Re: GG and Napster and MP3

[WKCaine@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/21/00 6:09:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bpl@UMICH.EDU
writes:

<< I make my living from Intellectual Property and rely on the
 > > world to respect it in order to make my living from it. >>

    First, let me introduce myself as a first-time poster.  I have long
followed the board and enjoy all I read and learn.
    Respecting the above quote, I'm reminded of a TV documentary on Bill
Monroe, the great bluegrass musician.  He told the story of a Nashville
recording studio inviting him to come to Nashville to make a recording in the
1940s when the recording industry was just getting started.  Back in the
1940s, of course, making records was not a basis for musicians to earn
enormous sums of money, so  Monroe said he "didn't have time" because he "was
too busy making a living."  Making a living was, for course, going from one
job to another, performing his music in person for a fee.  Monroe told the
story, of course, to contrast his experience with today's situation.  Today,
making a record is hitting paydirt because records can lead to riches and
fame.
    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."  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)?  And what about the details of the copyright statute?  Were they
handed down to Moses on the Mount, or are they transitory policy judgments
that were formulated in pre-high-tech times?  Might copyright protection be
overly extensive such that Napster is an equitable reaction?   At what point
does "compensation" for intellectual creativity slip into unearned windfall?
Would a one-year copyright protection suffice to protect artists' equitable
claims?  A two-year protection?  Five?  John Rawls, the social philosopher,
said something about the social system needing to provide enough incentive to
keep people creative and productive, but not providing for much beyond that.
Is Rawls' thought relevant to Napster?  Is his thinking justified?   How much
"compensation" does a rock star deserve?
    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.  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.  :)
WK Caine.
PS:  Unless bpl@UMICH.EDU  is a super-rich rock star, I hope he/she
understands that the above is not directed to him/her.  It's really directed
to people who feel that Napster is cheating them in their just rewards when
rewards are measured in huge sums of money.  Obviously, copyright laws are
important and make certain creative activity possible.  WKC