Subject: Re: On illegal software in an academic assignment ...
From: Richard Wentk (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Nov 13 2005 - 17:11:58 EST
At 20:37 13/11/2005, you wrote:
>An example of something that I tolerate, and quite possibly approve of,
>would be the sharing of music files for items that record companies have
>deleted - who loses out? Similarly unauthorised copying for creative
>purposes, which always begs the question of where the line is drawn; if
>drawing a line makes it harder for music to stay in circulation or
>stunting creative practice then I'd be for not drawing one at all.
Yes, but this is a worst of both worlds situation for artists because they
get screwed by record companies *and* by their potential audience.
The problem today is that on the one hand there are record companies who
exist primarily to make money, and there are listeners who seem to want to
take work 'just because it's not really stealing if it's from a big record
company that wouldn't be selling the work anyway.'
Is no one standing up for the rights of artists caught in this crossfire?
Valued creative work should be recompensed in some way, whether it's
programming, composition, or telling stories around a campfire. What's
happening instead is that we have a kind of cult of mediocrity from both
sides of the divide, where distributors don't value work because it's only
worth something if it *sells*, and consumers who don't value work because
they can get it for free on P2P - so why should they pay for it?
The result is an attack on the concept of creative value from two fronts,
with a third front opended by a tidal wave of 'creative' software tools
that everyone owns by hardly anyone has any skill with.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:14 EST