3 ms·

You seem to have completely missed the tenor of my point. These are arguments I've already heard, and which I consider hackneyed. They are quite specifically

You seem to have completely missed the tenor of my point. These are arguments I've already heard, and which I consider hackneyed. They are quite specifically not arguments I agree with. My apologies for not making that clearer. ADDED IN EDIT: Having said that, the general consensus seems to be that the artist does not in fact have that right. The "modern" consensus seems to be that those who produce anything easily copied can only expect it to be copied, and it is unreasonable and stupid for them to expect to have any control at all over the distribution.

nailer 16y ago
Indeed it wasn't clear that you disagreed with those points. I'm glad you don't support them. > The "modern" consensus seems to be that ... it is unreasonable and stupid for them to expect to have any control at all over the distribution. That's not the consensus in my circles - then again, I know a lot of people who make things - whether code, lingerie, or sculpture. They know they can't stop everyone stealing their work, but they also know they can can reduce it by trying - they certainly don't feel stupid for doing so.
ynniv 16y ago
These are arguments I've already heard, and which I consider hackneyed. One problem with dismissing the argument that downloaders would not have been purchasers is that a download count doesn't accurately reflect usage of the item. Producers cry in horror that their "content" was downloaded 100,000 times, but each user may have inadvertently been double or triple counted based on multiple computers, failed saves, forgotten file locations, or mistaken download methods (eg, view image versus save to disk). On top of this, hoarding behavior causes people to collect things for which the perceived value (something) is greater than the cost (free / time to download). Hoarders will likely never use the item, but will show up as a download (or two or three) anyway. Lastly, I doubt this to be the case in this situation, but artificially increasing a download count for the purpose of inflating possible damages is blindingly simple. In short, I agree with your addendum, that anything which can be copied will be copied, and copies have nothing to do with sales unless you collect money at the point of copy. The more time spent complaining about loss, the less of a business and more of a funded hobby you are (and wouldn't we all like to have funded hobbies).

nailer 16y ago

Indeed it wasn't clear that you disagreed with those points. I'm glad you don't support them. > The "modern" consensus seems to be that ... it is unreasonable and stupid for them to expect to have any control at all over the distribution. That's not the consensus in my circles - then again, I know a lot of people who make things - whether code, lingerie, or sculpture. They know they can't stop everyone stealing their work, but they also know they can can reduce it by trying - they certainly don't feel stupid for doing so.

ynniv 16y ago

These are arguments I've already heard, and which I consider hackneyed. One problem with dismissing the argument that downloaders would not have been purchasers is that a download count doesn't accurately reflect usage of the item. Producers cry in horror that their "content" was downloaded 100,000 times, but each user may have inadvertently been double or triple counted based on multiple computers, failed saves, forgotten file locations, or mistaken download methods (eg, view image versus save to disk). On top of this, hoarding behavior causes people to collect things for which the perceived value (something) is greater than the cost (free / time to download). Hoarders will likely never use the item, but will show up as a download (or two or three) anyway. Lastly, I doubt this to be the case in this situation, but artificially increasing a download count for the purpose of inflating possible damages is blindingly simple. In short, I agree with your addendum, that anything which can be copied will be copied, and copies have nothing to do with sales unless you collect money at the point of copy. The more time spent complaining about loss, the less of a business and more of a funded hobby you are (and wouldn't we all like to have funded hobbies).