Mimi & Eunice: Ye Olde Technologie Killing Culture, Scribes

from the the-more-things-change,-the-more-they-stay-the-same dept

Ye Olde Technology

Last month a well meaning friend in San Francisco wrote to me:

Netflix hurts and an idiot student told me last spring,"Why pay too see Sita at the Red Vic when I can watch it on the Internet
for free."  I tried to be polite in my answer...  I fear theInternet, Netflix, and other forms of amusement are killing what is left of independent theatres which means it will make things harder for artists to break even on productions.  We will end up with a culture based on cell phone images "edited" on toy computers. 

To which I replied,

Actually, the "idiot student" is right - there is no reason to go to the cinema for the "content." The reason to go to the cinema is for the EXPERIENCE, which can't be replicated by isolated watching at home. Netflix and the Internet aren't "killing" cinemas; clinging to exclusivity as a business model is. Cinemas should be emphasizing the irreplaceable experience they offer.

And I drew the above cartoon. (Sita Sings the Blues ended up pulling in a great audience at the Red Vic, too.)

The second one is based on the Stop Piracy in NYC proaganda campaign. Maybe they'll sue me for stealing their idea!



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 7:07pm

    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...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 7:13pm

    Holly cow by the angry comments left there on those videos from that campaign they are f'ed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 7:19pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 7:26pm

    Oh look, there's Nina once again just missing the point.

    Congrats. The new year starts with a bang (or a thud).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 8:28pm

      Re:

      Gad, yer boring.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Greevar (profile), Jan 7th, 2011 @ 8:34pm

      Re:

      I think you're missing the point. The point is that selling content is and never was a valid business model. Those that oppose the file-sharing and call it theft point out the hard-working people that toiled to create these works. They condemn the "pirates" for taking away their ability to earn a living. They paint a pretty sad picture. The truth is, that it hasn't cost one job yet. The movie industry is making a killing despite the claimed thievery.

      There was a time before copyright. Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, and so on did very well by their works and they didn't need a single word of law to protect them from those who wished to copy their works. Why? Because there are other ways to make a living from works that has nothing to do with selling copies that are protected by a law that creates a monopoly on ideas. It's not anyone's fault but their own that they can't run their business outside of a government granted monopoly. It's a flawed model and it doesn't work when applied to real-world economic forces.

      Instead of selling that which you create, why not sell your ability to create? Get hired to create by people who want what you can create for them. Stop trying to sell something you can't control after it's released. Just like a landscaper gets hired to do a lawn, artists can get hired to make works for large groups of people interested in their work. It's not stealing and it's certainly not anyone's property, because it belonged to the public domain first. And that is everybody's property.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Memyself, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 8:53pm

        Re: Re:

        Shakespeare charged people to see his plays. Michelangelo sold his art. He did not share it freely. And Da Vinci may have held wealth in contempt, but he still did not give away his work.

        The names you give are not applicable comparisons for modern artists to emulate. These people did not need law to protect their art? Their art couldn't be duplicated in a few seconds. Not a valid comparison.

        As for the rest: Pipe dream.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Modplan (profile), Jan 7th, 2011 @ 9:07pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You can duplicate physical, original versions of works in mere seconds? I'd love to see that.

          As it stands now, you can only copy their art if it's a digital image. It very much is a valid comparison.

          And what is a pipe dream exactly?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 1:14am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 1:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 2:18am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                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.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 5:47am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  ???

                  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.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 11:40am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    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?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Modplan (profile), Jan 8th, 2011 @ 8:42am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The modern masterworks that people crave ARE able to be duplicated. And that's what I said, isn't it?


              No, because you ignored the distinction between a non-scarce digital copy and an actual original, implying that there would be no markets for such, and this no business for said artists. You argued that they wouldn't be able to make any money today, even though selling their works involved nothing to do with pretending a digital file isn't easily reproducible.

              But our culture values original artwork less and less.


              To quote many a commenter, citation needed.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 11:35am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You seem to be having difficulty with this. I clearly stated that comparisons between artists from 500 years ago and now are invalid if they ignore every aspect of the comparison that is different. 500 years ago, digital copies were impossible, so you have zero way of judging how such technology would have affected the way things were. Pretending otherwise is simply disingenuous.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 4:39pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  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.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 5:52pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    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.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 7:27pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      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.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Memyself, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 11:48am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        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.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Modplan (profile), Jan 9th, 2011 @ 7:10pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Your specific claim was that the artists would not be able to make money because of digital copies today. This is a claim blatantly false by mere fact that artists today are making money and using free digital copies for promotion of originals, prints, etc.

                          Your claim was about fundamental business model, not technical or social conditions, the point of our arguments being new technology can be used to help artists who are trying to sell originals or whatever else in gaining exposure they wouldn't have otherwise.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Memyself, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 7:33pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            "Your specific claim was that the artists would not be able to make money because of digital copies today."

                            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.

                            Context. It matters.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 7:52pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Why not?

                              Artists made a living all throughout history in one way or another independent of laws, culture and other factors and somehow now they are unable to do so?

                              History only proves that artists will continue to produce and make a living out of it, digital copies will not change that only an idiot would state something like that.

                              You tried to say that artists in the middle ages where owned by rich people, I showed you that they are owned today by rich corporations, and even in the middle ages they were self employed as Shakespeare was, in Egypt they were fed by their King and lived above the standards of those days, in Rome they were brought in to entertain and educate the rich and lived well above the normal people in those days, so somehow all your BS is just that BS.

                              You tried to claim that filesharing is harming the industry, funny enough income tax of artists have only gone up for some reason that you have yet to explain.

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

                              Now care to show any artist that have go out of business because of digital copies?

                              The new phenomenon's today in music like Lady Gaga and Bieber both came from the internet and started giving their shit for free explain to everbody here how that was really bad for them.

                              If you can't make money that is your problem others are doing just fine and that chicken little routine of "OMG we are losing money" is not only tiresome is ridiculous.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                identicon
                                Memyself, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 8:16pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                "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.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 8:37pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  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.

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 7:53pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              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.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                identicon
                                Memyself, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 8:19pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                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.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 8:44pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  Failure by distraction you are right on that one still, about not being a valid comparison, I will argue that that is not the case.

                                  If nothing else in those days the works of great master spread more rapidly then the original creator would have been able to do it on his own and everybody got money for it.

                                  It is a valid comparison even though the speed was slower the same dynamics then are true today and today artists are better of because they have more options that where not available in those days, so even in those days that where more difficult for artists they got paid and some even owned their own business.

                                  Today's artists can sell not only their product, by their image and endorsements.

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 1:25am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  Artists hundreds of years ago are the same as artists today.

                                  What you basically is saying is that if people play in slow motion the dynamics change.

                                  That is not true at all, the dynamics continue the same if nothing else artists where in a disadvantage at those times because of their own limitations to spread their own work, faced with thousands of copycats that would spread it far and wide in a time frame that the original creator would never be able to match.

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              identicon
                              RD, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 8:48pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              "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

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                identicon
                                Memyself, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 9:14pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                "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.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 1:28am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  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.

