Re: "art" & money, was: amanda palmer

[Tom Ulichny <tom@ulichnymusic.com>]

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!"