From: christine smallwood (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jun 16 2005 - 10:36:25 PDT
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:47:32 -0400
From: Sam Wells <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: FRAMEWORKS Digest - 16 Jun 2005 - Special
issue
(#2005-337)
> That is totally not the same thing! And that is
> precisely the problem -- that we treat intellectual
> property like material property, that we make these
> analogies at all.
Why not, that laptop's just a mechanical iteration of
another laptop.
As is its operating system and applications.
Oh you say, it's got - what's that on it's hard drive
? His work ? But
that's intellectual property, doesn't that belong to
all of us ?
And I mean he's got it backed up, right ?
Hey. I'm not really so dogmatic. But some of these
attitudes are so
glib, and honestly the rationales, although dressed up
in
"anti-capitalist", "anti-commodity culture" clothing
sound akin to the
thoughts of your average Hwood Producer or
distributor: " the idea of
total ownership of one's artworks is a little bit
ridiculous,"
-Sam
Funny, I would have described my attitudes as sincere
and idealistic, not glib. But that's how I might have
described the laptop example.
You bring up producers and distributors, which just
goes to prove my point -- artists don't own their own
works, anyway. The problem is with the existing
channels of distribution. Look, obviously I think that
intention matters and getting paid matters -- I'm not
saying we should burn all the reels and only have
videos shot inside theaters with people's heads in
them. but you can see a film in 16mm and own the DVD,
and you can buy a mixtape full of bootlegs and go to a
live show. Is that not glib enough for you?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.