Re: [microsound] Intellectual Property

["Kevin M. Ryan" <i__oo__@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<<what has ever been gained by making generalizations?>>

Yeah, all generalizations are bad.  Hmmm...

---

<<There are people all over the world whose
musical genius cannot be expressed for so much
of an insignificant reason as not knowing how to
harness a certain tool properly or improperly.>>

That's exactly like saying there's so many brilliant
violinists out there whose artistic careers are held
back by the insignificant fact that they can't play
violin.  It's true, but it's rather silly.  Learning
how to use artistic tools is part of becoming an
artist.  If you can't figure out how to pick up a
paintbrush, get out of the painting business (or else
become an action painter).  Isn't that fair?  I admit
it would be nice if we could just make any art that
we envision magically appear before us.  But the
bottom line is this:  What makes a good artist is good
art, not a bunch of good unrealizable ideas.  Being
able to command one's tools well is the hallmark of a
good artist, and I don't think it does any good to
feel sorry for lesser artists who might not have as
much talent in artmaking.  C'est la vie.

<<Hiding discoveries is hiding truth, and therefore
ultimately casts a darkness over the next generations
of musicians to come--only because we wanted to be
properly credited for our ideas.>>

I suppose concealing process is "hiding truth" in the
same way that concealing my medical records from
public consumption is "hiding truth":  Some truth has
every right to be hidden, and that's not a bad thing.
What's casting this dark shadow?  The implied fact
that artists need to copy each other in order to make
anything worthwhile?  What about innovation?  Isn't
it enough that artists can copy each other's final
products?  Now you insist that every one of their
personal artmaking techniques be exposed to the public
too?  Is there no privacy?  In our current capitalist
Western world which respects intellectual property
rights, I'm just not seeing this huge pan-generational
eclipse of creativity you're describing.  In fact I
think intellectual property encourages creativity
because (1) it forces artists to come up with their
own work and (2) artists get credit for their work.
Is the status quo really so bleak?

<<I find it disturbing that people still pimp
knowledge that comes from nature's sentences,
information should not only be harnessed by an
elite group of the world's population.>>

I'm aware that this Napsteresque critique of
intellectual property is all the vogue, but I
happen to think it's quite naive.  First, everything
comes from "nature's sentences," that doesn't mean
we should toss out the notions of private property or
intellectual property.  Your "elite group" is the
artists themselves.  We should respect the wishes of
the artist.  If the artist makes his or her processes
public, that's their option.  But if they don't,
chances are they feel the artwork is self-complete.
In fact, a popular school of thought in the middle of
this century felt that the artist's intentions and
methods are completely irrelevant to the evaluation
of an artwork (promulgated in 1948's "The Intentional
Fallacy" by Wimsatt and Beardsley).  The art, like the
cheese, stands alone.  Must we all whine whenever an
artist doesn't reveal his or her bedroom secrets to
us?  Can't we just be happy we have their art?

Kevin Ryan
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.