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  identicon
                                  RD, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 9:45am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  "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."

                                  Really? Seriously? You are THAT deluded? Ok how about this: In 2010, NOT A SINGLE WORK ENTERED THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. There, now please go away, your rabid "Rah rah Copyright forever screw the Copyright Bargain in the Constitution" rhetoric is so misguided as to be traitorous to humanity itself.

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  •  
                                    identicon
                                    Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 10:41am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    "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.

                                     

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    •  
                                      identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:24am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      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.

                                       

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      •  
                                        identicon
                                        Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:28am

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        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.

                                         

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        •  
                                          identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 12:57pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          Maybe you are looking at the wrong place then, the monumental spread of arts and output could be just because of better distribution channels, the more easily it gets to reach people the more market is created, the more people create to saturate that market.

                                          Copyright need not to be the sole reason for that boom.

                                           

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              chris (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 7:06am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              But our culture values original artwork less and less.

              our culture is evolving past broadcast media (TV, radio, film, etc.) where consumers passively observe mostly original works.

              what our culture is moving toward is a more participatory medium where people are doing things with the media they see and hear.

              look at how internet memes are born and spread. this is an example of how the creation process, rather than the finished work, is the emphasis. the end result isn't "my original comic is great", instead it's "hey guys i made a rage comic about us!" or "since we're all talking about this event, here's a comic!" and it's funny, not because it's a good comic, or because it's original, but because it is meaningful to a group of people.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 10:45am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Then artists should produce a different kind of art. Once the item you sell no longer makes money, you move on. Sorry but that is life. Many people lose their jobs to tech. Artists are not special and donít deserve special protection.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 10:56am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I never said artists were special or deserve protection. I'm simply saying that suggesting that artists can make money the same way artists made money hundreds of years ago is an oversimplification - at best.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Huph, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 3:11pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  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.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 10:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

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

          Shakespeare stole most of his plays from others and got paid as an sure the people from whom he stole also made money, Michelangelo got paid and everybody could copy his work, and it was shared freely.

          Da Vinci actually worked for a living, he was hired to do a job and that was it, like Michelangelo.

          Their work could be freely copied and distributed by numerous artists that probably feed themselves making copies of great masters are you denying that this happened?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 1:17am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

            How many? You can name the most famous, but that's easy. Their have always been superstars. That's not a shock. But the work a day artists? How about them? How well did they do?

            I'm not saying you're wrong. But offer up some real numbers.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 4:37pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              In Egypt artists where in high demand to construct the pharaoh's tombs and for the time they lived better then anybody else.

              Now, lets talk about today. Today artists don't make a living, by all accounts 90% of all that try to make a living in music fail is that high to you?

              More copyrights are not for artist, they are for companies, tell me who is benefiting from all those dead artists, is not the families I'm sure of it and even the families should not benefit from a monopoly granted.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 5:54pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I asked for real numbers. You're not offering any.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 7:16pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  To be honest it is because I don't want to go through hours of video to show you the sources and data for those numbers.

                  But I'm glad to point you in the direction so you can search yourself.

                  Somewhere in Youtube you can find a series of documentaries about Egypt, the Roman Empire and Some dude commenting on the middle ages and how they lived.

                  Secrets of the Lost Empire: Pharaoh's Obelisk

                  From there you can get the names and dates and confirm the studies that those documentaries were based on.

                  In Egypt artisans where in high demand to build their empire, in the Roman empire the same thing is true, even writers got famous and banned at times and they lived better them most people at the time also. In the middle ages artists flourished at times like in wars where people had to manufacture those armors by hand, but also there were caravans of theatrical that toured towns all around Europe all those things happened without copyrights, they all made a living or are you want to denny they existed?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Memyself, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 11:51am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    You're throwing these numbers around as facts, but you don't know them yourself. Okay. Fine. Let's address this: You point to ancient Egypt and the work on the pyramids. Well sure, you could more easily afford artists when the bulk of your workforce is slave labor and you're also a monarch that people consider a god.

                    Not comparable to today's artists and the market they work within.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 10:49am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 10:58am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        No artist is ever forced into working with the RIAA. It's a matter of choice to sign a contract. If an artist makes a poor choice, I have little sympathy.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 8:14am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 4:33pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              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?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 10:36pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                *sigh*. After reading your comment, all I can say is that you don't have passion.

                Shakespeare lived in the era of kept pets. You could read:

                http://kirjasto.sci.fi/shakespe.htm

                To understand that everything was done with the money of wealthy patrons (even the king) and understand that the only times he really made it big was when he had rich men paying his way. Otherwise, he was a writer like any other in the day, working for peanuts and often having to be an actor as well.

                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?

                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.

                The invention of speedier printing presses pretty much syncs up with the creation of copyright. It got easier to make copies. In the 1800s, better printing methods would developed and from there, duplication became easier.

                Until that point, violating copyright wasn't much of an issue, because the time frame to actually do it was so long, and the chances anyone would actually know and see it in their lifetime is nil.

                You can then follow history through everything from mimeographs, photocopiers, and high speed laser printers to know what if you want duplicate a book on paper, you can do it. Now we skip that step entirely and replicate it as bits and bytes, and print out own copy if we want to.

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

                Saying that it worked 500 years ago is to ignore all that history. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The pendulum swings one way, and now it starts to swing back. Get ready for it.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Allan Masri (profile), Jan 13th, 2011 @ 3:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Shakespeare did not steal his plays from anyone. A lot of us wish we could write like Will; it's highly unlikely he wished he could write like anyone else. Shakespeare did use plots and characters in the public domain. Incidentally, using someone else's work is not stealing, even when the work is copyrighted as it is today.

            Shakespeare not only did not copyright his work, he didn't even publish it, probably because that would make it too easy for his competitors to perform. Not a single one of his plays was published during his lifetime.

            So why do we have the texts of Shakespeare's plays today? Pirates. That's right, pirates copied his plays so they could make money performing them. Without those pirates, Shakespeare's words would be lost to history and literature. Remember that the next time someone complains about how immoral piracy is!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Greevar (profile), Jan 8th, 2011 @ 8:11am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Once again, you missed the point. The point is that they were paid to make those works, not selling copies. Did Michaelangelo get paid for copies of the Sistine Chapel? Did Da Vinci get paid for copies of his paintings? No. They were paid to make them, not for reproductions of the same work.

          A pipe dream is it? You must be aware that people are already doing it and it's working.

          www.intersellarmarines.com
          http://vodo.net/pioneerone
          http://www.musicthinktank.com/bl og/in-defense-of-1000-true-fans-part-vii-ellis-paul-300-fans-10.html
          http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/ 2010/05/piracy-again.html

          There you go. All successful examples of people that don't depend on copyright to support their business model and these are just the ones I know about. They're making their money by earning the loyalty of their fans. Pipe dream? Like hell it is.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 11:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              RD, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 11:53am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "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. "

              They absolutely would. I have several friends who are professional artists (and by that I mean, doing it for 20+ years, ranging from semi-known to world famous) and even though they make prints of their stuff, even though most of it is available for "free" in some way (say, a magazine ad, or a comic cover, billboard, etc) these people still have HUGE demand for original works. In some cases, they have stopped even doing most published work and ONLY do commissioned originals work. So, it is not at all "impossible" to determine, its actually quite easy: There is only ONE ORIGINAL! That has value. Always has, always will. DaVinci made money EXACTLY the same way artists do today. The only difference is, today they can ALSO make money via prints, publication, and copies. Sorry, you are wrong. Try again (or dont, you do not seem to have a good understanding of this market and argument).

