>Therefore by advocating in any way that intellectual property rules be
done away
>with or even loosened, one is weakening in some way the tools that modern
>capitalists use to gain more wealth and power.
But wouldn't this removal of "intellectual property" status result in Sony
being free to do that which you objected to so strongly?
>Many people might assume that we are all trying to completely do away with
>copyright. Not so. The way I see it, there are several stages, and
>consequences, to the aforementioned struggle against late capital. To be
>honest, I see the eventual, ideal goal regarding copyright as, indeed, the
>total abolition of intellectual property. But, a lot of other things
>would have to happen first before that. And I don't know if I need or want
>to go into what all those things are.
Bother. Wish you would. I guess I just would understand your position
better if you gave an alternative to corporations, and a means to get there.
Reminds me of a history class I once took. The professor made the
statement that "Capitalism" was the end all of economic styles. I
disagreed, under the reason that perhaps something better may not yet have
be envisioned/established...but the lack of vision does not rule out the
chance that someday it will occur. However, to begin the removal of such
systems, one really needs a clear goal and means. And those need to be
shared, if support is to occur.
>But the facts are that we live in a
>society where some people are trying to make a living (in a modern
>capitalist sense of that phrase) from their ideas and from their
>creativity, and more importantly there are a few people trying to not just
>make a living but _accumulate vast amounts of wealth and power_ from
>_other people's_ ideas and creativity.
But are they really simply those peoples ideas and creativity? Are
executives at Sony making a living off of Britney Spears? I think the
reverse may be true, that she is popular because of their skills in
marketing and whatnot. Perhaps you discredit the abilities of executives a
bit too quickly? I always disliked the "business" students at my college,
but that didn't mean that I didn't enroll in and learn from a few business
courses.
>to protect the people that have the ideas from the people that sell the
ideas.
You say that like selling/marketing is easy. How many here have sold a few
thousand records without the assistance of others? Didn't think so. They
serve a purpose and are necessary (in my opinion). Perhaps they are
getting too large a share of the profits, but that isn't what you are
arguing. From what I've read, you would like a system that requires
everyone to be a jack of all trades, and that seems a bit counterproductive.
>Profit is when a capitalist
>makes money off of others' work through investment, contracts, etc. - what
>Marxists call "surplus value".
So, the bargaining skills, investment capital, etc are all unneccesary?
How so?
I think you are both too quick to discredit the abilities and skills of
business people. They may not be the most ethical, and perhaps that is
society's fault, but they do have abilities that we benefit from.
It takes a lot of money to make a movie, start an industry, etc. Who do
you suggest make the investments? Require the thinkers to also be the
bankrollers? Expect the bankrollers to do so with no thoughts of return?
Etc, etc? Organization skills are skills...and thus deserve some from of
income.
To take this back to a musical forum, would you really expect a
label/distributer/whatnot to spend money and time in assisting one in the
making and releasing of a record/CD/product without some return? They need
food on their table too. I would think such expectations absurd, if not
rude as well. They do a service and should be compensated.
Again, if you wish to argue that they get too much a percentage for their
efforts, then do such. But to argue that they are useless is a bit
absurdist. Unless you are going to tell me a "better way", which no one
has (thus far).
>I object because they tried to exploit DJ Rolando.
One way to look at it (and perhaps I agree), but they also were attempting
to get music that they saw worthwhile (for they wouldn't have covered that
particular track if they didn't think it worthwhile) to a larger audience.
That is their job. Their skill.
Another question might be, why would DJ Rolando object to more people
hearing his track?? I mean, if it is reasonable to think that Sony would
NOT be undercutting the vinyl's sale (which I honestly think is a safe
assumption), then why keep others from hearing it? Why make a track and
then hide it in a box? Seems kind of silly. But perhaps I'm lacking some
bigger vision.
JJTar.
---
Peace Hugs and Unity Jason J. Tar
W. W. J. D?
(What would Jason Do?)
http://www.msu.edu/user/tarjason
ICQAT13792120
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.