The response I’d like to see to the Stop Piracy in NYC video is a spokesperson walking up to a record executive or a US Copyright Group lawyer and offering them a new Porsche with the stipulation that if they take it, hundreds of children won’t get decent health care because the lawsuits that they filed to earn that Porsche cleaned out the parents’ savings.

Problem is that the shaming tactic can only possibly work on someone who has a conscience…

I would scoop up the whole thing in my arms, and spit on both of them too. Stop brainwashing people. You’re the criminal scum for manipulating the government to your interests. Copyright is not an idea that the movie and music industries get to have a monopoly on. You are not the be-all end-all of creative expression, and the MPAA and RIAA do not speak for “the industry”

Source: TheBilly 5 days ago 10

Yep I see it is having the desired effect already, people are feeling guilty and shamed and will not do it.

Or they are getting angrier and will do it more now just to piss off the object of their hatred.

“Cinemas should be emphasizing the irreplaceable experience they offer.”

For that to work, the “irreplaceable experience” would have to be good. As it stands now, I can pay to sit in an uncomfortable seat while listening to strangers talk on their phones and hope the theater doesn’t have bedbugs. Or I can download a movie for free and watch it in the comfort of my own home. Tough choice? No.

The theater experience is actually pretty damn replaceable. The only benefit really offered up is “content”. And said content is no longer exclusive to theaters. So your friend was right.

…or you can get a girlfriend and go to the theather, or you as a social animal that hasn’t reach the age of complaints can enjoy a social interaction watching people cheer for the hero and let escape the “oh noes!”, those things doesn’t happen in your house I believe, you don’t strike me as a person who would let others express themselves in a free way there and mess your tidy space.

Oh, I dunno. The size of a movie screen theater is wider than any side of my dwelling.

I do agree that many theaters can improve greatly upon the experience they offer. I’ve heard of cushy seating and beer and pub food at theaters evidently not at work in my area of the country.

I’d pay for that experience at least once.

I have a wife, thanks. And she and I can sit together on our couch or bed without the barrier of an armrest. As for your presumptions as for my preference for social interaction: I have a projector and a ten foot screen. My actual friends come over multiple times a week and we watch movies here, in my home. So “believe” what you want. Your opinions of my home and social life are ill-informed and irrelevant, and also a clear dodge of addressing the topic.

Are you the person to whom I responded?

Besides, pausing is not the point of going to a theater is it?

About the annoying shits I rest my case, grumpy people will never set a foot in crowded spaces that is not their scene.

Theaters have unique experience that some people long to have, it is a place to feel something different to appreciate all the textures that it offers, to create memories and remember those memories, even shitty theaters have an appeal.

Who never got to go to a theater because it was the only place they could think of to invite somebody?

You don’t need to like it, I don’t but I do understand the appeal it has for some and that is why they didn’t all close, because people want that experience and even if it is horrible you get out of it a story to tell your friends when you are pausing your movie player inside your home, I have many stories about theaters although I don’t go anymore.

Like the day people riot inside one and broke everything and people were running for their lifes, it was scary, but I laugh at it today, or the day a little bully jumped in front of me an adult and his friends were laughing, do you get those things in your home? Did you kiss your wife for the first time in your house? did you have fun with your friends always inside your home?

That is the point, to connect, to feel something different, to experience the world, that is also why people go to live gigs despite all the inconveniences.

Got anything to offer other than trolling?

Thanks for reinforcing my point. Different medium, different world, not comparable. The modern masterworks that people crave ARE able to be duplicated. And that’s what I said, isn’t it? The names mentioned… their work COULD NOT be duplicated in seconds. The art of today, the art produced by modern artists, CAN.

Not a valid comparison.

Can people still sell originals? Sure. A limited amount that, for an artist to make a living, will have to be sold at a high price. But our culture values original artwork less and less. Generations are growing up with a new perception in regards to the tangible versus the intangible.

This is exactly why litterature died with Gutenberg 1439. Or picture art with xylography. Bummer.

Did I say anything about the death of all art? Is your sarcasm even remotely on target? No. It’s like you randomly pulled your attempt at a response off a pre-made list.

Do you?

The sad thing is that you don’t see it.

