Are you for it or against it?

thankyou

If you can obtain or manufacture a copy of anything for literally no cost at all then the monetary worth of said copy becomes zero as the supply is de facto infinite whereas the number of consumers with the demand for said product is limited.

Copyright, in essence, shares more of old stale socialist ideals than anything else, right up to and including the view on “controlled” information. Which is true for almost any IP law in general. The idea that IP belongs under a capitalist system at all is nothing more than a convenient excuse thought up by special interests who were deathly afraid of having to act under a market paradigm in the first place.

We are living in a world where bleach-blonde fashion bimbos make a good living blithering about nonessential crap on their free-to-access blogs, and where you can sell bottled water at a thousand times the production price with a brand name alone.

Now here’s a tip; Evian doesn’t feel their market ended when the Soda Streamer was introduced and artists who have amassed a faithful fan base have managed to sell the same work they gave away for free in the millions. Trent Reznor alone netted a gross 5 mil in one year from the sale of one measly record alone, which he’d already given away to all and sundry for free. Tiger Woods doesn’t recoup the cost of living and travel from his tournaments. Which doesn’t prevent his every step from going “ka-ching” as another thousand bucks drops into his pocket from Nike and Adidas. Or did until he mishandled his brand.

Copyright doesn’t work in any reality. It’s as simple as that. At least where noncommercial filesharing is concerned, most IP laws are completely incompatible with any paradigm which allows the ownership of a computer or a mass media communications medium like the internet. If you want to put an end to copyright infringement your one and only way of doing so in any practical way is by removing the internet and computers altogether. End of story.

What that means is simple. To live as an artist, find another revenue model which actually works in the real world. If you can’t manage to do so simply don’t quit your day job. Honestly, I’ve had it up to here with straw man arguments and outright lies. 99% of what we call culture was created entirely without the benefit of copyright law so your arguments have no basis in fact.

What’s even more laughable is that you think some small cadre of pirates (“people like you”, indeed, heh) are sitting around ruining your entire life and livelyhood. I’m afraid it’s a bit worse than that. Human nature itself is what you’re up against. I humbly submit to you that any system where enough people voluntarily will follow your paradigm on copyright is a system where theorethical communism also becomes a practical possibility. I.e. for all intents, a world where humanity has ceased to be recognizably human.

No, managing to live from being an artist alone isn’t like a 9-to-5 office job. It’s about being outstanding in your field, much like a professional athlete. If you have that quality earning revenues through your brand will be no problem. If you don’t, find another field to earn your way in. It’s that simple.

You appear to be missing the point of the article completely…

The idea is that having the information spread freely is a good thing. So if you want to make a copy and try to make money off it, thats great! It means it will be seen and enjoyed by more people. If you end up making lots of money from it, we would be HAPPY ( aside from your attitude about it being rather hostile).

The point is that sharing is good.

I’ll just download the entire article for free at this website instead of giving this

Jackass any of my money.

Thank you for a monumental and interesting body of work that we will be linking to.

5. So the law should allow us to share whatever it is that’s publicly available for free.

I should’ve said “So the law should allow us to share whatever it is that’s “publicly available for free”. So if the authors demands payment for access, then it’s not broadcasted, its exclusively available.

So could I treat it like this:

1. Authors have the right to keep secret.
2. THose who want to share the secret should comply with the authors’ terms and conditions.
3. The terms and conditions was to be made in synergy with the law as a whole.
4. Secrets that were made public by the authors were not secrets anymore.
5. So the law should allow us to share whatever it is that’s publicly available for free.
6. Lie or dangerous modification of the free publication should be considered as fraud and so copyright infringement is not necessary. 

 How about Marketability?

1. What made us buy the things that we’ve bought?
2. Don’t people who gave us access to utility deserve payments?
3. So doesn’t the creators of the internet deserve our money if we had access to good music because of the internet?
4. I haven’t paid anything to them have you?