Re: <nettime> Call for support: Pirates of the Amazon, taken down by Amazon.com

[Morlock Elloi <morlockelloi@yahoo.com>]

I beg to differ.

My example was obviously artificial, as so far no one did it in
thename of art, but it *is* comparable:

- the creators of the Work do not benefit or detriment themselves in
cash terms, other than the benefit propagating the artistic statement.

- the public has a choice of doing 'legal' transaction, 'illegal'
transaction, or no transaction at all (perhaps your funds are very
tight; you approach ATM but still are considering it; then you see the
free alternative.)

- there is damaged party. Now the contention appears to be here -
if distributor (Amazon) and publisher are damaged, the enlightened
audience feels it's OK,as it's evil corporate private property that
stiffles creativity. If creative individual's private property is
damaged, that's Bad.

So in essence a disagreement with my example is either a proposal
for two kinds of private properties (one whose infringement is more
ethical than the infrigment of the other one) or a proposal for
abolishment of the private property. The real problem I am having is
that it seems to me that it's the latter disguised as the former,
which is plain hypocrisy. You either have (metaphorical) balls or you
don't.





#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org