401–410 of 527 posts
Downloading music for free that is available to buy, is immoral.. If artists can't earn money from their art, there will be less art and more lady GaGa VS justin bieber shit.. Do you want to live in that world?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And in most cases you pay for a unique concert, sure it's the same songs as the last show but musicians rarely play the music exactly the same way. The best concert include a lot more than just playing the songs. It's worth paying for. The best concert artist put on an act and improvise on stage. It's not easy and it takes talent and work.
The so called talent of many popular musicians is greatly overrated. It's not how things work.
Generally the more niche something is the less fans it will have but the more those fans will love it.
A lot of pop music and modern moves + video games are designed specifically to appeal a bit to a large number of people. It's almost impossible to create something that appeals a lot to everyone.
So the other option is to find a small niche following and concentrate on extracting the most amount of money from them. I imagine that without some form of copyright most of the music produced would either be stuff produced by musicians for other musicians or for the upper classes who would fund it's continued development.
There would be a lot less "angry prole" music.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is not copyright itself. The problem is that the creators are not the copyright owners any more. This is a very subtle distinction. We should do all we can to help creators, not publishers. Publishers have their place in the distribution chain, but they should not be allowed to act as if they were the creators. If the publisher's business model is failing, so be it. Publishers and gatekeepers are not wort…
what are you suggesting? banning contracts for distribution agreements? what exactly is a law that makes "copyright an unalienable right"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It might make you feel better about it, but it really > doesn't change the fact that you're stealing something > of value Copyright infringement is not stealing. Separately, the person who worked hard to produce whatever you're buying is reaping a fraction of a percentage point of whatever you're spending, and that's only if the distributor hasn't found a way to screw them out of that entirely (or else they've been…
> Copyright infringement is not stealing. I assume there will be counter-arguments/downvotes, so to elaborate on this point using my own arguments: If you steal something from me, I don't have it (as in "steal a car"), so you're putting me in a worse-off position. If you copy/pirate something that is mine (properly copy, with attribution, and not out of context), I am not worse-off (possibly even better-off, as I get…
If you only have to pay the price of one day's lunch for access to a library of content, then downloading a title rather than watching it on its official outlet will reduce subscription fees and thus impact revenue sharing. So rather than buying less than 10%, there may in fact be no threshold at which pirating becomes more practical, once the initial monetary threshold (being able to afford the subscription fee) is met.
Therefore, copyright infringement can result in a much stronger loss in revenue than you presume, even though I personally agree that it doesn't constitute "stealing", as no physical good has been removed and appropriated illegally. However, what that copyright infringement can do is impede or obstruct certain consumer-favoring (IMO) business models from being viable.
It's possibly true, in my opinion, that sharing in a gray area of material whose market has not yet matured may increase visibility and have future benefits, but no company which deals with content producers and the platform to deliver content can afford to acknowledge this to the content producers or to the audience without risking legitimizing copyright infringement and therefore delegitimizing their own business (which is why I'm not disclaiming where I work, other than it is familiar with these issues).
Not that I'm arguing that there should be no such thing as sharing, but making the moral argument to justify it that stealing isn't putting the company in a worse position is a poor rationale. It's not true and it's not something that can be defended against in public.
Nor am I arguing that piracy will make or break a business. If it's big enough to be popular, it may be big enough to grow a legitimate market faster than the illegitimate alternative. However, this also relies on cooperative content producers and an audience willing to pay for the content. It's a tricky balance but the reality is that while violation of copyright may not produce economic devastation on its own, neither is it devoid of any impact.
tl;dr: Reasonable people should pay for content available to them that they enjoy, especially when affordable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it is your belief that the creator's terms of use should reign supreme, that is legitimate, but if you want to argue for it then you need to actually argue for it. I wouldn't say that I missed your point, merely that I objected to a particular argument you used it making it. I realize this is a lower level of discourse than addressing your main point entirely, but I'm hoping that it would raise the level of discou…
They argue that way because their inflated claims have no merit. The only justification for copyright that doesn't amount to arrogant and unjustifiable claims of "creator privilege" (my phrase, but that is what their wordy arguments amount to) is that given in the US Constitution, as a practical matter "to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclu…
Maybe I'm making assumptions that you don't agree with--perhaps you think that a thriving video games industry could exist as strongly in the absence of copyright, or that the video games industry hasn't encouraged advances in computers--but both my claims seem fairly uncontroversial to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes it does.
No it does not. He has a license for that media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A competitor can do that today. In fact that happens all the time, even among creatives. Do you know how many songs are stealing of each other? Should we tell musicians to pay for the licks and riffs they takes from someone else music and incorporate into his how?
Of course people create cover versions of songs or re-use a good riff, there is always an element of copying ideas but I think this is different to completely ripping something off 100% since you must still create the rest of the body of work around the original idea. Of course you could argue how much imitation should be allowed before it is considered a copyright or patent violation.
So what is it? Is it taking something away from the original creator (and the creator before him/her) or is it not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It might make you feel better about it, but it really > doesn't change the fact that you're stealing something > of value Copyright infringement is not stealing. Separately, the person who worked hard to produce whatever you're buying is reaping a fraction of a percentage point of whatever you're spending, and that's only if the distributor hasn't found a way to screw them out of that entirely (or else they've been…
I don't buy this argument. Instead of buying a piece of music or a movie, you download it without paying, then you are in some small or large way, you are stealing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The non-rival argument is popular, but not very robust. There is an economic harm by an unauthorized third party increasing the supply and diluting the value to the creator. Another rough equivalent to criminally using without depleting physical goods is someone who breaks into your house to sleep in your bed while you are on vacation. Even if they are clean, and the bed remains the same afterwards for all reasonable…
So, again, we start to dig into some very deep taboos here, right? Is it really that bad if somebody who needs a bed uses mine without permission while it lies unused, provided it isn't harmed and is returned to its initial condition? We're big about virtualization and the cloud and shared hosting, right? Why not consider something similar for worldly goods? It seems awfully inefficient, with 7 billion people, for ev…
Exactly. It's YOUR choice to allow someone to let themselves in when you aren't home and take a nap. BTW, can you post your address and schedule? Just in case anyone reading this thread needs a place to crash for a few hours.
Giving me the right to not have strangers wander into my house while I'm gone does nothing to prevent you from letting strangers wander into your house. By making it ok for people to wander into my house without my permission, you obliterate my property rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all I have had plenty of my ideas, designs etc. copied. I don't care cause at the end of the day it doesn't matter. I don't know why you guys keep arguing the same misguided argument. Here is the difference. When I design for a client I put in the work and design specifically to to them. I am in other words a performing artist. I don't just send them a CD with the same design I did for all my other clients.…
So to clarify: if you do work with the intent of selling it to one buyer it should be protected, but if you do work with the intent of selling it to two or more buyers it should not?