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 12:27pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                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.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 1:04pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  The economy of art? It would have affected the economy of everything! And culture would have changed. For the better, for the worse?

                  Culture changes. Always has and always will.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 4:23pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  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.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 1:55pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                It all trickles back to the idea of finding a single sucker to pay for everyone else. One person pays for the work, and every one else sponges off of them getting a free copy. If they run out of sucks to pay,nobody gets anything.

                It's the basis of selling the copies - nobody has to pay for the original work, because everyone pays to have access to a replica / duplicate. It also gives the people great strength in deciding what is good and what is bad. Can you imagine all of music culture if the only ones choosing were Bill Gates and Carlos Slim? Holy crap, would we be in trouble.

                There are reasons why the economy runs around access to copies. It allows us each the chance to have access to great works at a minimal cost. It allows the costs of producing and distributing those great works to be borne by a large number of people, avoiding having a command economy in art.

                Commissioned art is the worst possible types of art, as it is art on the command of a person, not the artist.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 4:15pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  The economy the one that just crashed?

                  The one that takes all the jobs away to far lands and leave eveybody without money to buy anything?

                  That economy you are talking about?

                  I prefer the other one, where people work every body contributes to the body of knowledge and everybody is free to implement it and use it for their own needs (hobby, business or to make a buck)

                  Your system doesn't foster cooperation, it leads to friction and waste.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Richard (profile), Jan 9th, 2011 @ 8:46am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  It all trickles back to the idea of finding a single sucker to pay for everyone else. One person pays for the work, and every one else sponges off of them getting a free copy. If they run out of sucks to pay,nobody gets anything.

                  As kickstarter has demonstrated paying up front for something to be created can now be done by a group of people - it doesn't have to be an individual anymore.

                  It's the basis of selling the copies - nobody has to pay for the original work, because everyone pays to have access to a replica / duplicate.


                  No - what YOU like about his model is that every now and then it allows someone to become extremely rich (sometimes the artist - but more often the middleman.

                  Admit it, greed is your motivation, you are mourning for the lost opportunity to become very rich.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Memyself, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 12:46pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    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.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 5:24pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Your assumptions get lost when you assume that the ability to make money is lost when you don't have a monopoly, that is not true, it becomes maybe harder, but history have shown that it is not impossible.

                      Also most people don't care if people get filthy rich but they do care when the filthy rich try to dictate to others what they should do, how to do it and take away their rights.

                      About less popular works the current form discourage that with gusto, that is why we get Bieber's and Lady Gaga's.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Richard (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 4:09am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Every business model has the potential to make someone rich.
                      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. The fact that my comment has been flagged as insightful suggests general agreement on that point.

                      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?

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

                      In the current context the unbelievers amongst us might consider replacing "God" with "Art" in these posts.

                      By the way there is nothing wrong with wanting financial security - but desiring extreme wealth is another matter.

                      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./i>

                      But - they and the artist also have to pay for all the failures so the cost isn't that low. 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.
                      On top of that it leaves the cost of copyright enforcement - which - if you try to actually do it - will dwarf everything else.


                      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.
                      The advantage of the kickstarter system is that we can forget about DRM and IP lawyers and all that crap and get on with making, publicising and enjoying art.
                      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.

                      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.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Richard (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 4:12am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Every business model has the potential to make someone rich.
                      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. The fact that my comment has been flagged as insightful suggests general agreement on that point.

                      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?

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

                      In the current context the unbelievers amongst us might consider replacing "God" with "Art" in these posts.

                      By the way there is nothing wrong with wanting financial security - but desiring extreme wealth is another matter.

                      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.

                      But - they and the artist also have to pay for all the failures so the cost isn't that low. 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.
                      On top of that it leaves the cost of copyright enforcement - which - if you try to actually do it - will dwarf everything else.


                      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.
                      The advantage of the kickstarter system is that we can forget about DRM and IP lawyers and all that crap and get on with making, publicising and enjoying art.
                      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.

                      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.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 8:58am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "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.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 9:29am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 9:44am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            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.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 10:27am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                identicon
                                Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 10:32am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                "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.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:29am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  I don't think so, that question seems wrong somehow.

                                  A better question would be "Is the internet different from all the others ways to distribute works"

                                  The answer is no, it is just more efficient, like wind that will blow away everything eventually by erosion or in an instant by a hurricane, they seem different but are governed buy fluid dynamics at their core.

                                  Artists will always make a living, history have shown that no matter what the circumstances are there will be money to be made.

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  •  
                                    identicon
                                    Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:36am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    We agree in terms of the internet and distribution. But in terms of artists always having a means to profit from their art? No.

                                     

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    •  
                                      identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 1:19pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      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.

                                       

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      •  
                                        identicon
                                        Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 1:28pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        You're speaking in the present tense. This dialog is addressing the future.

                                         

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        •  
                                          identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 9:32pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          The future will not be kind to the control freaks.

                                           

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:32am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              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.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                identicon
                                Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:42am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                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.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Richard (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 10:58am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          My question was genuine, but I'm not religious. So I doubt we will agree on this.
                          So where do your morals come from?

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:00am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Richard (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:05am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Empathy and compassion.

                              Those are good principles - but the question is where did you get them from?

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                identicon
                                Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:15am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                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.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  icon
                                  Richard (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 12:51pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  One could of course argue that to view copyright as property is a mistake and therefore the anguish caused is phony.
                                  One might then realise that it would be better to cure someone who is scared of spiders of their misguided phobia (and that might involve exposing them to spiders in order to de-sensitize them) rather than to use it as a reason for trying top exterminate all spiders from the face of the earth.

                                  The fact is that there are plenty of artists who do not view the free copying of their work as a violation and I would regard that as the healthy state of mind.
                                  By encouraging someone to maintain an unhealthy state of mind you are not doing them any favours.

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  •  
                                    identicon
                                    Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 1:12pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    You asked me a question about morality as it pertains to religion. I answered. Shifting that answer in an attempt to further your copyright argument is unreasonable.

                                    That said: You don't get to decide whether the anguish generated in ANY instance is authentic. Setting yourself up as the arbiter of whether someone's emotions are authentic enough is absolutely unacceptable, and since we are on the topic, rather immoral.

                                     

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    •  
                                      icon
                                      Richard (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 1:49pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      You asked me a question about morality as it pertains to religion. I answered. Shifting that answer in an attempt to further your copyright argument is unreasonable.

                                      Actually I gave an example of how your moral stance isn't self evident - but is in fact arbitrary - then I extended that example to the particular moral issue we are discussing. That is not unreasonable.

