4 ms·
I think the point that Swift fails to make is that music should be treated as a service, not as a good. The point she does make, though, is that art IS rare, a
by sroerick 12y ago
I think the point that Swift fails to make is that music should be treated as a service, not as a good.
The point she does make, though, is that art IS rare, and I agree with her. Sure, there's lots of art. But the moment when you find someone who makes something that really means a lot to you for no particular reason, that's valuable in the new music era.
- chillingeffect 12y agoInteresting concept... Especially since one of the changes of the network age is that music is no longer resellable like a CD/tape/record. That means it no longer has value once you buy it. That's evidence that net music IS a service, like water or gas, just something you pipe into your house to get consumed and used. (You can't practically re-sell the water from your tap, nor your gas or electricity). On the flip side though, it has to be more than that, because different glasses of water don't tell stories like songs do. Hmm Deep Thoughts.
- sroerick 12y agoI mean, I grew up pirating music and movies. I haven't for years now, because the vast majority of what I listen to is free mixtapes and CC movies. But I used to download discographies -- an artist's entire catalog. Or I would go and download every movie availiable from an artists IMDB page. Art is a service. You might view an individual movie as a "Good" but I view a director's filmography as a living, breathing thing. If you want a technical term, you can consider an oeuvre a form of Marshall McLuhans's cool media. In addition, if I'm paying for media, I want the rights to remix, reuse, and sell derivative work. Period. No DRM, no license restrictions. Just freedom.