First a quick note to the anonymous poster who writes:
"first of all, it's a little hypocritical to stand up for torrent and free downloads when you've never even used torrent isn't it? (kind of like having a strong opinion on something you don't really have a meaningful relationship with yes?)."It's strange to think one cannot have a strong opinion on a subject unless you've had a "meaningful relationship" with that subject matter. Unless you think one cannot have a view on abortion unless you've personally "tried it out", so to speak. How can one allow men to have an opinion on abortion in that case? Another example: many people (me included) have admiration for the technology that has put men on the moon, despite never having been in a space shuttle.
That's the thing about being human and why we have opinions on things even though we have never personally experienced them: we have imagination which allows us not just to imagine but also sometimes, to empathise.
The second thing just off the top of my head. What seems to be the writer's central argument is people taking Bloom bags to use (sampling) and then never paying for it or giving it back:
"i hope the analogy to strangers taking your bags for free makes it clear that when people download free music, that's essentially what they're doing... stealing it just as you would call it if someone came into your store and never paid for a bag."But this analogy doesn't work. This is where the distinction between product and content is relevant.
A bag is a discrete object. Once someone takes it away, it is gone. Contrast this with a song, a photograph or a movie. You're not going to lose your original song, movie or image when someone downloads it. Multiple entities originate from that one song, movie, image. A bag, on the other hand, can't reproduce itself.
As mentioned I am interested in this topic and have been doing some research. Yesterday I read this Businessweek Commentary: Are The Copyright Wars Chilling Innovation? and also this one by Harvard Business School, which argues that weak (weak, not zero) copyright benefits society.
The point I am trying to make in welcoming feedback is the same as Stephen Fry's - let's get a discussion going. Most of us have only heard the established line "copyright promotes innovation" but hardly hear arguments to the contrary, and there are plenty of these, even research and statistical evidence.
I will go into the topic further some time later but right now want to say that discussions like these are great in general, as they force, all of us, to think better. It's called the Socratic Method. From wikipedia:
The Socratic Method (or Method of Elenchus or Socratic Debate), named after the Classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate rational thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against the defense of another; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, strengthening the inquirer's own point.
So I welcome any reasoned arguments in the interest of promoting better thinking. Thanks again anon, you've brought up some good points and I'll think what my response to those are so I am clearer about my position on the matter of piracy. I hope you'll be clearer on your position too.
11 comments:
i rather tend to agree with you, and find little to debate, lol.
it keeps occurring to me that the idea of 'copyright' as a 'right' comes from a western/individualistic understanding of intellectual property. this is not to say it is wrong/incorrect, just pointing out a contrast with tribal understanding and presenting a different model.
in the (traditional) understanding of tribal society that i have known, a lot of property is communally owned. in the context of intellectual property, a song, for instance, would be sung by the whole village(s), with the original writer not getting any real royalty from it, though it is always attributed. with the coming of recording technology, 'singers' with 'good voices' would sing these songs and make a little money, though again the songwriter would get more fame than money. this, of course, is also in an economic system that supported everyone (songwriters or not) with basic food and drink- there was no starvation. while many of our best songwriters also farmed or had other jobs for a living, others were supported by the community.
we no longer live in tribal societies, though, do we. having said that, i feel a part (part) of the problem is that artists/singers/songwriters are *too dependant on *only their art to make a living. if copyright law was as oppressive as it is now, we would not have most of the cultural 'work' we have now, few songs, or stories- maybe not even language. i find the creative commons licenses closest in principle to my (tribal) value system. while individuality is a good thing, i think it can (like community) go too far.
i'll break my replies into separate post nuggets.
to bloom lady (i don't know your name sorry) ;-). lets streamline this. you seem to have gone astray of my main point of focus. my main focus really didn't have anything to do with the merits for or against copyright. it was about *just* compensation for a days work.
answer me one simple question:
would it be ok for you if 9 out of every 10 bags that left your premises (whether they were ordered online or someone walked into your store is irrelevant) weren't paid for while the price remained the same?
think about that for awhile and report back.
It's strange to think one cannot have a strong opinion on a subject unless you've had a "meaningful relationship" with that subject matter. Unless you think one cannot have a view on abortion unless you've personally "tried it out", so to speak. How can one allow men to have an opinion on abortion in that case?
missing my point. everybody is entitled to an opinion but they're not necessarily entitled to the facts ;-). in terms of abortion, i happen to think that a man can have an opinion on it, but i'm not sure he's the *best qualified* to make a final judgement about it. i guess from where i stand, i *do* think a woman has more insight to this issue than a man (and i'm a man) and is better *qualified* to actually make the decision.
Another example: many people (me included) have admiration for the technology that has put men on the moon, despite never having been in a space shuttle.
another perfect example. sure you can have admiration for an astronaut. but would that qualify you to fly the shuttle? we all have opinions but certain experience is required to make *qualified* decisions about certain things.
