...should be free

[gcjm]

tl;dr
I don't imagine others will either.
srsly, why do you bother?
You've debased any argument you may have had. Further, I'd suggest you've never actually created any content yourself in your life (potty training doesn't count) ... you're blowing steam out your ass via keyboard.

I stand by what I wrote, time has proven it to be so.
Let's wait and see if your holier than all concept of how shit 'should' be ever brings forth fruit.
Till then me and the rest of the world will be merrily 'stealing' from those poverty stricken souls.
Oh the shame.
Take a number, tell it to the judge.

[kjf]

I'm not saying anything should automatically be free, but if people need bad laws and DRM to make a living, perhaps they should consider a career change.

It's about value, not entitlement.


Copyright and all the crap that came with are recent inventions. Yet somehow artists and creators existed long before.

[gcjm]

Let's go back to square one then...

Forgive me but, why?

Because art is from the soul, not from demand for cash or self-entitlement.

If an artist spends years training and working hard, draws pictures, does he or she not have a right to make a living from his or her work? If we make everything free, how is he/she going to make a living?

"If we make everything free", what do they need to make a living for? Everything is free!

I agree that many aspects of society & the 'establishment' are unjust, and I'm not advocating an opinion here but want to understand both sides a little better.

Your subsequent posts have shown this to be bs. You're not interested in 'understanding both sides' at all. You want to argue / debate things unintelligently.

As for music, producers, singers and musicians spend their lives working on music for us to enjoy. Why should they not get paid for their hard work?

Your first sentence is overly general unless you have stats to back that up, again I call bs.
As for the second, errrrrrm.. they do.

If someone chooses to work for free, shouldn't that be their choice?

Yes.
But, if you choose to take this as a sign of unity, you'll open up a can of thread-*****.

As for a cure for disease, it's perhaps a little more contraversial, but have you considered the possibilities? What if a man gets a bank loan and spends a huge amount of money and time researching a cure for a disease. Why should we all benefit from his discoveries while he goes bankrupt unable to pay the loan back? Does he not at least deserve recognition and the ability to live a life (pay for his food and roof over his head). All he needs is to get paid for his hard work, like anyone else. Perhaps there are two sides to every coin.

Your argument has no merit to a filesharing thread. It has merit in a fascist European Parliament negotiating trade deals with third world countries. Either way all you're doing is coming off as a heartless bastard.

You really can't tell the difference between sharing and stealing, and are displaying the psychological maturity of a five year old.
***** the sick folks, pay the man!!!
One more time, with feeling please, BUTT IT"S STEALING BAAW!!11!#@

Many of us are guilty of downloading on pirate bay or other sites, but I don't understand this idea that we are somehow noble or doing something right. If we're just sharing stuff people made and chose to be free to share, that's one thing, but we're sharing things that professionals developed and it's their livelihood.

Time moves on and so does technology, media, marketing, publishing, distribution. It's no longer 1970, 1980 or even 1990. Theory, practice, theory. If the media industries can't re-theorise that's their loss. They'll stagnate whilst others soar.
Get over it, many professionals already have.

Just because we don't have the money to download music, does this make it right to steal it? Or should we maybe do a few more hours overtime to earn the things we want? I'm not advocating any particular opinion but could someone explain this concept to me that these things should be free and their creators live in poverty? We can't assume every creator is rich like Bill gates.

Cest la vie.
And, yes, you are advocating.
Furthermore 'work more hours' is offensive on every level.
In your mind it's ok for working stiff, Joe Pleb, to live in poverty but not Joe Media Creator.
I'm afraid your panties are showing.

If the whole world worked for free, do you think society would funciton?

Yes.
Awesomely.

I doubt many people would bother to create anything. Who would drive the trains, run the shops, make clothes or grow food? And what about software? What right do we have to decide whether a programmer who spent years studying & working, has a right to get paid for his work or not? What gives us the right to force him to starve unable to afford his bills or roof over his head, while we benefit from his work for free?

