|
Piracy is absolutely justifiable. Except when it's physical. (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| You're right that people who really love to create art will always make it regardless of whether they make enough money from art alone or have to hold another job, but I think it's good that they get something for making the art so that they don't have to spend quite as much time on other things. |
|
|
| Akridrot |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
You're right that people who really love to create art will always make it regardless of whether they make enough money from art alone or have to hold another job, but I think it's good that they get something for making the art so that they don't have to spend quite as much time on other things. |
This is almost like saying that anyone who wants to live a dream life and do something they love (whether it's gaming, ing women on camera, driving fast cars, starring in movies) should be given money to live their dream life if they want their dream life really bad or if they make some kind of demo to show to us. Just because someone might be an amateur pornstar, doesn't mean that we're obligated to pay after seeing their terrible ing on some random site. They are held to the same rules as we are, but since they want to live a dream and the rest of us want to live in reality (ok, we might all want to live a dream, but some of us are ing realistic about it), the rules don't apply to them?
That isn't the case. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Akridrot
This is almost like saying that anyone who wants to live a dream life and do something they love (whether it's gaming, ing women on camera, driving fast cars, starring in movies) should be given money to live their dream life if they want their dream life really bad. They aren't held to the same rules as we are, since they want to live a dream and the rest of us want to live in reality (ok, we might all want to live a dream, but some of us are ing realistic about it). |
Sorry, this is bull. Say someone loves repairing cars. He can get paid for doing that by being a mechanic, and there's no danger that someone else will "pirate" what he has to offer to people. Say someone loves flying planes. He can be a pilot and get paid to do that. But in your odd view of things, for some reason musicians or movie-makers shouldn't have the same option of getting paid to do their dream-job, right?
 |
|
|
| SuspicionVandit |
| As long as you feel bad about piracy, it's ok. Once you feel void of sympathy to the developers, should you see a doctor. I feel very naughty, but as long as you can differentiate that line between right and wrong, you remain a welcome member of society. |
|
|
| Akridrot |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Sorry, this is bull. Say someone loves repairing cars. He can get paid for doing that by being a mechanic, and there's no danger that someone else will "pirate" what he has to offer to people. Say someone loves flying planes. He can be a pilot and paid to get do that. But in your odd view of things, for some reason musicians or movie-makers shouldn't have the same option of getting paid to do their dream-job, right?
|
How are those the same thing? Do we give musicians and artists and movie-makers our terrible howlings and ty songs, doodles, and Youtube videos and tell them repair it for us and make it good?
Some musicians do a terrible job of it, the equivalent of giving you a rusted piece of and calling it a car and expecting you to pay the same price you would pay for a ferrari. Some movie-makers make box office bombs and basically crash and burn. We should pay them the same as an experienced pilot?
The thing is that one area is physical and the other is not. That makes them too different to apply the exact same laws to. It just doesn't work. The intellect is abstract and concrete, it is fantasy and reality.
In my mind, I can hear your song and do whatever I want to it. I can see your movie and imagine the actress sucking your grandmother's polka dotted dicks. You don't even know what I'm going to do with your music in my head. One person might use it to progress higher, and another might just forget it. You can't have everyone pay the same thing or even pay anything. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Akridrot
Some musicians do a terrible job of it, the equivalent of giving you a rusted piece of and calling it a car and expecting you to pay the same price you would pay for a ferrari. Some movie-makers make box office bombs and basically crash and burn. We should pay them the same as an experienced pilot? |
Where did I say that? Why would you even pay a bad musician at all? Or even download their music for free? People don't pay bad mechanics who can't fix their cars -- or at least they try to avoid doing so.
I don't think the concept of "intellectual property" is very coherent either, but I also think it's a ty thing not to give some kind of reward to the person who is entertaining you. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Paying for something is one way of showing that you care about it. If you aren't willing to pay for something, chances are you're either poor or just don't care very much about it in the first place. I think the latter is the case with most people who download music via file-sharing services. |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Akridrot
How are those the same thing? Do we give musicians and artists and movie-makers our terrible howlings and ty songs, doodles, and Youtube videos and tell them repair it for us and make it good?
Some musicians do a terrible job of it, the equivalent of giving you a rusted piece of and calling it a car and expecting you to pay the same price you would pay for a ferrari. Some movie-makers make box office bombs and basically crash and burn. We should pay them the same as an experienced pilot?
The thing is that one area is physical and the other is not. That makes them too different to apply the exact same laws to. It just doesn't work. The intellect is abstract and concrete, it is fantasy and reality.
