from slashdot, on RIAA vs File swapping..

 :

9/3/2003 7:06 PM

sr

from slashdot, on RIAA vs File swapping.. interesting thought came by in what was otherwise a long drawn out discussion on the benfits of MD5 hashing and how to hack it. (trans: boring!) But this person has a point whether I agree with it or not. (I don't know yet) I thought it might provoke another brawl here, so I figured I should post it. Seriously, think about this in the greater context of inventions like movable type and telecom. And it may all go back to "is the internet bringing us all closer together or driving us further apart by exposing us to our differences as never before.. "   Discuss amongst yourselves.     posted at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=03/08/28/1217214   -------------------------------------   They are really fighting a losing battle.     Exchanging music is not about piracy, it is about exchanging culture, just like when my grandfather leant me some old Jazz records and said, "here, you might like this".     Today culture moves at the speed of light and the RIAA believes it has the right to tax this movement. It cannot succeed except by destroying the Internet.     I'm starting to believe, watching this debate evolve over many years, that the file traders are right, for the wrong reasons.     Human culture depends on exchange of ideas and information, and music and films are a large part of this in today's world. No album, no movie scene, no written text is a personal creation, they are all taken from the pool of common culture, modified, and redistributed.     Seeking all means to do this faster than ever - and ignoring the barriers, such as "ownership", that stand in the way - is the prerrogative of today's world. We simply can't put the genie back into the bottle and start exchanging pieces of paper and vinyl discs again.     The debate is huge, but the results already seem clear: any laws designed to stop the process from continuing will be further and further ignored until they are seen by a majority of people to be useless vestiges of a material-obsessed past.

 

9/3/2003 7:49 PM

Mark Lavelle

[QUOTE][...] No album, no movie scene, no written text is a personal creation, they are all taken from the pool of common culture, modified, and redistributed.     Seeking all means to do this faster than ever - and ignoring the barriers, such as "ownership", that stand in the way - is the prerrogative of today's world. We simply can't put the genie back into the bottle and start exchanging pieces of paper and vinyl discs again.[/QUOTE]A bit Utopian, for my taste...     I'm all for cutting out the middle man, but not at the expense of the artist. Without a specific artist you don't have a creation (or synthesis, if you prefer), so I believe that in an important sense the work does belong to the artist. I also believe that making art takes valuable time, and the artist deserves to be compensated.     So the interesting question (from my POV) is: How can we use the net to cut out that grossly obese middle man and still get the artists enough compensation to survive (hopefully even prosper) doing what they do so well? And as a corollary, how can an artist get their work noticed without the consumer having to search for it 24/7?

 

9/4/2003 3:21 AM

sr

I'm all for cutting out the middle man, but not at the expense of the artist     I'm with you there.. the idea is either utopian or socialist. If we had the dole system of say an Australia or some of the financial incentives of an Ireland perhaps that would mitigate the loss of income somewhat? Who knows. I think as long as you expect artists to produce and they have to pay for stuff, it's natural to have them earning money for art. Society demands art, artists have to eat. I dont see a way around that at the moment.. I do think the person has a point about art as a collective product though; it does not exist in a vacuum certainly but does influence negate personal creation? I'm not convinced.     I still have the Musician mag from 1980-something where they predicted the end of the music biz as we know it. An amazing piece of prediction; they just missed the whole file sharing bit.. (but, who knew?) In their article, the net was advertising and dist which is really what AOL/TW and their ilk do best(websites and downloads to CD Burners replace pressing plants, trucks and warehouses etc) aside from a lack of BW at the moment, we're nearly there. Stark contrast to when my old band made our CD. $5k to record, $5k to master and press 1000 copies and then sell them at gigs. Now we could have bought a real nice recording rig for $5k (amortized over several albums..) and set up a website, burned our own CD's (JIT inventory.. what a concept.) When the "last mile" problem is solved (almost certainly through wireless IMHO) we'll have 100Base-T or maybe gigabit to the home and then the times they will be a achanging.. (sorry Bob!)   I think the good artists will find ways to get reviewed in the press (the press will still need to seperate wheat from chaff to stay relevant IMHO although the ad revenues will be perhaps very different!), noticed at gigs, etc.. same way they rise to the top now. I don't see the net changing that, or losing Bertlesman or AOLTW etc.. three will still be a million bands competing for 100 slots.

 

9/5/2003 2:43 AM

Mark Lavelle

quote: "I do think the person has a point about art as a collective product though; it does not exist in a vacuum certainly but does influence negate personal creation?" I say definitely not! Influences are just the input. The (talented) artist does much more than add pieces together – s/he filters those influences and adds a personal perspective, and the result is unique because of that. You & I might listen to all the same music and still never write even similar tunes...

 

9/6/2003 12:36 AM

sr

Re: influence and creativity.. agree 100% in the case of a 'talented' individual trying to create something personal and unique. For boy bands and britney's, and all other derivitive crap, well you know how I feel about that. So there's the rub: it's all subjective. Quite a wrench.     re: influence.. a buddy of mine once asked me about my own guitar playing (cue 'ego trip soundtrack!') so I played two tunes the band did and then played the 2 tunes that were the inspiration for the way I played on my parts. He was only more confused at the end, and I (of course) felt like I was maybe too close to the originals in some ways.. Not in notes or melody mind you, but in feel and spirit and 'placement' - how the guitar fits into the fabric of the song. I think all that proves is the way that you hear and interpret something is very personal.. what I heard was not what my friend heard so the elements of my guitar parts that I heard connecting them to their inspirations were not apparent to a 3rd party. Honestly, I thought they were obvious through my blinders! go figya..

 

Page 1 of 1