When people scream together for the hero or when they let out that “ohhhhhh!” in unison, that is a social event shared by all in that place, but maybe this is exactly why you don’t like theaters because people express themselves and let go of some of the social restraints they have and as I said that makes you unhappy with it, you get grumpy.

???

You argued that production methods made copy protection unnecessary. That is just silly, and deserves sarcasm.

When it comes to our age appreciating originals less and less, you are just guessing. Then I allow myself a guess – more and more original artwork is created, not the least factor being digital tools.

Just wait till holodecks are developed, and then we’ll see how irreplaceable your experience is.

Too bad most people are too damn lazy to get off of the couch and to hell with the experience.

It is not magical that on an era that there was no copycrap, artists still got paid?

There are a couple of things that completely poke holes in your theory (using a term like copycrap doesn’t help suggest you are moderate on anything either).

First up, you have to ask “who was paying?”. In the times of Shakespeare and many of the great classical musicians, they were paid not be music sales or even by concerts, but rather were kept pets of wealthy patrons, politicians, and so on. There was no real market for music or art, certainly not to the level of people paying very much to see it. The rich often used it to amuse the masses, sort of an updated version of the Roman Coliseum mentality.

Second, you are talking about a time when information would move around the globe at a speed measured not in seconds but in years. The New World was still new, and it make take years for even basic news to travel. Exposure to other works might take a lifetime to achieve.

In modern times, we have the printing press, the telephone, radio, television, now the internet, all ways that have put more and more information at our fingertips. Within seconds I can tell you how long the lineup is for the cross bay tunnel is in Hong Kong or let you know what is on the big screens in Times Square.

Free distribution 500 years ago, isn’t the same as it is today. To suggest that the models of 500 years ago are somehow valid is to ignore 500 years of advancements.

The good news? You are just narrow minded enough that Nina might need you to help make some more comics.

Who is the theif – when granny who has never owned a computer or had an internet connection receives a threat letter accusing her of copyright infringement and has to spend her fixed income on legal council …

I find little mikee’s posts enertaining, but the comments are equally entertaining…

Everyone crys about this or that aspect of how copyright should be banned, and data deserves to be free, and my all time favorite about how it costs NOTHING to distribute digitcal content (wish someone would tell my datacenters that so I can save $3200 per month).

But in the end how well it is all working out for everyone? You cry, the RIAA gets more laws making you more of a criminal. You cry louder, the RIAA gets bigger and bigger settlements in court. You cry louder yet and ICE steps in and takes your domains aways… You cry louder yet and congress steps in passing laws taking infringement from just a civil cast to a criminal…

The future is here, and crying isn’t helping your case. Continuing to “infringe” just because you can will only cost you more than just buying the damn stuff in the end.

The Irony here, y’all just have to learn to play the REAL game instead of just crying….

I have said dozens of times, the solution is simple, if you don’t want to pay for it, thend DONT consume it. All any of you do is PROVE that there is a market for the material by making copies of it.

BUT stop making copies, stop buying and stop crying. The RIAA couldn’t go to congress and claim that piracy is killing anything. No piracy and failing business is just a failing business, and unless its the banking or automobile business congress isn’t too likely to bail them out.

Stop pirating the products and they will try different markets to distribute their products.

In the end though, PLEASE don’t stop crying, it’s entertaining to see how foolish some of you are.

O.k. if you were talking about music venues (not that the internet is a threat there), i would be agreeing.
With Cinema I feel totally differently (more like i feel about the net killing pop musician incentive). Good riddance. I can’t get a beer or roast a joint, or even pause the movie to take a leak and get a snack — Boo Hiss — another highlight being ripped off for the ticket and then ripped off again (insane prices) for popcorn or whatever.

As far as independent cinema is concerned I’m closer to more venues then most people in the barren U.S, but still transportation to any one of the ‘independent’ places is at least $10. It’s not worth it, cause i’ll be ripped off there too.

In short screw the cinema, too pricey, too many rules, and not very relaxing. I’ll save my money and stay home, maybe watch something from vodo

Infringement (addition) does not equal theft (subtraction) in concept and under US law. Declaring otherwise is true propaganda and flat out deceitful.

