Edythemighty (dot) com

From this NY Times article:

“It’s as if culture froze just before it became digitally open, and all we can do now is mine the past like salvagers picking over a garbage dump,” Mr. Lanier writes. Or, to use another of his grim metaphors: “Creative people — the new peasants — come to resemble animals converging on shrinking oases of old media in a depleted desert.”

If you've never seen Nate Harrison's 2004 video about the Amen Break, now's a good time. It is about 20 minutes long though.

So the 1970's neo-classical rock movement was bogus? The 90's rap movement that sampled early funk heavily also was bogus? Entire songs from different genres than that of the Amen break are suddenly invalidated? I suppose I shouldn't be too hard on Mr Lanier, as he does propose a good system of micropayments:

To save those endangered species, Mr. Lanier proposes rethinking the
Web’s ideology, revising its software structure and introducing
innovations like a universal system of micropayments.

I'm not as sympathetic with this guy:

Dr. Liebowitz suggests a more traditional reform for cyberspace: punishing thieves. The big difference between Web piracy and house burglary, he says, is that the penalties for piracy are tiny and rarely enforced. He expects people to keep pilfering (and rationalizing their thefts) as long as the benefits of piracy greatly exceed the costs.

In theory, public officials could deter piracy by stiffening the penalties, but they’re aware of another crucial distinction between online piracy and house burglary: There are a lot more homeowners than burglars, but there are a lot more consumers of digital content than producers of it.

The result is a problem a bit like trying to stop a mob of looters. When the majority of people feel entitled to someone’s property, who’s going to stand in their way?

Maybe it's time to rethink the old models? If a law makes the majority of people into criminals, maybe there's a deeper problem...