Well said. I only take issue with your assertion that it is a useful legal compromise. It being useful is entirely dependent upon who you are.
For someone who partakes in the shared cultural tapestry it could come to be that the legal compromise ends up an oppressive force.
For instance, if you went to clubs in your youth, that music became part of your shared culture. When you are older you will struggle to revisit that same shared culture by those using intellectual property legalities to paywall your soul.
When you are older you will struggle to revisit that same shared culture by those using intellectual property legalities to paywall your soul.
Again, you are fully entitled and within you legal right to sing those songs to your heart’s content to relive the glory days; that does not mean that you are entitled to a high fidelity recording of the original work in perpetuity simply because you paid to listen to it once at a club…
Yeah, so, 50 years later, when you can barely remember the lyrics, you drift from said culture unless you can you know, listen and refresh your memory. That is my entire point. Intellectual property rights paywall culture, and not in a healthy way.
We are currently living in a world with an absolutely fractured culture where very few feel connected to anyone. This is a contributing factor.
I don’t misunderstand what you are saying, but the results are all around us for taking this approach and are only going to get worse as we atomize more.
500 years ago people would get together in the same space and would sing it together. We still have that in pockets, but that isn’t how it is done now.
IP law absolutely does not maintain integrity or cultural significance. You are out of your mind if you think that it is not enabling rampant capitalist exploitation. It has literally given a handful of companies complete power over all of it.
You are out of your mind if you think that it is not enabling rampant capitalist exploitation. It has literally given a handful of companies complete power over all of it.
Sounds like your problem is with artists selling their IP to corporations… And frankly with yourself for not creating more, or engaging in communal practice.
Stop blaming some big bad for your own lack of social engagement.
Well said. I only take issue with your assertion that it is a useful legal compromise. It being useful is entirely dependent upon who you are.
For someone who partakes in the shared cultural tapestry it could come to be that the legal compromise ends up an oppressive force.
For instance, if you went to clubs in your youth, that music became part of your shared culture. When you are older you will struggle to revisit that same shared culture by those using intellectual property legalities to paywall your soul.
Again, you are fully entitled and within you legal right to sing those songs to your heart’s content to relive the glory days; that does not mean that you are entitled to a high fidelity recording of the original work in perpetuity simply because you paid to listen to it once at a club…
Yeah, so, 50 years later, when you can barely remember the lyrics, you drift from said culture unless you can you know, listen and refresh your memory. That is my entire point. Intellectual property rights paywall culture, and not in a healthy way.
We are currently living in a world with an absolutely fractured culture where very few feel connected to anyone. This is a contributing factor.
I don’t misunderstand what you are saying, but the results are all around us for taking this approach and are only going to get worse as we atomize more.
How would you have maintained your memory of that song and culture 500 years ago? What stops you from doing the same thing now?
Any problem you describe is the result of individual choices, not technology or IP law.
If anything, IP law maintains the integrity and cultural significance of creation by not allowing rampant capitalist exploitation…
500 years ago people would get together in the same space and would sing it together. We still have that in pockets, but that isn’t how it is done now.
IP law absolutely does not maintain integrity or cultural significance. You are out of your mind if you think that it is not enabling rampant capitalist exploitation. It has literally given a handful of companies complete power over all of it.
Sounds like your problem is with artists selling their IP to corporations… And frankly with yourself for not creating more, or engaging in communal practice.
Stop blaming some big bad for your own lack of social engagement.
What does social engagement have to do with any of this? We are talking about ownership of culture.
Why are you defending oligarchy of culture? You have made some amazing leaps in logic here that are not even remotely based in the objective.
Oligarchy has nothing to do with you choosing not to share in song with your neighbors. You’re making shitty excuses for your laziness.
Where did I ever say I was choosing to not share a song with my neighbors? Who are you arguing with?