That's the thing about being human and why we have opinions on things even though we have never personally experienced them: we have imagination which allows us not just to imagine but also sometimes, to empathise.
you're right. all of that does make you human. but if i haven't made it clear yet, if you've never written a book or composed a piece of music (mind you some people have studied 16 hours a day to perfect their craft for years), i'm not sure you're qualified to say you understand what it's like to be a musician / artist, create something entirely new from scratch, share or collaborate and release it to the world.
you can have an opinion on it but what do you know about how an artist *feels* or what it means to be an artist?
i guess in sum i'm saying it pays to have some years of experience in a given field to be best qualified to make judgements about them. if i needed surgery, i wouldn't seek out someone who had an opinion about it, i'd seek out somebody that knew what they were doing. :-)
mind you, i'm saying none of this this with malice or anger. just trying to be practical to hit the point home.
A bag is a discrete object. Once someone takes it away, it is gone. Contrast this with a song, a photograph or a movie. You're not going to lose your original song, movie or image when someone downloads it. Multiple entities originate from that one song, movie, image. A bag, on the other hand, can't reproduce itself.
ok, you made the statement so i have to ask you to back it up.
first off a song or any other piece of art *is* a discreet object. a painting hangs on a wall. people pay for the privilege to do just that. a recorded song has a beginning and an end. until recently you bought a record, cd, etc and stuck it on a shelf. you can hold it in your hand just like your bag. it might have some pretty artwork on the cover. you can turn the pages of a really good book. you can smell the pages. these are NOT discreet objects? folks didn't work hard to create them? to package them and get them ready in a format for consumption?
but here's the kicker (again no malice.. are you with me?).
cite me *one* example that you know of where a downloaded song, image or movie was morphed into another *meaningful* entity that is somehow making the world better for it? you made a pretty blanket statement there about the benefits of downloading stuff so i think you should back it up with some proof.
when i hear statements like this, they sound well-meaning but smack of a generalized quality that renders them meaningless.
cite some examples of these derivative works that are benefitting society and report back otherwise i will think your statement insincere.
whereas bloomlady seems to be coming from a good place, feddabonn, your comments quite frankly rubbed me rather abrasively and wrong ;-)
in a perfect world, people would not steal and everybody would be compensated equally for their efforts. speaking about utopian tribes sounds good in practice, but lets face it, the world doesn't work that way and hasn't since the beginning of recorded history. dip into the history of mankind 3000 years ago and you see the same crap happening then that's happening today. exploitation, manipulation, inequality. if it wasn't the case, we wouldn't be writing the same old story over and over again.
for someone that talks about tribes and then in the next sentence makes a statement like this:
having said that, i feel a part (part) of the problem is that artists/singers/songwriters are *too dependant on *only their art to make a living.
first off you seem to be alluding that there is a problem where one doesn't exist.
if i didn't know any better, i'd think you're stating very clearly in that passage that artists / musicians / songwriters aren't *real* occupations and that these folks should be persuing a different line of work. maybe more "professional", more UNtribe-like.
you're kind of puttin' you're foot in your mouth their buddy.
i'd like to know what you do for a living and at what level?
it sounds like you're saying a competent artist doesn't deserve a good wage, therefore 'get a real job'.
as i stated in an earlier post, many artists are likely to have invested as much in their craft as you have doing whatever it is you clearly think is more important. in fact, many of these artists approach a level of discipline, commitment, focus and effort (formally and informally) well beyond what a majority of the the regular working population could imagine. great artists are truly bhodisattvas. granted a lot of artists suck but those that do probably do so with the same level of commitment and talent as the majority of the regular workforce that punches the 9-5 with the zest of a wet noodle... merely counting paychecks along the same worn well traveled road; carrying the same worn out rewrite of history to their coffins.
i guess janitors that clean your sh6t up should get a real job too?
one final note regarding your "About Me" profile excerpted here
i love words. and pictures. and bottles. and wood. and wilderness. and yezdis. and deepthi's cooking.
does loving words, pictures and bottles and wood qualify you as an artist? is that all it takes? does that qualify you to make any informed judgements about artists and derivative works of downloads?
when you as a lover or words have loved those words so much that you've *personally* invested your soul and time to write a 500 page novel that knocks my socks off with vivid, interesting characters, rich dialogue and description that can transport me to another world, report back to me. only then will i consider you to have some idea about what an artist is. heck, if you have enough commitment to knock out a short story, that would make me happy.
until then, posting a comment on a blog doesn't make you an artist (not in my eyes and hopefully after reading what i've posted not in your own either)
oh yeah.. feddabonn..
if after you've spent 3 years writing your 500 page novel you decide to release it to the world.. and find out that 9 out of every 10 copies was downloaded for free leaving you broke (after all you quit your job to research and write the book)... i want you to report back on the many benefits of derivative downloads.. and why it's ok for someone to steal your work for free.
things look mighty different when you're the victim and not the perpetrator doesn't it?
