Ofc, like every other human being, I want free stuff, but you're still taking someone ELSE's work without THEIR consent, and they aren't getting what they originally planned to get when they made the product. Keep in mind that most people (pretty much everyone) wouldn't make games/music if there was no income involved.
That's kind of flawed. No one would ever do anything as much time consuming as creating music/books/games/etc without any income because they'd most likely starve to death and sleep in the street. And even tho, I'm not sure... most of us musicians make music out of passion, it's a need.
As said in my previous post, "I'm a musician, I'll soon finish my first EP and hope to be heard by a maximum of people. It's as much a passion as it is politic, I make music for myself and for others, not for money. If I wanted to be rich and live in a big house I would do something else with my life. I think any creative peep would.
Pirating is the problem of big money suckers, dictating producers and sharky publishing corporations that remunerate their artists like shits."
I repeat myself but the issue is not the people downloading free culture, it's the remuneration of the artists controlled and dictated by major companies/producers/blablabla. That's what kills the artists, and art in general. Because those big producing companies aren't interested in the message, ideas or soul you put in your music/art ; they're just interested in profit. That's why we have Lady gagas, Biebers, Beyonces and such... formated shitty music for clueless teenagers.
On the other side you have indie bands, or self produced projects. With low visibility, only relying on the quality of their product, most likely happy to be downloaded because of advertisement and their audience going up. But THEY are those really losing income when downloaded, and they're the ones not sueing every living souls... because they make their stuffs for people, not for money.
Piracy's a transitionnal state to kill industry and the shit that goes with it.
As for the DNA thingy, sci-fi and art are two different things (even tho sci-fi is mostly creation of the mind). It's not like people put effort and thought into creating their DNA, they just happen to have it, it's in nature's hands. And right now it's a pretty ficitonal scenario anyway
Last edited by deprav; Aug 14, 2013 at 03:59 PM.
Originally Posted by sham
Let's say were in the future, and corporations are now able to clone people from a single strand of DNA. Let's also say that your DNA is extremely fit for this time period/environment. These corporations (or people) are able to download your DNA to start cloning people made from YOUR DNA without paying you a dime. What would you think? Do you own your DNA or is it out for grabs?
As deprav said, extremely stupid "analogy". You don't own your DNA. You didn't do anything to acquire it. And if you would deny the advance of science and humanity in favour of your own wealth, you're a fool.
Besides, we can pretty much alter DNA to our bidding now.
Originally Posted by deprav
That's kind of flawed. No one would ever do anything as much time consuming as creating music/books/games/etc without any income because they'd most likely starve to death and sleep in the street. And even tho, I'm not sure... most of us musicians make music out of passion, it's a need.
It's both. Modern day artists make art because they like to do it and they can make survive on doing it. If they can't survive, they stop making art and get a real job.
There are numerous cases of artists who kept making their works and died in poverty, though, so I wouldn't say nobody will make art just because they are passionate about doing so.
Last edited by Arglax; Aug 14, 2013 at 06:51 PM.
f=m*a syens
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I'm skeptical of this.
I don't think lack of prosecution is precedence for an unfavourable judgement. I don't think disproportionate action in order to deter others is a good idea in any legal system.
The most any party can do is sue in a civil court of law. They can seek absurdly high damages, but then it's the responsibility of the legal system to ensure a reasonable outcome.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...ating_24_songs
Here's a good example of why I don't like that stance. $62k per song is ridiculous no matter how you think of it. Yes, the copyright holder obviously thought "we need to deter others" and "we need to set a precedence" but the punishment is way too disproportionate.
According to that article: "In a ruling in January, David reduced the award to $54,000 or $2,250 per violation, which he said was the maximum that was reasonably allowable in this case. Following that ruling, the RIAA stepped in and offered to settle the case for $25,000, which it said at the time would be used to help struggling musicians."
It seems as though this is well on its way to a solution, though the defendant will once again appeal. The RIAA is one of the worst offenders when it comes to overstepping the bounds of reasoning in pursuing copyright infringement. I agree completely that the damages they are seeking are ridiculous.
There are legitimate arguments to be had over the copyright system. What Beast is presenting is instead misinformed, manufactured outrage that appears to be based on a vanity fair article he read.
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
Raconteur
Originally Posted by deprav
That's kind of flawed. No one would ever do anything as much time consuming as creating music/books/games/etc without any income because they'd most likely starve to death and sleep in the street. And even tho, I'm not sure... most of us musicians make music out of passion, it's a need.