If infringement were actually theft, a criminal offense, the accused would have access to free defense counsel, the prosecution would bear a far greater burden of proof, the punishment would be less, gigantic statutory damages awards non-existent, and I’d hazard that the laws would get changed in short order to favor the consumer, a la Prohibition and marijuana use, to lighten the court load.

Could you imagine these mass infringement lawsuits being filed against thousands of unidentified persons being handled in criminal courts instead of civil courts?

Nah, entertainment industry likes infringement categorized exactly how it is, why wouldn’t they? It’s so easy to make accusations they cannot fully prove yet reap huge rewards anyway. But it intentionally sows confusion by consistently declaring it what it is not and enjoy the propaganda effects created in those that drink the Kool Aid.

I’m sorry for you that you have so much trouble understanding this.

The point is, they lived in a culture that placed more value on original work. Would people have paid Da Vinci for originals if they could have acquired an exact copy for free instantly? You have no idea, because it was impossible.

The eras are not analogous. Pretending they are is of no value.

Pipe dream. You point to a few exceptions and argue a rule.

I argued no such thing. Take the time to read the dialog with context please.

And I’m guessing when I say that younger generations don’t place the same value on the physical aspect of art that the older generation has? Have you spent much time on computers these last ten years?

I’ve also been working professionally in the arts for over 20 years. I’ve also been involved with semi-known stuff and work that is world famous. The demand for original work is simply not as vast as you claim. Now, I’m not saying the demand is 100% absent. But for the vast majority of working artists, it’s not comparable to what it was for the specific three mentioned hundreds of years ago.

And no, no matter what you try to claim, you have no way of knowing how the ability to mass produce infinite copies would have affected the economy of art 500 years ago.

Um… yeah. That was my point.

Since technology has always displaced part of the market one can say with great confidence it could affect you and create new opportunities elsewhere, probably for greater gains.

The ludites try to fought mechanized weaving and lost, scribes were sad when their services were no longer needed.

We don’t need individual artists anymore we need a pool of arts that everyone can use, we need a pool of ideas that everyone can use, and that is not going to happen with IP laws in the way.

There are a couple of things that completely poke holes in your theory (using a term like copycrap doesn’t help suggest you are moderate on anything either).

Where did I claim any moderation in the matter?
I’m passed moderation, but I could only be called two things: lunatic or passionate.

First up, you have to ask “who was paying?”. In the times of Shakespeare and many of the great classical musicians, they were paid not be music sales or even by concerts, but rather were kept pets of wealthy patrons, politicians, and so on. There was no real market for music or art, certainly not to the level of people paying very much to see it. The rich often used it to amuse the masses, sort of an updated version of the Roman Coliseum mentality.

If there was not a market, how did they get paid?
Further you ignore the fact that Shakespeare at his time was writing and perfoming for the commons not the wealthy they came later, he was viewed not as a genius but as a commom writer so you should learn some history pal.

Free distribution 500 years ago, isn’t the same as it is today. To suggest that the models of 500 years ago are somehow valid is to ignore 500 years of advancements.

500 years ago there was no laws against copying anything, or even using it to for personal or commercial use heck some laws only where possible to enforce in the last 50 years, so who is narrow minded?

The guy the is trying to find a way that is robust and resilient in the face of irrefutable facts like you can’t stop anybody from copying anything or some nut job that believe in the mini me plans to conquer and control the world?

The differences are irrelevant you made a statement saying that without the current system there would be no art or implied such, that is truly false and history shows that.

The only confused person here is you not me.

If you could you probably murder the bastard.

The thing to remember is that all this irritation comes from your own mind and atitude, you are not trying hard enough to be patient. You be more happier if you tried.

The difference are far from irrelevant. They make the two circumstances incomparable. And any argument that these differences are not of consequence when trying to predict the economic success of artists automatically fails.

You assigning arguments to me that I did not make serves no purpose. You’re simply trolling. If you have an intelligent argument to make, please do so.

I addressed the issue, it is a psychological one, you are not part of the eco-system that needs a theater or a social setting, you are part of the units that need a controlled environment to feel safe and secure and anything that deviates from that is seem as objectionable.

You are a grumpy guy, what else can I say. You are not fit to be in a social setting as your bias and lack of understanding of how others behave will put you in a foul mood, you got to egoistical somewhere along the way and that is just the truth of the matter you don’t care about others and that is why you see their actions as rude, if something forced you to pick up your cellphone inside a theater or restaurant you would get mad at others for getting mad at you or giving you the stinking eye.

