Sorry then, I was in full defense mode, we seem to understand each other at least. (You, serious ? yeah right.)HT_Black said:
Ok I'll think about that.
A pity. It does depend on what store you're in.
No, i am particularly irritated at you for talking to me condescendingly. The constant "You know I'm right your just childishly stubborn to admit it!" statements were not welcome either. My specific irritation with you is when you decided to make this personal.incal11 said:
To force companies to stop a corrupt practice is not corrupt itself.Kagim said:
While they sit back they won't make a profit, the point is moot.
Personally that's this overly agressive and possessive mindset that I look down on (and originally made me angry). Are you from the middle East by any chance ?
They are not corrupt, merely inconvenient to you.incal11 said:
Waiting for people to die so you can take there creative works does not render said point moot.
Me wanting my work to only be distributed for profit if my family gets royalties.
I'm not helping much by not wanting people to make money off my name and want my work to be distributed for free or not at all after i die... Okayyyy. I didn't realize allowing companies to cash in on my life's work after i die was helping your culture.
People shouldn't be forced to make there work for free is what I am saying, people shouldn't be forced to give it out for free either. Its a very small portion of work out there that isn't free. Namely the mainstream.
As I explained to teknoarcanist :Kagim said:
and
See, I am not forcing you in any way, I merely try to explain you how things really are and how you could benefit from some changes. I am not being particularly provocative, but you do treat me like shit for disagreeing with you. Can we stop the argument about who has been the worst bastard to the other, because that's not mature.
Except.incal11 said:
I just tried to make you understand that, because "piracy" will always be there you simply don't have a choice,never had, and not anymore than me. From there I was discussing with other about how the situation could be made better, if possible without adding more restrictive and useless laws.Kagim said:
In effect that is exactly what I'm saying. You may add that it's still unfair if I judged something I did not pay for, but if I judged it to be worthless then it does not matter.
You really need to work on that introspection thing. I might seem condescending but it's far from being always true, and it does not take away the value of my arguments.
Firstly, true. Another damn set of rules/philosophy that will require creating/managing...incal11 said:
At no point did i say i tried to control, only that copyright helps protect people who create from having other people directly take there ideas and profit off them giving not a dime to those who rightly deserve.incal11 said:
No, its self centered to judge people who decide to take a different course of action as you. Deciding to insult anyone and call them greedy and corrupt because they adopt a model you don't endorse is incredibly egotistical.
Oh, like how calling me a self centered swine wasn't an insult to right? Or the fact you keep trying to accuse me of "keeping a stranglehold on ideas" or randomly asking if i am from the middle east because i think that if someone is profiting off my work it should be my family otherwise it should be handed out for free.
Odd how whenever i call you out for being condescending you try and act nice.
To make things short, we are in an intellectual deadlock, we each think that the only answers to the other's arguments are the points we already made.Kagim said:
-I never said people can not expand on it, only that any expansions would not be cannon, as i have already explained earlier, and that those expansions must be freely distributed, not for profit.incal11 said:
-You can't exactly profit from a story if it never leaves your notebook. Sticking a story on deviant art is in and of itself publishing it.
-And i never said i had a problem with people taking, just the attitudes many i have met exhibit.
-No, i didn't. I said everyone complaining that grabbing new products is something they are entitled to and people acting as if downloading said products makes them a rebel hero are self-entitled and full of shit. Not that i had any problem who were simply taking it with no delusions of being a victim or a hero.
-No, anyone who downloads with delusions of being a victim or a hero are idiots. if people want to download my work they can, i publicly publish and distribute my work simply because i enjoy knowing someone read my trifle of a story and walked away at least mildly entertained.
-I never asked for absolute control over the product itself, however if i find out someone is using my work and making money off of it directly I will take actions agaisnt them. My work is free to take, making money off of it however is not a right I give someone.
-Once more. I am talking about protecting my work agaisnt people who would seek to use it to gain money, not people wanting to pass it around freely. I have mentioned this in many of my past posts.
-Once again, I don't want people using my work to gain profit. I pass my work out for free, not so someone else can profit.
-If it goes into the public domain company X can then take my product, alter it slightly, re-release it under a new copyright, and make money off my work while not giving a dime to my family, or looking after the integrity of my work.
-I wouldn't be the original author anymore, company X would be the new copyright holder, and hack editor number 69 would be the "writer".
-Not if i am dead.
-Unless of course I am talking about the CC. Which allows people to do whatever the fuck they want with it. They are not all stamp and post. A CC copyright can simply mean "Non profit distribution and attributions only."
I just answered in point form.
--On the first two points we agree. Here is our first misunderstanding, I do not support plagiarism, though stopping plagiarism can be one side of copyright, this is not a part of copyright that I condone. I had updated my OP on this a few days ago, go read it, please.Kagim said:
--that is an intellectual property issue, also a side of copyright that ough to be kept somehow.
--I have not been able to pinpoint that before (you were not making it easy). This is a point were copyrights are moral, part of this thread's goal. Thanks for contributing.
--CC appears to me as an unnecessary distinction. On one side you have the work that is meant to be free, on the other you have work that is not meant to be free, but is freely available anyway if you know where to look.
--Still, if your story is that good and you invite readers to make a donation, you will profit from. Even indirectly if you build yourself a fandom before using other kinds of publishing.
--Founding your attitude on hatred, whatever the reason, is not being constructive.
--You seems to still have a problem with my feeling of entitlement, and this is what I have a problem with myself. I share what I have and others share with me, but when I am prosecuted for it, given how the founding of copyrights have been established as amoral here, even by your grand definition of it I am a victim (among many). Because what used to be a simple right has been criminalised in the past two centuries for wrong reasons, my freedom insiduously taken away, everyone brainwashed to think this is how it ough to be forever.
--Our second misunderstanding. I understand, you want control on how you can profit from your work, but with the advent of the internet absolute control is impossible.
--I understand them too, but they should do good work to begin with, then the ones who never pay are not important in regard of those who do.
--A moral dilemma for me too. To be more precise though, they are profiting of people sharing other people's works, they are not responsible for what is being shared.
--I can share your view on self-centered torrent noobs and anon.
--you were adamant about your family being able to though.
It's the somehow i don't like. That is a big issue for me, and any other writer who doesn't like the idea of someone messing with our characters.incal11 said:
I am careful to always mention the words for profit, or mention that people can't demand my work from me.
CC isn't meant to be free, but rather meant to be handed out for free with a wink and a nod towards the tip jar. A product can be released with a CC and still have a price tag, for example much work on DA is CCed but the option to buy prints or copies of said work, or give a tip, is all available to the viewer. The idea is to encourage copyrights that share and still can be marketed.
My point is publishing just means you got it out there. I put it on DA, it is essentially published. Nothing stops me from advertising my work, outside of a lack of wanting to advertise myself at this time.
Fine, i don't like them. I have grown sick of them whining on both sides. I have heard them repeat there sad stories so many times it has become irritating. I am tired of hearing it and it's doesn't help anyone.
I would rather libraries become more common then smart phones. As well my point is the internet is still not cheap, but if you have access to it there is still oodles of free or bare bones cheap at your disposal. Your culture is there, and very little is with a price tag.
That's why i would rather build and push libraries then fancy phones. Libraries are pretty awesome that way, even if the net goes down they will still be there.
Because the idea that creators owe you is wrong. I can not call anyone a victim because with things like libraries and the many people who give there work away for free its hard for me not to chuckle.
When people mention shortening copyrights the concerns that i have mentioned above come to mind immdiatly. As well when i say bullying i usually mean insults.
And as i said, consumers who really don't like how some publishers do business should simply not concern themselves wit hthem and encourage and support the ones who do.
Well, they are. They are willfully putting ads on the website. Regardless of who precisely they are profiting off of they are still profiting without contributing.
It doesn't matter if other sites do it, a single site should have the responsibility and respect not to profit. No one forces a particular site to place ads on there website.
They still are getting paid for other peoples work. That's just kinda like shutting your eyes whenever the cashier at a store deals crack.
I am adamant on teaching my children and helping them understand when someone wants to expand on work and when they want to profit off work.
-Perhaps this needs it's own discussion. This is an issue that has been strapped on Copyright at some point, but is not morally questionnable.Kagim said:
-Maybe I was going at it the wrong way, if copyright wasn't used as an excuse to prosecute individuals exercising a basic right I wouldn't have much problem with it's length.
-I am not against libaries, I too prefer them to fancy phones. I trust there will still be people who prefer the feeling of a book in their hand for a long time.
-The libraries do not have everything, far from it, and they are not as accessible to everyone.
-When individuals share a story between them because it's good (no matter the scale of the sharing) they don't have to "demand" anything, they are exercising what is and should be considered a basic right. At least for the reason that it has been proven (read the links in the OP) to be good for the authors biseness.
-If I know I probably won't like it, I will not download it, I don't need anyone telling me that.
-Considering sharing between individuals will always be there, you are just asking for whole populations to just behave themselves out of honor or something. This is not being realistic.
-Since people exposed to a larger variety of art are more likely to buy (again see my links), by facilitating the sharing between these people torrent sites are in fact contributing.
-No such sites can function without some ads, if sharing is so widespread they make a profit out of ads, it's not wrong in itself.
-A good idea, but one that is not meant for the electronic format of the internet. I can apreciate this principle, if it's a physical product I'm going to buy.
-Only blame yourself then.
Libraries are more accessible then internet however. I do not even need a home to walk inside a library and read a book, or pop a dvd or vhs or, not even kidding, beta max into one of the viewing rooms.incal11 said:
If you are entitled to something it means you are owed something. If you are entitled to all works it means all works are owed to you. Which means I, as someone whop enjoys to create work, owe you, someone who wants to see it.
Except the majority of the works available to you are unrestricted while the minority has a price tag. Which is the point I am making. There is MORE that is free then not, and the best way to go about making that portion change there mind is to go play with the ones who work with the free model.
As i said above, if your entitled to something it means you are owed something, which means it is demand that it is given as you are entitled to it.
Many people seem to think that downloading is the best way to prove a point to publishers.
I am talking about this argument as a whole, many people demand things change while contributing to the problem itself.
I'm asking for people to stop whining out one side of there mouth while contributing to the problems they whine about.
Please stop taking what i am saying personally.
Once more, correlation, without provable causation. You can't prove that any more then people can prove that opposite.
If it's about sharing and the culture you can take one for the team. As well i DO think it's wrong in and of its self. It would be as if i took the latest popular web comics and cut and pasted them onto my website and covered it with ads.
Once more, i have no problem with sharing, i just don't like them doing it with the clear intent to profit. Which i would be hard pressed to believe that doesn't factor into it.
I don't consider it free advertising, as one line of text buried beneath a thousand other links that people will only find if they were looking for it anyways and could just as easily head to DA where i willfully put it up for distribution. DA is making money off ads for my work, however i gave permission for them to do so.
Actually, it was created FOR the electronic format with the hope for it to take over the entire market.
I never blamed anyone for anything.
Not all libraries have that equipment, internet and libraries have their own advantages and disadvantages, in a way they complete each other.Kagim said:
This isn't quite the same issue as asking populations to follow a unique moral code.
It's not the majority but it is still a sizeable part despite what you try to make it look like, and as such a part of what people want to share (and not "demand").
Noone on torrent sites "demand" to the authors themselves, except maybe the most thoughless noobs.
I am not entitled to what the artists does, but I am at best entitled to share with those who share with me.
and torrent sites merely help them do so, it's a service, they don't properly publish any of it. They can't help it if people want to share it like this anyway.
They don't make the majority, anyway when Spore was downloaded so much for having a limited install number it still was one of the best selling games despite that. We may disagree again here, but it did contribute to most publishers dropping the limited install scheme. They tried even worse stuff since then, but equally ineffective, now they are starting to become more lenient, as some of them (like the head of Nintendo) are publicly admiting that they are not hurt by illegal downloads.
Torrent sites don't host any of what's shared, plus what's on their pages is the doing of the users alone. As I said before, they can't stop it because of people always wanting to share, and they can't regulate it because so many things are shared.
Word of mouth is free advertising, especially if it's facilitated.
Here is an example of how it actually happened :
See this
which is why i want more funding to libraries.incal11 said:
I'm not talking about restricting liberties, I'm telling people to stop saying one thing and doing another, no hypocrisy won't disappear, doesn't mean i don't think its wrong.
Its always been the majority for me, it depends on how you choose to view it, i see a wealth of free information and very little wanting money for it.
What you have said in the past leaned otherwise, that you, as a human, were entitled to all creative works ever made. That is what it seemed you were saying.
That... Was not what i was talking about...
All i meant to say that its stupid that people think that downloading sounds a strong powerful message to publishers when likely. I have already mentioned i don't really trust either side on the money issue.
Which essentialyl means they popped up a website, slap a couple of ads on there ,and let everyone else do the leg work while they cash a check at the end of an ad period.
And i deal with it by not supporting them.
Which is something they can do, since kongregate does it.
Word of mouth is generated by someones work being good.
If a site hosts my stuff and i approve they can. If i don't i would like said site to have the respect to take the work down. For example, if my work appeared on a KKK site i would probably ask them to stop associating themselves with me in any way.
The only difference to me is that torrent sites shrug there shoulders and say "Hey, don't look at me, THEY posted it." while counting there money.
You are, however talking about something that happened years ago. This was before the age of the internet.
All that proves is what i already know and have already said i know, you can't really prove that it hurts sales, something i have never said. However there is no evidence that it actualyl increased sales.
Once again, i find the lack of sources sketchy. Most important the fact a survey is quoted i find realyl questionable, as one of the first things you ever learn in psych classes is that people are very tempted to lie when it comes to surveys. What evidence do you have that people didn't lie in hopes to prove a point. Anonymity isn't exactly a valid reason either, people will ie if they think it might end in there favor, even if no name is given and no chance of being revealed.
If its the answer your looking for. Those are just shreds. Simply proving its almost impossible to tell either way. Once more, the answer could simply be that twenty years ago computers were mostly work things, a blooming small culture of people, nowadays a cellphone the size of my pinky has triple the specs of the computer i had when i was five. it doesn't really prove a direct positive correlation. it proves more people are in the market sphere.
However to believe everyone is that honest is silly, just to believe everyone is completely dishonest is.
Which is why a push a free model, but would rather torrent sites stayed the fuck away from people exercising free models, because, well, i have already been over that.
You mean deviant art, kongregate, youtube, newgrounds.... Not trying to be rude just.. they already exist. All those places allow people to freely advertise and publish themselves AND post donation info, and in the case of kongregate and DA, have a link specifically to donate to them.
I do kinda think they have, and i don't think they care.
No, that was exactly what you were talking about, you're just looking at it the wrong way. You are looking at it the wrong way because torrent sites don't profit from what is shared, but from people sharing. You persist in misrepresenting how a torrent site work even though I think you understand it by know.Kagim said:
That may be the real problem, here we agree. Now what is left is to find a way to incite them to do that.
and a few seconds for someone to put the client back on elsewhere, assuming you even get if off of every single torrent site. It's not "lazy", that's how it is, if I had an idea on how to change that I'd tell you.
A good work will gain a following, odds are then that someone will want to share it, which will make it know to more, inflating the numbers of those who are at least ready to buy more work from the same artist.
This is only how you chose to see it, I never meant it as "I deserve it all for free", more as "if someone want to share it's his right". Consider it a fundamental misunderstanting between the authors and the ones who share solved here.
I see no reason why this would be working differently, pardon me, is working differently, since the internet and the electronic format allowed to bypass laws that were originally purely amoral.
No, the fancy stuff is the object itself, always more of a luxury than a bunch of electrons, that's why the special edition box of Fallout 3 was so successfull.
There are evidence for both sides on the issue, perhaps the truth is that some biseness models are harmed while others are favored. An assumption, but one that seems to make sense for now.
If enough scientifically correct surveys all saying the same things can be found then a conclusion can still be drawn. Them main problem is that may not be a conclusion we like.
No, i am not misrepresenting it.incal11 said:
No, they encourage creation through mutual gains, rather then one person gaining and, hey, maybe someone might check you out later. That's a platform i encourage, thus, i support them.
That is not what i am talking about.
Visiting there site supports them, visiting pirate bay supports pirate bay. I would rather support Penny arcade. I don't view it as a waste of time, you are arguing over my own personal preference. I think it is immoral. You have no reason to, nor do i expect you to.
I am NOT talking about suppressing sharing, i am talking about the fact i feel torrent sites are in existence for the soul pursuit of gaining money off other work. They have NO other use, no content, then that which is supplied, created, and posted by OTHER people. I find this scummy in and of itself.
That is a very, very slippery slope my friend. For as people get more money what constitutes as 'hurting' people becomes more and more vague. You might be surprised to what people have decided isn't 'hurting' people when that thing is what stands in between them and there desires.
Monetarily yes it likely will not effect me either way. However i consider it disrespectful that someone else is profiting off free use work. That's the point i am trying to get across. Whether you consider it disrespectful or not is up to you.
Jealousy? No, i simply think do not agree with there methods. Once more, i feel there motives are largely based on the pursuit of money, and i find it wrong.
I have reason to despise people who exploit other peoples work for the explicit desire to gain money. That is how i view the people owning said sites. Whether your a billion dollar company or a small group owning a site.
Here's the thing.
This might be self explanatory but.. uh, stop visiting them until they do? Go without for a bit till you get what you want.
So, and i ask this seriously, if people were to say... start posting Child Pornography on Pornhub in great numbers should they just leave it because every time they take a vid off two more get put back on? How about if people started pumping Pirate bay with the same kind of illegal porn?
Remember i am talking about work that is already free to own on there root site. They don't need torrent sites to inflate there numbers or help them. They are trying to push a free model, and webmasters allowing such media on there sites seems counter productive, and once more, slimy.
No, you realllyy did come off as saying you deserved everything. I don't purposefully twist what people say to attack them. I'd rather not get into fights on the internet. Seeing as how its an irritation, and stress, i really don't need in my life right now.
It works different now because we are talking about much larger number, with a much tighter network of communication.
Gonna have to say bullshit on that. In my city most stores only got maybe three or four of them, and only for preorders. The stores that did get more then the pre-orders STILL have them. I saw one at my HMV last week. The fuckers are $35 more then the regular game. I could buy like.. 7 lunch pales for that money.
I'm more in favor of it really doesn't have much of an effect either way. It's a non issue to me essentially. Whether it hurts or helps, if people want to pass shit along as long as they can do it without trying to rake praise or sympathy out of me.
Like, say for example, people lie. A lot. And about the same thing. When it comes to this subject i find people are ready and willing to lie and not only justify themselves for this, but to put themselves on a golden bloody throne as a righteous angel slaughtering Hitler/Stalin hybrids (I really hate those guys)
You won't because it doesn't really effect things, either way really. Until someone can show me the stats of media purchased in a NA where there was no such thing as any form of file sharing in any way shape or form and we compare it to now you can't honestly prove either side either way.
It's the motive that's the key. A guy wants to post something cool he found, fine.
As much as you want to believe it, I am not that delusional, I know they're in it for the money. I don't side with them but with what their sites helps doing, I know most of them are scummy bastard, I certainly haven't been donating to them. I don't visit their sites very often, and never without an ad blocker.Kagim said:
That they're not the ones making the client pages is not an excuse, it's a fact. These sites only answer to certain needs, not all of whom you would condemn. Doing something in the "sole pursuit of gaining money" is not wrong in itself, it's really only how it is done, I get you there.
You despise them for getting rich easily, so you want a piece of the cake using what is shared as a convenient excuse, ahem. Nevertheless I agree they ough to facilitate donating to the artists too, you'd waste less time trying to make that happen rather than bitching about what can't be changed.
There is always a site somewhere to allow tasteless things to be downloaded, anyway they have report systems for their members, the ones who spend the rest of the time sharing more tastefull things.
By encouraging creation through mutual gain they function differently, and so do not fullfill the same needs. Here This is exactly what you are talking about. No matter how you put it, right-click save of every pages of a web comic that doesn't let you download it all in one bulk can only be time consuming. The ones downloading that kind of things are probably regulars of these sites anyway.
It's larger and the network is tighter, but it's exactly the same situation, only with a greater scale.
"principles of leather tanning" was just meant for anyone more or less interested in leather tanning. An educative book for amateurs about somewhat arcane knowledge can only get that profitable in a society where general knowledge has spread wide.
I don't think everyone is that superficial about trinkets, a somewhat fancy box is enough for me. The Fallout3 special edition was still ordered a lot around the world. Given the price, that's quite an earning for the publisher.
Not surveys then. Observations can still be made to convince someone who knows his stuff. After all that's how scientists know how the insides of the sun looks like, more or less.