Re: [microsound] mp3 redux

[dbuchwald <dagmar.buchwald@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hm, I am not sure whether you can really compare nature's reproductive abundance
with the large-scale output of products by humans -- products which don't decay
and do not dissolve back into the natural flow of (re-)production but which use
a large amount of natural 'ressources' (don't like the word; it already reflects
a certain view of nature, that is: a large storehouse from which to take
whatever we want).

Just a remark in passing.  I don't intend to open up a flame about ecology.

Dagmar

walrus and the carpenter wrote:

> Cool off. It's all going to your head and coming out wrong. Your arguments
> deny biology and nature...something you nor I can stop. Nature is a massive
> copying mutating machine that blows your rationizations to fragments. What
> about evil? Get used to it because it's in everyone's genes. Do you think
> that every executive and artist out there in the world is god's little
> angel? Of course not, neither are they all devils. But the most proactive
> and reproducing groups are the most successful. Redundencies are completely
> necessary in humans and most definitely in nature. To deny this is like
> fighting a war on some drugs. If you really want to fight piracy close down
> every reproducing plant in the world...call back every cd-recorder, make the
> rain go away and make the sun shine for all of us. But i'll be the first to
> go on record and say that your ideas about nature are a moral blasphemy
> towards god's creation just as the illegalization of plants/nature is a
> paradox of capitalism and freedom's natural biological functions.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jan.l" <jl@xxxxxxx>
> To: "microsound" <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 4:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [microsound] mp3 redux
>
> Why should anyone need to report their income or lifestyle to you? Why do
> you need this information? Do you see yourself as material for at strong
> leader (maybe in uniform?) that knows everyone elses best and you will then
> decide who gets what and which lifestyle you think they should adher to?
>
> Personally I dislike shorts. Lets join forces. I can shoot anyone wearing
> shorts and you can beat artists until you get all their income statements
> and decide what they can have for dinner tonight and which one are allowed
> to have a car or wife & children.
>
> All these rationalisations for stealing IP are becoming more & more
> ridiculous. Why not just relax, look at yourself in the mirror every morning
> and say "I am a greedy little thief" and then to hell with it and continue
> saving your money by copying all the stuff you want. Heck, even the RIAA
> might go for that deal ;=)
>
> You are trying wildly to separate out certain people/activities in society
> as some kind of paria - free for everyone to hunt down and capitalize from.
> In this case composers/musicians. Next week? Taxi drivers? Homosexuals?
> Muslims?
>
> Is it o.k. to do just anything because technology makes it possible? Is it
> o.k. to shoot liberals just because we have the technolgy (guns)? Is it o.k.
> for every pervert to listen and watch their neighbors make love just because
> the technology to secretly spy on them is available? Is it o.k. for Dow to
> ignore Bhopal just because they can get away with it?
>
> Still you *can* have your file-sharing within todays system without making
> everyone using it a greedy little person. Simply make your case to the
> artists/composers/musicians and if it is as good as you say it is .. they
> will come in droves and happily surrender their IP to anyone who needs free
> content to improve their site-profits (morpheus, kazaa and whatever sites
> there are). Some may not give up their IP rights and work for nothing  -
> but why not just ignore those few and let them have their way - just let
> them grumpily sit in their corner guarding their stuff.
>
> >There's a moral point that continually comes up regarding downloading -
> support
> >the indie labels if you download. This indie boosterism doesn't do it for
> me.
> >As much as I'd like to lend a hand to other artists, this capitalist world
> >forces me to be more practical. There is an idea that artists should be
> able to
> >earn enough money from their creative endeavors to support themselves and
> their
> >families. I would love to be a part of that (sometimes questionably)
> enviable
> >group; however, I doubt many people aside from the superstars and other
> >major-label-supported performers are doing so. To those list members with
> CDs
> >out, remind us if the income from sales of your CDs is your only or major
> >source of income. If it is, would you be kind enough to tell us not your
> >income, but a self-assessment of your standard of living (lower-class by
> >American standards and proud of it, comfortably middle-class, rich-as-hell
> and
> >not done yet)?
> >
> >The continuing death of labels (such as Strictly Rhythm
> >http://www.discjockey101.com/oct2002.html) means that labels aren't keeping
> up
> >with the times. They are offering an obsolete product. Some people continue
> to
> >promote packaging (case, liner notes, hand-drawn/printed art) as a
> >justification for the production of CDs. However, it's arguable that these
> are
> >contributors to environmental problems. The mining of the aluminum at the
> core
> >of the CD destroys wildlife habitats, the solvents used in sputtering the
> >aluminum disc with plastic are toxic, the use of the plastic in the cases
> >supports Bush's oil empire, the cardboard in the sleeves brings down more
> >trees, the manufacturing process uses too much electricity which wastes
> >resources, the selling of the CD in stores through distributors promotes an
> >inefficient delivery system, and so on. Why buy such a product when it is
> >available, minus all drawbacks, for free on the web? There is the moral
> >argument that I should buy it because not to is stealing. However, if
> buying it
> >means supporting and affirming all of the aforementioned ills, wouldn't
> >downloading be at least in morally neutral territory?
> >
> >The only arguments I hear on various lists are moral ones. Why do all
> writers
> >ignore the economic side of this, imho, primarily economic issue? What is
> the
> >product that an artist can provide that is compelling enough to buy? I have
> a
> >well for my water; why would I pay the city for their water system? Live
> >performing is one aspect. Jello Biafra moans about the
> >artists-as-traveling-minstrel, and given the poor environmental conditions
> of
> >most venues (cigarette smoke, drunken spectators, competition with the
> >meat-market background), I can see his point. Those of you who are selling
> CDs
> >and performing live, what is the breakdown, percentage-wise, in the income?
> >Steve Albini writes (http://www.negativland.com/albini.html) that for most
> >major label bands, the CD is already a vehicle for promoting a tour (the
> only
> >real source of income).  Interestingly, farmers have been facing a severe
> >downturn in the price of their commodity. Without subsidies, farming in
> America
> >isn't profitable. The same goes for American manufacturing. In our world,
> >everything has become too easy to make and so there is too much of it. Core
> >economic issues are being challenged in ways that haven't been before.
> >Capitalism relies on scarcity and unlimited resources (sounds absurd from
> the
> >start, doesn't it?). We are rapidly facing the end of scarcity (at least
> for
> >many information-based products) and the end of unlimited resources (oil,
> land,
> >wood, others).
> >
> >So the real question is: how can artists make a living at art in this
> economic
> >situation? For me, donations aren't a viable answer; I already find the
> >Salvation Army guy at Christmas to be a nuisance. What is a compelling and
> >morally-superior product that an artist can produce to make a reasonable
> >income? While it's clear that the problems with capitalism are
> long-standing,
> >it doesn't appear that other viable systems are forthcoming. I realize it's
> a
> >little OT, but can anyone recommend recent writing (preferably web-based)
> >discussing these problems? Anyone know any outstanding articles on gift
> >economics?
> >
> >Renick
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> >from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> >http://uk.my.yahoo.com
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >website: http://www.microsound.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org

------------------------------