As said in my previous post, "I'm a musician, I'll soon finish my first EP and hope to be heard by a maximum of people. It's as much a passion as it is politic, I make music for myself and for others, not for money. If I wanted to be rich and live in a big house I would do something else with my life. I think any creative peep would.
Pirating is the problem of big money suckers, dictating producers and sharky publishing corporations that remunerate their artists like shits."
I repeat myself but the issue is not the people downloading free culture, it's the remuneration of the artists controlled and dictated by major companies/producers/blablabla. That's what kills the artists, and art in general. Because those big producing companies aren't interested in the message, ideas or soul you put in your music/art ; they're just interested in profit. That's why we have Lady gagas, Biebers, Beyonces and such... formated shitty music for clueless teenagers.
On the other side you have indie bands, or self produced projects. With low visibility, only relying on the quality of their product, most likely happy to be downloaded because of advertisement and their audience going up. But THEY are those really losing income when downloaded, and they're the ones not sueing every living souls... because they make their stuffs for people, not for money.
Piracy's a transitionnal state to kill industry and the shit that goes with it.
As for the DNA thingy, sci-fi and art are two different things (even tho sci-fi is mostly creation of the mind). It's not like people put effort and thought into creating their DNA, they just happen to have it, it's in nature's hands. And right now it's a pretty ficitonal scenario anyway
How many big shot bands or artists do you see now that aren't in it for some money? I seriously doubt any of the stars would continue to do what they do if their music was free, and they got 0 income from it. Like you said, no money = no big production companies = no beyonces, no biebers, no stars. Aka music would be completely revolutionized and the remaining artists who WILL do it for free probably have other jobs. I have a cousin in a band that plays all around my city, and they let people download there music for free on their website, not only to get popular, but because they do it all for fun. I've talked to him about it and he even says that eventually they are going to have to split up, because they can't make a living off of it. So those self produced, indie bands that you're talking about aren't going to last long.
As for the DNA thing, sorry if it was a bad analogy, it's all I could really think of, and there actually is a debate going on about it.
-----
Originally Posted by Arglax
As deprav said, extremely stupid "analogy". You don't own your DNA. You didn't do anything to acquire it. And if you would deny the advance of science and humanity in favour of your own wealth, you're a fool.
Besides, we can pretty much alter DNA to our bidding now.
There was actually a big national debate this year over DNA possession, but I wouldn't expect you to know about it. Cloning from DNA is very possible, as they were able to clone a mouse from a single drop of blood. Sorry if it was a bad analogy but it's a truth that is we will see in the future. Also by denying free music, you could argue that you're denying the advance of art, so it goes both ways. Why shouldn't it be your choice to give up your DNA.
Also, I really doubt we are even close to being able to alter our DNA to our bidding on a safe level yet. Source?
Last edited by sham; Aug 14, 2013 at 08:05 PM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
inq.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
The most any party can do is sue in a civil court of law. They can seek absurdly high damages, but then it's the responsibility of the legal system to ensure a reasonable outcome.
According to that article: "In a ruling in January, David reduced the award to $54,000 or $2,250 per violation, which he said was the maximum that was reasonably allowable in this case. Following that ruling, the RIAA stepped in and offered to settle the case for $25,000, which it said at the time would be used to help struggling musicians."
It seems as though this is well on its way to a solution, though the defendant will once again appeal. The RIAA is one of the worst offenders when it comes to overstepping the bounds of reasoning in pursuing copyright infringement. I agree completely that the damages they are seeking are ridiculous.
There are legitimate arguments to be had over the copyright system. What Beast is presenting is instead misinformed, manufactured outrage that appears to be based on a vanity fair article he read.
Yes, it was reduced, but the RIAA was taking disproportionate action in an attempt to deter others, which is extremely unfair. Even the final charges of over $1000 are absolutely ridiculous.
This was the part of your post I was disagreeing with, that companies must attack in full force at marginal or superficial violations in order to maintain a position in which they can sue someone. Taking a lack of lawsuit as tacit permission - and what's more using that as a defense when violating IP law is ridiculous.
Not going to comment on Beast's posts.
> Cloning from DNA is very possible, as they were able to clone a mouse from a single drop of blood. Sorry if it was a bad analogy but it's a truth that is we will see in the future. Also by denying free music, you could argue that you're denying the advance of art, so it goes both ways. Why shouldn't it be your choice to give up your DNA.