It should be, but as everyone has stated the world doesn't work that way, as least as it is now. I wasn't saying people should produce their commodities for free, apologies if it appeared that way.Vault101 said:
Downloading is a human right.
- Thread starter Longstreet
- Start date
Recommended Videos
but it isntBlood Brain Barrier said:
[quote/]but as everyone has stated the world doesn't work that way, as least as it is now. I wasn't saying people should produce their commodities for free, apologies if it appeared that way.[/quote]
really? because there several pages worth of unessicary back and forth if that was really want you ment
whatever, I'm done with this
The sad thing is this. Even if the industry changes and does x and y to make games and videos and music cheaper and easier to get and more money to the artists and everything, a lot of people will still want it for free, pirate it anyways and use the same justifications now.
It's the last 3-4 generation of people growing up with an overall sense of entitlement and privilage. Don't think that will ever change unless society as a whole undergoes some massive unheaval that completely remake how we all think and act.
It's the last 3-4 generation of people growing up with an overall sense of entitlement and privilage. Don't think that will ever change unless society as a whole undergoes some massive unheaval that completely remake how we all think and act.
oh how friggen profound of you....bloodmage2 said:
your missing the point
those small artists who put their stuff out for free are doing so by choice..and hopefully are getting their due only by the goodwill of others, they put it out for free because they know that to get exposure and a fanbase they need to do that as most people are turned off by an unknows product that comes with a price
if I take somthing and dont credit the artists because "oh they should be doing it for the love of their art" regardless of weather or not the artits are putting it out for free or what they persoanlly want then thats a douche move
Pirating from "mainstream" sources is still a douche move...you dont want to pay for somthing? DONT GET IT the fact that you get it in the first place shows that you want it...if you want it its worth paying for (and no I'm not talking about try before you buy)
"oh but the evil publishers" <-thats just fucking childish, again you want somthing then you pay for it, and evne then who gets hurt? its not EA...its the studio they shut down
and thats not what I was saying...I was saying some people convince themselves that piracy is ok becasue "artists should do it for free!"bloodmage2 said:
I know the difference, I ment paying...pay the artist
Pirates...publishers
ARE BOTH ASSHOLES each using the others behaviour to justify there own behaviour
yes publishers practices are scummy...yes the system is inperfect..even out dated to some but that said kickstarter is not the second coming of christ, I dont know what model will replace publishing if any, but the old systm has its place and without the douchbaggery of EA it can work
[quote/]i wish you white knights would actually look up what you are talking about.
.[/quote]
I wish you pirates would just drop the "crusading act" if it really was for a cause they wouldn't pirate the fucking game
Then stick to buying indie games and what have you. But don't think that disagreeing with publishers gives you the right to pirate their products.bloodmage2 said:
Meanwhile the rest of us who understand that developing games costs alot of money will continue to pay for the products we enjoy to ensure their continued creation.
If you're going to sit here and argue that artists shouldn't do art for money, then you clearly don't know anything about how the art world works. Many artists get education, which costs money. They buy supplies, which costs money. They either produce their own pieces or produce pieces on commission, and then either sell them freelance or get themselves and their works known through galleries. In the galleries, they can either sell them or gain more commissions.Blood Brain Barrier said:
I know all this because I am an art major in college, and I am in a senior class with many other artists who are about to enter the "real world" of art. It is a business. Galleries run like businesses. Museums run like businesses. They may have mission statements that say how much they're about art, and if they are owned and operated by artists themselves then they may be more about the art. But in the end something has to pay the rent in those spaces, somebody has to pay the gallery workers who put up installations and schedule exhibitions, and somehow the artists themselves have to afford more supplies to work with.
You have no idea what you are talking about. If you think I'm wrong, then find an art instructor at a university or talk to somebody who works at a gallery. They'll tell you how much business sense you have to have in order to make it as an artist.
On the topic of "Downloading is a Human Right", I would highly recommend everyone here read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture. The things he talks about are more or less the same thing this "Pirate Party" represents. Once the consumer has paid for a product, they should be free to remix it, mash it up, pull it apart and then share it with all their friends. They shoould be able to do whatever they want with it after they've bought it through legitimate means.
That's how culture grows, that's how it grew during the era of the VCR, that's how it grew in the era of the record, that's how it should grow in the era of the internet.
Link to Lessig's Free Culture, you can get if for free:
http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/
That's how culture grows, that's how it grew during the era of the VCR, that's how it grew in the era of the record, that's how it should grow in the era of the internet.
Link to Lessig's Free Culture, you can get if for free:
http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/
It's not quite BASIC supply and demand. Technically, there is an infinite supply of art. If you just generally want to "look at art", there is enough of it floating on the Internet that you couldn't finish even a hundredth of any interesting fraction of it through your lifetime.Jaeke said:
It is a forced artificial supply limit placed on the distribution of information, set up by governments to support the PROGRESS of arts at a desireably high production cost.