In my mind, I can hear your song and do whatever I want to it. I can see your movie and imagine the actress sucking your grandmother's polka dotted dicks. You don't even know what I'm going to do with your music in my head. One person might use it to progress higher, and another might just forget it. You can't have everyone pay the same thing or even pay anything. |
This is subjective. Everybody on this planet perceives things differently. One guy could get his car fixed by a terrible mechanic and think it's great, and another guy could get it fixed and think it was a waste of money. Same goes with music, just because you think a song is terrible if you listen to it on the radio doesn't mean you HAVE to buy it. Someone who listens to it on the radio and falls in love with it will be more inclined to buy the song to support the artist who made it. Just because someone likes their job (musicians, artists) doesn't mean they shouldn't get paid for it. How the would they make a living? I like computer programming, but you can bet your ass if nobody paid me to do it, I wouldn't keep doing it. What's your job? Would you like it if they suddenly stopped paying you because they didn't like you or they didn't like the way you did your work? This is all subjective, just because you don't like something doesn't mean you still dont' have to pay for it. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Akridrot
Art ≠ Product in my mind because I see it entirely as doing something you love to do, so creating it isn't labor and just because you spent capital to make something you love doesn't mean that everyone experiences it has to remunerate you.
We don't owe every single artist the ability to make more Art. It is not like product, it's a different beast entirely. |
So you're saying we should have the right to own an original Picasso for free?
You aren't paying the artist for their effort - you're paying for the product. Art and music are both careers - yes, individuals may enjoy their work, but that doesn't detract from the fact that they deserve to get paid for the goods they produce.
Moreover, as mentioned before, the radio and youtube both function by purchasing licenses (see recently-decided suit against youtube) - that way they can reproduce and distribute an artist's work for a nominal fee, ensuring that the copyright is not infringed in any way. Websites such as the one you pointed to operated for a time in some legal gray area, but as a result of this week's lawsuit decision, are definitely now illegal. |
|
|
| Akridrot |
OK.
I think this entire thread is solipsistic on my part, which is why many of you don't agree with it. I feel that it doesn't matter who pays or doesn't pay for my artwork since I intend to make art no matter what and for me, the amount of time and money I spend on it doesn't matter, since I'm not going to put my entire life savings into anything, and I don't intend to profit.
I'm anti-copyright [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-copyright] entirely, I don't pretend to like the IP laws you have. But if everyone else wants to abide by them, then that's your choice and you're free to do that just the same as I'm free to shun any "protection" they might provide. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Akridrot
Art ≠ Product in my mind because I see it entirely as doing something you love to do, so creating it isn't labor and just because you spent capital to make something you love doesn't mean that everyone experiences it has to remunerate you. |
No matter how much you love something, creation is labour. It's time, energy and money. Once again, saying "It isn't labour" doesn't make it so. And everyone needs money to live. If it isn't coming from your art, it has to come from a job, leaving less time and energy to devote to creativity.
It's idealistic to think artists can go on making something and sharing it indefinitely, with only the joy of creation and the satisfaction of sharing keeping them going. Most artists will spend many years toiling away entirely for the love, but if they aren't rewarded then eventually they'll give it up. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Akridrot
Bad art/product being pirated should be interpreted as a boo, while good art/product not being pirated should be interpreted as a cheer.
Wait. No. That's wrong.
Both bad and good get pirated (bad will be pirated less, good will be pirated more), it must mean that pirating doesn't affect one thing:
The number of people who will purchase the game to support the creators.
Bad will also be paid for less, while good will be paid for more.
Pirating makes no difference. I remember Cars being one of Pixar's biggest selling DVDs (or highest grossing films), while it was also one of the most pirated movies ever.
Let's take games. Think about Chess. You can play it for free, or you can pay for a Chess set. You can pay for a Chess subscription service. It's 100% free or something you can pay for. Has been, for many, many years.
As just one example, game studios should allow people to play for free and allow people of different incomes to support them with different amounts after having played the game in order to further promote the creation of new games. If their game is THAT damn good (Super Mario Bros, Halo 3 status, cultural phenomena status), then people will buy it. They'll buy the special goodies. They'll attend the promotional events and pay to see more content. Because it's worth it to them and they want to support.
Buying should be a statement of support, not an order to be followed regardless of the quality or value that the game will have for the person buying it. Different games are worth different amounts of money. Some games are worth twice the price of other games and people would have no problem with that. Other games are worth half their price. Same with movies.
We could literally have game, movie(NOT MPAA), music studios (NOT RIAA) being supported off of the strength of a single game, film, or album.
It wouldn't have to be like business, it could just be that the people have decided that one person's/organization's talent is so immense and culturally significant that they will support this person's/organization's future endeavors.
If we were alive back when Disney was just starting out and we had the ability to pirate, then Disney would still be here today and just as wealthy.
Don't force people to support bad Art and its continuation, let bad Art die. Good art will always be supported and it should always be free as well.
(Note: stealing the original physical copies is bad, sharing physical duplicates is not. Just clearing that up and correcting any misconceptions that might arise.) |
You’re a ing . |
|
|
|
|
