their table too. I would think such expectations absurd, if not
>rude as well. They do a service and should be compensated.
These are all such valid points, and I don't think there's much to say
against them, except that they seem a bit off the topic. I don't think
any of us here expects to get some kind of free ride for being a genius -
I don't think we expect the appartus of a music industry to suddenly
manufacture one of our sample-based works and make one of us a household
name whilst simultaneously giving us every cent of profit. Maybe we
dreamt of this in our teenage naivete.
No one has advocated that this is the way the system should go, so
leaping to this conclusion seems a bit premature.
The idea that the marketers and the corporate powers are "useless" to my
art, or Steev's, or whomevers, is still a valid point. At the moment,
these people ARE useless to my material and my method of "production" and
"distribution," pathetic as those may seem in comparison.
Should I choose to engage these people and their resources, they'll
become useful. If you ask if *A* music industry can opearte without
them, as opposed to *THE* current music industry we have, then I would
say yes, these people are not necessary for the creation, production, or
distribution of music. Or art. Or anything. But they are key
components of the current system we have developed. I believe we are
calling that system into question.
>
>One way to look at it (and perhaps I agree), but they also were attempting
>to get music that they saw worthwhile (for they wouldn't have covered that
>particular track if they didn't think it worthwhile) to a larger audience.
>That is their job. Their skill.
I think the objection is that they were attempting to get music they saw
worthwhile - even if this meant disregarding what we have all agreed is
ethical treatment of the creator of that music.
It's bullying, plain and simple. If you don't sell us the track we want,
we'll just take it anyway.
>Why make a track and
>then hide it in a box? Seems kind of silly. But perhaps I'm lacking some
>bigger vision.
Why did Emily Dickinson hide all her poetry in a shoebox under her bed?
I'm not going to second guess what an artist will do with their material.
It's still THEIR material, and they can do with it what they like,
including withhold it.
Naked Rabbit P.O. Box 36673 LA CA 90036 ||||| http://www.nakedrabbit.com
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.