Art and Intellectual Property

[noblesavage]

Have you ever thought that there are not enough artists in our society? Have you ever felt the urge to be an artist but felt chained to your shitty corporate job? Do you feel like you are being slowly suffocated in a capitalistic society that miss-values art as a commodity to be reduced to its lowest common detonator: force fed pop culture from MTV or Clear Channel?

"Intellectual property" (a very confusing term) has meaning that is very specific to the legal community. This legal community predominately defends the rights of the RIAA/MPA, Microsoft, Sony, and the elite of the global community.

Do you think you are getting shafted?

[Dingfod]

The one intellectual property that bugs me is copyright, the expiration is waaaaaaaaaaay too long, 50 to 120 years? Too long. Invention or utility patents expire after 20 years, design patents expire after 14, orphan drugs after 7, and new chemicals after 5. Why so long for the other "intellectual property"? I don't think you are allowed use a Mickey Mouse image for free until old Walt's been dead for 95 years, just another 57 years to go.

[Adora]

What's your point, exactly?

[noblesavage]

The one intellectual property that bugs me is copyright, the expiration is waaaaaaaaaaay too long, 50 to 120 years? Too long. Invention or utility patents expire after 20 years, design patents expire after 14, orphan drugs after 7, and new chemicals after 5. Why so long for the other "intellectual property"? I don't think you are allowed use a Mickey Mouse image for free until old Walt's been dead for 95 years, just another 57 years to go.

I agree with you warrenly. It's fairly easy to make a compelling case that the IP law junta is not representing "our" interests. However, I'm trying to examine this from the other end. What does it mean to us in our day to day lives? Do we live in a cultural vacuum? Is creativity valued incorrectly?

I was listing to my girlfriend play the piano last night, she's really good. She also likes to paint and write. It struck me that she has never been able to make the most of her skill because she has been trapped in the world of investment banking.

I'm sure a lot of us on this discussion board enjoy writing and have often wished we had the time to do more of it and not be handcuffed by all the day to day BS that is required to live in our modern world.

A lot of computer programmers would prefer to work on their pet project or write beautiful elegant code, yet they are forced to crank out IP in a factory like setting.

How could things be better?

[wildernesse]

What is keeping you chained to your unfulfilling jobs? Why does your gf work as an investment banker when she would be happier being creative all day?

What are these requirements that you're talking about? Perhaps they aren't really required.

If you hate the day-to-day, what's your plan of escape?

[viscousmemories]

Have you ever thought that there are not enough artists in our society? Have you ever felt the urge to be an artist but felt chained to your shitty corporate job? Do you feel like you are being slowly suffocated in a capitalistic society that miss-values art as a commodity to be reduced to its lowest common detonator: force fed pop culture from MTV or Clear Channel?
I'm not sure if I'd say there aren't enough artists, but I agree that it seems to be virtually impossible to make a living as one. I've always wished I could make enough to live on just doing creative writing, because for me having to work a regular job in a typically uncreative environment sucks up all of my mental/emotional energy. I remember from a very young age people telling me "You're so imaginative and such a great writer, it's too bad you can't count on making a living at it."

"Intellectual property" (a very confusing term) has meaning that is very specific to the legal community. This legal community predominately defends the rights of the RIAA/MPA, Microsoft, Sony, and the elite of the global community.

Do you think you are getting shafted?
That seems to be the case, but I'm not sure how it's related to the first part. It seems like it has been impossible for people to make a living creating art for much longer than IP, the RIAA or Microsoft have been around. Isn't it more a question of what we value as a society? If there was a market for alternative fiction, wouldn't it be possible for someone other than John Grisham to make a living writing stories?

[Lauri D]

I'm not sure if I'd say there aren't enough artists, but I agree that it seems to be virtually impossible to make a living as one. I've always wished I could make enough to live on just doing creative writing, because for me having to work a regular job in a typically uncreative environment sucks up all of my mental/emotional energy. I remember from a very young age people telling me "You're so imaginative and such a great writer, it's too bad you can't count on making a living at it." I'm right there with ya on this, Tom. I think a lot of people fail to understand the mental/emotional energy "drainage" issue (more people than I can count have not understood my frustration with my current job keeping me from writing, saying "you have the evenings and weekends though..." :sadcheer:

[noblesavage]

What is keeping you chained to your unfulfilling jobs? Why does your gf work as an investment banker when she would be happier being creative all day?

