Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  Berenerd (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 7:41am

  
  

  In before...

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

• 

  Berenerd (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 7:42am

  
  

  Re: In before...

  (insert stupid in before comment here)
  
  So it didn't like my original post

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

• 

  That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 7:56am

  
  

  Because if we supported the artists we liked, it would make the overpromoted artists feel bad.

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

• 

  CommonSense (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 9:43am

  
  

  Re:

  It would make the over-promoted artists feel bad, or the under-performing ones?
  
  Haha, trick question...

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

• 

  Pitabred (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 7:56am

  
  

  Moral imperative?

  Moral imperatives shouldn't be enshrined in law. Morals like "no murder" should be laws because they affect other people. Copyright? It's just a government handout, and research is showing that it doesn't actually increase the total amount of culture available to people, so it's basically contrary to the purpose of a government like ours which is to theoretically make laws to benefit ALL of the citizens, not just a select few. But then you have lobbying...
  
  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 ]

• 

  Mr. LemurBoy (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 8:03am

  
  

  Re: Moral imperative?

  Enshrining moral imperatives in law reminds me of how some rules were enforced back when I was in school. If you got caught, you were forced to spend X number of hours volunteering at a local charity. I didn't have any issues with charity work as a punishment, but using the word 'volunteer' always sat poorly with me. If I was forced to do it, it was no longer volunteering.
  
  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 ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2011 @ 8:07am

  
  

  Re: Re: Moral imperative?

  If you got to pick the charity I guess it's volunteer work on some level. You could have 'volunteered' to serve your punishment with a different charity, for example.

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

• 

  MrWilson, 22 Aug 2011 @ 9:15am

  
  

  Re: Re: Moral imperative?

  This is just a semantic issue. The intent or tradition with a lot of charity work is that it is volunteer, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all people who do such work actually volunteered.
  
  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 ]

• 

  @J_Plotkin, 22 Aug 2011 @ 10:04am

  
  

  Re: Moral imperative?

  I agree. Normative laws should result from moral imperatives (murder example works perfectly).
  
  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 ]

• 

  Greevar (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 11:17am

  
  

  Re: Re: Moral imperative?

  Define "temporary" as it applies to copyright. I don't see anything temporary about it, which is part of the problem.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2011 @ 1:00pm

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Moral imperative?

  Define 'limited' as it applies to copyright. I don't see anything 'limited' about it, which is part of the problem.
  
  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 ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2011 @ 8:45am

  
  

  wtf nina

  you just trolled techdirt.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2011 @ 9:17am

  
  

  Nina, another amazingly horrible cartoon. Technically, fine, nice colors and all. But the point is a false dichotomy. You can support the bands you like with or without copyright, there is no issue. Having one does not block the other.
  
  Once again, you fail as the very basic level.

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

• 

  Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 9:32am

  
  

  Re:

  "You can support the bands you like with or without copyright"
  
  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 ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2011 @ 9:33am

  
  

  Re:

  I agree. She seems to be stuck on a lot of false dichotomies. I'm not sure she'd have much material without them, come to think of it.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2011 @ 9:50am

  
  

  Re: Re:

  It plays well to the techdirt faithful, but it sure looks silly to me.

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

• 

  Jay (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 10:36am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re:

  You must be new... I would not be surprised if you weren't a part of the conversation which spanned 800 comments asking this same question.

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

• 

  Zot-Sindi, 22 Aug 2011 @ 9:51am

  
  

  Re:

  Missing the point.
  
  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 ]

• 

  Zot-Sindi, 22 Aug 2011 @ 9:52am

  
  

  Re: Re:

  ** & losing your net or facing jailtime or being sued or whatever ridiculous punishments they have for dirty pirate thief freetards

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

• 

  Zot-Sindi, 22 Aug 2011 @ 9:55am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re:

  oh yeah and i was just thinking, those who preach supporting the artists the most seem to be the least supportive of them, why is that?

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

• 

  Greevar (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 11:20am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  I know! I know! Because they pump and dump the artists, but can't do it without copyright!

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2011 @ 10:04am

  
  

  Re: Re:

  The point is not missed, the "point" is a false dichotomy.
  
  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 ]

• 

  Atkray (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 11:01am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re:

  Umm
  
  "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 ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2011 @ 11:13am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  art is a product, like it or not. You can't slice it differently. Art is "produced".
  
  Sorry to disappoint you and wipe out a truly weak argument.

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

• 

  Greevar (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 11:37am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Troll harder, your kung fu is weak.

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

• 

  Greevar (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 12:08pm

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  By the way, art is as much a product as speaking is a product. Art is communication. The only "product" there is to speak of is the substrate it's stored on. But I forget, you don't deal in facts, you jump to conclusions that suit you and make up arguments that pretend to support it, or you forgo trying to rationalize it at all. Your arguments frequently amount to childish babble such as "You're wrong cause I said so!"
  
  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 ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2011 @ 12:57pm

  
  

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

  You fail again. Art isn't art until something is produced, be it a painting, a song, or some other form of speech. But it is a product, otherwise it would just be an idea, and we all know how little everyone here thinks of ideas.
  
  "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 ]

• 

  Jay (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 2:13pm

  
  

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

  "Art isn't art until something is produced, be it a painting, a song, or some other form of speech. But it is a product, otherwise it would just be an idea, and we all know how little everyone here thinks of ideas."
  
  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 ]

• 

  Nina Paley (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 2:04pm

  
  

  Re: 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.

  
  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 ]

• 

  darryl, 22 Aug 2011 @ 4:57pm

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  to make money from 'licensd channels' you have to have a product that people are willing to pay for.
  
  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 ]

• 

  Jay (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 6:17pm

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  darryl, before you criticize, you can look at Sita Sings the Blues and how much money she's made with a free offering.
  
  Something you have yet to show. I'll believe Nina before I believe you.

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

• 

  Richard (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 4:28pm

  
  

  Re: 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.
  
  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 ]

• 

  Any Mouse (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 1:11pm

  
  

  Re:

  Explain how copyright is then a moral imperative? YOu skip that point of the cartoon, which speaks to me that you are trying to move the conversation away from what is morally justified.
  
  Copyright is not necessary for the artists to get paid, thus no moral imperative.

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

• 

  Richard (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 4:30pm

  
  

  Re: Re:

  Copyright is not necessary for the artists to get paid, thus no moral imperative.
  
  It's worse than that. It's an immoral imperative.

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

• 

  Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 22 Aug 2011 @ 4:12pm

  
  

  Re: But the point is a false dichotomy.

  Wow, it’s like you agree with what she’s saying, but your way of saying it is “you fail at saying it”.

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

• 

  mike allen (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 9:31am

  
  

  Nina another excellent cartoon with a good and valid point.

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

• 

  Joe Publius (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 10:01am

  
  

  To try and stir a real discussion

  When it comes to artistic expressions, the only real moral imperative I find persuasive is attribution; I can understand the importance of people know who is behind the book/picture/play they're shelling their money for.
  
  However that is more a trademark and plaigiarism issue than copyright.

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

• 

  Richard (profile), 22 Aug 2011 @ 4:31pm

  
  

  Re: To try and stir a real discussion

  Agreed - and plagiarism is defintely a different animal althogether.

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

Add Your Comment