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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?