From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V6 #204 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Saturday, July 15 2000 Volume 06 : Number 204 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Spamster Spasms [Joseph Zitt ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:59:07 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms On Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 01:24:44AM -0400, three damons wrote: > > And the explanation falls through, because of the possibility of having > > duped the CD beforehand, a task which no one denies to be valid. > > the closest i could come would be that theives deny you the ability > to modify your car with those huge tires by stealing yoru car. I don't see that as close at all. > > If what you're trying to explain is some way in which unknown thieves > > have a right to deprive me of owning a copy of music that would be > > valid had they not stolen it, I can't see that as true. > > they're not depriving you of that *right* because younever > had that *right*. > what they are denying you is the ability > to copy your disc, which is what you were entitled to. > > you were not entitled to copy ANY disc of the same material, you > were entitled to copy YOUR disc. > that 'entitlement' came from your purchase of the disc. > iow, that *specific* peaice of plastic you bought, and held in your > grubby > hands, had the built in legal entitlement of your being > able to copy IT. > > NOT any other disc exactly like it, because you didn't buy THOSE discs. Here's where things get interesting. You insist, for reasons that, apparently, you have not chosen to explain clearly, that the essential aspect of it is the physical object. I can see, however, that the existence of the music (or text, in the analagous case), as reproducible data changes this significant essence. When I hear, say, "Bat Out of Hell" playing on the radio, it is not in any sense not the same song as on the CD. Whether or not I am currently holding the disc in my hand does not affect it. How might I help you understand this? > also, note you keep saying 'theives and i keep humoring you. > > my argument doesn't presuppose theives- you could have lost the disc, > dropped it and broken it, or tossed it in a momentary fit of despair. > > so, ask yourself does your discarding of the disc on purpose allow you > to at some later point reacquire the music for free? Of course they're not the same. Do you consider someone's stealing of an item from you to be the same as your giving it away? If so, that leads to a mighty odd concept of property, and I'm not sure that any logical discussion can relate to it. > yuo're reproducing it without permission. > that's my problem. > you feel entitled to perpetual ownership of a work of art, having > purchased it > once. > > hence the cdplayer analogy- > NO ONE feels entitled to perpetual owenership of the ability > to play cds once they have bought one. > > thus you are arguing there is something intrinisc about > art/entertainment > that differs from material posession that entitles you to perpetual > ownership. > > this different thing eldues me. The problem is that you're grouping a lot of stuff together into the concept of a "work of art". Once you realize that the category involves a lot of different items and situations with different properties, the rest follows. > does that matter? > > does changing media change this special intrinsic feature you feel art > has which justifies perpetual ownership? See above. > > > > And why do you want to avoid discussing the very relevant issue > > > > of music purchased over the Net? > > > > > > > > > because it's trickier and would sidetrack the point i'm trying to make > > > wrt > > > your feeling of entitlement towards copying a cd you no longer own. > > > > It would sidetrack the point because of its relevance. You can't > > evade it and still make the point. > > yes i can, because that's not the point i'm making. Yes, but it is essential to it. It's rather like attempting to put forward a theory of aviation while avoiding messy complications like gravity. > to sidetrack, wrt most art, you are purchasing a material > object conatining that art. > > wrt downloaded art, you are purchasing a single digital copy. > since the thing you purchase is immaterial, i'd posit a better anaolgy > would > be a live concert. > > but there is no exact anaolgy, because what you purchase, tho > immaterial, is fiarly permanent. > > to answer the point, tho, youare essentially purcahsing the ability to > copy a song from their server once, and to keep one copy, > plus any fair use copies. > > now, if you delete the song, or your computer is stolen, > you have *again* lost the copy which you had purcahsed wrt fair use. > > copying another copy for free would still be theivery. I fail to see that point. Again, I cannot see a moral stance which depends on one's intrinsic powerlessness against thieves. Maybe there's a level of depression that even I haven't yet ever reached :-) > > > buy the cd again. > > > > > > if the cd was oop, then i'd copy it, but still buy it again > > > if it ever became reavailable. > > > > You know, I might have thought the same until actually in the situation. > > But, again, I see no way in which thieves have the right or power to > > obligate me to spend money. > > > > what about yourself? Explained in my previous messages. - -- |> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | | Latest CD: Jerusaklyn http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V6 #204 **************************