What are these requirements that you're talking about? Perhaps they aren't really required.

If you hate the day-to-day, what's your plan of escape?
Not long ago I was preparing to be Corporate America's wet dream and a good little liberal Republican. I finished my second degree in accounting and I enrolled in law school. Sometime before I graduated it dawned on me that I would go insane in a law factory. I would rather be in prison where my friends could send me books. I graduated, but made the conscious decision to not practice law. I'm not hand cuffed to anything, but it's difficult to reach escape velocity. My girlfriend does have a plan of escape and we are working on it. We are both struggling with this and I'm just looking to find out if others feel the same way. Yes, I understand that we are luckier than most, but I don't think that minimizes the feeling of frustration.

[noblesavage]

I agree that it seems to be virtually impossible to make a living as one. I've always wished I could make enough to live on just doing creative writing, because for me having to work a regular job in a typically uncreative environment sucks up all of my mental/emotional energy. I remember from a very young age people telling me "You're so imaginative and such a great writer, it's too bad you can't count on making a living at it."

FWIW, you are a very good writer and I don't think there is a damn thing wrong with doing something you love for a living. Don't we all have that dream? Do you think the system is geared to help us or work against us?

Perhaps we have the wrong definition of "artist". Try this definition on for size: an artist is some one who uses their specific skill to live life in a beautiful way that informs others how to live.

Has the artist been marginalized in the quest for profits?

[JoeP]

There are issues around IP law, all kinds of big fat ones. But I don't think they have anything to do with why there aren't as many visible artists.

In fact there are millions of artists. Probably 20%-50% of any given community have serious artistic ability (including your colleagues in your open-plan corporate office) and 5-10% of any bunch of people actually express art, drawing, writing, playing instruments, with real ability. But we don't realise they're there and count them, because it's so hard to get commercial expression, and something in our culture undervalues ad-hoc artistic expression (so that plenty of people are afraid to expose what they do, or even try).

The flip side is, would any of us - me, say - be prepared to drop a steady income and write? Hardly. Spare time doesn't work because of that mental energy gap. So it's a real all-or-nothing decision. When you apply for a job, you get offered a salary. When you commit to an artistic life, no one offers you anything until you have a product. I don't think my mortgage lender, or the grocery store, or my wife and daughter who need those things too, would be quite as ready to make the commitment.

I suppose what's missing is not better IP law, but the old idyllic* social structures where life didn't cost so much, your extended family would support you, and/or bits of art could be bartered for food and shelter.

* meaning I don't suppose there ever was such a state of affairs.

[noblesavage]

I suppose what's missing is not better IP law, but the old idyllic* social structures where life didn't cost so much, your extended family would support you, and/or bits of art could be bartered for food and shelter.


I think I could make a compelling thesis that the law informs and creates the social structures.

[JoeP]

I suppose what's missing is not better IP law, but the old idyllic* social structures where life didn't cost so much, your extended family would support you, and/or bits of art could be bartered for food and shelter.


I think I could make a compelling thesis that the law informs and creates the social structures.
The podium is yours!

[Adora]

I still don't get the point of this thread. Are we talking about constrictive economic practices that lead to unhappy employees or music intellectual property rights?

force fed pop culture from MTV or Clear Channel
Oh do fuck off. You are not force-fed anything. I don't know if lower primates have yet discovered this, but there is this thing on a TV called a OFF SWITCH. Use it.

I suppose what's missing is not better IP law, but the old idyllic* social structures where life didn't cost so much, your extended family would support you, and/or bits of art could be bartered for food and shelter.
There was as much pop culture, bad treatment of artists, and probably unhappy traders yearning to play the lute back in the Renaissance as there is now.

