Decius wrote:
] ] Brad characterizes file-sharing as ripping off artists,
] ] and goes on to say that it is right to condemn people
] ] who get all their music without paying. And yet the EFF
] ] continues to tacitly endorse such file-sharing, running an
] ] ad campaign that says "file-sharing is music to our
] ] ears."
]
] This is a good collection of links. I think the EFF supports
] file sharing because its popular to do so. Calling them on it
] is reasonable. Expecting them to solve all of the problems is
] not. There needs to be a serious effort to organize artists
] outside of the present system. The EFF has made motions in
] that direction, but they always feel a little like political
] stunts. They are too focused on the law and not focused enough
] on the music. We need something that is really music centric
] that works differently. We need a counter example.

We have it. It's called iTunes. It's called Napster 2.0 (although the restrictions here are too whacked). The point is that there are distribution outlets for digital music that DO work. Will you eliminate piracy via P2P? No. You never will now. Just like you'll never eliminate tape trading of Grateful Dead shows.

The EFF's ultra radical stance is not a bad thing. Sometimes you have to stand a little further off balance than you would normally do just so you can make your point crystal clear. I'd rather they endorse file sharing rather than some cockamamee scheme that the RIAA buys into. If anything, maybe people will see this stance and realize that the entire argument of owning intellectual property in perpetuity is bullshit. Maybe owning ANY intellectual property is bullshit.

RE: [Politech] Reply to EFF over its position on RIAA, file swapping [ip]