I know you, your type is all to common today and you will teach everyone around you to be the same, creating an unhealthy environment for us all.

Also that is why people will respond to your rants about others with anger, people will see in themselves something that you are harshly criticizing and defense mechanisms will spring into action, those why you probably like to stay at home and don’t like to go out that much because you have to endure what you perceive as a character flaws in others without noticing your own.

You have to wonder. How did they get granny’s name? I mean, it isn’t like the ISP would have it if she wasn’t a client.

That story stinks worse than most around here, and that is saying something!

Why?

The only see I see is that throughout history not matter what the circumstances where artists made a living, that should be proof enough to show you that the success of artists is not related to financial gain or laws that assure some type of rights, but by their work and influence which leads them to get paid independent of laws.

Are you denying that artists existed when there was no copyright?

Are you denying that those artists made a living and some like today lived lavish lifes?

Are you denying that master pieces where create despite no existent copyrights?

In all history you find artists producing and making a living regardless of laws, country or culture, that all just proves that copyright can end tomorrow and people would still be producing music and getting paid.

I think that is very much relevant.

Almost forgot the best part.

Your underlying psychology is why you can’t accept that others have rights too, you can’t get pass your own needs and don’t acknowledge that others may have them.

That is why you are pro-copyright and anti-commons, because only you have rights and others are just a nuisance.

Lord Chamberlain’s Men was where Shakespeare expend most of his career.

How is that any different from rich companies that patronize artists today?

Until the 90’s if you didn’t have a big company behind you, you are probably be working for peanuts too.

The Kings of yesterday have become the CEO’s of todays big companies.

But something happened, technology came along and broke those barriers no longer you need to be patronized by rich companies or kings, you can do it yourself today, distribution is not a problem anymore it can be done by the people, they don’t need others to do it for them, and as this blogs keep showing artists still can make a living.

Maybe not you though.

You totally miss the point. 500 years ago, it took years to get a book published. Typesetting and assembling even a short run of books was insane, almost all manual work. The concept of copying a book was meaningless, you would have to dedicate a very long time to copy something. There was no copyright because, well, there was no simple way to copy.

You also miss the point, throughout history with or without laws artists where there making a living, it didn’t matter the circumstances, the society or anything they were there.

You also miss how important the commons is for society, without a shared culture something that people can use you have no market.

The potential for copryight violation is at an all time high.

Exactly violations of an antiquate law that no longer is based on the reality of its times. Something that is harming society and slowing down progress, something that will not guarantee anything for artists and as can be seen throughout history it is not needed to anybody to make a living.

You know that that same argument without changing anything was what the Luddites said about mechanical weaving machines right? is like going back 200 years to 1811.

“We will end up with a culture based on cell phone images ‘edited’ on toy computers.”

That’s a great line. They should retailers that they need to quit selling ‘toy’ computers and cell phones because technology has limited non-infringing use under the current the industry’s current mode of business.

Why? Because economic conditions were different. Because social conditions were different. Because technological conditions were different. Because the expectations of the public were different and distribution of art was different.

The situations are NOT analogous. Holding up the past as a road map to the future while ignoring all these very important differences is worthless.

I don’t see what’s so great about this “shared experience” of seeing a movie. One moron is on his cell talking, a bunch of bored teens are texting or yapping. Kids up past their bedtime or too young to see the flick in question are talking, screaming or crying.

There’s always some asshat laughing at things that aren’t funny and trying to explain the movie to a stupid friend that doesn’t get it.

And last but not least, the person shouting advice to the people on the screen.

And let us not forget the die hard fan annoyingly reciting the lines with the characters OR spoiling the movie by loudly proclaiming spoilers.

My home theater is lovely. 72″ screen, HD projector…I can pause it, start it, walk away, come back. I can eat a meal, have a beer and enjoy it without any of the annoyances.

Why pay to see a movie in a crowd of people that are so distracting you can’t enjoy the film?

It’s why I skip most major releases and watch at home by other means.

And that’s what makes you a troll. You turn the argument into one about me, based on your own assumptions. Assumptions that have zero credibility. So either you can address the topic or you can’t. It seems you can’t.