                                      That said: You don't get to decide whether the anguish generated in ANY instance is authentic. Setting yourself up as the arbiter of whether someone's emotions are authentic enough is absolutely unacceptable,

                                      And that is exactly what you are doing. In your moral framework you have to decide which anguish is authentic and which isn't. You have decided that the anguish caused by having a copyright violated must be respected but the anguish caused by being sued for hundreds of thousands over a few songs is OK. Now I appreciate that you don't defend everything that the copyright maximalists do - but that just underlines my point - ultimately youu are making those decisions that you just said it was immoral to make.

                                      I have an external reference so I don't have to take that responsibility.

                                       

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Richard (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:02am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          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 Gogh.

                          Van Gogh operated under the patronage system or by selling originals - he certainly took no reliance on copyright.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:09am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Van Gogh's work was unpopular in his life time. Most of his financial support came from his brother. And his brother wasn't rich or supplying him with money in exchange for art. Some of his most prolific work was produced during times of deepest poverty.

                            Obviously, Van Gogh would have produced art no matter what. I was engaging in hyperbole. If we wholly embrace a system that requires the buying public to directly fund work before it is produced, we are only encouraging the production of popular works of art. Gogh would not have flourished under such a system.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:22am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              And that is the system we have today duh!

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                identicon
                                Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:25am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                No it's not. The qualifier you seem to have missed is the word "before". It's an important word in the context of this exchange.

                                "Duh" indeed.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Richard (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:17am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          "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.


                          Because it hasn't been enforced against ordinary people ... yet. However big media is trying very hard to ratchet up the enforcement - and to make the rest of us pay for it.
                          Copyright is a tax on copying to pay the upfront costs of the content - unfortunately as the cost of copying has come down so the tax rate required has gone beyond what the public will think fair.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:23am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            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.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Richard (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 12:39pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              With few exceptions, I'm not seeing any evidence that anyone is being forced to pay for art they do not choose to acquire.

                              How about the blank media tax in Canada and many European countries?

                              How about the ISPs (and hence their customers, ALL their customers not just those who are involved in piracy) being forced to pay for part of the DEA costs in the UK?

                              How about the various collecting societies (PRS BPI ASCAP etc) charging venues an annual fee and then sending almost all the proceeds to a few big acts even for those venues where bands performed their own or out of copyright music?

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                identicon
                                Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 12:59pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  icon
                                  Richard (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 1:35pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  those instances only apply to a minority.
                                  I wouldn't call everyone who has bought a blank CD in Europe or Canada a minority.

                                  I wouldn't call every ISP subscriber in the UK a minority.

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Greevar (profile), Jan 8th, 2011 @ 2:12pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yes they would. People appreciate the physical containers of art. That's why XKCD and explosm can sell printed books of their comics despite posting them on their site for free. Nina Paley is also selling printed version of her comics. If Da Vinci lived today, his digital works would entice people to buy physical copies and commissioned works. I could easily download all of his works onto my computer. What good is that? I can't hold it. I can't hang it on a wall. I can only stare at my monitor. The physical goods have more value than the infinite digital copies that can be made from it.

              My examples of alternative models for making money with art are not the exceptions, they are the rule. They point out one plain and simple truth: People will pay you for what you can do. That's how most contractor work goes. You claim to be an artist, it should be staring you in the face. It doesn't matter if you believe me or not though, the genie is out of the bottle and there is no amount of law, litigation, nor force that will stop it. I suggest you stop being stubborn and take note of the people that are finding ways to make a living without relying on copyright. Your livelihood depends on it.

              So adapt. Do what others are doing. Get paid for your skills. Art is a service, not a product. Get paid for your services. Tomorrow's artists will be like the freelance artist of today but merely working on projects for a larger number of clients.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 2:24pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "Yes they would."

                It doesn't matter how many times you make your claim. It's your opinion. You have zero factual way of knowing how the public would have responded to purchasing the original works of art in question if digital duplication had been possible. Any claim you make is conjecture. Nothing more.

                So the fact remains that the two scenarios are not analogous.

                "I can't hang it on a wall."

                Since when? You can't make a print of your own based off a digital copy? You've never heard of digital picture frames?

                "The physical goods have more value than the infinite digital copies that can be made from it."

                Only if you believe that to be true. You do. Great for you. But not everyone feels the same way.

                "Your livelihood depends on it."

                My livelihood is doing just fine, thanks. How come whenever someone who makes a living as an artist forwards an opposing viewpoint, it always turns into "adapt" or "stop being stubborn". Fuck you for thinking you know how I handle my business better than I do.

                "That's why XKCD and explosm can sell printed books of their comics despite posting them on their site for free."

                Not original. Those books are copies.

                "Nina Paley is also selling printed version of her comics."

                Not original. Copies.

                Again, you're relying on non-analogous components to try and prove a flawed analogy.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Greevar (profile), Jan 8th, 2011 @ 9:03pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I can make a reasonable conjecture based on human behavior today that had such a scenario arisen back then, it would have been as I surmised. Human behavior hasn't evolved that much from 500 years ago.

                  Digital copies are inferior to print copies for various reasons. You must think I'm stupid. I know full well that a typical jpeg image of average size does not possess nearly enough dot pitch (nor color clarity) to print the necessary dpi on a quality print. Digital frames are the same 72 dpi as your monitor. Not the same quality. I would have to acquire a good 1200 dpi image of the work (which is a huge file) and find good printing stock to put it on (which is expensive). Furthermore, if it is a large format image, I would need access to a large format printer to get a decent result. Nice try.

                  I'm glad your livelihood is doing fine. That's great, I'm just here to warn you that in a generation or two, no consumers that would support that model will exist anymore. How do you expect us to react when you call us "thieves" and "pirates"? It's a slap in the face and to add insult to injury, you tell us we should stop doing it because it's costing people their livelihood, despite evidence to the contrary. If you do sell copies of your work under the protection of copyright and people dislike the restrictions on how they can enjoy what they buy from you, they will not sit idly by and let you dictate what they can do with such material.

                  So what if the books don't contain originals? They can still sell those and people would probably, no certainly, buy them too.

                  You need to realize that copyright is a joke. It was born out of censorship to keep people from printing seditious books against the church and the monarchy. Anything that was based on something that was crafted for the purpose of censorship is not good for anybody. It was then later extended and strengthened under the false claim that it protected the author's ability to earn a living. The only people that were under threat of losing their gravy train monopoly was the stationers (i.e. publishers). Publishers need copyright because under natural economic forces, their businesses would fall flat on their faces.

                  I'll say it again, art is a service industry. Artists serve the demand of their fans and in turn they compensate you for the effort you spent making the works they desire. It's not a product you can sell. Economics clearly makes that apparent.

                  I'm not citing a flawed analogy, you're merely ignoring facts that are staring you in the face. People are utilizing other methods that don't involve the paradigm you clutch so tightly to your chest. You have to face facts. Your work will be copied. It's up to you to find a way to make money on that aside from one-sided agreements, that only serves to push them to find a way to get your works on their terms.

