Comment Re:Sweet (Score 1) 575
Well, given how long it would take to get there, and given the limited resources available for the trip, if any of our descendants made it there, I'm pretty sure they'd be good guests ;)
How dare they copy/paste those blank lines!
Just in case you thought you were kidding: http://www.mcbride-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Tab-422.pdf
Line 22 is blank, and is indicated as being copied.
Piracy helps destroy outdated business models. Much like carriage-drivers during the emergence of cars, there will always be someone trying to legislate, pressure, coerce, or do anything necessary to prevent being run out of business.
I've never been sure about this statement. I mean evidently the product being sold is not outdated - people are downloading and enjoying their pirated music. Nor is the fundamental business model outdated - that is, creating things that people like to try and sell. What you seem to mean by "outdated business model" could be described as "The internet allows people to take a copy of your work without paying for it - so you can't make money selling electronic copies of something". For a start, wouldn't that mean you agree with the original post?
...Read about the outcry of book publishers and some authors about public libraries in the beginning of the 20th century -- same arguments as today. Should a writer publish a book which anyone can read for free? Where is the profit in this? Well, the profit is, of course, that people in districts with public libraries buy more books.
I don't know about the states, but in Australia, for every copy of your book that a library holds, the author receives money from the government. For a moderately "successful" book (read award winning, but not famous), this money will be greater than that received from royalties. So, for Australia at least, your conclusions are incorrect.
If you can't figure out a way to make money writing because technology has obsoleted your business model... tough.
Well, morally, the people who enjoy the art an artist creates have a responsibility to ensure that the artist is compensated for their work. Technology doesn't invalidate this moral argument.
No, you disagree with my point and the easiest way to destroy it is to twist my words into something logical.
I didn't even have to fix that for you!
I was talking about writers (and song writers) more than performers. I'm sure you understand that for these artists, live performances are more limited in scope.
Look, we are just going to have to disagree. To me, this is not a matter of how artists can be *potentially* paid, but a moral matter. If anyone struggles to produce art, and pirates enjoy that art without ensuring that the artist is getting a decent living from it - then they are acting immorally. Your talk about alternative revenue streams, or whatever is completely irrelevant. The artist has demonstrably created something the market desires - as is evident by downloads. The only issue is, do the rich people who enjoy their material have a duty to ensure that the artist is adequately compensated for their work. In other words, providing that the artist's customers (i.e., those downloading and enjoying the creative efforts) are richer than the artist, and those customers are enjoying the work, I do believe that the artist has a right to be paid.
... we have a huge glut and excessive supply of "art". Most of those guys are trying to sell something that currently has about as much value as the air in an empty cup.
Perhaps, but you must admit that people are still downloading and enjoying this otherwise worthless "art". And artists, good and bad alike, will want to be paid money by people who are enjoying their art, and I can't see a single reason why they shouldn't be. It's good enough to download and watch/read/listen to after-all.
You're assuming that one is entitled to get paid, you're also assuming that because you put money into something it has an intrinsic value equal to or greater then the time and money already expended on it. This falls down when you find out that, a product is worth what a purchaser will pay for it. Quite simple, because it cost you x dollars does not mean it is worth x dollars in the market. If your purchasers determine your product is worth 0 dollars you are not then entitled to payment.
You have created a strawman. The artist is entitled to be paid if those people who have a copy of their work made use of it. No artist argues that they deserve an income for copies of their art if no one even looks at them. Your position is that you will both enjoy the copy of the art, and then decide the price to pay for it. An enviable position to be in... the artist having no recourse whatsoever in the eventuality that greed might result in you being less than generous.
Content producers and publishers have been saying "fuck you" to their customers for decades now, and at last they're finally getting back a taste of their own medicine. And boy, do they hate it. Payback's a bitch.
I do agree with this - copyright has been abused. And we are seeing payback. But I think this position, while understandable, is being used to justify greed on the part of the pirates. It is also immoral and I think your post suggests you realize this. While not paying for copies of art can hurt the people who are hurting you, it also hurts genuine artists who worked hard to produce the art you're enjoying - some of whom have struggled for years to write that book/song you decided you don't need to pay for because Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain.
To address your latest question; the difference is that in the first situation you are contracting me to do some work for you, and then you pay me. In the second situation, I do the work and set a selling price for copies of it. You make a copy, and then (in your world) decide what you'll pay for it.
I really do think you have a case that your actions are moral in the situation where you are poor, and the "artist" is Disney. I really think you don't when the artist is poorer than you. In that situation you have a responsibility to the artist to compensate them for the work you enjoyed and I fail to see why their sale conditions for copies should not be honored. Can you really justify infringing the copyright of someone whose work you enjoyed when they're poorer than you?
Bands don't make money on albums anymore, they make it on live performances and merchandise.
I take it then that you have a solution for all the writers out there? It is all very well for you to talk about your rights and beliefs as being a social enterprise when at the end of the day, you get your free copies of books and songs. But what's the morality of the situation when the creator of those works is poorer than you? Doesn't that make you just another guy living life off the backs of the poor?
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein
