From sm Sent Sat, Nov 1st 1997, 03:36
From sm Sent Sat, Nov 1st 1997, 03:36
[quoted from the free music philosophy - if you want the full text mail me, also
worth reading is the 'fair use' essay by negativland's mark hosler, this has now
disappeared off it's server, again if you want a copy mail me]
Why must we Free Music?
Music is a creative process. Today, when a musician publishes music, i.e., exposes it to
the outside world, only a privileged set of individuals are able to use the music as
they please. However, the artist has drawn from the creativity of many other musicians
and there is an existential responsibility placed upon them to give this back
unconditionally, so creativity is fostered among people. As a dissenting opinion in the
Vanna White vs. Samsung case [2], Judge Kozinski writes:
All creators draw in part on the work of those who came before, referring to it,
building on it, poking fun at it; we call this creativity, not piracy.
Isn't free copying of music infringing copyright law?
The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) [3], states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on
the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a
digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording
medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for
making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
A literal reading of the law indicates that individuals can make copies of music
recordings for personal noncommercial use and cannot be sued for copyright infringement.
The message we get from this law is "Music listeners, start copying!"
Why is the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 inadequate?
It is inadequate because the entire ethical basis of copyright law with respect to music
has been perverted---free copying, and other uses, of music is ethical even if it is not
legal. The main motivation for the law being passed is due to a tariff that is imposed
on blank Digital Audio Tapes (DATs). The tariff goes back to the music industry in order
to compensate the supposed loss of profits that arise as a result of unauthorised home
taping. But the majority of the funds collected goes not to the creators of the music,
but to the record companies! See Richard Stallman's The Right Way to Tax DAT for more
information [URL @ end]. Thus it makes sense to follow the Free Music Philosophy and
encourage direct reimbursement to the artist rather than go through a
bureaucratically-entangled and unbalanced system.
Why is freeing music the ethically right thing to do?
First, limiting your creativity to specific audiences, especially based on monetary
reasons, is shirking existential responsibility and destructive to society as a whole;
today, when people create, they're creating by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Second, it's fair that people pay for music only if they like it after listening to it
first; the present system does not allow for this for all forms of music. Third, in
order to prevent "illegal" copies from being made, a tremendous burden (restricting
legitimate expression) must be placed on all individuals to circumvent what is human
nature. This is a rather impossible task and is probably the reason the AHRA was passed
in the first place. Fourth, the derivative clause prevents the incorporation of your own
ideas to enhance other people's expressions, and this is abridges the free exchange of
ideas and information. Finally, the current practices of the recording industry, which
exploit both artist and consumer in the interests of profit, are unethical, and one must
take steps to force changes.
What about the intellectual property rights of the individual?
Intellectual property and other such "rights" have essentially existed to benefit
society rather than the individual. The U.S. Constitution, for example, states that the
purpose of Copyright is "to promote science and the useful arts." The Free Music
Philosophy ensures that both society and the individual benefit. The individual's
creative freedom is completely unabridged. This freedom is more important than any
"right" society could give. To quote Stallman [1]:
"Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over other people's
lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult.
Shouldn't musicians deserve rewards for their creativity?
The greatest reward musicians should have is their own music and nothing else. According
to a study reported in the 19, January 1987 issue of the Boston Globe, Alfie Kohn
reports on a psychological study that shows that creativity diminishes if it's done for
gain [5]. He writes: "If a reward - money, awards, praise, or winning a contest - comes
to be seen as the reason one is engaging in an activity, that activity will be viewed as
less enjoyable in its own right. With the exception of some behaviorists who doubt the
very existence of intrinsic motivation, these conclusions are now widely accepted among
psychologists." It follows then that the best music I've heard to date is from artists,
who are struggling to make ends meet working two jobs, who are doing their music with an
inherent passion and a desire to share it with people, and not because they have a
contract to do so.
[other referances]
http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/DAT
Right Way to Tax DAT by Richard Stallman.
http://ig.cs.tu-berlin.de/PE/WIRED/2.03/features/economy.ideas.html
The Economy of Ideas by John Perry Barlow.
http://barista.stanford.edu/m3c/
The MP3 Audio Consortium
[sm]
--
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/mfr/
[elecktronic label]
[esoteric, non-generic material wanted]
" Basically the message is: Steal It! Art, music,
culture, the odd book and the slab of cheese...
the new will be built upon the ruins of the old. "
-Buenaventura Durruti