                  And of course you need to adapt! And don't get nasty with me either. You might not like being called stubborn, but I don't deserve to have expletives launched at me. You act like it's your inalienable right to have 100% control on what you create. That's only true if you never release it. Anything else is like scattering feathers to the wind. You can't change all the people of the world because you don't like what they do with what you create. It's up to you to make it work for you because the old way is not going to last much longer. It's a fool that tries to sell an imaginary good and a bigger one who buys it.

                  You're upset that people are taking your hard work and not paying you for it? Well, you made the mistake of distributing it before you secured payment for your time and effort. Now you're mad at those that copied it? Get real. You put it out there, it's your fault. You can't make laws that contradict reality and you can't stop people from copying. Copyright isn't going to make your attempt at a monopoly any more valid. The fact that so many people can and do ignore it outlines the foolishness of such a policy.

                  Anyway, have fun living in denial.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Memyself, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 12:27pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "I can make a reasonable conjecture..."

                    Guessing from your ability to make shit up through this dialog, I hold no faith in your ability to conjecture reasonably.

                    "You must think I'm stupid. I know full well that a typical jpeg image of average size does not possess nearly enough dot pitch (nor color clarity) to print the necessary dpi on a quality print."

                    Yes, I think you're stupid. If we're postulating a reality where the customers of artists hundreds of years ago have access to digital works (as they do today) they will somehow be restricted to 72 dpi??

                    Seriously?

                    "Digital frames are the same 72 dpi as your monitor. Not the same quality."

                    It doesn't matter when it's digital. High rez is only needed for print. Seriously, you have zero idea of what you're talking about here.

                    "I would have to acquire a good 1200 dpi image of the work (which is a huge file) and find good printing stock to put it on (which is expensive)."

                    No. In many cases you only need 300 to 600 dpi. Eben then, 1200 dpi is NOT a huge file. To suggest it is... You really are making a fool of yourself.

                    "Furthermore, if it is a large format image, I would need access to a large format printer to get a decent result."

                    Yeah. That's really easy to do. You can take the image into just about any copy shop and they'll take care of that for you. Or you can just upload the image to a company like PsPrint and they'll print up a huge, high quality copy for you relatively cheap.

                    You have no idea about any of this. Yet you argue as if you are informed. Pathetic.

                    "I'm just here to warn you that in a generation or two, no consumers that would support that model will exist anymore."

                    You have no idea what my business model is.

                    "How do you expect us to react when you call us "thieves" and "pirates"?"

                    Where in this exchange specifically did this transpire?

                    "It's a slap in the face and to add insult to injury, you tell us we should stop doing it because it's costing people their livelihood, despite evidence to the contrary."

                    Where in this exchange specifically did this transpire?

                    "If you do sell copies of your work under the protection of copyright and people dislike the restrictions on how they can enjoy what they buy from you, they will not sit idly by and let you dictate what they can do with such material."

                    That hardly makes those people right. And it has zero to do with all of your failed assumptions about emulating artists of the past.

                    "So what if the books don't contain originals? They can still sell those and people would probably, no certainly, buy them too."

                    Because the context of this dialog was you forwarding the argument that artists can make a living selling originals. Not copies. And your proof for this is modern artists who sell copies. :/

                    "You need to realize that copyright is a joke."

                    You need to realize that many of your opinions are borne out of ignorance.

                    "I'm not citing a flawed analogy,"

                    Yeah, you are. When you hold up artists from hundreds of years ago who worked under different economic conditions in a completely different society as analogous, you fail.

                    "People are utilizing other methods that don't involve the paradigm you clutch so tightly to your chest. You have to face facts. Your work will be copied. It's up to you to find a way to make money on that aside from one-sided agreements, that only serves to push them to find a way to get your works on their terms."

                    Again, fuck you for thinking you know how I run my business. Your ability to make stupid and sweeping assumptions is duly noted.

                    "And of course you need to adapt! "

                    How do you know what I need or don't need to do? Because I'm not following your business model I'm doing things wrong? Because I disagree with your idea that artists can live just like artists hundreds of years ago, and I call comparisons overly simplistic? You have no idea how I handle my business, how I deal with free distribution or in what manner I adapt.

                    "And don't get nasty with me either."

                    Then don't pull passive-aggressive bullshit like pretending you have any idea about how I run my business and using said false assumptions in an attempt to belittle my position.

                    "You might not like being called stubborn, but I don't deserve to have expletives launched at me."

                    Yes, you do. Because you actually think that my disagreeing with your analogy somehow gives you detailed insight into how I handle my work. That's just you being foolish, and you deserve to be called out on it.

                    "You act like it's your inalienable right to have 100% control on what you create."

                    Oh look, there you go again. Fuck you.

                    "You're upset that people are taking your hard work and not paying you for it?"

                    Oh look, there you go again. Fuck you.

                    "Well, you made the mistake of distributing it before you secured payment for your time and effort. Now you're mad at those that copied it? Get real. You put it out there, it's your fault. You can't make laws that contradict reality and you can't stop people from copying. Copyright isn't going to make your attempt at a monopoly any more valid. The fact that so many people can and do ignore it outlines the foolishness of such a policy."

                    Bullshit bullshit bullshit.

                    I see your strategy, you can't actually back up your argument so you spend most of your energy making shit up. Let me give it a try:

                    Your problem is that you actively want to see artists fail. That's why you don't want copyright to exist anymore. You actually hate art. Probably because you're a failed artist bitter over other people succeeding.

                    See how that works?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 2:37pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 5:26pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      I got owned and get angry?

                      LoL

                      You are a winner or whiner :)

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Greevar (profile), Jan 9th, 2011 @ 7:28pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      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. 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.

                      However, you are completely wrong about the high dpi images. A 600 dpi image, without compression, at a size of 36 inches by 48 inches (typical size for an art print suitable for framing) is at least 1.74 GB. That is huge. Dot pitch does matter. At 72 dpi, you can't appreciate the true detail of an image on any consumer grade display and they make a poor medium as an art display. To get the same level of detail, you would need a display approximately 168 inches diagonal. Display or print, higher dpi translates to higher detail. To claim that 72 dpi accurately reproduces the image in all its detail is an error.

                      Lastly, what evidence can you submit that people in Shakespeare's era put higher value on original works when you claim that I can't possibly make a reasonable assertion about the effect of pervasive access to copies? You have no basis for comparison to support your claim, because there was no alternative to original works. Before the printing press (and copyright as well as it came after), all works were original. You can say scribes made copies, but is one handwritten copy really any different than the first in any sense? To call something a copy would require that the copy took less time and effort than the original, which is not the case in this instance. So to say that they placed high importance on original works despite there being no copies in the true sense of the word, I assert that your statement is incorrect. In truth, they valued original work only because there were no other options.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Memyself, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 7:50pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "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.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 8:02pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          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.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 8:17pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Shister lets talk about the multiple revenue streams available to artists and I want to read your excuses to somehow make them less important.

                          An artist can sell merchandise can he not? (Which is in an on itself a multibillion dollar market)
                          An artist can sell his image can he not?
                          An artist get contracts and get paid to endorse things does he not?
                          An artist have the great advantage to be the producer of content so he can financially gain from that selling access or asking for people to fund his vision can he not?
                          An artist despite all the copying can still sell plastic discs and they even sell digital content do they not?

