RE: [microsound] Intellectual Property

[Hans Mabelis <h.mabelis@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill Ashline wrote:
> On the other hand, something seems different with digital
> equipment--a new kind of ethics is in play, and it suggests a different
> situation with regard to the ownership of the media and the sharing of
ideas.

Xavier Madrid wrote:
> (...) 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 understand an individual having to pay bills versus the
> advancement of
> artistic movement but please consider.

But isn't that exactly the dilemma? In my view, I can see 4 different
intellectual stands here:

1. To me , this discussion is all about the intellectual imperative to share
information and  the freedom of any artist to copy what she/he can; about
the esthetical appreciating of 'the process' behind the end-result and the
moral obligation of an artist to let his audience gain insight into this
process in order to deepen the emotional content of the music.
I don't even want to *hear* the word 'money'. I'm glad most of you didn't
even mention it. Except Xavier, who talked dirty about 'paying bills'. Go
wash your mouth, sonny.

2. All this talk of digital copy-catting - it doesn't worry me. Being an
artist is not and should not be a profession; it's a hobby, or an urge, or a
calling, if you wish; an artist should have a normal profession to earn his
living and give the fruits of his art for free. Being open is at the very
source of any art. If you want to hide things, don't call yourself an
artist - call yourself a businessman.

3. Sure, modern techniques and media will change the ways a musical artist
can make money - but no doomsday scenario's, please. Change doesn't mean
'less', and anyway the influence of these new media are grossly
overestimated and mis-read on top of that. There will allways be records, or
CD's or whatever new thing being sold; there will allways be live concerts,
and lectures to give and TV-programs you'll get paid for.
The net-result of this whole digital revolution will be that there is more
music in the world and that people have more choice. They used to have 50
records - legally puchased. Now they have 50 legally bought CD's, and 5000
illegally copied or downloaded ones. But that doesn't mean they spend less
money; just that they have more choice and listen to music more often. And
those who only have illegally copied stuff are to be found among the
zillions who never used to spend a dime on music anyhow.
In short: what people spend on music will not decrease, it may even
increase; but the *way* you make money as a musician or composer may change
dramatically - and that's what's scaring a lot of old-world folks. And
that's why they are guarding their secrets. They just can't cope.

4. So what if an artist cannot earn a living by commercialising his product?
So what if he depends on sponsoring by companies, or government funding?
Isn't that as it ought to be, isn't that as it allways has been? It used to
be that way in the times of Bach and Mozart - and before and after. It's the
millionaire pop-stars that form the anomaly; they came into existence a few
decades ago, thanks to a technological invention. And maybe they'll get
wiped out by the same kind of technological progress. So what. Do you think
the Beatles would not have composed and played if they had just earned a
decent income instead of becoming filthy rich?


Does anyone see more stands to take? I'd love to hear them very much. And I
would love to see contributors to the discussion take a stand...

hans mabelis