but even before we get to the three year point, i want you to tell me right now what a derivative of your 500 page novel by a total stranger would look like? where are all these derivative works y'all keep talking about? everyone's doing it? it's a benefit to society. how would a derivative of your novel benefit you and the world at large? cite me a specific example please. cause i just don't get it.
and for all the talk about derivatives, my main focus of this whole discussion is really about *just* compensation. a fair wage for a fair days work. that's all.
i'm not necessarily against derivatives or creative commons or even downloads. what i *am* against though is FREE / UNCOMPENSATED downloads. stealing.
a bag is *no* different than a work of art. if you can't see that, then you might as well pack it up right now and make a date with your coffin.
if an artist is not deserving of his wage, why should you be. there's no sliding scale
@anon: i sincerely apologise for any offense caused- none was intended. :)
before i respond to the specifics, maybe a quick bit about where i am coming from. i belong to a tribe that had its first meeting with 'civilisation' a little over a hundred years ago. many of our ways were destroyed by that meeting, though some have survived, and some are being revived. i have lived largely under the shadow of being told, in a thousand ways, that our "tribal" values are useless and outdated, and that the dominant "western" values are what i should submit to. it is only recently that i have begun to question this. about where i make a living from- i used to be a training manager in a telecom company, and have recently quit that to do more of what i truly believe in- art.
my critique (for lack of a better word) is not particularly of art/artists, that was intended as an example. i believe we may have gone to far on the 'individual as the final measure' and 'financial profit as the standard' ways of thinking. (do i have an immediately viable alternative? no.) when i look at the tribal economic systems i have known (at the village/town levels- again i do not know how this is applicable to large national/global economies), most people are involved in multiple ways of making a living. a bit of farming, a bit of trade, a bit of gardening and livestock, even a bit of weaving, carving and iron work. not everyone did everything, but no one is dependant on one thing only.
art is primarily what i see my vocation as, and am quite aware of the bloody sweat that goes into it. i make marginal earnings from it, and am also an assistant at a library, and work at a riding school with the disabled. i do not write short stories, and am unlikely to ever manage a novel. poetry, photography and craft are what i usually work with, and have managed to knock together an album of music even :0.
if your primary point is that i don't deserve to speak about artists because i am 'not worthy' enough in your eyes, i must admit i have little further interest in this conversation. it is a pity that your arguments seem to rest on personal attacks, with little discussion of the ideas presented. cheers!
@anon: "i'm not necessarily against derivatives or creative commons or even downloads. what i *am* against though is FREE / UNCOMPENSATED downloads. stealing."
i see your point. i should also say that what i have said is more 'this is how i do' rather than 'this is how *you should do'. i respect copyright- i just feel it is an incomplete solution, and would that there was more discussion around it.
i do not seem to have said anything about 'derivative' works- i agree that that is a separate discussion. what i have said is 'attribution'. i would agree that work passed off as one's own when it is not, is stealing.
cheers!
Hi Fedabonn,
Many thanks for contributing to the debate. The historical context of how tribal words, music and art is created and shared is something I haven't read about yet. You bring up a good point about fame - author Cory Doctorow is quoted in the Harvard study as saying: ”I really feel like my problem isn’t piracy. It’s obscurity.”
Copyright protection together with the accumulation of wealth are products of the modern economy. The question is how best to use copyright protection in a way that benefits both the individual creator and society.
I've written more about it here: http://cambodiacalling.blogspot.com/2009/08/when-was-last-time-you-changed-your.html
I'm sorry for the abuse from the anonymous poster. He imagines he's established himself as the better artist and therefore a qualified critic of your work, but the result is quite the opposite. Here is someone so proud of his words and art he won't even put his name to it - LOL.
Like you, I have no more interest in arguing with the poster. His intemperance demonstrates someone incapable of dispassionate and therefore, clear, thinking. His arrogance reveals an insecurity to defend and push an agenda, and not a desire to learn. If the aim in debate is the pursuit of knowledge and truth, then it's a waste of time engaging someone like this.
Still I have to thank him for singlehandedly driving readers to this post since blogposts with comments get read much more, which is why I allow anonymous posting the first place.
I still think it's ok to have innocuous anonymous posts but it would be irresponsible of me to allow people to hide behind anonymity to launch personal attacks on other posters. There has to be accountability for potentially slanderous or libelous comments. For this reason I will be moderating comments.
Thanks again for sharing Fedabonn. I'm adding a link to your site.
Cheers
Diana
@diana: many apologies for such a belated reply!
the anonymous poster apologised on my blog, and we continued the discussion for a little bit. you're welcome to have a look if you like, lol.
thanks also for the link, i presume that is also permission to put yours on!
thanks for raising this issue, it's got me thinking a lot about my position on IP and piracy. cheers!
The only way to succeed in law school and its unique Socratic method of teaching is to experience it – to invest countless hours with professors in a classroom environment.
Socratic method
Post a Comment