The problem is, that "the product" is only called a product because these governments say so, and "buying" it is only buying for the same reason, but by pure economical facts, new available data it's only a positive externality of a job that was already done regardless of whether someone paid for it.
If you walk past a street musician, you get to choose whether or not to pay for their work, because they chose a platform where they can't shut down all neutral traffic just because "people got to eat", and because the progress of art got to be supported.
Because they created a type of work on a kind of platform, where they CAN'T truly call it a product that needs to be bought, and it's irrational to expect people to change their course of walking, or shut their ears, just because they don't want to buy it.
It't not impossible, that as the Internet is growing into such a fundamental part of our lives, it is becoming similar to such a street, and then it is irrational to expect that all artists should have a right to control our course of private net browsing just because someone wants to call the data before our eyes a product, that needs to be bought.
Interesting. For those of us in America it's an already decided Constitutional Issue. Our country was founded at the time the printing press was being used to print copies of books that publishers did not create. As in an author would write a book, his publisher would print it and within weeks other companies were also selling your book but not paying the author or publisher royalties.Longstreet said:
The solution that was directly written into the American Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, which lists the powers and duties of Congress and states "The Congress shall have Power " ... (bleh bleh bleh lots of powers) ... "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Exclusive Right.
Actually, the british Statue of Anne in 1710 already guaranted copyright, and the American constitution was only applied to american citizens, who legally pirated every European content until the late 19th century.micahrp said:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9480/janke_yankee_and_how_early_america_was_a_nation_of_pirates/
Besides, "Exclusive Right" were always, even now, applied to exclusive publishing and selling rights, not the right to limit who gets to read the words you wrote.
If that would be the case, then EVERY Fair Use law would be unconstitutional, since there would be no "fair use" rights at all as long as the publisher would have exclusive rights to ban them in an EULA.
Basically, personal filesharing is a "decided Constitutional Issue" in the same way as assault rifle ammo sale restrictions are a "decided Constitutional Issue". Only if you interpret your constitution both extremely literally, and extremely all-encompassingly at the same time.
You did not buy the right to create more copies (the copy part of copyright) and the uploading creates more copies. You fairly get to use one copy. I have no problem if you completely transfer that single copy, but that isn't what is going on here.Entitled said:
No, it isn't, it's a bit more expanded than that, but it's the same principle.micahrp said:
I don't mind it if creators have an "Exclusive Right" to tell who is allowed to commercially their work, but just as that doesn't extend to the Fair Use of copies, it shouldn't extend to any other pesonal file sharing either.
There are plenty of other sources of income for media, extending copyright to a gatekeepership over any access is too extremely limiting individual rights in favor of publishers.
Besies, you are wrong, Fair Use is already explicitly about allowing fair creation of new copies, such as partial quotes, segments, song covers, or about the right to fully copy a TV show with your DVD recorder.
But those copies are for personal use where you already purchased, educational use (where you need to be able to show it is a teaching environment) or have very limited lengths for the partial quotes. Copyright does extend to copies you no longer have control over. The moment you create a copy on the file-sharing website or create a local copy on a computer from a file-sharing website you've violated the copyright owner.Entitled said:
The person receiving the file has a demand and the copyright owner deserves remuneration for fulfilling that demand. If the person with the demand does not wish to compensate the copyright owner that demand needs to go unfilled.
Who gets hurt by that demand going unfilled? This court is saying copyright is an "interference with the right of freedom of expression and information." Since when is someone else's information your right (that is how many controversial acts became legal in America, not on the merit of the act itself)?
Okay, let me pull a blatantly ridiculous analogy.micahrp said:
Say, I bought and read a newspaper. You ask me if there was anything interesting in the news. I say "Not telling! Buy your own damn newspaper; you have no right to this information!"
But I think here it's more about not someone else's information being your right, but doing whatever you want with the information that you do have being your right. It's not a right to have any information anyone has, but a right to give the infomation you have to anyone.
I mean, that's, like, just my opinion, man, but I think that's the way it's supposed to be intepreted.
That's why the lines of copyright need to be redrawn in a way that publishers rights no longer extend to filesharing, so there will be no one's copyright violated by ordinary internet usage.micahrp said:
The very idea that information can be "owned" by someone in the sense that nop one else has the right to say it, write it down, or send it accross media, is a ridiculously bloated interpretation of intellectual "property".micahrp said:
Laws should be written around the principle "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where My nose begins".
