Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The New Yorker is a magazine dedicated to the sophisticated tastes of some of the richest pricks in the country
Thanks, Angus, I like it too. You obviously won't need to be told that The New Yorker only costs a little bit more than the Listener air-mailed out to NZ, and it does have rather better- well, everything.
But where is my immense wealth and sophisticated taste? Dang, don't I get that too?
And, um, for your argument to hold sway, it has to be the case that a/ yep, the NYer is a mag solely for RPs b/ US voters know this c/ US voters generally are gonna know who the NYer endorses and d/ US voters care enough who the NYer endorses to change their minds on that basis and vote against that endorsement, which they will somehow have read, even not being RPs themselves, cos even if they are well-informed, they are irreducibly stupid.
Not such a great argument, eh?
Well, you're at least a little on-track: the NYer has endorsed other candidates who've ahm, bombed out big-time.
Yeah, they favour the Dems. Just like all those Wall St Bankers and Financer-Snake-dildo salespeople.
Ahm, or maybe not? -
Obama and team are remarkable strategists. They've still got a lot of money, and McCain has history he'll not be keen to revisit in glorious technicolor. How low will it go? I wouldn't like to take bets.
-
Sacha- I really can't see where you're coming from.
Many artists and writers work in jobs where they are paid to create- and yep, generally the rights to what they create belong to those who paid them. There are many variations, and it may not always be a happy compromise- but it should be a transparent transaction.
If you are thinking of people who put their hearts and sweat into jobs they are NOT being paid for- then they are being abused, or they are volunteers, a quite different transaction (unless you think artists should all be volunteers?).
If Mr Artist buys a pile of wood and builds a table, it's his. If he buys a pen and some paper, and sketches a remarkable figure- or slits his wrists and pours out a novel- somehow you think what is created belongs to everyone and anyone.
That's what I don't understand.
It may be you feel works of art are sort've lying around, waiting to be discovered. In that case, everyone who copies one is simply too lazy to look for their own!
Books used to have a little legal tango on the first pages, about the "moral rights of the author" being asserted. If you seriously don't believe this is justified, I think you need to explain why.
I say this as someone who couldn't write a decent story to save himself, who passionately values literature, and who knows how mind-blisteringly miniscule the financial rewards are to most NZ writers.
It seems (and I know you probably don't think this exactly) you are saying: even this pittance- and believe me, very few people would work for so little- even this pittance you get for revealing your soul to the world, for anyone with a mouth or pen to criticise- even this, you do not truely deserve, and more- you do not truely own.
That's harsh. Anyone who thinks the creative life is a long hot bath in a pool of cash is always welcome to dive in. -
Lessig's example makes it absolutely clear how important the issue of control over one's work can become. It's not all about money.
Using someone else's music to sell a political view-point (in this case anti-Obama) could be a violation of everything the musician believes. Let's say David Byrne feels sick at the thought of "burning down the house" being used with selected text that suggests Obama is somehow- in defiance of common-sense and reality- resposible for the current housing crisis. I strongly feel Byrne has every right to say- "over my dead lawyer's body you will use my music in this way!"
We are all dealing with a new paradigm- the digital realm makes copying stuff easy-peasy. We're all a little non-plussed about how to move forward. Any work that is made public, in a practical sense, now does "belong to the public" (for free). Yet to me (many? most?) this seems an injustice- a far greater injustice than any restriction on new artists "re-using" mixing, mashing, other peoples' existing work (I totally agree with islander- write/paint/shoot/whatever your own. What's your problem with that?)
Trouble is, it's pretty rare for a "principle of justice" to overcome a pervasive technology. Noone knows where it's gonna end. It's already having a big financial impact on mass-marketed commodified entertainment/art. The impact on creativity itself is something we are still to find out. -
creative people feel that society owes them a life-long income that is denied to all others
tee hee. leaving aside the benefit society gets from creativity- and the natural justice of giving rights over a creation to its creator- lets just say it's the artist's selfish desire not to starve to death.
-
Now that's a brilliant article. I'm only a thrid of the way through, and I'm laughing like a choking turkey.
And true.There's a choice: play gigs, experience that peculiar bonding you get with fellow band members, feel that curious mixture of love and antipathy you get from an audience – and make no money. Or obsess about selling mp3s – and make no money. My children, and my children's children, certainly won't want to hear about my tedious marketing efforts to secure a song that I wrote 250,000 views on YouTube. (Note that I sold barely 100 MP3s as a result of this colossal and unexpected exposure – which certainly made it an interesting experiment, but also a fairly solitary and unfulfilling one.) What would have made a better story would have been to wangle a gig in a Parisian squat where the electrics are dodgy, suffer a massive electric shock off a mike stand, get carried from the building while everyone cheers loudly, be left rubbing your head while slumped against the side of your van, the promoter takes advantage of the confusion by running off with the mixing desk which he's holding ransom because he claims that the PA company owe him money, at which point you realise that you're not going to get paid, and you look at your fellow band members, and then you start to cry. That's the story I'd rather tell, and frankly it's the story I'd rather hear. Music's biggest function, from time immemorial, has never been its capacity to make money. It's its powerful social glue. Without wishing to get all Oprah on your ass, it may be an expensive hobby, but it brings people together in an utterly unique fashion.
There really isn't any money in the biz, and there never has been much- except for a very few. But there's something powerful.
-
And what anjum said!
-
It seems clearly in the "public interest" that a man who admits to such a serious assault be seen to suffer the full legal consequences.
No prosecution just makes it seem like a high-profile offender- who publicly confesses- gets away with GBH. It doesn't only scream of double standards; it's not just. Justice has to be seen to be done. That involves prosecution of the offender, and some inquiry into who knew, when, and whether they helped to "cover up". -
Here's another castle in the air: a site where you sign up, with your bank account details, and buy music for say $1 a song. But once you've bought it, for a very small additional fee- maybe 2c- you can download it as many times as you like- so you can have it on your phone, your ipod, burn cds for your stereo- you can even give it to your mates, sign in and dl it for them- but you'd be stupid to actually let them sign in as you, cos then they'd have access to anything they wanted til YOUR money ran out.
The benefit is that your collection sits there in the sky, waiting for you to access it, any time, any where. You back the car over your ipod, or you're on the beach with your new flame, and you just have to play her THAT song- or your house burns down. No matter- your music collection is safe.
I think I'd prefer the 20-50c mp3 option, but there'd be some attraction to this model, too. Very cheap does encourage a "throwaway" attitude to recordings (and a significant change to the whole recording industry) but it could compete with free/stolen. -
I'm kind've in that league too, Danielle. Cloth ears. And a lot of my most pleasurable listening is in the car, to hissy, grubby old tapes, ripped, teehee, straight from the record decades ago.
It's the vibe I get from it I love, rather than the detailed sounds I almost never notice. But it sure helps if the initial audio quality is good, and the song well-mixed. Or you can end up straining to catch things in a pool of aural mud.