                          Now explain again how all of that will disapear because of filesharing muppet, explain that away, oh that is right you can't.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Memyself, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 8:23pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            "Now explain again how all of that will disapear because of filesharing muppet, explain that away, oh that is right you can't."

                            I don't need to. I haven't written one word about "filesharing" in this thread.

                            You seem very confused as to who you are responding to. You know there are multiple people participating in this discussion, right?

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Greevar (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 5:49am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          You're a troll and I'm done with you. Goodbye.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 9:04am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            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.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Memyself, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 7:28pm

    "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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 7:59pm

      Re:

      ...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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Memyself, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 8:34pm

        Re: Re:

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        btr1701 (profile), Jan 7th, 2011 @ 8:41pm

        Re: Re:

        > ...or you can get a girlfriend and go to the theather

        Or you can watch it at home with your girlfriend and have the freedom of pausing/stopping the movie if she starts to pleasurably distract you.

        Can't do that at a theater. Not without risking arrest.

        > those things doesn't happen in your house I believe

        You believe wrong. I frequently have friends over to watch movies at my house. There's plenty of cheering and laughing. The only difference is that these are people I want to be around, not annoying shits, some of whose sole purpose for being in the theater is to see how much of a prick they can be to everyone around them.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 9:50pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 1:06am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Did you kiss your wife for the first time in your house? did you have fun with your friends always inside your home?"

            The sad thing is, you think going to a movie theater is social. A place where talking is discouraged and attention is focused on something other than the people you're "spending time" with.

            Okay.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Rose M. Welch (profile), Jan 8th, 2011 @ 1:45am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Not social? Gee, I'd better tell my family that getting dinner at a Warren Theater diner and then heading in to a movie together, then playing in the arcade afterwords isn't social.

              Damn, and we enjoyed it so much, too.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 2:14am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Last I checked, enjoyment was not a measure of the how social an activity is. I also don't recall anyone saying anything about "playing in the arcade" or diner. If you need to add aspects to the argument to make your point, you're not making much of a point.

                The social experience comes from the shared experience. You and your family can have an equally (if not significantly deeper) social experience together interacting in your own home while watching a film. You will not be bound by the same societal constraints in place in public, and can play and pause the film at whim. You can discuss the film while you watch it.

                So context matters. I was making a relative point. The person I was responding to was arguing that sitting at home together and watching a movie is less social than watching a movie at a theater. I call bullshit at this.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 5:21am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  If the extent of your social interactions with others is inside your home then it is less social, you are missing the rest of the world that you are excluding.

                  You have constrained your interactions to places and people you approve and like, you got no surprises you got no unexpected events happening it is a little bubble which is fine, but to claim that it is as social as going out that is just ridiculous.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 5:42am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  The "bullshit" part is some kind of homage to Nina and her pooperty line?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 5:27am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              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.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 11:24am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "but maybe this is exactly why you don't like theater"

                No, I already stated clearly why I don't like theaters. People talking on the their phones is probably top of the list. If that counts as expressing yourself, no thanks.

                Your claim of what a theater experience "is" seems to be mostly based on fiction and daydreams.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 4:49pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Exactly, you stated all the things that normal people would do and that annoys you, those same people will go to restaurants, parks and other social events so basically you dislike being social, you like a controlled environment and that makes you grumpy when you don't get it doesn't?

                  I know it is hard to understand but you could try a little harder.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 5:56pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    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.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 6:47pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      If I'm trolling you are too.
                      And I'm not assigning arguments, I'm defining your character and how your own psychological underpinnings lend you to be prone to some type of events and actions.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Memyself, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 12:30pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        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.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 5:35pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          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.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            btr1701 (profile), Jan 9th, 2011 @ 8:41am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Movies

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

            Funny how I'm "grumpy" merely for not being happy about spending $10-$15 to watch a movie, only to have it constantly disrupted by a loud gaggle of teenagers who openly say they're only there to piss off everyone around them. They know they can get away with it because the theater management does nothing to stop them.

            > Theaters have unique experience, it is a place to feel something
            > different to appreciate all the textures that it offers

            I often wish the management would do a better job of cleaning the various "textures" off the seats and floors.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 8:32pm

      Re:

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Memyself, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 8:36pm

        Re: Re:

        There's a few here like that. And it's alright. But it only takes one asshole on a phone to take you right out of the experience. And after seeing one friend have a bedbug infestation... no thanks.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 4:51pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 5:58pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You have anything to add that actually addresses the argument rather than your failed perceptions about me personally?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 6:44pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              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.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 7:57pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                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.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Memyself, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 12:34pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "I know you, your type is all to common today"

                  And your need to evaluate my character rather than address the actual topic shows exactly what type you are.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 1:46pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "And your need to evaluate my character rather than address the actual topic shows exactly what type you are."

                    Rock on, man. Those are killer comments and stories, bro. Were you able to run the popcorn machine at the theater you worked at? I've always wondered what was in the movie theater popcorn butter.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 5:15pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    The type that sees right through you buddy.
                    The type that will not be fooled by your BS.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rose M. Welch (profile), Jan 8th, 2011 @ 1:44am

      Re:

      Or you can drive to a Warren Theater, where the seats are super-comfortable, you can bring your meal from the diner to the theater, crying babies are contained in a soundproof Crying Room, and you can even sit in a heated balcony seat and have a server at your side in seconds to bring you the food or drink of your choice. :)

      Well, if you live in Oklahoma or Kansas, anyway. Everywhere else probably doesn't have it so good.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Memyself, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 2:22am

        Re: Re:

        In the SF Bay Area, the theaters like that have all been slowly closing for decades. I used to manage one 20 years ago.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Luther, Jan 7th, 2011 @ 7:37pm

    Love this pink paisley designed bag in the picture! I so need a new laptop bag! Great Hub!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    misterdoug (profile), Jan 7th, 2011 @ 10:55pm

    Apparently Nina is unaware of the amount of non-commercial entertainment out there that is way better than "cell phone images edited on toy computers." Or maybe Nina has been taking black-and-white worldview lessons from Bill O'Reilly.
    - Either you're for unrestricted free trade or you're a Marxist!!
    - Either you're against gay marriage or you want everybody to turn gay!!
    - Either we give movie and record companies whatever they want or we won't have any entertainment!!

    It's nice to know that a typical computer geek has a richer life than Nina.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Jan 8th, 2011 @ 2:05am

      Re:

      Hey, Mr. Misses-the-point!

      IT's a satire about maximalism. Every single last image is an argument Ipersonally have heard by copyright maximalists in explaining why I'm wrong.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 5:51am

        Re: Re:

        Her satire is at best "preaching to the choir" junk, rather than being meaningful. It entirely distorts the situation, playing on very extremist positions, and she even manages to insult christians on the way around this time.

        That isn't amusing, it's sad.

