[wordup] Salon on China: Imitation Nation
Adam Shand
adam at personaltelco.net
Sat Jul 13 23:45:11 EDT 2002
This is an interesting thread. I'm glad someone finally raised the
issue of "what if there was no commercial music", cause after all that's
the big scary specter that the RIAA is holding over all of us. However
I have to take issue with the comment by Plasma Studii below. I think
the idea that no good music will be created if people aren't being paid
for it is both bullshit and insulting. Lots of people do lots of things
because they believe in it, love it, it's in their blood etc. After all
didn't we start making music before money existed? :-) One the more
interesting ideas I've heard proposed is that things might fall back to
the patron model with corporations being the sponsors instead of
royalty. I'm not sure I would like what it would look like but it's a
cool idea.
Also, the bit on "the 'information wants to be free' idea is one of the
stupider concepts of the last 20 years". Kinda misses the point. Of
course information is everywhere and inherently free, *thats* the
point. The whole information wants to be free hacker meme was a
reiteration of the obvious to remind people that things weren't always
this fucked up and to rethink what we'd come to think of as normal.
Adam.
Via: Brett Shand <brett at earthlight.co.nz>
From: Michael H Goldhaber <mgoldh at well.com>
To: nettime-l at bbs.thing.net <nettime-l at bbs.thing.net>
Subject: <nettime> "China:Imitation Nation"-Salon
Date: 08 Jul 2002 19:58:44 -0700
The Salon article "China:Imitation Nation" by Lisa Movius,
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/07/08/imitation_nation/
is interesting both in providing current details about Chinese IP "piracy"
and in its attitudes. while Movius emphasizes that piracy imprves the lot
of the average Chinese, she insists without explanation that pricay is bad
for the Chinese economy, and that most Vhinese know it is wrong. She then
explains why they indulge in this a[parently harmful and morally wrong
action by reference to the peculiarities of the Confucian moral code. She
does not explain why this code, which gives such power to leaders fails to
prevent priacy, just as she takes it for granted that IP piracy is indeed
morally wrong. (Morality as defined by Western publishers is apparently
not relaitve but absolute.)
Surely for many of the Western artists and musicians whose CD's or books
are pirated, the net effect is that they are reaching a much wider
audience than they would otherwise have. If Western publishers were
willing to accept more reasonable levels of profit, they could achieve the
same results and also eliminate this sort of piracy, though, horror of
horrors fake Hugo Boss suits would still be sold. Perhaps the unthinking
cupididty of western publishers does achieve one good thing: it allows
numerous Chinese to make a living selling priated CDs and the like. --
Michael H. Goldhaber
mgoldh at well.com
http://www.well.com/user/mgoldh/
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo at bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at bbs.thing.net
----
From: John von Seggern <johnvon at digitalcutuplounge.com>
To: nettime-l at bbs.thing.net
Subject: Re: <nettime> "China:Imitation Nation"-Salon
Date: 09 Jul 2002 06:40:31 -0700
As a DJ/musician who has lived in Hong Kong for most of the past seven
years and worked frequently in China, in my experience it is also fair to
say that the weakness of Chinese IP law has led to a situation in which it
is virtually impossible for Chinese musicians/artists/writers to make a
living from their work. Some musicians whose CDs are believed to sell in
the millions of copies nationwide are still living penniless in Beijing
because 95% of their sales are from pirate copies. Many bands in China
break up after making one CD because it is economically impossible for
them to continue making records. Some groups on the nascent Chinese dance
music scene (such as the recently popular MP4) have used their popularity
gained from pirate CD sales and downloads to increase the price they ask
for live gigs, although I believe this has been difficult for many of the
rock groups because of gov't restrictions on live performances.
Although I generally support a less restrictive approach to IP,
nonetheless the situation of artists in China should be a cautionary tale
for those who think 'information wants to be free' means that we should
forego any kind of copyright protection whatsoever.
Also -- Confucian values aside, I have noticed that Westerners resident in
HK/China inevitably begin buying and using pirated products themselves,
even while 'knowing it is wrong' as suggested below. After all,
everybody's doing it...
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael H Goldhaber" <mgoldh at well.com>
To: <nettime-l at bbs.thing.net>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 7:58 PM
Subject: <nettime> "China:Imitation Nation"-Salon
> The Salon article "China:Imitation Nation" by Lisa Movius,
>
> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/07/08/imitation_nation/
[....]
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo at bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at bbs.thing.net
----
From: Plasma Studii <office at plasmastudii.org>
To: nettime-l at nettime.org
Subject: Re: <nettime> "China:Imitation Nation"-Salon
Date: 10 Jul 2002 18:30:37 -0400
(if anybody didn't catch the note below, read it. it's really cool)
but then this seems like the big paradigm shift.
eventually, no one can expect to make money from copywriting! One
result will be that the most creative industries (record labels,
etc) will suffer (and surely are suffering) incredibly. may wipe
them out (like the radioactive meteor that took out the dinosaurs).
ok. well, then what would happen if there was no commercial music?
what if it really became so unprofitable everywhere, everyone just
quit.
one result, would be, there would be nothing to pirate, the
software/hardware would fade away from disuse eventually and then
the commercialization would return.
The interim will most likely consist of abysmal work. Culture will
be devoid of inspiration. Movements replaced by band-wagon trends.
(oh wait, that's already well under way) We are prolonging the
interim period by resisting this change. If we want it to pass in
our lifetime, we'll have to wade through this now.
In the interim, music may be just awful. DIY basement garage bands
are a fun novelty, but only as a contrast to goofy madonna-esque
sheen. likewise, DIY art is everywhere. the "my 6 year-old could
have made that" stuff is worthless without a backdrop of
"masterpieces". Look to the past because there will be nothing to
look at for a while.
audiences now don't nearly pay the cost for theater productions.
Most big shows are funded by the government or foundations (that are
indirectly supported by the government). Most actors, musicians,
artists work for free or ridiculously low pay. Yet audiences will
not pay for the madonna-esque sheen they expect to be provided.
So where are the public's priorities? Hopefully, this radical
decimation of all kinds of arty/show biz will result in changing
that. But that's where industries pick up the slack. They make it
more economically feasible by doling out resources to a cluster of
artists.
what you are discribing (musicians who can't afford to keep at it
for so little money) is basically what we have now in all the arts.
just as forest fires are actually part of a trees reproductive
strategy, we need to wipe out the old system completely for it to
repair itself. Sad for most of us but too bad.
judson
ps. the 'information wants to be free' idea is one of the stupider
concepts of the last 20 years. information doesn't just sit there
(content or not), it is like the beam from a spot light. many folks
try to pick at it and put it in their pocket. But we are swimming
in information, billions of beams from every angle and most of it we
will never recognize. Info is already as free as it wants to be.
>As a DJ/musician who has lived in Hong Kong for most of the past seven
>years and worked frequently in China, in my experience it is also fair to
>say that the weakness of Chinese IP law has led to a situation in which it
>is virtually impossible for Chinese musicians/artists/writers to make a
>living from their work. Some musicians whose CDs are believed to sell in
>the millions of copies nationwide are still living penniless in Beijing
>because 95% of their sales are from pirate copies. Many bands in China
>break up after making one CD because it is economically impossible for
>them to continue making records. Some groups on the nascent Chinese dance
>music scene (such as the recently popular MP4) have used their popularity
>gained from pirate CD sales and downloads to increase the price they ask
>for live gigs, although I believe this has been difficult for many of the
>rock groups because of gov't restrictions on live performances.
>
>Although I generally support a less restrictive approach to IP,
>nonetheless the situation of artists in China should be a cautionary tale
>for those who think 'information wants to be free' means that we should
>forego any kind of copyright protection whatsoever.
>
>Also -- Confucian values aside, I have noticed that Westerners resident in
>HK/China inevitably begin buying and using pirated products themselves,
>even while 'knowing it is wrong' as suggested below. After all,
>everybody's doing it...