I would suggest there would be more creativity, shed loads more of it, and the jobs that need doing would still be being done. Some people enjoy driving trains, collecting garbage, cooking your food. It may be unthinkable to you, but so are many other things.

We all think of the big companies who hold monopolies, like Microsoft or Apple but what about the small to medium sized businesses or average men who have mortgage and bills to pay and need to feed themselves like everyone else- what gives us a right to take away their income for their hard work?

Oxygen.
I've had personal thanks from musicians and film directors after I 'illegaly' bought their work and shared it. Not rich egomaniac celebrity gods, but folks who financed their content themselves by re-mortgaging their family homes and working their asses off in their day jobs.
So boo ya sucks to that argument.

Again, I'm not advocating any opinion but would like to understand the logic behind this a little better.

I don't believe you.

[Picklock]

in the beginning men's mot common works is related to

cultivating
hunting
farming
gathering
mining
healing
building
smiths
herd food stock
and any shitty job that requires muscles to do the most parts

then when they're goes weary...all they have to do is just to dance and sing to whatever they may like or just sitting in the river banks listening to the birds sung and melodies played by the wind and river flows..

thus come a person that cannot (mostly too lazy) to do the labor works but he want to eat, have a nice pair of shoes, a comfort house.
but instead trying to bust his ass so hard to do the labor work, laying cozy in the river banks sounds good and sometimes some good lumberjack give him a slice of bread and a sip of ale.
one day at the river beds he heard the birds sings harmonized with the sounds of winds and river flows, an "original creativity" lightning struck his head, he's humming somewhat an unknown rhythm that synchronized with the nature sounds and it tunes so calming that made the lumberjack, the woodman, the farmer interested.

they ask that humming guy what song he's sung, the humming guy said "gimme bread and I sing it for you" they give him bread and he's start to sing.
the humming sung widespread among the peoples, every time they're goes weary and tired from their labor works they ask the humming guy to sing the song, and each time the song is sung, he gets what he's always hope for and without dripping any sweat to get it done.

PS: let's just to the interesting point shall we? since the original stories goes for another 2 pages

peoples start dancing and singing the humming song by themselves without have to give anything to the humming guy.
the humming guy is angry because peoples stop asking him to sing for them and because of that his daily free bread is not available no more and his plans to add another room in his house is not yet done.
he yelled "THIEF" to the peoples that was dance and sing the humming song!
that song was his, he claimed.
singing it by themselves is an act of thievery and he's demanded an compensations, a chaos almost broke between the peoples since no one is like to be called thief.
so the wisest among them decided that a rules need to be done to protect so called properties..
thus came another persons that can't cut wood, sewing clothes, grow crops, tamper steels and even cannot sing.
these persons is famous for debating and arguing, even the strongest one among the peoples is forced to kneel by his words.
he offer help to the humming guy and faced the peoples that freely sing his song with "split of profit for every time someone sing his song and paid"
and he Win!!!
so the history of the void world of humankind records a new occupations called

Artist
and
Lawyer

and the money is happy ever after
The End

[RobertX]

Picklock the *****ing story teller!

We can carry this all century, but I think I know where the battle lines are drawn.

Let's put this to rest before lives are lost.

Here in SuprBay, there actually are people who don't like to pirate much, Q91 comes to mind, though in a strange twist of irony, he is part of the staff.

[bobwilson]

tl;dr
I don't imagine others will either.
srsly, why do you bother?
You've debased any argument you may have had. Further, I'd suggest you've never actually created any content yourself in your life (potty training doesn't count) ... you're blowing steam out your ass via keyboard.

I stand by what I wrote, time has proven it to be so.
Let's wait and see if your holier than all concept of how shit 'should' be ever brings forth fruit.
Till then me and the rest of the world will be merrily 'stealing' from those poverty stricken souls.
Oh the shame.
Take a number, tell it to the judge.

Unable to hold up your argument, you've reduced yourself to petty insults? Interesting.

---

Copyright and all the crap that came with are recent inventions. Yet somehow artists and creators existed long before.

But no one could digitally copy things with a click of the button before. Copyright had to be introduced to protect peoples' work.