        The scribe deal is fairly stupid as well, because the move from scribes to printing changed how books were produced, but actually increased the market for them. The shift from recorded music on CDs and such to piracy increased the numbers of copies of music, but has seriously hurt the market. One was an advancement, the other is a step backwards.

        That she is still flogging Sita 2 or 3 years later sort of says everything. There isn't any money to make the next one.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Johnny, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 8:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          > she even manages to insult christians on the way around this time.

          How's that? It's obvious that her point is that people go to church for the experience of being in church and not because it's a bible content delivery facility.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 4:54pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The shift from recorded music on CDs and such to piracy increased the numbers of copies of music, but has seriously hurt the market. One was an advancement, the other is a step backwards.


          Hurts how exactly?

          Did get a peak at the top artists and how much their income tax have grown in the last decade in spite of all the piracy you claim it hurts the bottom line?

          The old plastic disc is dead and os are the old labels, but new forms are popping up and guaranteeing income and even growth is that shocking or what?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 2:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 5:47pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You be wrong, just the other day I was watching Hatsune Miku videos on Youtube a lot of them with millions of views.

              World is Mine Live in HD (1080p 1920 x 1080)

              It is a sensation, and people can use that art for free, there is nobody going after the fans to sue them and people even make music using that 3D model to sell to others.

              Also Bieber started on the internet his fame came about on Youtube he is a product of that system.

              Lady Gaga also has her roots on the internet are you denying that?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 9:43am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The video you point to has 3 million views as much because every 3d blog in the universe points to it rather than any great musical interest. 3 million on the internet is, well, not really that big.

                Ye olde Rick Roll is running 29,183,836 views when I looked just now. Call me when your japanese 3d anime character gets in the game :)

                As for Lady Gaga, actually, she is a product no different from Alice Cooper, Elton John, or Liberace. The internet only helped to shorten the span. But she is popular mostly because she walks around half naked, in stupid outfits, and has a weird relationship with Perez Hilton. Otherwise, she would still be playing piano in bars in New York and New Jersey and working as a stripper.

                Oh yeah, having a big ass record deal helps :)

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 5:47pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              herodotus (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 7:18pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "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."

              'Funny'?

              People playing for other people for the sheer joy of it are 'funny'?

              Artists like Arcwelder and Happy Apple and Charlie Parr are 'funny'. Unlike Bon Jovi?

              Do you really think Kurt Cobain would have been less happy if his band had never been signed to DGC?

              Do you really think he would have written less music?

              Do you really think he would be dead?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    misterdoug (profile), Jan 7th, 2011 @ 10:57pm

    Oops, my bad. My rant should have been directed the Idiot Student, not Nina.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), Jan 8th, 2011 @ 1:47am

    Cinemas should be emphasizing the irreplaceable experience they offer.

    ^^This. Yes. For years, I detested movie theaters, until Oklahoma got the Warren Theater, which is an awesome, comfortable experience. I drive 1.5 hours away to see movies at the Warren, but no way am I going to one of the grody theaters in town. I'll wait and Netflix it and watch it in my clean living room, on my flatscreen with no skips, jumps, crying kiddos, screwed up film, or any other BS.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 6:29am

    Holodeck

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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    pixelm1 (profile), Jan 8th, 2011 @ 7:51am

    The logical flaw in your argument is that one is legitimate progress and the other is theft. It may or may not be true that online kills the theatrical experience - but that is not really a policy issue, it's a market one. The Kindle is killing bookstores and I wish it wouldn't - but the market is speaking. Theft, on the other hand, undermines markets. If no one liked to watch movies - than the woman losing her job has lost it to progress. But if everyone likes movies - they just like to steal them - then they are actually undermining the production of what it is they like to watch. Comparing legitimate innovation with theft - THAT is a propoganda campaign.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 9:27am

      Re:

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Jan 11th, 2011 @ 2:03am

      Re:

      If no one liked to watch movies - than the woman losing her job has lost it to progress. But if everyone likes movies - they just like to steal them - then they are actually undermining the production of what it is they like to watch.

      I know I'm late to the party here, but...

      First of all: Hollywood made more income from ticket sales in 2009 than in any other year in history. The film industry is doing just fine.

      Second of all: People may simply like the pirated version better than the authorized version. That's the fault of whoever made the authorized version - they're simply blaming the pirates for being better at listening to their customer base than they are.

      This image shows it best:
      http://www.kulturpop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/piracy-flowchart.jpg

      So if the woman lost her job because of that, it was not due to "piracy," but to the bad decisions of her bosses. Something I think we can all relate to.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 8:09am

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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 8:20am

    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 ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 6:49pm

      Re:

      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!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 7:41pm

        Re: Re:

        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.


        Maybe like the guy that changed providers and 2 years later was accused of piracy and now get to claim some punitive damages for all his trouble.

        Claim: ISP Identified Non-Subscriber In Troubled File-Sharing Case

        ISP's logs are not that accurate they are know to make mistakes and in some cases a lot of them like people being billed for things they didn't use or agreed, further routing information is time based and there is caching of packets happening behind the scenes so it is all possible to change your IP and that IP get reassigned to another guy and that packet be correlated to the new guy that just got the IP since he is the new leaser of that IP at that time.

        IP(Internet Packets) have no time stamps.

        That is why people keep saying to the idiots from the industry that IP is not good enough to pin something on someone for sure.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 10:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Perhaps for a single packet or two. But the reality is that the time frame of packet travel is milliseconds, and since the new IP user would not have P2P software waiting for the packets, they would end up in the virtual bit bucket.

          You perhaps need to learn more about IP networking before you go on about it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:20am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        abc gum, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 8:26pm

        Re: Re:

        "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."


        Yeah, you're right - it never happens - I made it all up, my bad.

        RIAA sues dead 'pirates'
        http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1036098/riaa-sues-dead-pirates

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 10:53am

          Re: Re: Re:

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michial Thompson, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 8:36am

    Hows that working for you?

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      abc gum, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 9:37am

      Re: Hows that working for you?

      "Everyone crys about this or that aspect of how copyright "

      Speak for yourself please.

      Oh, and you condone the extortion which has been seemingly accepted by our legal system?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Annymous Howard, Cowering, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 4:26pm

        Re: Re: #47 Hows that working for you?

        Please don't feed the troll (even if s/he has a profile).

        And MT, you might want to actually read the post -- Mike didn't make this one, Nina did. Other than that, nice trolling.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    jay, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 8:42am

    waaah cinemas suck

    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tauby Shimkin, Jan 8th, 2011 @ 8:58am

    KillingCulture

    I remember the very same discussions in 1953. Will television kill theater and movies? Well, here we still are. In a few minutes I'm going to watch the live Met performance in a Cineplex in good old C-.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jan 8th, 2011 @ 10:35am

    What a crock of shit

    "Lost revenue means lost jobs. Help protect the nearly 900,000* jobs in creative professions in New York "


    The population of NYC is 8,391,881 people. 1/3 of them are retired or young. Lets call it 5 million people working in NYC. That mean this 900k is yet another BS made up statistic, thats 1 in 5 people. After living in NYC for 4 years I can tell you this is bull shit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 6:28am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 8:58am

    Nice article

    "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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2011 @ 12:08pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Steve R. (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 5:48am

    Why Should Artists be Immune From Technolgcal Progress?