>
>John
>
># distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
># <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
># collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
># more info: majordomo at bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
># archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at bbs.thing.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo at bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at bbs.thing.net
----
From: Francis Hwang <sera at fhwang.net>
To: nettime-l at bbs.thing.net
Subject: Re: <nettime> "China:Imitation Nation"-Salon
Date: 11 Jul 2002 20:54:21 -0400
Just because copyright is becoming an anachronism doesn't mean people
should starve to be artists. It just means that the payment mechanisms we
have aren't going to work. We'll need alternatives.
One alternative is called the Street Performer Protocol, and you can read
a technical paper by security guru Bruce Schneier and John Kelsey here:
http://www.counterpane.com/street_performer.pdf
In a nutshell, artists post applications which describe a work and how
much money they need to be paid to do such a thing and release it into the
general public. People log into a system, decide whether or not to donate
some money. Eventually the amount is met and the work is released to the
general public, or the amount is not met and the donaters get their money
back. Think of it as a distributed-grant process.
Part of the problem has been because solutions like this route around the
language of commercial transactions and start to sound a lot like communal
action. Our political imaginations are so atrophied that we can't imagine
the possibility of anything other than the familiar atomized
consumer-to-corporation interaction. "You mean I would join with others to
help fund something that eventually would be released to everybody,
including people who never paid anything? I don't know, sounds sort of
socialist to me ... "
But we'll need to start thinking this way, soon. With increasing computing
power and bandwidth (I'm not pitching a Gilder-esque telecosm scenario,
just observing that lots of people have enough bandwidth to file-share
MP3s today), we can no longer treat data as if its distribution can be
controlled. If you put an artistic expression in a digital reproducible
form, it becomes less like a physical object and more like a natural
resource.
Think of oxygen. No society would ever want its citizens to be forced to
buy oxygen out of individually wrapped containers. Yet oxygen, like all
resources, has a limit, and it's a society's responsibility to make sure
there's enough oxygen around. You can't let people chop down all the
trees, and you can't let industries build too many power plants.
Francis
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo at bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at bbs.thing.net
----
From: Plasma Studii <office at plasmastudii.org>
To: nettime-l at bbs.thing.net
Subject: Re: <nettime> "China:Imitation Nation"-Salon
Date: 12 Jul 2002 02:04:06 -0400
>Just because copyright is becoming an anachronism doesn't mean
>people should starve to be artists.
wait, this is a completely different angle. No one starves in order
TO BE an artist. (well technically some do but that's not a
financial thing, more philosophical) A person makes art and the
English language is constructed that we can add "-ist" to refer to
the maker. That's it. The word is shorthand for cocktail party
conversations. "so what do you do?" two syllables. Move on. No
hunger involved.
People who are holding on to that "anachronistic" copyright mentality
(owning ideas as if they can be owned personally) is wishful
thinking, ignorant and those people might as well starve. but no one
HAS TO hold on. Everybody else, who sheds this old school stuff will
just move on, do whatever they think of. It's not like anyone either
depends on money from residuals or never sees a cent again.
But as an alternative, the general public will NEED art. The people
who fulfill that need we can call "artists". Nobody IS fundamentally
an artist. But if the publics' needs are being fulfilled, folks will
have to bite the bullet and start paying for it.
Right now, we are getting art at tremendously discounted rates.
Probably, a healthy solution (and psychologically beneficial) to the
demise of the copyright notion is that we, as consumers, PAY in full.
Sacrifice a chunk of our sweat to experience art. This makes the art
have more value to us as the audience. And creates more of an
impetus for artist to speak with their art to people other than
themselves, hoping the curator plays along.
Sounds flawed, but I see some cool solutions coming together. Maybe
Armageddon isn't such a bad thing after all.
judson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo at bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at bbs.thing.net
--
"Make the invisible visible. Let people see." -- Bruce Sterling
More information about the wordup
mailing list