4 ms·

He forgets that in most countries Copyright, IP, etc are public commons 'licensed' to private companies by the laws passed. It is not an automatic privilege and

• bmelton 15y ago
  I was very close to giving you an upvote, and then you resorted to calling the author a "dumb fuck" after he posted one of the most thoughtful, poignant essays I've recently read on the subject. Because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't necessarily invalidate their opinions. If anything, in perhaps a better time, it would open the invitation for frank, but ideally _civil_ discussion.
  • burgerbrain 15y ago
    "Anyone who disagrees, frankly, can go fuck themselves." "the most thoughtful, poignant essays I've recently read on the subject." You might want to read more...
    • bmelton 15y ago
      In context, he's saying that to anyone justifying theft from the artists who are producing work. I _did_ read more.
      • icebraining 15y ago
        Copyright infringement, not theft. Artist's property before infringement == Artist's property after infringement.
        • bmelton 15y ago
          If you say so. I'm not willing to get into that argument at the moment, but let's just say that yes, I fall into the camp that believes it does deprive the artists of revenue. I play guitar, and I know and play with a lot of small / amateur musicians who literally pay their rent with their artistry. I find it amazing that in the dawn of all the technology we have at our hands, people would honestly advocate that all of an artist's digitally distributed goods should be 'free', whether they intend it that way or not, relegating the artists to only being able to make money by performing in public shows, and I guess hoping against hope that the pirating public doesn't decide that that is too proprietary a way for them to distribute their music. Hell, the way it's going, I can see people making an argument for holding artists down while we surgically remove their talent from them so that we can stick it up on the Pirate Bay. :-\
          • icebraining 15y ago
            I fall into the camp that believes it does deprive the artists of revenue. No more than simply not buying and not listening does, and I doubt you consider that "stealing". I find it amazing that in the dawn of all the technology we have at our hands, people would honestly advocate that all of an artist's digitally distributed goods should be 'free', whether they intend it that way or not, relegating the artists to only being able to make money by performing in public shows, and I guess hoping against hope that the pirating public doesn't decide that that is too proprietary a way for them to distribute their music. I find it amazing that some people can't comprehend that one can find the notion of copyright wrong, regardless of its benefits. I also note that buyer have shown multiple times that they're willing to pay way more than they need, even if they can get it legally for $0.01, so that assumption that it would relegate the artists to just public shows remains to be proven.
            • bmelton 15y ago
              Not buying and listening doesn't derive benefit from it. If you don't believe in copyright as a natural right, and as a result, simply do not purchase music that you find objectionable on whatever grounds, then I support you 100%. Regardless of whether or not copying the material deprives them of a tangible good, it didn't cost them nothing to produce the work. Instruments are expensive, recording time is expensive, distribution is expensive, etc. More to the point, I believe that even if you don't consider the artist the owner of the work, then I believe you should respect that they are the owners of its distribution.
  • skew 15y ago
    Perhaps you should judge replies by the standard of civil disagreement set by the essay itself. The first paragraph of the essay says anyone who disagrees that copyright is a natural right "can go fuck themselves".
    • bmelton 15y ago
      I strongly disagree. By my interpretation of his stance, you're more than welcome to disagree with copyright as a natural right, but you aren't allowed to use that as justification for theft of copyrighted material which the artists releases for sale.
      • dissident 15y ago
        That is circular logic and represents all that was wrong in the original article. Copyright, as an institution, implies that ownership of data is possible and real, therefore implying that the data can be "stolen". People who disagree with copyright as an institution would do so conclusively because they do not believe in the ownership of intellectual thought. They believe that there are better, more progressive institutions for cultural progress. They do not agree that somebody owns the content they produce. The article stubbornly ignores that assessment and then tells people to fuck themselves if they can't subscribe to failed logic.
        • bmelton 15y ago
          If artists can't be allowed to keep the content they produce, then why should Chrysler be allowed to sell the cars they manufacture, or Coke to make a profit off of its drinks? I understand that there are dissenting arguments from the propagation of natural copyright, and while I agree that our patent system is horribly, horribly broken, I do not believe that artists should not be able to set a price, of their choosing, for the release of the works they produce.
          • burgerbrain 15y ago
            Ah yes. The old "you wouldn't download, errr, steal a car" logic. Classic.