Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
agreed, well said... Tom Ulichny www.ulichnymusic.com www.myspace.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "tEd ® KiLLiAn" <tedkillian@charter.net> To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2009 9:27:34 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: "art" & money, was: amanda palmer Nicely put Miko. On Oct 7, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Miko Biffle wrote: > Scott: These scenarios below are all moot points. My basic argument > is against simply saying there's NO compelling reason to ask for > compensation for items such as: music downloads; use of your work in > commercial projects; sampling of your work in recognizable form. > It's a disturbing trend to see the expectation shifting from > > "of course you pay for music . . . it's a product." > > to >>> > > "music should be free and all those making it should shut up and > realize that. I don't owe that dude I sampled ANYTHING, even though > I'm making bucks using his work." > > > my 1st question: why should they be compensated? > The "artist" decides to commercially market their "goods". If no one > buys, fine. That gives no one the right to pirate their work and use > it for their own commercial purposes. These are the "rights" I'm > discussing. I don't care if NOBODY want's to buy my product. It's my > right to control the use and resale of it. > > > next: who should compensate them? > Whoever decides that they would like "the product" for themselves. > This is basic commercial business ideology. Please don't suggest > that what's mine should somehow be available to other's FOR FREE, > without my authorization. That's called THEFT or PIRACY. > > So before we lower our expectations to the assumption that music is > groovy and simply ephemerally floating on airwaves, let's consider > that someone, somewhere might have put a lot of time and effort into > making that music that maybe seems so ephemeral and "non- > materialistic", and that if they decide to charge for it, that's > their own perogative. I'm mostly opposed to the notion of the "open > source" philosophy and that it's somehow going to be good for > everyone. > > Of course we all assign our own value judgement to every last thing > we hear and maybe certain individuals may believe their "product" is > worth more than the marketplace will bear. So be it. People vote > with their dollars. If PIRATES have decided to make every last > recording available for free somewhere on the internet without prior > agreement with the copyright authors, that's a CRIME, and IMO should > be. Yeah . . . we all like free, but don't come to my house and > expect me to give you my food, water, car etc. > > I shudder when ancient history (pre-industrial) is trotted out to > somehow justify further abuse of working people—espousing a > retrograde back-slide to an era when it was ok to have kids on > assembly lines around the clock, and certain folks had to ride in > the back of the bus—with the inference that this was just how it was > and might be a reality we could see again. I don't buy it and abhor > anyone even remotely suggesting it. > > Yes there has always been "Starving Artists", but I'd prefer we > retain some minimal rights to protect our work while we're still > alive. > > -- > Miko Biffle > Biffoz@Gmail.com > "Running scared from all the usual distractions!"