I had a few thoughts about Grey Tuesday that I wanted to mention, but I’ve been too busy playing golf on the Xbox to get around to writing them down. Unfortunately, I waited so long to do this that I’ve forgotten some of my key points.
I do, however, remember my conclusion: I am a musical anarchist.
Good arguments are being made on both sides of the fence here. Copyright law is screwed up, but as Brad asked, “Is the argument that anyone should be able to chop up Beatles and Jay-Z recordings and be allowed to sell 3,000 copies of it without compensating either party?” We could debate all day long, and I’m sick of it.
I just don’t want to talk about it anymore. I don’t want to think about it. Why does there have to be an intellectual argument? I don’t know who’s right, and I don’t want to care.
My goals are probably the same as the people pushing for legal reform, and staging online protests, blah blah blah. The difference is implementing that goal.
I deny that any authority over music exists.
Boo ya!
i think the answer is somewhere in the middle. i also think that as the paradigm shifts in terms of music distribution, artists will have to relinquish some control over their intellectual property rights of their music.
adjuster takes a very hardline position on this and i respect that. he doesn’t believe in IP at all as far as music goes, and artists should only be compensated for performance. my own position is while i feel like i should own the rights to my music (unless i relinquish it willingly) but i also realize that this will become difficult if not impossible to control. at this point, i’d probably save my best stuff for sale on CD only and post freely music i’ve created knowing that it would be distributed freely.
anyways, i like you am sick of the debate too.