When you apply for a job, you get offered a salary. When you commit to an artistic life, no one offers you anything until you have a product.
That's not necessarily true. For example, many farmers are forward-paid for their crops by companies before they even have the crop planted. And also, there's a wide range of "artistic lives" out there. Not everyone is a suffering artist/writer/poet/sculptor. Many are successful graphic designers, book illustrators, freelance architects, web designers, character/game/set/object designers for video game and movie companies, animators, or hell, successful comic book artists.

You really need to get rid of the old idea of Teh Suffering Artiste. It may be one of the great misconceptions about the creative industries holding people back from pursuing a life in one.

[D. Scarlatti]

Have you ever thought that there are not enough artists in our society?

I think there are too many. Have you ever found anyone's "personal poetry page" on the internet? Gah.

Do you think you are getting shafted?

No. I try not to patronize the Shit Factory.

[noblesavage]

I suppose what's missing is not better IP law, but the old idyllic* social structures where life didn't cost so much, your extended family would support you, and/or bits of art could be bartered for food and shelter.


I think I could make a compelling thesis that the law informs and creates the social structures.
The podium is yours!


Check out this News Week article about The Factory of the Future

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6478691/site/newsweek/

Is this the kind of world you want to live in? I'll get to the legal analysis as I can.

[noblesavage]

...

[noblesavage]

Adora,

Based on your title, "fuck the social order" I'm assuming you are not pleased with the state of the world? Or maybe you just enjoy your little sewer?

I personally find your attitude childish, because some of us do care. Some of the best minds and scholars including Laurence Lessig, James Boil, Mark Lemay have said there is a better way. Perhaps, you don't give a shit, but I do.

[dave_a]

Have you ever thought that there are not enough artists in our society?

No, I think there are way too many producing the same crap as the next one. Ever been to an art fair where there are 20 booths selling junk jewelry and birdhouses?

Have you ever felt the urge to be an artist but felt chained to your shitty corporate job?

No, I like photography and have considered selling photos at art fairs for quite some time. All I am presently waiting for is for the price of 20 megapixel digital cameras to fall more and a little more ambition to strike me. I don't think I will ever make a living at it, but I think it could add to my income and be fun at the same time. Of course the real reason I need more ambition to actually do this is because I would have to spend weekends at the art fairs instead of screwing off.

Do you feel like you are being slowly suffocated in a capitalistic society that miss-values art as a commodity to be reduced to its lowest common detonator: force fed pop culture from MTV or Clear Channel?

No, I think that there is a huge market for reasonably priced, original artwork. The primary trouble is finding a good outlet to offer it at. Folks don't seem to spend much time shopping for art. There is also no shortage of large sources for photographs on the net such as webshots.com so trying to offer one's own stuff on the web is difficult. One pretty much needs to set up a mom and pop type shop or stand at a market and have good people/sales skills.

"Intellectual property" (a very confusing term) has meaning that is very specific to the legal community. This legal community predominately defends the rights of the RIAA/MPA, Microsoft, Sony, and the elite of the global community.

I think IP law largely protects those with sufficient funds to hire the attorneys.

Do you think you are getting shafted?

No, I think anything we wish to do in order to make a profit involves competing in the market place. There will always be adversity and obstacles to overcome in identifying and implementing a successfull business model.

Those who succeed figure out a means to do it and have the ambition to implement their plan.

I think I have the means to make if profitable enough to be worth the time, but I don't presently have the ambition. As soon as I can afford a pro quality 20 megapixel digicam that might change. I have all sorts of shots stored in my mind that I want to take and think others will be interested in buying and hanging above their fireplace.

[noblesavage]

No, I think anything we wish to do in order to make a profit involves competing in the market place. There will always be adversity and obstacles to overcome in identifying and implementing a successfull business model.

I agree, and I don't have a problem with free enterprise. But would you agree that the playing filed is not very level? Speaking as a business man and entrepreneur with a little bit of experience on what it is like to be the little guy, it doesn't take long for the blinders to fall off. When you get ass deep in paperwork you quickly come face to face with what is described in contract law as "unequal bargaining power."