[NIK]

But no one could digitally copy things with a click of the button before. Copyright had to be introduced to protect peoples' work.

Copyright wasn't introduced in reaction to digital copying, and it wasn't introduced to protect peoples' work.

It was introduced in reaction to the printing press and it was introduced to restrict the spread of ideas and information which were undermining the power of the church and governments.

[snilloc]

As we are all members here & at TPB you have the right to take what you want, when you want and that’s a decision we all make when we join.

As Pirates we use or reproduce (another's work) without permission, usually in contravention of patent or copyright. "Pirated tapes of Hollywood blockbusters" so what?

If you feel bad or squeamish about what we do don't do it.

[bobwilson]

Because art is from the soul, not from demand for cash or self-entitlement.


How are artists supposed to make a living then? Are you suggesting they shouldn't make a living from their work? How would that work..

"If we make everything free", what do they need to make a living for? Everything is free!

Are you talking about a world where food and shelter and *everything* is free? This is completely different to talking specifically about digital goods. In case of that world, then money would not exist anyway (look up Gene Roddenberry's vision). That's quite different to the idea that *only digital creators* should work for free, in world where everyone needs money to survive. So which is it?

You're not interested in 'understanding both sides' at all. You want to argue / debate things unintelligently.

On the contrary, I do want to understand your opinion. So far, whilst other people have made valid points, yours seem to fall apart at the seams. I wish to understand how a world where everyone has the right to make a living except digital artists (whether it be software or any kind of art or intellectual property), could be deemed as 'fair'. I've read all the replies so far, and the varying posters opinions' can only be summarised that there seems to be a great divide in belief. Some think it's only right to rip off the big companies (like microsoft), some (like yourself) think digital artists can make a living whilst still being ripped off (but you don't state how), whilst others admit creation would be almost destroyed while all this copying is going on (and say people don't know what they're talking about). Meanwhile, you've now changed your argument to say that *everything* in the world should be free (a contradiction altogether from your earlier posts).

I call bs.

How ironic!

errrrrrm.. they do [make a living].


But in your world where everything digital is suddenly free, apparently they wouldn't.

If someone chooses to work for free, shouldn't that be their choice?

Yes.

So how can you advocate for a society that takes away this choice from some people? A society where digital creators' are forced to suddenly give all their work away for free - that takes away this choice to earn from their work. Your argument is falling apart again. Your 'ideology' is no less than a dictatorship; where people are told what they can and cannot do to earn (by forcing free downloads for everything you take away the option to sell digital goods), instead of being based on a free market where the creator decides whether he wants to try to sell or give away.

As for a cure for disease, it's perhaps a little more contraversial, but have you considered the possibilities? What if a man gets a bank loan and spends a huge amount of money and time researching a cure for a disease. Why should we all benefit from his discoveries while he goes bankrupt unable to pay the loan back? Does he not at least deserve recognition and the ability to live a life (pay for his food and roof over his head). All he needs is to get paid for his hard work, like anyone else. Perhaps there are two sides to every coin.

Your argument has no merit to a filesharing thread. It has merit in a fascist European Parliament negotiating trade deals with third world countries. Either way all you're doing is coming off as a heartless bastard.

But then you could also be viewed as heartless. Your arguments advocate for a world where those who created cures potentially live in poverty or die, whilst everyone else benefits. On another level, by forgetting that necessity is the mother of invention, you don't consider the impact on a global scale of the almost complete destruction of creativity. The only world in which your ideas would work, is in a world without money, poverty, or material needs, but instead you argue for only a specific group of people to work for free, in a world where they need money to survive. It's illogical.

You really can't tell the difference between sharing and stealing, and are displaying the psychological maturity of a five year old.
***** the sick folks, pay the man!!!
One more time, with feeling please, BUTT IT"S STEALING BAAW!!11!#@


Do you consider your position so weak that it cannot withstand debate? It's a shame that when your opinions are debated you have to resort to petty insults. I'm trying to give you a chance to show logic behind your points. I personally would love a world where everything is free, as I'm sure everyone would. But this would only work if *everything* is free including food and accommodation etc. You can't single-out a specific group of people to not earn in a world where they need to earn to survive. They would just end up having to do different jobs, and the creative industries would be dramatically smaller if not destroyed; big budget films for example would be a thing of the past. Advertising alone has proven not enough to support many ventures. Many creative small software companies would be destroyed, and only the largest would survive (the ones who have the support of big name advertisers).

