Everything is Oll Korrect!

An eclectic bibliophile's journal…

Comcast vs. BitTorrent

According to the Associated Press, Comcast inteferes with users uploading online content via BitTorrent and similar applications, allegedly to save bandwidth for its other customers, though some suspect the move is related to the piracy such applications are often used for.

Now, I have no problem with taking action against piracy or conserving bandwidth, but Comcast’s move also affects people who use BitTorrent for legitimate purposes. It is plainly unfair to punish the innocent along with the guilty, and defeats the purpose of law to violate one person’s rights to punish the guilty. Remember, the guilty party is a criminal for violating someone else’s rights, and the purpose of law is to preserve rights for everyone (of course, Comcast should leave law enforcement to the justice system, assuming their motivation here is anti-piracy).

As a parting thought on this topic, no lesser man than Abraham once wrestled with the justice of harming the innocent along with the guilty:

“What if there are at least ten [innocent men in Sodom]?”

“For the sake of those ten,” [the Lord] replied, “I will not destroy it.”

(Gen. 19:32b)…

Continue Reading →

Authors and Writers

What’s an author? Someone who writes a book, right?

Well, according to Michel Foucault, it’s not quite that simple. While one could define an author as “someone who writes,” as I understand Foucault’s argument an author is also a person created, in a sense, by his work rather than the other way around. “Shakespeare,” for example, is both a proper name indicating a specific person, but also has a meaning intimately connected with his work. The meaning of “Shakespeare” would change significantly for society if, say, we learned that it was actually Bacon who wrote the plays traditionally attributed to the Bard.

The argument is interesting, but unfortunately I can’t really speak of it except in general terms.…

Continue Reading →

Yesterday Never Knew

I present to you, my reader (yes, I’m pretty sure it’s “reader,” singular), the modern system of economics, as proposed by those in favor of music piracy:

1: Artist produces something

2: Artist gives said something away for free

3: ????

4: PROFIT!

Actually, this system has been thought through more than that chart. According to this article from the Illinois Business Law Journal, this story from the New York Times, and a number of other places, step three is “Artist gives concerts and sells merchandise.” At first, I thought this sounded fair enough, but then I realized that step three is a non sequiter. It isn’t related to the original product.

Admitedly, this system of “make a record, give it away, make money some other way” works for most bands, but not all. When a musician sets out to make a record, he is apt to do his best work if he can focus purely on that. I submit as evidence to that effect The Beatles, who wrote and recorded what I personally consider their best work after giving up touring altogether. Without having to worry about performing live, they were free to do whatever the heck they wanted in the studio, with results like Revolver and Sgt. Pepper. Songs like “A Day in the Life,” “Tomorrow Never Knows,” and the White Album’s perennial fan-unfavorite “Revolution 9” are all impossible to perform live, but that’s okay because the band was able to just sell the recording of the songs and still make money.

Ultimately, this model makes about as much senseĀ  as asking the artist to give free concerts and then make money on recordings. Yes, it can work for most bands, but not all, and really, why not just pay someone for the work they do? Someone makes a record, customer pays for the record. Someone gives a concert, customer pays for the concert. Fair compensation for services rendered… how novel.…

Continue Reading →