[noblesavage]

Ok, I lied; I'm not going to get to the legal analysis. I'm currently talking with some of my old law professors and various other people that have thought about this long and hard. I want to make sure I have all my bases covered and footnotes double checked. This will not happen soon, because it's a big wooly body of law and like most people I still have to earn a living.

I didn't have a point when I started this thread, rather I was trying to illicit intelligent feedback, and I thank those of you who have provided that.

My main concern is that the IP debate SHOULD not be allowed to slip under the radar of the democratic process. As it stands now, corporations are all angling to control what will be our digital future. I'll quote from Newsweek:
In this new world, intellectual property is every company's most prized possession—and biggest vulnerability. It has already become America's No. 1 product and export: last year in the United States, for example, movie sales in theaters and as DVDs and videos exceeded the overall sales of steel.

If I can stress anything at this point, it is merely that "the people" need to have their interests represented. History is replete with examples, from the beginning of the industrial revolution up to today, that demonstrate the proclivities of large corporations. Sure, their plan sounds great when presented by their PR drones, but we best be looking out for our collective asses.

A group at Stanford has proposed one alternative way with their Creative Commons licensing. www.creativecommons.org

As a proof of concept I put some CC music on the web that is legal to share, rip, mix, etc. (Be careful to check the actual license, because some songs do not allow sampling).

www.godlessheathens.org/music/

[wildernesse]

Not long ago I was preparing to be Corporate America's wet dream and a good little liberal Republican. I finished my second degree in accounting and I enrolled in law school. Sometime before I graduated it dawned on me that I would go insane in a law factory. I would rather be in prison where my friends could send me books. I graduated, but made the conscious decision to not practice law. I'm not hand cuffed to anything, but it's difficult to reach escape velocity. My girlfriend does have a plan of escape and we are working on it. We are both struggling with this and I'm just looking to find out if others feel the same way. Yes, I understand that we are luckier than most, but I don't think that minimizes the feeling of frustration.

I can imagine the frustration that comes from working in corporate America--and that's why I'm not having any part of it. Once I settled in my head that I would never practice law in a big firm, I felt much more secure about actually going to law school myself. It is frustrating that so many seem to focus on that, and that many people who would not choose to work for one of those firms feel that they have to, in order to pay their bills. My friends and I often discuss that much of our education is geared toward shuttling us through one of those law factories, as you put it, and not nearly enough towards being public interest attorneys or other careers that would be very suitable for someone w/ a JD. I have the absolute luxury of having had a couple of internships within "best places to work" firms, which allowed me to observe corporate life and showed me that if those were the best places to work, then I really wanted nothing to do with them--and the very much added bonus of no debt from any of my education.

For me, it's not all that frustrating, because I've pretty much been at peace with not going the corporate route for years now. Yeah, that means that I won't make 100k right out of school--but so? I'm not making any now, so even 30k looks pretty good to me. I'm slowly getting over the "requirements", but since you've not really addressed this, perhaps we're talking about two different things--in fact, I'm pretty sure you are talking about two different things, in general: 1) current status of IP and the state of the arts; 2) frustration with the day to day things that prevent you from doing what you want. Of course, these may be intertwined, but I think it would be better if the connection were more explicit. IMO.

I also agree with Adora that I'm not being forcefed much--maybe fashion, but as much as I love clothes, I hate paying for them so I'm not incredibly stylish. And I don't feel as if I'm being forcefed a specific arts culture--but that's because I'm currently living in Athens, GA, which has a decently strong arts scene. Maybe I'm wrong, and the bale of sod that is currently resting on the pedestal outside Dodd is some kind of gigantic Hollywood ploy to make me see I Heart Huckabees.

[noblesavage]

1) current status of IP and the state of the arts; 2) frustration with the day to day things that prevent you from doing what you want. Of course, these may be intertwined, but I think it would be better if the connection were more explicit. IMO.

Yes, that is a much cleaner method of analysis. However, deconstructing that which may be intertwined often takes your eyes off the ball. If we are going to open up the IP debate and let the sun shine in, we have to ask ourselves very serious and philosophical questions about the world we live in now and the world we are creating.


I also agree with Adora that I'm not being forcefed much--maybe fashion, but as much as I love clothes, I hate paying for them so I'm not incredibly stylish.

Force fed was probably the wrong word. How about collective enabling? I do know that that studies have been done concerning the decrease of diversity in radio music once Clear Channel took over the air waves. There is also a very good article in Wired Mag about the "Tyranny of the lowest common dominator", but it also demonstrates how internet technology may change that.

[Adora]

I personally find your attitude childish, because some of us do care.
So care about what, exactly? I still don't get the point of this thread. Are you talking about intellectual property rights for musicians, inventors and the like, or are you talking about individuals frustrated with their lot in life, who wish to use their creativity more? I care about both, and I'm not sure how you got the impression I didn't, but you're gonna have to be a bit specific here, since the two subjects can be quite far from each other (and also, quite close). What the fuck are you talking about?

Some of the best minds and scholars including Laurence Lessig, James Boil, Mark Lemay have said there is a better way.
Yeah well, those names mean jack squat to me, living on the other side of the world and all, so maybe you're going to have to cough up some specifics of what they're talking about.

Perhaps, you don't give a shit, but I do.
Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups. I still advocate the use of the OFF button though.

One pretty much needs to set up a mom and pop type shop or stand at a market and have good people/sales skills.
Or have something original, different and creative to offer. The world is full of shots of cute puppies, flowers, and close-ups of water on leaves. There is, however, only one Robert Mapplethorpe, because he dares to do what no-one else would. There is only one Anne Geddes, because (no matter how sickening I may think her work is), she cornered an original niche market.

Now, IP stands on two fronts- idealised ownership of a creator, and the cash. Unfortunately, the second one tends to be the driving force in today's capitalist markets. Rarely do people give a fuck about IP when no money is being made from its exploitation (eg-fandom). It only makes people get shitty when it comes to profit-making piracy. If you're a writer in Australia, no matter how much you value your IP, as a general rule you simply can't live off your earnings. Of each of your book that sells for say 20 bucks, you end up getting $1.80. The same goes for musicians. The record industry is bitching about the IP of musicians, when it's just a cover for the fact they're scared the bubble they've been in for the last 10 or so years is going to burst thanks to the web, and instead of thinking of decent ways to sell music online, they're persecuting kids downloading music in their rooms (and the only thing that has actually declined in my country is single sales, which makes sense. CD sales are actually up).

[noblesavage]

So care about what, exactly? I still don't get the point of this thread. Are you talking about intellectual property rights for musicians, inventors and the like, or are you talking about individuals frustrated with their lot in life, who wish to use their creativity more?

Do you honestly think the #1 export in the US, intellectual property, has absolutely no bearing on our day to day lives and the frustrations we experience? The lobbyists in DC and those working at WIPO would love for you to never ask certain questions. If I complained about the factory stench nearby and tied that in with environmental policy, would you still be confused?




Yeah well, those names mean jack squat to me, living on the other side of the world and all, so maybe you're going to have to cough up some specifics of what they're talking about.

Google


I still advocate the use of the OFF button though.
The OFF button won't do you much good when the ON button has been marganalized and wraped in digital rights managment.


Now, IP stands on two fronts

IP law stands on many fronts, it is multifaceted, and cuts across traditional ideological lines. It's what is called a wedge issue. You have only oversimplified the matter.

[Dingfod]

I sort of don't understand the point of this thread either. Are there too many artists? I don't know, but for most that dream of a career as an artists cannot make a living doing what they love to do, and Intellectual Property laws have little or nothing to do with it. How many artists and composers have signed away their IP rights to their work so they can pay the rent or put food on the table? Many, I would suppose. I'm not sure I'm making any sense either, so I quit now.

[beyelzu]

I still don't get the point of this thread. Are we talking about constrictive economic practices that lead to unhappy employees or music intellectual property rights?

force fed pop culture from MTV or Clear Channel
Oh do fuck off. You are not force-fed anything. I don't know if lower primates have yet discovered this, but there is this thing on a TV called a OFF SWITCH. Use it.

