[NetBehaviour] response: Copyfarleft and Copyjustright

[marc garrett]

Hi Dmytri,

Good to hear from you,

I think that you have made some fair points here, I just want to mention 
that the text's that you are referring to below were written by Rob in 
response to my original post o the list.

Even though I did agree with Rob's mail at the time. I now feel that it 
is actually much more of a complex issue and deserves more discussion 
around the subject.

After the email dialogue regarding your essay, I received an interesting 
personal post from a Netbehaviour list-user who highlighted some pretty 
interesting issues, that were real life references regarding another 
artists experience that contradicted the overall direction of what was 
being discussed. This was helpful in making me realise that, perhaps 
things are little more complicated than was originally considered, 
contextually.

So, I thank you for contacting for it was preying on my mind.

I am emailing your text to the list to give others a chance to add their 
own interpretations if they wish and repasting the link to your article 
as well.http://www.metamute.org/en/Copyfarleft-and-Copyjustright

Wishing you well.

marc
> Hello Marc, I cam across your comments, I am not a member of the list 
> they where posted on, but I thought I would respond directly.
>
> > www.metamute.org/en/Copyfarleft-and-Copyjustright
>
> > Mute have been excellent at publishing articles that constructively
> > question received wisdom from free software, free culture and their
> > opponents but I found that this article wasn't based on a good
> > understanding of the issues.
>
> I am curious why you comment om my understanding of the issues, as you 
> can not possibly know my background, instead of simply refuting 
> whatever ideas you found incorrect.
>
> > Like Lessig on a bad day, it accepts the starving artist lone genius
> > mythology peddled by the RIAA and tries to protect artists from
> > economic loss in the face of copyleft
>
> Not sure how you could possibly read this into what I wrote, as this 
> is not my understanding at all, as I clearly express in this article 
> written (with Joanne Richardson):
>
> http://www.telekommunisten.net/Copyright%2C_Copyleft_and_the_Creative_Anti-Commons 
>
>
> The Copyfarleft and Copyjustright takes a very clearly materialist 
> approach to the artist, and not a "lone genius" one, which is an idea 
> I have been disputing for over a decade.
>
> > . This is a pre-Napster,
> > pre-MySpace worldview that doesn't understand the economics of the
> > music industry or the sociology of creativity.
>
> Again you make the ad hominem, "Doesn't understand" but do not 
> specifically refute any actual proposition mode.
>
> > This is compounded by a
> > failure to see the economic irony of copyleft, or how copyleft
> > prevents alienation of labour value.
>
> Which is odd, because I have written at length about these things, 
> including the article I link above. Not sure where you are reading 
> this again.
>
> > And by ignoring other authors
> > writings on the property question and IP; notably Stallman's "Why
> > Software Should Not Have Owners" which would undermine its opening
> > claims, and Lessig's writing on rent-seeking which would make some of
> > its claims seem less novel.
>
> I make no claims to novelty, which I find an uninteresting measure. I 
> am however familiar and have communicated with both Lessig and 
> Stallman. I wonder what specific issue you mean to raise, rather than 
> simply another ad homenem related to my knowledge of other work.
>
> > It's an interesting read but deeply flawed.
>
> I am glad you found it interesting, personally, I find your comments 
> dismissive and groundless, but in anycase, I am glad to see the 
> article being discussed.
>
> Feel free to repost this response to your discussion list if you like,
>
> Cheers.
>
>
>