From: Joseph Reagle (reagle@mediaone.net)
Date: Fri Jun 02 2000 - 16:26:01 PDT
At 11:27 2000-06-02 -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>I'm not into this whole debate, but even I found this interesting
>reading..
>
><URL:http://www.technocrat.net/958163435/index_html>
Another rant, along similar lines [1].
__
[1] http://goatee.net/2000/06#30th
00.05.30.th | mp3 bull$hit
"The lawyers in the music industry have skewed the business to work
beneficially for them and not for the artist." - Chuck D
In Amsterdam, Law Professor [26]Lawrence Lessig gave a WWW9 keynote on
[27]Cyberspace's Architectural Constitution. He mentioned that
copyright (a limited monopoly of expression and ideas) had been
extended from the original 14 years to life-of-the-author+70. In my
opinion, there's some problems with the this in particular and many
problems with intellectual property in general. But it's sometimes
difficult to voice this opinion because the small encroachments of
copyright and patent creep that led to the present system are largely
unseen. It's heavy, but to complain of the invisible weight is thought
to be unreasonable. On copyright, surely authors should be compensated
and their work respected? If the intent of the law is to prevent
unauthorized duplication, then why not build authorization systems
into the fabric of new technology? And if those technologies can be
circumvented (for good or bad), why not forbid that as well?
[26] http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lessig.html
[27] http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/www9.pdf
So, two centuries later corporatists are in control and extending
their greedy hands into the infrastructure of the future. But I don't
believe this is about incenting and protecting authors, this is about
making money off label controlled pop blitzes. If this was about
authors, the idea of [28]moral rights (rights of integrity,
attribution, and response) would not be laughed at in the US.
[28] http://www.rbs2.com/moral.htm
After Lessig's talk, [29]William Loughborough used the open mic to
suggest direct action, like that of activists who chained their
wheelchairs to inaccessible doors and buses. As a self-styled
anarchistic that has a great deal of respect for civil disobedience, I
like this idea. (And 'Love' seems like an interesting character,
including some [30]thoughtful writing and [31]credits as the voice of
a robot officer in THX 1138 -- the [32]IMDB amusingly shows him as
[33]credited in Deep Throat as Wilbur Wang as well!)
[29] http://w3.gorge.net/love26/
[30] http://w3.gorge.net/love26/
[31] http://www.geocities.com/Area51/4456/interview.html
[32] http://imdb.com/
[33] http://us.imdb.com/Name?Love,+William
Later, at the terminal table I asked Love how do you protest the
direction of copyright and patents with respect to technology? How do
I chain myself to the door of cyberspace? Someone else responded that
one should use [34]Napster and [35]Gnutella to download mp3s.
[36]These area the controversial tools used to exchange files -- 90%
of which are copyrighted. Maybe that would help 'bring the system
down.'
[34] http://napster.com/
[35] http://gnutella.wego.com/go/wego.group.group?groupId=116705
[36] http://www.technocrat.net/958163435/index_html
As I write this I'm listening to a [37]DarkAngel mp3 that I discovered
by accident. I can rationalize that I could not have purchased this
song given I never heard of it! And that it might prompt me to even go
buy some albums. I can speak of DIY ethics and punk cred; I produce my
[38]creative content for free and that if I come by way of something
for free but still want to encourage the creator, I trade, barter or
even send money.
[37]
http://www.fortunecity.de/kraftwerk/jarre/96/html/v_vnvnation_darkangel.html
[38] http://goatee.net/singles/explain.html
However, ripping off mp3s as a form of righteousness strikes me as
rather self serving. We're not talking about civil disobedience, we're
talking about getting something for free. The righteous thing would
mean making a sacrifice that benefits others, not benefiting at
others' expense. As I frequently repeat, the point of anarchy and
civil disobedience is not to further chaos, theft, and destruction,
but to shed the harsh strictures of external authorities and opt for
[39]ethical self integrity; in the absence of law, one must substitute
a heavier burden, those of etiquette and ethics. To quote Miss Manners
(one of my favorite [40]anarchist social theorists), "But for all its
strictness, etiquette is much more flexible and less threatening than
law, and therefore more suitable for gently regulating ordinary life."
This means paying no mind to some laws, but it also requires a
stricter form of self discipline on many issues. [41]Gandhi wrote,
"Civil disobedience presupposes willing obedience of our self-imposed
rules, and without it civil disobedience would be cruel joke."
[39] http://goatee.net/anarchists/punk-ethic.html
[40] http://goatee.net/9906-07.html#08tu
[41] http://www.cbu.edu/Gandhi/html/quotes2.html#CIVIL
So what's a ethical anarchist to do? I don't know. But we can
challenge the bullshit on both sides of the fence. The music industry
doesn't care about furthering creativity and access, it's about making
money. If the whole music industry collapsed today, I don't think the
world would be any less for it. And while (in principle) the Napster
server doesn't exchange copyrighted files, let's not pretend that the
system isn't predominantly used to facilitate it.
I'm going to keep on downloading mp3s because it's so darn convenient,
but not because it's a form of protest.
_______________________
Regards, http://reagle.org/joseph/
Joseph Reagle E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anais Nin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 02 2000 - 16:30:47 PDT