5 ms·

All the same, as consumers we are being punished for either (1) desiring and getting music in the means most convenient and historically accessible to us or (2)

All the same, as consumers we are being punished for either (1) desiring and getting music in the means most convenient and historically accessible to us or (2) desire and getting technology in the means most convenient and historically accessible to us. The historical, political, and mercantile lines draw behind the scenes is a theatre we are not privvy to. Pulling the card "you're actually supporting the big wigs of tech and the cost of the big wigs of music" all to make the point that the big wigs of music could enable artisans assumes that artisans themselves trust and believe in the music industry. The point I want to make here is that all of this is heavily historical. We're to simply overlook our desires, aforementioned, because of historical and political threads which largely interplay outside of our control? I mean to suggest that, in a sense, reprimanding anyone for jumping onto these historical presentations of music and technology seems like reprimanding one for not staying inside because it _might_ rain, or because aliens might attack. Whether they do or not is a fact of the matter, but should we await for Apple, RIAA, etc. to play their course while they continue to tantalize and bombard us with all sorts of "technology"? One obvious point is that _that is difficult_. The growing philosophical trend of the counter-culture is this: Hey! Musicians were still making a living out of their music _before_ technology put any of us into this mess!

briandear 14y ago
Spoken like a true intellectual. Historically people have stolen photographs and graphics to use on their web pages. Is that cool? Image if someone just ripped off one of your client's advertising slogans and used the same design to sell their products. All's fair when digital right? This "historical" argument is the same argument that people use to explain all manner of social ills. It's a cop out. It was wrong historically to steal and it's wrong now. People have a personal responsibility, it isn't societies fault that this girl is a thief.
- nerdfiles 14y ago
  I'm suggesting the new departure, a new form of problem is this: casually, it is her fault, but this is irrelevant to responsibility. Responsibility involves a conscious acknowledgement of the world around you, and one is at fault, personally, for a lack of consciousness of that world. However, what is the problematic is the presentation of (1) and (2). Independently, they are harmless. We should consume as much music and as much technology as we can, but whether their political, historical and mercantile threads interweave, we are face with a problematic. I take a majority of this way of thinking from Alain Badiou: the truth procedures of music and the truth procedures of science. What is most interesting to me is that a truth procedure of polity is _seemingly_ determined by the historical presentation of file sharing software and music. I should hope that my arguments do not justify theft, though I may be led astray by my own constructions of thought. But what I am most concerned here is with White's role played as a militant, within the political theatre of piracy; by Badiou, she would be considered a "militant of truth" I believe. One who compels who to witness a "rupture" of the system which _presents_ such a militant. Her superior's condemnation, to me, presents something that might be expected: that we should be compelled by a _person_ to deal with these abstractions which have happened upon our political drama. People do have a personal responsibility, but at the same time, "personal responsibility" is a function of an social structure. I do not mean to address any "casual" but rather "semantic" description of this "responsibility." What connections (political, historical, etc.) immediately can be drawn from our _decision_ (rather than hypothesis or principle) that White is "wrong"? One conclusion is "education"; but one problem is that a society may very well believe that stealing is "right," like ours. How _might_ one present a counter-indoctrination? From their perspective, this may be how it is presented. We have had decades to mature the ideologies, I believe we are now at a time where we must accept that fact. Some of these ideologies are inherently confrontational. Calling it theft does not entail that any particular action should follow, so it seems that in the absence of one, we might inevitably decide, produce such a _decision_, what those actions should be. I should hope that I am prompting such a discussion. It _is_ theft. But it is theft born out of a period that allowed dogmatisim to mature.

briandear 14y ago

Spoken like a true intellectual. Historically people have stolen photographs and graphics to use on their web pages. Is that cool? Image if someone just ripped off one of your client's advertising slogans and used the same design to sell their products. All's fair when digital right? This "historical" argument is the same argument that people use to explain all manner of social ills. It's a cop out. It was wrong historically to steal and it's wrong now. People have a personal responsibility, it isn't societies fault that this girl is a thief.

nerdfiles 14y ago
I'm suggesting the new departure, a new form of problem is this: casually, it is her fault, but this is irrelevant to responsibility. Responsibility involves a conscious acknowledgement of the world around you, and one is at fault, personally, for a lack of consciousness of that world. However, what is the problematic is the presentation of (1) and (2). Independently, they are harmless. We should consume as much music and as much technology as we can, but whether their political, historical and mercantile threads interweave, we are face with a problematic. I take a majority of this way of thinking from Alain Badiou: the truth procedures of music and the truth procedures of science. What is most interesting to me is that a truth procedure of polity is _seemingly_ determined by the historical presentation of file sharing software and music. I should hope that my arguments do not justify theft, though I may be led astray by my own constructions of thought. But what I am most concerned here is with White's role played as a militant, within the political theatre of piracy; by Badiou, she would be considered a "militant of truth" I believe. One who compels who to witness a "rupture" of the system which _presents_ such a militant. Her superior's condemnation, to me, presents something that might be expected: that we should be compelled by a _person_ to deal with these abstractions which have happened upon our political drama. People do have a personal responsibility, but at the same time, "personal responsibility" is a function of an social structure. I do not mean to address any "casual" but rather "semantic" description of this "responsibility." What connections (political, historical, etc.) immediately can be drawn from our _decision_ (rather than hypothesis or principle) that White is "wrong"? One conclusion is "education"; but one problem is that a society may very well believe that stealing is "right," like ours. How _might_ one present a counter-indoctrination? From their perspective, this may be how it is presented. We have had decades to mature the ideologies, I believe we are now at a time where we must accept that fact. Some of these ideologies are inherently confrontational. Calling it theft does not entail that any particular action should follow, so it seems that in the absence of one, we might inevitably decide, produce such a _decision_, what those actions should be. I should hope that I am prompting such a discussion. It _is_ theft. But it is theft born out of a period that allowed dogmatisim to mature.