skj91’s Techdirt Profile

skj91

About skj91




skj91’s Comments comment rss

  • Jan 25th, 2013 @ 7:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"

    @Brian
    "Great idea. Let's abolish copyright and tear down a big part of the backbone of the American economy. Why pay writers and authors and actors and directors? Let them go become useful members of society and work in farming or manufacturing. God knows, the world needs more corn. We already have enough books."

    Except that writers, authors, actors, and directors (or let's just call them, collectively, 'artists') aren't making a single penny more than they already were with these DMCA take-downs. Only the publishers, producers, and labels (i.e. people who most certainly did not, in any way, create the content being infringed upon) profit off of this total eradication approach to said unlicensed content.

    In fact, artists are far more likely to be WORSE off as a direct result of such take-downs because all it ends up doing is make it so that from the moment the content is taken down until the rest of eternity, they (or more specifically--their work) can no longer be discovered by anyone, EVER! End of story. Only those who were aware with a particular piece, prior to its disappearance, will ever know it existed. Final scene? Any targeted artists' fan-base can only shrink, and never grow.

    Seriously, if it is the artists, their due credit, earnings, or simply their overall well-being that your heart is truly concerned for... well, then... I'm sorry to tell you, you're paddling in the wrong direction, pal.

    The irony here, when you look at the full spectrum of actions being taken and the real-world impact the whole series of events results in... it is blatantly obvious that the true scum-bag, undeserving, thieving, 'PIRATES' in this shipwreck of a tale are the corporate copyrights holders of other peoples' work they are claiming as their own.

    Incidentally, for anyone who may have always wondered or not otherwise had a very concrete idea of what exactly the term 'selling out' means -- the previous statement is the deep-rooted meaning of that phrase and is exactly why the greater majority of artists have so much contempt for fellow artists who wind up being one. Sell out artists willingly agree to sign away their rights of ownership (and thereby 100% of the credit for making) to their work to some irrelevant party or entity that did not creatively contribute to the growth of said work (at least not intentionally) in the least. To just give that right away for nothing more than one, single, big, fat, immediately accessible, lump sum, wad of cash--It's an insult to humanity, is what it is. And back to the troll touting their misguided perception of ethics: Come on... really? The people offering the most support to those that actually deserve to gain anything out of the work? The people doing the most to help bring any kind success to exactly who it should go to? The very people doing nothing more malicious or invasive or destructive than merely openly exposing themselves and their honest admiration of someone else's talent to the world? THOSE are the unethical people? Come on... REALLY?

    Honestly, when the 'product' is any form of art, more than at any time, NO ONE should be granted or even be allowed to obtain ownership rights of something they had no part in bringing into existence. Descendants can be appropriately compensated through contract arrangements without revoking the credit their predescesors rightfully earned for anything so anyone about to jump in with that rebuttal as though it were valid can bury that impulse right now.