Though it is worth noting that your unnecessary insistence to make this a personal examination about psychological motivation speaks volumes about your own character.

Every business model has the potential to make someone rich. And frankly, what exactly is wrong with the pursuit of wealth? Why is it evil for an artist to want financial success? If the copies being sold are being sold at a fair price, why is the pursuit of financial stability through these sales inherently bad?

And the poster was correct. Splitting the price of a years worth of artistic labor amongst thousands allows for people to pay a very low cost. It may not be your preferred system, but that doesn’t mean you should dismiss the validity of a factual argument. Really, it’s very similar to the kickstarter style you mention. Except that in in the current model, less popular works seem to have a greater chance of making it to the final form. They may fail after the fact, but that’s not necessarily bad.

One publisher I worked with made alot of money on one title. He used that money to fund multiple titles with lower mass appeal. They usually lost money, but he could afford to distribute this work because of the success of the one project.

Remove the ability to make lots of money on one successful thing or create a scenario where only things popular enough to generate a specific amount of money get made, you potentially limit the artistic output. The current system allows for many options. They should not be casually dismissed.

At the theater I worked at, it was kind of a margarine-like substance.

I love your posts, because you are so good at trying to gloss things over.

The “top artists” you speak of are mostly label artists. The top money earners are “oldies” acts (AC/DC and Bon Jovi). They aren’t worried about selling their music (although they still sell plenty).

On the other side, you won’t find any acts in the top 100 who are “indy” bands or “made it on the internet” bands. Every one of the top 100 has a label background or a current label deal.

The funny ones to watch are the ones slogging it out on the bar circuit, kidding themselves that the extra few dollars they make on show swag somehow makes up for their lack of a record deal. They celebrate their gains with a Heineken instead of a Keystone Light. They aren’t worried about taxes, because when you earn under a certain point in the US, you don’t pay taxes.

This guy also hated art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

That’s right. You’ve very special.

I got owned and get angry?

LoL

You are a winner or whiner 🙂

Yes it does but I doubt you are competent enough to read the signs.

About the troll part well I addressed your concerns, you just choose to ignore it and that is part of your psychological profile dude.

You are not able to accept facts, you will ignore everything and zero in on what you can use, you are not here to discover something you are here to tell people to STFU and that is what makes you a troll.

All of that just shows how much you understand the business LoL

Great, we can ride in the back of the yellow bus together.

“You want to insult me and call everything I say bullshit? That’s fine. But mind this, you do more to damage your credibility than mine with your inflammatory behavior.”

Your credibility went out the window the moment you started hating artists and trying to see all artwork eliminated from the world.

See, that’s your approach at work. You have the nerve to call my credibility into question when post after post you attribute opinions and actions to me that do not represent anything I have said or done in this thread. You have engaged in the most offensive passive-aggressive debate tactics.

“You’re crass statements will not serve to persuade me, or anyone else for that matter, to see your viewpoint. In my defense, your first reply was argumentative and I regretfully took up the gauntlet. I concede that I should have worded my statements more diplomatically and I apologize for my transgressions.”

Your apology would have more weight if it wasn’t buried under claims of “well you started it”.

“However, you are completely wrong about the high dpi images.”

No I’m not. I am sitting at a computer full of print ready graphics, next to shelves of images made from those graphics. I know exactly what I am talking about. If we are applying the technology of today to the past, there is no reason to assume that copies of works of art would not be available at a print ready download. Look at current file sharing sites. 10 gigabyte files are common, and you’re questioning one that you presume (incorrectly) must be a around 2 gigabytes?

A couple of gigabytes is insignificant, and larger than the images need to be.

“Lastly, what evidence can you submit that people in Shakespeare’s era put higher value on original works”

Because digital copies didn’t exist. So naturally or culture is automatically going to approach copies versus original work differently. That said, I was pointing specifically to the younger generation being more accepting of digital copies in lieu of originals. I assumed that contextually it was clear that this was in contrast to the older generations living today.

In short, it’s not unreasonable to assume that a culture that grows up with digital goods as a reality will hold a different perspective than those that encounter digital goods for the first time as adults. And in truth, we hardly need to assume. Just look up the spending habits between generations on digital goods.

