Last weeks events have triggered a different revolution, in where we see people trying to defend what they think it can be an abuse for everyone’s freedom.
This post may not be as musical or “light-reading” as our usual posts; because this is not a “light” subject, and we DO take MUSIC and FREEDOM seriously.
This post is about the thin line between “inaction” and “passive”. Dare to Know. Dare to Read. Dare to Act.
And to defend this position I’d like to quote two people: John Rawls’ work ( Rawl is perhaps the most significant philosopher in modern history). AND
Larisa Mann aka DJ RIPLEY (a legal ethnographer working on a PhD at UC Berkeley Law School, a public speaker, and one of the persons who leads the most coherent discussions in the forum called Politics of Music).
So let’s begin with the philosopher:
Even though Rawls most famous book is the theory of justice, his late work focused on the question of stability: could a society ordered by the two principles of justice endure?
Rawls introduced the idea of an overlapping consensus which is basically an agreement on justice as fairness between citizens who hold different religious and philosophical views (or conceptions of the good).
AND I KNOW BY THIS LINE YOU MIGHT NOT BE INTERESTED because WHY WOULD WE CARE ABOUT A THEORY OF JUSTICE?..if YOU care about Music.. well.. because perhaps You Tube, Soundcloud, Mediafire, Bandcamp etc etc can be next!!!
if FBI and American lobbyist agree that these sites are sharing “unauthorized” material.. and THAT is a HUGE GREY AREA.. in where WE (the people) have A LOT to say and defend.
Because if we could make this work… we could have what we want.. rational and reasonable solutions for people and companies, IF both parts agree in what can be FAIR.
Why, because Rawls also modified the principles of justice as follows (with the first principle having priority over the second, and the first half of the second having priority over the latter half):
first: Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal political liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value.
Second: Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
AFTER MEGAUPLOAD SHUT DOWN WE SAW AN ANONYMOUS ATTACK THAT REALLY SHOWED THE POWER OF COMMON PEOPLE!!
And if American authorities thought these attacks to what the common people think is theirs wouldn’t have any response? They were proven wrong!!!
and now they are looking for responsible of these actions so they can be easily put them in jail.
HERE IS THE SURPRISE!!!
Rawls has the unique distinction among contemporary political philosophers of being frequently cited by the courts of law in the United States and Canada and referred to by practicing politicians in the United States and United Kingdom.
He claimed there that “well-ordered” peoples could be either “liberal” or “decent.” Rawls argued that the legitimacy of a liberal international order is contingent on tolerating decent peoples, which differ from liberal peoples, among other ways, in that they might have state religions/interests and deny adherents of minority (or minority faiths) the right to hold positions of power within the state, and might organize political participation via consultation hierarchies rather than elections. However, no well-ordered peoples may violate human rights or behave in an externally aggressive manner. Peoples that fail to meet the criteria of “liberal” or “decent” peoples are referred to as “outlaw states,” “societies burdened by unfavourable conditions” or “benevolent absolutisms” depending on their particular failings. Such peoples do not have the right to mutual respect and toleration possessed by liberal and decent peoples.
AND WE HAVE THE “RIGHT” TO ACT.. if WE THINK there are special interests (Hidden agendas) in the Public Choice.
If you want to know more about public choice READ HERE
Our second BIG PART is the real discussion about Copyrights..
Ripley (Larisa Mann) has been very clear in taking side in what the “independent/underground artist” thinks:
She says: “Copyright doesn’t GIVE you power, it is a tool that can be used more easily by those with more power. People without power are currently the majority. So the question is why keep turning to copyright to protect us when it doesn’t give us the ability to make use of it?”
She also adds:
“Another reality is that the legal parameters of copyright change over time, and will continue to change. And they don’t change because creativity changing, they change because powerful players who affect legislation and can afford to go to court lobby to change the laws. (The US did not get a copyright term extension because old music became more valuable, but because Disney wanted to keep a hold of mickey mouse. Cover songs have a mandatory license not because they are more creative than samples but because the legal climate and creative climate was friendly and familiar with cover songs -which incidentally were often whites covering black music. So you don’t need permission to do a cover, legally. while the sampling world was foreign and weird and initially dominated by black folk – and judges& legislators didn’t see it as creative so they have mostly said you need permission.) So the fact that legal parameters exist (in paper) doesn’t in reality mean much about the value, morality, or usefulness of those parameters to artist. They just show who won a particular battle at the time.”
IF we organize to define those parameters to suit our practices, they could change again. (it happened with documentary film-makers, for example)
Asian Dub Foundation
Balkan Beat Box