I suppose what's missing is not better IP law, but the old idyllic* social structures where life didn't cost so much, your extended family would support you, and/or bits of art could be bartered for food and shelter.
There was as much pop culture, bad treatment of artists, and probably unhappy traders yearning to play the lute back in the Renaissance as there is now.

When you apply for a job, you get offered a salary. When you commit to an artistic life, no one offers you anything until you have a product.
That's not necessarily true. For example, many farmers are forward-paid for their crops by companies before they even have the crop planted. And also, there's a wide range of "artistic lives" out there. Not everyone is a suffering artist/writer/poet/sculptor. Many are successful graphic designers, book illustrators, freelance architects, web designers, character/game/set/object designers for video game and movie companies, animators, or hell, successful comic book artists.

You really need to get rid of the old idea of Teh Suffering Artiste. It may be one of the great misconceptions about the creative industries holding people back from pursuing a life in one.


I find myself in the strange position of complete agreement with your post here.

also, I never deconstructed your argument in the other thread because

1. I dont feel up to it, I am sicker than hell

and

2. I kind of agree with alot of what you said.


So, I have now agreed with you twice in as many days, can the armageddon be far behind? :D

[beyelzu]

So care about what, exactly? I still don't get the point of this thread. Are you talking about intellectual property rights for musicians, inventors and the like, or are you talking about individuals frustrated with their lot in life, who wish to use their creativity more?

Do you honestly think the #1 export in the US, intellectual property, has absolutely no bearing on our day to day lives and the frustrations we experience? The lobbyists in DC and those working at WIPO would love for you to never ask certain questions. If I complained about the factory stench nearby and tied that in with environmental policy, would you still be confused?

not addressed to me but what the fuck. in for a penny in for a fucking pound. I have no idea what the fuck you are getting at right here. You might want to consider two different things. one strong ip laws make it possible for writers to make a living while at the same time it can conceivably prohibit artists as well. also, as was posted in another thread and touched on in this one, all ip is not created equal. Patents arent the same as trademarks which arent the same as songs and so forth. while I agree that shit should enter public domain more quickly than is the case currently, I also dont think intellectual property rights is the root of all evil.




Yeah well, those names mean jack squat to me, living on the other side of the world and all, so maybe you're going to have to cough up some specifics of what they're talking about.

Google
you brought them up, you explain their importance to this discussion. otherwise you arent making much of an argument with a list of names. which is pretty much what I told adora when she did similar in a different thread.


I still advocate the use of the OFF button though.
The OFF button won't do you much good when the ON button has been marganalized and wraped in digital rights managment. I am afraid that I do not see your point as I have little problem finding artists that havent enjoyed much mainstream success.


Now, IP stands on two fronts

IP law stands on many fronts, it is multifaceted, and cuts across traditional ideological lines. It's what is called a wedge issue. You have only oversimplified the matter.
well, I see the casting of ip as the root of all evil that you have done to be even more oversimplified.

[noblesavage]

I sort of don't understand the point of this thread either. <snip> I'm not sure I'm making any sense either, so I quit now.

I didn't really have a point. I'm just asking questions to see whear they lead. I was looking for a discussion, not a debate.

I tied IP Law with Art, because they are linked in some manner, and it's often overlooked when debating the minutia of law and social policy.

[wildernesse]

Yes, that is a much cleaner method of analysis. However, deconstructing that which may be intertwined often takes your eyes off the ball. If we are going to open up the IP debate and let the sun shine in, we have to ask ourselves very serious and philosophical questions about the world we live in now and the world we are creating.


I think you're being more difficult than necessary, which is really hindering any discussion that would be possible along these lines. If you want to generate a discussion, you're going to have to start somewhere--and if there's a complex issue (or several) involved, it only makes sense to understand the components before you understand the interaction.

I think that if you first looked at the social world we are creating, and then looked at how IP influences that, we could have a discussion. I think that is the proper time order, because I disagree with you that the law is creating the social structures--too often the law is playing catch-up, especially with regard to the internet.


Force fed was probably the wrong word. How about collective enabling? I do know that that studies have been done concerning the decrease of diversity in radio music once Clear Channel took over the air waves. There is also a very good article in Wired Mag about the "Tyranny of the lowest common dominator", but it also demonstrates how internet technology may change that.

