It seems to me that any '
product' of an
artistic nature must be treated differently, in terms of
copyright, than other products. You don't create
art to
get rich - you do it to become
famous. That's oversimplifying.. You do it because what you've produced is
meaningful to you, but is more meaningful once you are able to
share it with others, in the hope that it will
challenge and
inspire them. If no one sees your
work, it's still
valuable, but it has (in most cases) not fulfilled its
intended purpose.
The argument that
distributing art without the full knowledge and
consent of the
artist is somehow
detrimental flies in the face of logic. Consider
libraries and
museums. People who want to enjoy art pay a
nominal fee, sharing the cost of maintaining a building and its
collections. In return, they get
unfettered access to all the art the building contains. If it were really so
dangerous for a thousand people to share the same copy of the same book, artists would find a way not to allow their books to be purchased by libraries, or levy a
fee to borrowers per
check-out. Art is
information,
ideas. You cannot simply lock it down. Not only because it is
infeasible (people will
lend books, make
dubs, etc.) but because it hurts the ability of art to do its job.
Metallica are making themselves look
foolish. They are stating, in effect, that they are not so much interested in people hearing their
music as they are in people paying them for the
privilege - that they are not
serious artists. I think there are certainly other artists with the same
mindset, but, honestly, I don't think the things they produce deserve any
respect. There's a difference between not being able to eat as a result of
giving something away and facing the
possibility of making a few thousand less off of something you produce.
Even if the
philosophy of
Napster was applied to every artistic field, those with
talent would still be able to do their work, under a system of
patronage. Does an
art collector buy an original
painting to make money off of it? No. He or she buys it for their own
enjoyment, or as a symbol of
status. If
record companies are worried about people '
stealing' music, they need to find a way to
distribute it for a short period without putting it in peoples' hands, say exclusively via the
radio or
cable. If they produce
CDs in order to make more
money, it may be
illegal to copy the music contained therein, but it is not immoral. The artist has already lost
control of who hears their songs. An owner of such
intellectual property who is not the artist has
rights only up to the point at which they do not own the art for enjoyment, but for
profit.
what napster does is not
immoral. it is
inevitable.