    Technological progress affects us all. As one of the cartoons above notes, buying a printed book has put a scribe out of work. But technology progress has also affected secretaries, steel workers, auto-workers, longshoreman etc. The loss of these jobs and the resulting devastation to the workers income in the face of technological progress has not raised the same outpouring of outrage. Instead of adapting to change the RIAA and the MPPA use technological progress as a means to turn artists into victims who deserve "welfare" from society. If content can't be profitably created too bad. In a free market system adapt or go-out-business.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 10:25am

    "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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 10:39am

    I was at the barber shop about a year ago and said "I would like one of those really short cuts" and the barber said "those look awful" so I went with my normal cut. Then a month later, I shaved my own head. So by resisting my desire for a type of cut, he made me realize tech made his service obsolete-I can cut my hair at home.
    PS - A long time ago barbers used to shave people daily because only they had the skill for a straight razor. Now we all shave at home (absent a special occasion maybe). Due to the tech of the electric razor. THE RAZOR HURT BARBERS!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 11:22am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 1:51pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 3:42pm

      Re:

      Canada+UK+Most of the rest of the EU is probably a good proportion of " the Western World" - and certainly a large enough number of people not to be simply dismissed as a minority even if it technically is..

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Memyself, Jan 12th, 2011 @ 6:33pm

        Re: Re:

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 9:45pm

      Re:

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

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Memyself, Jan 12th, 2011 @ 6:50pm

        Re: Re:

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

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Memyself, Jan 10th, 2011 @ 2:13pm

    Actually I gave an example of how your moral stance isn't self evident - but is in fact arbitrary - then I extended that example to the particular moral issue we are discussing. That is not unreasonable.

    This is what I get for being courteous enough to politely answer a side question about theology and morality.
    MY moral stance. And you have not shown one shred of evidence that my moral stance is arbitrary. Frankly, I find taking one's moral stance from a old book to be about as arbitrary as one can get. Why your religion? Why not any other religion? What makes your decision correct as opposed to the decision made to follow any other (or no) religion.

    If you exam anything closely enough, you can make the argument that the decisions leading to that point are arbitrary.

    "And that is exactly what you are doing.

    You don't seem to understand the difference between a passive act and an aggressive act.

    In your moral framework you have to decide which anguish is authentic and which isn't.

    Not for anyone else I don't. I know my own anguish is authentic and I extrapolate how another might feel and avoid placing them in a similar situation. Perhaps another person would not be upset if I stole their car. But I'm not going to test this based on my own emotional response to a similar scenario. That's the key you are missing here.

    If someone tells me they feel pain over some particular instance, I have the capacity to trust that this is true. I can make a reasonable judgment over what experience might be painful for another based upon our shared culture. I don't need to follow generic rules or arbitrarily chosen deities for this.

    It's very unfortunate that you consider experience, observation and deduction "arbitrary".

    You have decided that the anguish caused by having a copyright violated must be respected but the anguish caused by being sued for hundreds of thousands over a few songs is OK.

    I'm trying very hard to remain civil with you. Why is it that person after person in this thread believes they have a right to put words in my mouth? You quote me making that comparison. GO AHEAD.

    Oh wait. You can't So you're just making things up now? Is that a part of your religion? Last I checked, it wasn't. So what does that make you?

    Now I appreciate that you don't defend everything that the copyright maximalists do - but that just underlines my point - ultimately youu are making those decisions that you just said it was immoral to make.

    Except that you have to invent false comparisons and attribute them to me to make your point. Which means you have no point.

    I have an external reference so I don't have to take that responsibility.

    Your "external reference" does not seem to be guiding you very well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 3:51pm

    Authentic Anguish

    I know my own anguish is authentic

    Exactly how do you know this?

    Ask anyone who has ever overcome a phobia and they will tell you that phony anguish is a big problem - and the only way out is to let go.

    I don't know why you've got so angry about this. All I'm trying to do is to establish some common ground for debate and then move the debate forward by analysing the consequences of what you say.

    Actually the moral point we were debating when this particular line started was about the love of money. You were defending the desire to become very rich as opposed to making a reasonable living. I'd like to know how you get that one out of your phiolosophy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Memyself, Jan 12th, 2011 @ 6:31pm

      Re: Authentic Anguish

      "Exactly how do you know this?"

      We're talking within reason. About having ones property stolen or having one's spouse cheat on them. You then jump to fear of spiders to make a point. There are things within our shared culture that are obviously painful. You don;t need religion to tell you this.

      "I don't know why you've got so angry about this. All I'm trying to do is to establish some common ground for debate and then move the debate forward by analysing the consequences of what you say.""

      In short: You're attempting to make it personal.

      "Actually the moral point we were debating when this particular line started was about the love of money. You were defending the desire to become very rich as opposed to making a reasonable living. I'd like to know how you get that one out of your phiolosophy."

      What does the desire to accumulate wealth have to do with morality? The accumulation of wealth is not automatically evil.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jan 10th, 2011 @ 4:27pm

    Shared Culture

    I can make a reasonable judgment over what experience might be painful for another based upon our shared culture. I don't need to follow generic rules

    How do you act when confronted with a choice between inflicting anguish on one person and inflicting it on another?

    The point is that sometimes there will be hard choices and if you say that you make a decision based on your own experience then you set yourself up as arbiter.

    And, by the way, that shared culture you talk about is largely derived from Christianity and that "old book" you mentioned earlier.

    Why is it that person after person in this thread believes they have a right to put words in my mouth? You quote me making that comparison.

    You certainly did say the first part of the comparison you complain about. I would have thought that the second part was an inevitable corollary. If you can explain why that isn't the case then I'll apologise for misquoting you.

    Why your religion? Why not any other religion? What makes your decision correct as opposed to the decision made to follow any other (or no) religion.

    The best answer I know to that question can be found here

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Memyself, Jan 12th, 2011 @ 6:48pm

      Re: Shared Culture

      "How do you act when confronted with a choice between inflicting anguish on one person and inflicting it on another?"

      You're asking me to give a quick answer to a situation that would be extremely complex. That kind of simplification fails to advance the dialog.

      "And, by the way, that shared culture you talk about is largely derived from Christianity and that "old book" you mentioned earlier."

      I understand you think this. But it turns out there are many things outside your religion that influence our shared culture.

      "You certainly did say the first part of the comparison you complain about."

      Quote me saying that within this dialog.

      "I would have thought that the second part was an inevitable"

      I have to explain to you why the argument you randomly decided to attach to me isn't an argument I would make? Are you kidding me?

      Guess what? You thought wrong. Anyone dealing with a lawsuit immediately has my sympathy. Thanks for making assumptions.

      What is it? You get your arguments and counter arguments from a guide? That if person A purportedly believes one thing they must automatically believe this other thing? Sorry. No. Human beings are capable of infinite complexity. You don't have a right to assign opinions to me.

      "The best answer I know to that question can be found here"

      Your decision to worship one god over another is absolutely arbitrary.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This