Re: GG and Napster and MP3

["Anne M. Marble" <amarble@sff.net>]

From: <WKCaine@AOL.COM>

> <snip>
>     Question:  What is the difference between Monroe's time and modern
times?
>  Answer: technology and infrastructure.  Next question:  To what extent
can
> recording artists take credit for technology and/or infrastructure?
Answer:
> probably to no extent at all.   What lesson, then, can fairly be drawn?
> Maybe:  that some recording artists are making claims to undeserved
> "compensation."

Writers didn't invent offset printing, nor did they invent the web press.
Yet I think they still deserve compensation for their materials. Most of
the people writing software today weren't even born yet when the first
computers were developed. Yet I wouldn't expect them to work for free.

This reminds me of the discussions of copyright that were taking over on
one of the science fiction newsgroups recently. Some people -- apparently
connected with Freenet -- started a discussion about the "death of
copyright." Many agreed that because of the new technology, we should get
rid of existing copyright laws. Unfortunately, none of them can think of a
way to compensate writers. They didn't realize that if the novelists they
love don't make money, they're going find another job.

> Somehow, I think that the Napster/copyright issue touches on
> fundamental concerns of the kind philosophers have long thought about.
What
> would St Thomas have thought of the issue (with his theory of the "just
> price")?  Or what conclusions would Marx  have drawn (with his labor
theory
> of value)?

Ironically, one of the individuals who was thumbing his nose at the "e-book
pirates" was SF writer Eric Flint, a writer who has been a labor union
activist. He has definitely read Marx. Yet he still believes in copyright,
and he defends his position very well.

One way he confounded the e-book pirates was by giving away his first book
by free (through his publisher at www.baen.com). This way, he gets
publicity and makes it too much trouble for people to steal the book. His
publisher also sells e-books at a lower-than-usual price. Their books are
rarely pirated -- it's easier to buy them than it is to steal them, and the
quality of the purchased book is better than the pirated copy.

...
>     Finally, and in deference to the subject of this board, what might
Glenn
> Gould have thought of it all?  He talked about anonymous Medieval artists
> (like stone-carvers working on cathedrals) making permanent contributions
> without ego or recognition beyond earning their daily keep.

True, but while GG liked this concept, I can't imagine him being satisfied
under those conditions. Besides, those conditions wouldn't work in today's
artistic world. How would an anonymous artist market himself? Artists in
Medieval times didn't have to worry about that, but artists today do. (Why
do you think Eric Flint made one of his books available for free?!)

In the copyright discussion on rec.arts.sf.written, some people suggested
that a new system of "patronage" could be established. Oh, great. Would
this mean that all writers would make their livings by writing something
that pleased Bill Gates or the Kennedys or some other wealthy patron? Can
you really see independent artists such as Glenn Gould doing this? If I
recall correctly, Bach managed to make most of his great work without a
patron for much of his life -- but he also struggled financially.

> I also seem to recall him writing that he would have been content for
others to take bits
> and pieces of his work and create something of their own.  Napster would
have
> been perfect for that, so I'm intrigued by the following question:  If
> presented with the Napster issue, would Gould have opted for copyright
> protection and years and years of royalties? or would he have opted to
> contribute (for the most part) to the general public domain -- like the
> proverbial Medieval stone-carver or Bill Monroe 60 years ago?  Ah! The
> difficult philosophical choices we face when the rubber hits the road.
:)

The concept of the artist who thought all musicians should make their money
from concerts rather than from recordings would've made GG shudder. :->

He might have liked the idea of sharing experimental work, such as the
"Idea of North." Work that people might not have sampled otherwise because
they didn't know what it was like. But then, he could've shared that
through MP3.com, just as Bradley does. (BTW it always saddens me when
people treat MP3.com with hate and scorn because they think it's like
Napster. It's obvious they've never even visited the site.)

Anne M. Marble