I like the Techdirt website. I often refer Techdirt posts. You do some great work on government surveillance and open source software development. But you do not understand respect for an artist, his/her wishes, or respect for an artist's work. I'm not sure why you don't understand and I will refrain from speculating.
I have not seen details, yet, that would lead me to the conclusion that the case against Keys is strong. If someone could point me to links that describe the evidence in detail, I'd be grateful. Thanks.
I'm a deeply cynical person. I'd rather not be cynical but I am. I don't believe we have meaningful judicial oversight that will prevent more overreach and abuse by the federal prosecutors. The amount of public outcry over Aaron Swartz would have to be enormous and sustained to budge the balance of powers to reform the judicial system. My hat is off to Techdirt for doing it's part in raising the profile of this case; cure my cynicism, please.
I know many artists who don't use a computer and could care less who controls your computer but they don't want their work defaced or trivialized. I know many artists that do not want any special dispensation. You and I have have a vastly different view on art, and what it means to be an artist. In the society you advocate, the price would be a world saturated with cheap reproductions masquerading as creative art. We are well on the way to that model.
My apology is offered if I misrepresented your position. My orphan metaphor was not well stated. I don't see how you can deny that the discussion of ownership of original works of art is not about artists. If you don't understand my example about Dali/Van Vliet, then I think our perspectives on art and how it relates to business are on different planes never to intersect. Oh well. When original art is appropriated for cheap knockoffs, you seem to think that it somehow benefits the original artist who does not want his original work degraded. I have to wonder if you have ever been offended by cheap imitations of great art. Like I said, I still agree with what you and Techdirt do a great percentage of the time so keep up the great work.
Some interesting discussion, but not much depth. I can't believe MOMA honors a guy that promotes plagiarism as poetry. What a load of BS. As for you and Lowery, sometimes it sounds like a personal grudge match, Mike Masnick. I don't agree with Lowery, but I think he understands more about artists. Artists don't have to be entrepreneurs and many don't want to be. Dali was sponsored and if he wasn't, we wouldn't have as many paintings by him. The same could be said for recording artists like Don Van Vliet. The idea that Van Vliet would be an entrepreneur is absurd. I like Techdirt. Your stands against patent scams and CISPA is why I recommend you, but I think you do not do yourself (or anyone) a favor by being an advocate for turning artists into orphans.
Totally agree. Techdirt has a knee jerk reaction when it should be responding to the complete disrespect of the author's/artist's original work and wishes. If Beste and "mashers" like him think they have some kind of talent, they should develop their own characters and comics or stories.
Agree with your last point and it is huge. Artists who have been unable to promote their work for personal reasons can use and appreciate the support of small labels. It would be nice to hear from the recording artists that benefited from labels like Sire and IRS. I'm a big believer in disintermediation for most businesses but I don't think it can be applied as a blanket solution.
Many artists do not think about "connecting with the public." An artist with a personal version may not connect with the public. Further, many artists believe that shaping their art to make the public love them and support them is not art. I remember when California supported artists with tax money, including artists that would never be popular with a large segment of the public. I don't believe there is a market solution to art and many countries in the world still recognize that fact.
I think you should post this again at the beginning of a thread. By the time you posted this, the topic had been abandoned. It is a really good point. I don't want to see tunes by Neil Young or Lou Reed appearing in cheap TV ads...
I detest the RIAA and their army of lawyers but I can see why an artist would want a label. If an artist or band does not have any support, he/they could spend all their time managing the business when he/they could be writing new material or refining their craft/art. Even bands that toured for years without label support, like REM, probably jumped at the chance to put more time into their music instead of organizing a tour etc.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by markmeld.