Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
The point is that I reject the commodification of human relations into relations of exploitation.
The noise a person makes when they sing or play should be free - not a commodity to be packaged, sold, and to sue people if they dare to try listen to it without paying the sufficient dues to the capitalist machine.
To sing is an act of rebellion agaisnt the RIAA.
How soon before they demand royalties for singing "their" songs?
|
This is a rather unreasonable position to hold. Allow me to write out your premises - and please correct me if I'm wrong. Bracketed premises are implied, but not stated.
1. Human relations should not be commodified into relations of exploitation.
2. [Singing is a human relation.]
C. Singing should not be commodified into a relation of exploitation. (Syllogism)
3. Singing should not be commodified into a relation of exploitation.
4. [People should not be exploited for listening to music.]
5. [Suing is a form of exploitation.]
C. People should not be sued for listening to music.
6. Singing is an act of rebellion against the RIAA.
(This doesn't seem to be connected to any of your other arguments.)
The confusion begins with your use of the term "human relations" in your first premise. Music is included within it, so that is some clue that we are talking about non-physical things that are created by humans. I am tempted to call it intellectual property.
It follows that intellectual property should not be used to create relations of exploitation. Selling intellectual property or suing people who "steal" it, then, is a relationship of exploitation and should not be permitted.
It seems that the conclusion of your argument is that it is improper to charge people money for their intellectual creations.
Have I got this right?