If technology existed hundreds of years ago, the economic conditions would have been different and you have no idea of knowing how that would have impacted the ability of the aforementioned artists to make a living.

So once more, your analogy is inherently flawed.

Oh the only context that matters you willfully choose to ignore.

Artists will continue to make a living despite all that BS you say it is happening and you can’t prove any.

If technology existed hundreds of years ago, the economic conditions would have been different and you have no idea of knowing how that would have impacted the ability of the aforementioned artists to make a living.

The only thing flawed is your logic.

Technology enable artists today to make more money, to reach more people and to create communities all those things impossible before, those are the things that enable people to make money, even lesser known people today can make a living that is why people you never heard of are making 6 figures using platforms like Youtube, but somehow you ignore all of that and keep repeating that the sky is falling, when it is not and everybody knows it, well maybe not you.

You also ignore the fact that plastic discs are only part of the revenue stream of any artist, it may be a big for producers but those producers are now dead weight and their jobs will be shed, is anybody feeling sad because of it?

Not me.

“Artists made a living all throughout history in one way or another”

Nothing I said is conflicts with this.

“History only proves that artists will continue to produce and make a living out of it”

Never said otherwise.

“You tried to say that artists in the middle ages where owned by rich people”

No I didn’t.

“I showed you that they are owned today by rich corporations”

No you didn’t.

You tried to claim that filesharing is harming the industry”

No I didn’t.

The only guy running from facts is you, the only guy talking crap is you.”

You’re attributing a bunch of arguments to me that I did not advance. You seem very confused.

I never claimed anything was “happening”. I simply stated that artists hundreds of years ago and artists today operate within very different social and economic structures.

You might want to try brushing up on your understanding of what “context” is. You attributing arguments to me I did not make is a contextual failure.

You’re attributing a bunch of arguments to me that I did not advance. You seem very confused.

Oops my bad, you are right for once.

The other AC was the one making those points.

Now about your point of artists from the past not being relevant to compare, that is just BS.

People could freely copy everything in those days and artists still made a living and if anything else their creations spread faster through copy then through the artist playing, the artists was restricted by his own limitations as a human being and could not reach everyone and still make a living in spite no protections.

Today despite the easy to copy anything artists have many points in their favor that make it possible not only to make a living but to make a lot of money, artists can reach the world today, they can find more fans and that means more money, they also have many streams of revenue not available to their historic counterparts.

Now explain how will artists not make money?

Will they loose their image? will they loose the ability to sell merchandise and cut deals with manufacturer’s about endorsements? until very recently not 20 years ago there was plenty of bootlegs and people still did go out their way to buy the “original”, what changed? nothing of course.

The other day I say Spock giving a talk on space.com how much did he make, that Star Trek crap only lasted 2 Seasons and he have been giving talks and presentations for all that time almost 40 years WTF? Lets ask him how much he makes from royalties from sales of the original series.

Further copyrights are not about paying artists is about creating a bottleneck that will allow immortal entities to keep the control forever, until the 80’s musicians didn’t make money from what they produced, nor did actors.

“Quote please? Because that is not what I have been saying. What I have actually been saying is that a person cannot point to how artists made money hundreds of years ago and expect that formula to translate over 100% for modern artists.”

Absolutely right. However, that doesnt mean copyright, monopolies, and the absolute destruction of the public domain is the answer.

Correlation != causation

“However, that doesnt mean copyright, monopolies, and the absolute destruction of the public domain is the answer.”

I never said it was. However, I’m failing to see any definitive evidence that copyright has been as harmful as many people seem to imply.

Suing fans, using copyright to censor and not to protect, the ridiculous terms of “derivative works” that don’t exist anywhere else in society, and trying to make it criminal to simply listen or watch something is just absurd.

“I’d have to disagree with that generalisation. Most business models certainly have the potential to make the artist a comfortable living but some certainly lend themselves more to extreme riches.”

Some may have greater or lesser potential. It doesn’t matter. The potential still exists, and the existence of said potential does not make a business model bad.

“The fact that my comment has been flagged as insightful suggests general agreement on that point.”

Popularity of an opinion does not make it correct.

