
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Glass-Tongued Copyright Troll Thinks Google, Popehat, and Boing Boing Are Engaged In 'Black Hat Seo'
- Publisher Helps To Keep Sci-Hub In The Public Eye By Trying To Bully It Into Submission Using Ineffectual Legal Remedies
- Of Course The RIAA Would Find A Way To Screw Over The Public In 'Modernizing' Copyright
- Stupid Copyright: MLB Shuts Down Twitter Account Of Guy Who Shared Cool MLB Gifs
- The Music Industry Now Wants To Creep Past Site-Blocking Into App-Blocking
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In before...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In before...
So it didn't like my original post
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Haha, trick question...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral imperative?
Er, am I ranting to the choir? I think I need more coffee before responding to a story like this...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral imperative?
Same with morals being made a law. If you only do something because the law says you must / must not, it's no longer really a moral decision.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moral imperative?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moral imperative?
In the same respect, sometimes you could "volunteer" for the military in a time of war in lieu of going to jail for a crime.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral imperative?
Copyright has nothing to do with morality; it has to do with economics. Suggesting otherwise neglects the very essence of what a copyright is, a government granted (temporary) monopoly over a work...nothing more, nothing less.
Does this make me part of the choir?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moral imperative?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moral imperative?
Apparently there are some 'hard' words in the constitution that we need to have someone 'dumb down' for those who are supposed be following it....
Perhaps we could get the same wordsmith who explained the internet to Congress as 'a series of tubes', I'm sure they would be able to understand very simple explanations of 'temporary' and 'limited' if someone threw enough money at them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
wtf nina
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again, you fail as the very basic level.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yep, you can support bands you like with copyright. And bands you don't like. And bands you wish would fall off the face of the planet. And bands you may or may not be contemplating pushing off the face of the planet yourself.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What the comic is getting at is that you have these people say stuff like "OH MY GOD! if we take copyrights away how can we support the artists!!!!!!!!" yet when you mention just supporting them via other methods it's like... "what... you except people to donate/give away&pray? LOL!!!!!" in other words... don't support the artists because you WANT to, but because you HAVE to, or risk becoming a dirty pirate thief freetard
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You don't have to support the artists, but if you are going to enjoy their efforts, you really should support them. That means listening to their music via licensed sources (radio, example) or buy buying their stuff via Itunes or whatever.
If you are going to enjoy the product, you should be respectful of the artists that made it, not just assuming you can take it and enjoy it.
Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Nina is portraying an "either or" choice that is just not there.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"If you are going to enjoy the product, you should be respectful of the artists that made it, not just assuming you can take it and enjoy it."
I think you have inadvertently revealed your true nature.
artists make art
manufacturers make product
If you consider what you create a product then don't force me to pay for it, that is wrong
If you consider what you create art then you put it out there an hope that others will appreciate your creation and support you so you can continue to create.
If no one supports you then either get a different means of supporting yourself or self select out of the gene pool.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry to disappoint you and wipe out a truly weak argument.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try to form a real argument and support it with facts. This "because I said so!" business is getting old.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"product" doesn't mean commercial good, just something produced.
Amazing how hard you will argue to try to find something wrong, while ignoring my main point. Troll much?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Art isn't art... That's circular logic. If I have a slab of granite, and turn it into a statue, that doesn't mean it wasn't valuable before hand. If anything, I've reallocated my scarce goods. The same goes with creating a song based on a rhythm, theme, or a prior idea. I'm communicating my skills based on how I can change existing materials into a "product" ( to use your word) that others consider valuable.
It seems you don't value those materials and believe the end product is the lasting value of "art". But that isn't the case.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You have obviously never tried making money through those licensed channels. You crack me up.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously you have tried to make money that way, and found you were unable to do it.
Just because you failed does not mean someone who actually has talent will also fail.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Something you have yet to show. I'll believe Nina before I believe you.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thereby giving 70-98% of your money to middlemen for doing nothing - I don't call that supporting the artist
If you are going to enjoy the product, you should be respectful of the artists that made it, not just assuming you can take it and enjoy it.
Since when does that mean honouring a distribution and copying monopoly (which , by the way is almost always held by a third party.)
Such monopolies are immoral.
There is no logical connect between having created the work and being granted a distribution or copying monopoly. The fact that you seem to think there is is merely the result of three centuries of constant repetition of the mantra by those whose real motivation was always self interest.
If I want to support an artist I'll do it by sponsoring new work, going to live events or a straightforward donation.
None of these things relies on the immoral mechanism of copyright.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright is not necessary for the artists to get paid, thus no moral imperative.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's worse than that. It's an immoral imperative.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But the point is a false dichotomy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
To try and stir a real discussion
However that is more a trademark and plaigiarism issue than copyright.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To try and stir a real discussion
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment