 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:04:27 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:03:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
> > wrote:
> >> ie, they think "if it's on the 'net, it's public domain".
> >
> > Do the lawyers know this?
>
> Given the number of lawsuits from MPAA, RIAA, IFPI, and other
> intellectual property bodies, I bet they do know that people think that.
People don't give a fuck.
We've had previously a gigantic thread on mobileread forums with many readers
arguing against copyright:
http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122033
This in a supposedly sane environment of readers with some intelectual prowess.
The OP is an anarcho-socialist lunatic, but he seems to echo quite well the
thoughts of the millions of freaks downloading their daily doses of life from
torrents and darknets.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I think that, to an extent, it relates to the ability to reproduce the
> game/music/movie/whatever losslessly, an unlimited number of times. It
> throws a wrench in the supply-and-demand model, because supply becomes
> infinity. It makes the actual-value of the product 'zero'.
Precisely. It doesn't matter it took you years of your life to develop a high
level of artistry and publish something that quite certainly rings a chord with
people: they won't give you a dime after they downloaded their free copy of
your work pressed against the thousands of others in a single night.
We've come back to an age where starving artists gotta make live performances
(specially popular ones that strike a chord with youtube users) for daily bread,
not by selling their work to publishers. That's what happened when everyone got
their very own press.
Society should rethink the way artists get their income. I think online content
providers should be the ones nurturing new talents, but sadly that only means
demented garbage to please a crackhead audience. Indies are out of luck, no
success with the masses and no way to limit the work of several years quickly
spreading through decentralized torrents at no dime. DRM is a joke that limits
no one but honest buyers. Perhaps a few generous souls will turn out to at
least send the guy an email with "thanks"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.08.2011 04:06, schrieb nemesis:
> Tim Cook<z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> I think that, to an extent, it relates to the ability to reproduce the
>> game/music/movie/whatever losslessly, an unlimited number of times. It
>> throws a wrench in the supply-and-demand model, because supply becomes
>> infinity. It makes the actual-value of the product 'zero'.
>
> We've come back to an age where starving artists gotta make live performances
> (specially popular ones that strike a chord with youtube users) for daily bread,
> not by selling their work to publishers. That's what happened when everyone got
> their very own press.
>
Just skimmed over the discussion you mentioned within your other post
and this one really made me LOL:
"Content creators would need to find new ways to monetise their
creations (should they feel the need to do so), but the human desire to
create will never go away."
Well, many years ago I was a professional musician (bass player within a
punk-rock band) and surely we managed it to live only from sex, drugs &
rock'n'roll. No need to buy gas for the tour van, no need to buy new
strings and especially no need to eat sometimes a burger.
This sentence reminds me of the cliche that an artist should be poor and
starving to create "true" art. Sure, and this kind of attitude makes me
sick.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> Am 09.08.2011 04:06, schrieb nemesis:
> > Tim Cook<z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> I think that, to an extent, it relates to the ability to reproduce the
> >> game/music/movie/whatever losslessly, an unlimited number of times. It
> >> throws a wrench in the supply-and-demand model, because supply becomes
> >> infinity. It makes the actual-value of the product 'zero'.
> >
> > We've come back to an age where starving artists gotta make live performances
> > (specially popular ones that strike a chord with youtube users) for daily bread,
> > not by selling their work to publishers. That's what happened when everyone got
> > their very own press.
> >
>
> Just skimmed over the discussion you mentioned within your other post
> and this one really made me LOL:
>
> "Content creators would need to find new ways to monetise their
> creations (should they feel the need to do so), but the human desire to
> create will never go away."
>
> Well, many years ago I was a professional musician (bass player within a
> punk-rock band) and surely we managed it to live only from sex, drugs &
> rock'n'roll. No need to buy gas for the tour van, no need to buy new
> strings and especially no need to eat sometimes a burger.
> This sentence reminds me of the cliche that an artist should be poor and
> starving to create "true" art. Sure, and this kind of attitude makes me
> sick.
Precisely so. But the nutjob there was advocating also for a society where
everyone could exchange services. So, hey, you'd be able to get a beer in
exchange for a soul-soothing song at the end of the day.
I still have some faith in manking because that thread got so long from many of
us with some common sense trying to counter that bull.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2011-08-08 21:06, nemesis wrote:
> We've come back to an age where starving artists gotta make live performances
> (specially popular ones that strike a chord with youtube users) for daily bread,
> not by selling their work to publishers. That's what happened when everyone got
> their very own press.
I am reminded of the outcry from the live-musicians over player-pianos,
back in the day (ok, ok...not evoking a personal memory, I've /read/
about it). The people who made their living going around and playing
the piano for people to sing along with weren't faced with a diminished
market. So...we've come full-circle. There's no income in the /idea/
of the music, you have to make it a limited commodity. By doing a live
performance.
XD
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 21:51:57 -0400, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:04:27 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:03:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>> > wrote:
>> >> ie, they think "if it's on the 'net, it's public domain".
>> >
>> > Do the lawyers know this?
>>
>> Given the number of lawsuits from MPAA, RIAA, IFPI, and other
>> intellectual property bodies, I bet they do know that people think
>> that.
>
> People don't give a fuck.
Which is precisely the point. People (in general) tend to care about one
thing: themselves. Or rather, they don't think any further than the
instant gratification they get from downloading a song rather than paying
for it.
The artist not getting paid is not their problem. In fact, the artist
getting paid, a lot of times, is not because of piracy (though that
certainly reduces the revenue stream to $0), but because of the
moneygrubbing **AA-like organisations that keep 90% of the profits for
themselves and pay the artist a pittance.....and then deduct "expenses"
from it for things like "advertising" or "marketing" - you know,
nonessential services that those bastard artists think is important so
they might as well do it, but it's not coming out of the **AA's pockets.
I understand the **AA's reasons for fighting online piracy (it is
ostensibly to cut off the supply for those who actually do make
counterfeit CDs and DVDs; I saw a very interesting presentation by the
general counsel of the RIAA a few years ago about this topic).
But in the context of "you're doing it wrong"...."YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!"
- taking down someone who has nothing doesn't send a message other than
you're a bunch of moneygrubbing lawyers who don't pay their artists. They
should talk more about the physical media counterfeiters they've busted
and make some noise about that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/8/2011 10:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But in the context of "you're doing it wrong"...."YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!"
> - taking down someone who has nothing doesn't send a message other than
> you're a bunch of moneygrubbing lawyers who don't pay their artists. They
> should talk more about the physical media counterfeiters they've busted
> and make some noise about that.
>
> Jim
Definitely. However, I *do* have one argument against copyright as it
tends to exist today. Back when people wanted to make it basically
perpetual (thanks Twain, you really where a twit about some things...),
the argument was that most things would pass from the world anyway, so
that wasn't an issue, what was is the ability of people to not have some
publisher in Britain, or even Canada, selling your own book, without any
money coming back to you for it. The problem today is that we have 30
years of stuff in warehouses that *will* pass out of existence, without
recovery, people holding on to it, not to protect the money they get
from it, but just because it *might be* valuable, at some point, and the
potential for almost everything to remain, even beyond the life of the
artist, or the company that actually owns their works. So.. The result
of this? If someone finds it interesting, even for no comprehensible
reason, it might survive on some server on the internet, otherwise, it
dies, just like more than half of *both* the valuable *and* crap works,
from all prior generations.
And that, imho, is completely bloody stupid.
Its not an excuse to steal anything, but a lot of it is based on
precisely the sort of thing that some people use to justify doing so.
That the people who, in general, actually *own* the product, which is
not to say the artist themselves, only give a shit about grinding as
much money out of it as possible, then reserving the right, to *maybe*
use the name, if not one single scrap of the original work, in some
cases, to sell more shit later on. A proposition that leaves "everyone"
screwed, including the person that wrote the book or song, made the
painting, created a game, etc. And, if that isn't bad enough, in some
cases, like those games, the originals "vanish". Abandoned games, as
they are called, being one case. Nearly everything from the early days
of arcades being the other (and more often than not also falling into
the "we decided to use the name, but completely change the game, instead
of reproducing the original work!", category).
Needless to say, these trends piss me off to no end. Not the least
because it means that, in some cases, theft may actually be the only way
to actually *get* one of them, at all, there being no legit method to
pay for the damn thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I say:
1) DMCA request
2) Adopt a policy where you:
i) Don't lose sleep over the world having 640x480 pics of your stuff.
ii) Keep the 4000x3000 versions for zazzle only.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.08.2011 20:05, schrieb Ive:
> not related to Tumblr.
>
> Just did a search with the new Google reverse image search engine and
> the very first try lead me to this:
>
> www.optimadekor.com/povray_mutfak_demo.htm
>
> Seems to be a kind of commercial interior design software that uses
> POV-Ray as a render engine. As you can easily see they use besides an
> image of mine some others by well known povers and no need to mention
> that I was never asked for permission. To my understanding these images
> are used to advertise a commercial product so really WTF?
If I'm not totally mistaken this is the web page of that POVer
occasionally showing up in the newsgroups and asking about how to model
this or that part of kitchen furniture.
You might want to ask him what the text on the page translates to. To me
it's all Dutch (erm, Turkish I guess).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> I say:
>
> 1) DMCA request
>
> 2) Adopt a policy where you:
>
> i) Don't lose sleep over the world having 640x480 pics of your stuff.
> ii) Keep the 4000x3000 versions for zazzle only.
iii) Put your name as a text object (like an etch on the coffee table) in all
the versions you release that you're not getting cash for (i.e., non-zazzle).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
