"How do you propose we content creators go about our jobs then? If you had read my entire comment, you would have seen this question...in "proper, understandable English.""
Yes, "content creators" need jobs, but this is not the issue. As for the part about proper English, that was me just being a dick.
"I never said I support SOPA. I agree something needs to be done about piracy so content creators can get paid for their work, but SOPA definitely goes way too far. Just because I'm a musician doesn't mean I support some bullshit bill that won't even combat piracy."
Then by all means, show that you do NOT support this bill. Call your representatives and say "I make content. This bill is awful."
"*facepalm* No, you aren't paying for a "round disk.""
You're right, I'm not paying for one. I download my digital copy that I have control of, instead.
"You are paying for whatever content is ON the disk, not to mention the experience of consuming that content. (or whatever other medium it is) The actual disks may be cheap to produce, but you can bet your ass that the video game/music/whatever on the disc is NOT cheap to make. In the case of video games, just look up the budget of any popular game...even mid sized indie studios must have a budget of at LEAST $100k since these studios usually have regularly employed programmers and whatnot. If the studio doesn't make money off their game because everyone pirates it, how are they supposed to pay their workers?"
1, I refuse to compare people who share to the moral equivalent of people who sail around, attacking ships.
2, Once again, for games, all there really is are plot and artwork over a game engine software. Both need to be freely adaptable, and sharable. Granted, you CAN sell round disks with a copy of the data on them, as long as the user knows his rights, and is at least able to distribute the work of art, and adapted copies for non-comercial benifet. This would apply to movies, music, etc. Oh, and Digital Restrictions Management is a no-no.
"A game may just be plot/artwork on a game engine, but a team of people still poured HUNDREDS or even THOUSANDS of hours worth of work to make it."
Funny how, for example, in the free software community, people write software like GNOME, Firefox, VLC, operating systems, kernels, etc., for free, and still put food on the table, and what they do is far better than say the latest game. And without Digital Restrictions Management.
"Which is why they should make a fair amount of money for their work. If it was freely available like you want it to be, people would have no reason to pay for it. All my friends who dl stuff instead of buying do so for that very reason; they see no need to pay if they can get it free, even if the content is worth paying for."
Yes, you ought to get your fair share. If I feel your work is exceptional, expect money or donations. This is how a free community works, just look at the free software community. I've donated to software projects when I've felt necessary, but not everyone thinks the software is exceptional, or can AFFORD to. I want a free world.
"Modify, yes. Distribute and share the original work, no. Again, people have no reason to pay someone for their work if they can get it for free."
I know, but they can, and many will. Stop denying freedoms. Say, aren't a few famous bands doing what I suggest, and still making money? And don't bands get most money from people come and see them perform live?
"Now if someone would like to share their modified version, then that is fine as long as credit is given to everyone who made the original content. It's interesting what remixes fans can come up with, but credit should be given so A) people can know who the original artist(s) are and B) so people can find the original source work to make their own modification."
You're on the right track, I hope eventually you'll realize people ought to be able to share.
"Again with the assumptions. Your statement is definitely true for big content, but I find it insulting you think that I, and every other content creator, treat our fans the same way."
I forget what I said that about. Probably something about the fact you deny the same sort of freedoms.
"Allowing freedom might not directly cause someone to go broke...but if people are allowed to distribute someone else's work for free, what reason do people have to support the creator of that work? Because they have NO reason to do so if they can get a product for free. Yeah there's things like donations and crowdfunding, but most people won't pay for something they can get for no cost."
You can make money. I won't sketch out a business model, but you can make money for charging tickets to live performances, have people pay to make a documentary or music or whatever for them, etc. Look at plays, concerts, etc., people make money off those, and it's much less lazy then making content in the studio for a month or two, and then charging for decades, and even having your descendants profit of one January in the studio one year, after you die.
Hey, I used to agree with you, and then I changed my mind.
>But your response didn't even answer the question I was asking...lol!
Sure it didn't... Regardless, specify your question in proper and understandable English.
>And don't you even throw me in with those RIAA tards and the like. I agree they need to get with the fucking times already, but we all know that probably won't happen...so we might as well get over it.
They're the owns pushing this bill, and have poured money into it. Don't even try to disassociate yourself with them.
People are most definitely paying for simply a digital copy. They pay for round disks of dirt cheap aluminum and plastic, probably 1000% the cost of production, only for the digital copy on them. If a user uses their handy P2P client, so be it. The cost is nothing to you.
>You are paying for the experience of an awesome game or whatever else you are consuming.
Don't give me that BS. The game is just plot/artwork on top of a game engine. Both art, and software need to be accessible to the public, and free to modify or redistribute.
I don't use the word content in describing the arts or software, as it is too vague, and implies that the art and software are the same as say food and clothing, and ought to be treated that way.
When I say respecting users, I mean the right to freely modify, distribute, and share with their neighbors and within the community. I do consider you douchebag for denying this freedom.
>Because if you look around, you might notice that most of us actually give a shit about our fans
Thanks for making me laugh, I appreciate it!
>So we should all just work for free and hope our bills pay themselves!
Allowing users freedom does not mean going broke. I'll refute claims against that argument later, when you try to debunk it, since I made no argument for it.