“If that was a genuine question rather than a rhetorical one the answers are here”

My question was genuine, but I’m not religious. So I doubt we will agree on this.

“But – they and the artist also have to pay for all the failures so the cost isn’t that low.”

The cost is very low. You pay ten dollars for a book a writer spent two years of his life laboring over? That’s cheap.

“Plus it means that the public gets no direct say in what art is actually produced – in spite of the fact that they are the ones paying for it.”

First of all, the existence of one system does not mean that other systems cannot exist. Furthermore, the public does have a degree of say, voting with their wallet. On that note, they’re not actually paying for anything unless they want it. Finally, complete power of artistic output should not be solely in the hands of the buying public. If it were, we would never have seen the works of Van Gough.

No one should be able to force an artist on how they prefer their work distributed. Copyright can already be waived and work can be distributed freely. But if an artist prefers to operate under copyright, they should be free to make that choice themselves.

“On top of that it leaves the cost of copyright enforcement – which – if you try to actually do it – will dwarf everything else.”

It doesn’t seem to have brought the world of art down yet.

“Seeing as the new model has only been going a short time I think it’s too early to make that kind of judgment – my instinct would be the exact opposite.”

If the model you are forwarding is one where new work is only generated if enough people are willing to pay, than unpopular works have little hope.

I’m a troll? When you’re the one who repeatedly attempted to assign arguments to me I did not make? I’m sorry you don’t like when you’re bullshit is called bullshit, but it is what it it is. Just like your failure to understand the realities of print ready artwork and your analogy that is only analogous if you ignore all non-analogous conditions.

Don’t let the door hit ya.

There is an unbelievable amount of unpopular work being created right now, at this very moment.

Yes. That was part of my point. Whatever distribution system is favored, I don’t believe it should be one where unpopular work cannot find distribution or economic support.

“Really? Seriously? You are THAT deluded?”

No, I’m not. The effect of copyright as a whole cannot be measured by a single year. It’s delusional to suggest that it can be.

“Ok how about this: In 2010, NOT A SINGLE WORK ENTERED THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.”

I’m all for copyright reform. But just because copyright is abused does not mean that every effect of copyright is negative or that the effect of copyright has only been negative.

“There, now please go away”

As if you had made a compelling argument? No. You’re relying solely on an emotional outburst to try and prove your point. If you have credible evidence that copyright – as a whole – as had a universally negative impact on our culture, then let’s hear it.

“your rabid “Rah rah Copyright forever screw the Copyright Bargain in the Constitution” rhetoric is so misguided as to be traitorous to humanity itself.”

As you are likely well aware, I never said any such thing. I have no patience for people who can’t make a valid argument, and instead put words in my mouth. It’s a childish tactic you have chosen to engage in.

“Yes. The internet wins for distributing both popular and unpopular works.”

The long term question is whether or not the internet wins at encouraging the creation of both popular and unpopular works, while offering some form of economic support for the creators.

Distribution is the easy part.

“Really? Seriously? You are THAT deluded?”

No, I’m not. The effect of copyright as a whole cannot be measured by a single year. It’s delusional to suggest that it can be.

“Ok how about this: In 2010, NOT A SINGLE WORK ENTERED THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.”

I’m all for copyright reform. But just because copyright is abused does not mean that every effect of copyright is negative or that the effect of copyright has only been negative.

“There, now please go away”

As if you had made a compelling argument? No. You’re relying solely on an emotional outburst to try and prove your point. If you have credible evidence that copyright – as a whole – as had a universally negative impact on our culture, then let’s hear it.

“your rabid “Rah rah Copyright forever screw the Copyright Bargain in the Constitution” rhetoric is so misguided as to be traitorous to humanity itself.”

As you are likely well aware, I never said any such thing. I have no patience for people who can’t make a valid argument, and instead put words in my mouth. It’s a childish tactic you have chosen to engage in.

You sure ? I am pretty sure the RIAA members think of artists as slave labor and fancy themselves gods.

That is one that has “more to the story”, like the daughter perhaps maintaining the internet in her dead mother’s name, etc.

Also note, the story is from 2005. In internet terms, you might as well be talking about dinosaurs.

Empathy and compassion. I don’t need the threat of hell or the promise of heaven to have morals.

From experience, observation and deduction. I can imagine the pain and sense of violation of having my property stolen. I do not wish to inflict that pain on another. I would not sleep with a friends wife, as I can imagine the suffering that would cause and I would not wish to visit such pain upon another.

Religion is not a requirement for one to have morals.

Or perhaps you need to learn more about timezones, if somebody harvest IP’s at some time in New York and ask another person in California for the packets delivered at that time those probably won’t match, also it doesn’t matter if the new IP leased have or not P2P software that is not where the confusion come from, it at the other end that receive packets and don’t check for them establishing a connection and actually receiving data from.

Ask any of those P2P harvesters if they have logs of any transaction done with real data transferred? That would be something new and more accurate.

The end result still being that copyright has not brought down the world of art.

With few exceptions, I’m not seeing any evidence that anyone is being forced to pay for art they do not choose to acquire. If people find the price of art unfair, all they have to do is not participate. That includes not procuring the art by circumventing the purchase price.

I’m all for copyright reform. But just because copyright is abused does not mean that every effect of copyright is negative or that the effect of copyright has only been negative.

It doesn’t need to have all negative aspects to be bad it just need to be more bad than good.

Again, not saying reform isn’t required, but considering the impressive artistic output of the last 100 years, I’m having trouble seeing that the balance effect has been definitively more negative than positive.

Than you should repeal copyright because that is the basic thing that is used to exclude unpopular works from the environment currently.

Just go to Youtube and you can see thousands upon thousands of “unpopular” works.

You also will see a lot of people being censored.

The ability to monetize unpopular works by selling multiple copies of of popular works also does a very good job of keeping unpopular works in distribution. Copyright can be waived and work can be distributed freely regardless of the existence of copyright. So copyright does not prevent the creation of original works, be they popular or unpopular.

As I said: “with few exceptions”. While I disagree with the practices cited, those instances only apply to a minority.

Did artists loose the ability to charge for seats?
Did artists loose the ability to get support from fans?
Did artists loose the ability to sell merch?

Nope, the only thing lost was control over the EXCLUSIVE distribution of their work, meaning they can still distribute it and sell it, they just won’t be able to EXCLUDE anyone else from doing so, which doesn’t appears to affect the people who are making millions today as they are making more than they did 10 years ago despite rampant piracy and claims of harms.

Would you care to explain why that happens?

People still will get rich singing and acting and there is nothing pointing to the contrary.

As not everyone buys blank CD’s and not everyone lives in one of those countries, we’re speaking about a minority. Sorry, that’s just the way the math works.

Hell, you’ve held your ground long enough on this. I understand your point, and I’ll go one further: I don’t think holding up an artist from FIFTY years ago as an example is fair. Forget that, using an artist from just 15 years ago as a model would be madness.

To suggest that “artists today are no different from artists 500 years ago” is LUNACY. Your average *person* today is almost unrecognizably different from your average person just 150 years ago.

To imply that artists can just work for patrons, well then guess who controls the art? Patrons! Not you, not the artists, not the public domain. The elite patronage will control it. Why would a patron pay an artist to make something just to give it away? Artists barely enjoy doing that as it is, but they at least get some pleasure of goodwill from it, from at least thinking something they created will better the culture.

Do people really not even understand that the modern idea of a museum that is open to the public is less than 300 years old? And I mean “the-any-Joe-Schmo-Public”. Yes, great art was created throughout the ages, but guess who got to see it? Not you! I don’t know if you guys are aware, but aristocrats never thought very highly of us, the peasant class.

You want to see the public domain disappear completely? Well you just wait until the only people empowered to finance art are the elite. I absolutely hate corporate controlled art (music specifically), but I’d prefer a corporation over a hoarding megalomaniac. At least a corporation has an inherent interest in disseminating the work.

Hell, just look at the history of the Barnes Collection for an example of how even just private *purchase* of paintings can lead to that work being kept from the public, and that story is only 60 years old.

It sure would be nice if that minority were protected from the majority, huh?

Don’t forget that one of the qualifications to meet those numbers requires including people who purchase specific products. Not everyone in those countries (where said qualification is even applicable) make those purchases.

Minority. That’s the way the math works.

Not even relevant. The minority can simply choose not to purchase the items in question, thus avoiding the tax.