When the fact that I'm looking at certain information on my computer, alone, at home, is somehow a form of me taking away your "rights", that principle is heavily skewered in the favor of publishers, whose "intellectual nose" apparently has a mile-wide aura floating around them, where swinging my fist infringes on their moral right to stop me from swinging my fists.
Publishers should still have creator rights, as long as it's possile to help them be profitable, for example by giving them an edge over other publishers, but not at the cost of dictating everyday people's daily lifestyle, information access, net browsing habits, and personal data creation.
Indeed! I'm simply annoyed that people are quick to miscatagorize it, whether out of simple ignorance of the definition of theft or out of a deliberate attempt to argue to emotion.BeerTent said:
And that's wrong. Which I pointed out several times. I am not saying piracy is not wrong. I AM saying it's not theft. That's it. Further, this is only one kind of piracy. There are, believe it or not, those who simply want DRM free copies of their legally purchased software. Others use them as demos for games that lack them. Now, those do get used as excuses quite a bit by those who legitamitly only take without giving back but that does not change the fact that those uses exist.BeerTent said:
That's just the thing, it's not essential. It's broken so fast, that it might as well not be there. And DRM is not cheap! Developers lacing their products with it have to spend a lot of money, which cuts into their profits. It's as effective as throwing money in a lake, without the potential of someone fishing that money out later and drying it off. Completely pointless, is my point. Further, it weakens the product and thus makes people even less likely to legally purchase it. So using DRM is basically just shooting yourself in the foot over and over and wondering why you're walking funny afterward.BeerTent said:
Which nigh-universally doesn't work. Or rather, it's cracked a day or two later, so the idea of "holding off" pirates until they've made their sales, while clever in theory, simply doesn't work in practice. It only gives the disadvantages I've mentioned in my previous paragraph.BeerTent said:
Correction: the theoretical individual has possibly removed a potential $2500. Some may not have bought it at all if it weren't free, in which case the amount you're getting remains 0 from them. You can't steal a potential without opening up a TERRIBLE precedent in law. "I didn't make as much money as I thought I would. People not paying me is stealing from my potential." (this is also the problem with "voting with your wallet". Companies are much more quick to blame piracy for low sales than the fact that perhaps their product was simply not popular). This isn't remotely acceptable. Beyond that though, studies have shown that many pirates actually end up spending MORE money than the average person, so you may very well have made more money. I often here the retort "MAY make money isn't enough!", but that's exactly what you do when you put a product on the market. You can't truly guaentee sales, only make them more likely. And you're making them less likely to buy them legally with the current antics.BeerTent said:
From a moral standpoint, I want artists to get paid. I'm less happy about the fact that the publishers tend to take most of the money, sometimes to the point of lawsuits required on the developer's part, but I'll work with that if need be, until things change. But you'd get a lot more people to pay you if you treated them as valued customers rather than criminals with DRM, as well as adjusting prices to take into account the possibility of digital distribution (which axes the production costs of cd/dvd/blue ray etc. and the shipping costs that go along with it). If you don't, reality catches up to you and, yes, people do wrong things. You'll never stop piracy 100%, but you can minimize it with different strategies. Which I hope to see, because it makes the artists more money (making them happy, presumably) and customers more happy when they don't have to deal with all the useless crap that goes along with the media they purchase.
I mean, just look at Steam. Very light on the DRM, sell cheap and have frequent sales, be nice to customers. They make startling amounts of money because people want their products and want to support a company that offers them at reasonable costs.
Wait, what? You agree that 25+ years is too much time (and yes it is, punishment fitting the crime and all that), but that downloading copies is more critical, therefore it's justified?BeerTent said:
Again, this is punishment completely disproportionate to the crime. Let's say we have a guy, who we'll call Keith (because every example I do usually involves him, poor guy). Keith walks into a music store and quietly pockets a cd. The cd costs, maybe 10 dollars. Security catches him. What happens? Most likely, he wont be criminally charged for such a small thing. He's very likely to get escorted from the store and may be banned from returning in the future. Now, let's say Keith was snowed in at the time instead, so he downloads the songs for free somewhere on the internet. If he's caught, those same songs that would have given him a slap on the wrist for shoplifting can utterly destroy his life. He doesn't have to share them or anything, he can be fined frankly embarrassing amounts of money for supposed damages and be put in prison. Even a small amount of prison time makes getting a job hellishly difficult. Not to mention all the other problems with putting small time offenders behind bars (ie. getting them into contact with potentially much more serious criminals). He's done less than if he'd shoplifted the object (since someone else can still buy that individual disk), but he's being treated like he went around setting people on fire for fun.BeerTent said:
Punishment? Maybe, but keep it in line with the crime. That's all I'm saying, and I'd hope that most would agree on that point. Disproportionate justice doesn't work. If it did, would we be having this discussion?