Well, I think that there is a good argument that deregulation that allowed large corporations to consolidate their control over a variety of media outlets means a less diverse marketplace of ideas. Where is the connection between intellectual property (who owns what creative product and for how long) laws and deregulation of media outlets (how many x can a corporation own)? I ask, because I'm not at all interested in intellectual property law and can probably no longer distinguish between copyrights, trademarks and service marks correctly. Or something like that--and that might just be the extent of my IP knowledge. I'm just not seeing the connection between Band X holding a copyright to their song and whether or not it ever gets airplay in south Georgia because Clear Channel doesn't like their message--or how exactly this ties into this attempted discussion.

[Adora]

I find myself in the strange position of complete agreement with your post here.
And I agree with you that it must be the first sign of the apocalypse ^.~. And that's the second sign.

1. I dont feel up to it, I am sicker than hell
Poor thing. What've you got?

Do you honestly think the #1 export in the US, intellectual property, has absolutely no bearing on our day to day lives and the frustrations we experience?
Er, "frustrations", for me, on the other side of the planet? Er, no. My frustrations revolve around trying to find a stupid job, and stressing over university study. So starting thinking about the "our" and the "us" you're talking about here. Also, how is it rated as "the numbah won!" export, exactly? In terms of economic power, cultural influence, quantity of product? Please clarify, because you have to remember, though it may be the biggest export, there are still places that are affected by issues other than IP rights (like, oh, I dunno, soft drink companies destroying water supply in India and Pakistan) and media circles where it means jack squat (like Bollywood, which Hollywood can't begin to compare to).

Google
I have pr0n to waste monthly bandwidth limits on.

The OFF button won't do you much good when the ON button has been marganalized and wraped in digital rights managment.
Bitch Puh-lease. You can't seriously tell me there is absolutely nowhere around you that you can access independent or at least marginalised media, anywhere? How about student radio? Public access TV? Subscription media? Freelance magazines and the street press? Nothing, at all?

IP law stands on many fronts, it is multifaceted, and cuts across traditional ideological lines. It's what is called a wedge issue. You have only oversimplified the matter.
I'm not talking about IP law. I'm trying to show the complexity of it by expanding it from only the discourse of law, which you seem to want to keep it in.

I tied IP Law with Art, because they are linked in some manner, and it's often overlooked when debating the minutia of law and social policy.
Which is what I pointed out, kthxdinow.

[noblesavage]

Hello everyone,

Ok, this thread has spawned into a thousand different discussions. I'd like to apologize as Lauri has been encouraging me to think off-the-cuff which will explain the mental diarrhea.

I was just hoping to throw some thoughts out there and get honest questions? You can learn a lot from a question. A few questions that were posed were very good, and when I can, I'd like to TRY and answer them or illustrate my thought processes; or, at least learn where I'm wrong.

Because I'm just trying to learn, I'm not going to bother to respond to unnecessarily hostile posts. If you think I'm speaking in tongs or on crack, that's fine just be civil. It's not easy for me to just put my raw thoughts out there. I'm only doing it because I think most of you have some unique or valuable experience that will increase my own understanding.

Dan

[dave_a]

Hello everyone,

Ok, this thread has spawned into a thousand different discussions. I'd like to apologize as Lauri has been encouraging me to think off-the-cuff which will explain the mental diarrhea.

Ah, I see. I know exactly how that works. I am going to say something for you to consider, although in no way should my following comment be taken in a literal, absolute manner. Let women into your bed, but not into your head. Yes, I do realize how awful and sexist that sounds, which is why I gave the disclaimer :D

Because I'm just trying to learn, I'm not going to bother to respond to unnecessarily hostile posts. If you think I'm speaking in tongs or on crack, that's fine just be civil. It's not easy for me to just put my raw thoughts out there. I'm only doing it because I think most of you have some unique or valuable experience that will increase my own understanding.

Dan

Don't worry about it. Folks forget shit quickly. Hell, everyone would have forgotten this already had I not posted here. hehehe