From Philip Sent Fri, Oct 31st 1997, 22:13
From Philip Sent Fri, Oct 31st 1997, 22:13
>What makes you think you have an innate right to hear a given recording?
>You're just rationalizing an illegal and unethical practice.
this is actually a really interesting question. it's not really analogous
to the comment about the mercedes ("I want that new Mercedes, but it's too
expensive. How else can I own it, if I don't steal it?"), because what's at
issue here is *reproduction*. additionally, the issue isn't the high
price, because, when something's really out-of-print, it's not available.
and if it *is* sold, at whatever price, whatever markup, the artist (and
label) of course see none of the money, because it's second-hand.
(remember the flap about used cd's a few years ago? who was that, some
country bumpkin, right?)
so the issue, as i see it, is the question: what gives you the innate (or
inalienable) right to hear a given recording?
and there's certainly no easy answer. i would like to suggest, however,
something like this: the public sphere as an open forum, as a collaborative
effort in which each individual has an equal right of participation. mind
you, i'm not talking about a situation existing *in practice*--if that were
so, the art market would have to be abolished, culture would have to be
decommodified, my university library would have to throw open its doors to
non-students (i'd say "the great unwashed," but some of those hippie
undergrads can be pretty crusty themselves). as an ideal, the public
sphere--of which artistic production is an integral part--is a purely
democratic space, offering equal access to all. (remember, too, that
*listening* and *ownership* are two different things.)
none of this is helpful, of course, because the reality is driven by
institutions and practices which are grounded in capitalism and the idea of
ownership. but if we're talking about the *right to hear* a given work of
art, then i think we are talking about an ideal.
ethicists and aestheticians, flame on--
phil