From: Dave Long (dl@silcom.com)
Date: Wed Jun 14 2000 - 10:37:25 PDT
> Well, your ideas belong to you,
> too. And "intellectual
> property" is property, period.
Then again, there's the rather enviable position in
which large numbers of other people's ideas belong
to you, too.
If "intellectual property" is property because the
two names share some letters, does that mean that
cosmetology bears the same relation to biology?
> Thank you for letting me speak from the heart.
Thanks, Mr. Bronfman, for a speech from the wallet.
Now, there's a lot be said for living on what one
has, rather than on what one has coming, but your
defense of owners costumed as a defense of creators
is hypocrisy.
-Dave
One nice thing about not living in Ms. Love's "middle
of Kansas" is that I can participate in very low-tech
disintermediation: see artists I enjoy, support their
venues, buy their goods, or leave them tips.
> ... The status quo gives us a boring culture. In a society of
> over 300 million people, only 30 new artists a year sell a million records.
> By any measure, that's a huge failure.
Unfortunately, this may just be entropy. I find
that random interactions suffice to generate 80/20
style long-tailed distributions. Does anyone have
the full curve for music sales? I am afraid that
a model where consumers show no a priori relative
preferences for artists may fit it closely.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 14 2000 - 10:28:30 PDT