Many of us are guilty of downloading on pirate bay or other sites, but I don't understand this idea that we are somehow noble or doing something right. If we're just sharing stuff people made and chose to be free to share, that's one thing, but we're sharing things that professionals developed and it's their livelihood.

Time moves on and so does technology, media, marketing, publishing, distribution. It's no longer 1970, 1980 or even 1990. Theory, practice, theory. If the media industries can't re-theorise that's their loss. They'll stagnate whilst others soar.
Get over it, many professionals already have.

So basically, you've decided you don't like how it works and that they need to re-theorise so that you can get their stuff for free, but you don't know how they would do that. And you think I have the psychological maturity of a 5 year old?

Just because we don't have the money to download music, does this make it right to steal it? Or should we maybe do a few more hours overtime to earn the things we want? I'm not advocating any particular opinion but could someone explain this concept to me that these things should be free and their creators live in poverty? We can't assume every creator is rich like Bill gates.

Cest la vie.
And, yes, you are advocating.
Furthermore 'work more hours' is offensive on every level.
In your mind it's ok for working stiff, Joe Pleb, to live in poverty but not Joe Media Creator.
I'm afraid your panties are showing.

I enjoy my panties showing. 'working hours' was a crude example. When I worked as a waiter, I saved for months doing overtime to buy a piece of gear I wanted. I saved even harder to get an education. You assign Joe pleb and Joe creator designations as if it's part of their genetic code. You forget that Joe pleb has the option to be a creator. But no, in my mind, it's ok for working stiff Joe Pleb to work his way up to live comfortably, and Joe Media Creator to work his way up from zero to live comfortably.

In your mind, it's ok for Joe stiff pleb to get everything for free whilst he sits at home every day on benefit while Joe Media Creator works his ass off 12 hours a day and lives in poverty.

If the whole world worked for free, do you think society would funciton?

Yes.
Awesomely.

And who would do the jobs no one else wants to do? Take the rubbish out... run restaurants... inspect peoples' poo-ey ass holes for diseases. But seriously, since you've thought it through so carefully, tell us how this would work.

I doubt many people would bother to create anything. Who would drive the trains, run the shops, make clothes or grow food? And what about software? What right do we have to decide whether a programmer who spent years studying & working, has a right to get paid for his work or not? What gives us the right to force him to starve unable to afford his bills or roof over his head, while we benefit from his work for free?

I would suggest there would be more creativity, shed loads more of it, and the jobs that need doing would still be being done. Some people enjoy driving trains, collecting garbage, cooking your food. It may be unthinkable to you, but so are many other things.

Quite the contrary, I'm an advocate of Gene Roddenberry's vision. But we live in a world where many people would rather stay at home watching Jeremy Kyle than do an honest days' work. That's the current reality of it. Until the human race evolves beyond this, a solution would need to be found to do the less desirable jobs, and simply saying "someone will do it" is unfortunately not a realistic answer. Your idea of making digital creations free, only targets digital creators. If instead you want everything to be free, stop targeting online downloads for your own benefit, and start making a world campaign to make everything free! It's an entirely different concept.

There are many jobs that not enough people *want* to do; cleaning up blood in an abertoir for example. In order to get society function they have to offer extra compensation to get enough people to agree to do those jobs.

We all think of the big companies who hold monopolies, like Microsoft or Apple but what about the small to medium sized businesses or average men who have mortgage and bills to pay and need to feed themselves like everyone else- what gives us a right to take away their income for their hard work?

Oxygen.
I've had personal thanks from musicians and film directors after I 'illegaly' bought their work and shared it. Not rich egomaniac celebrity gods, but folks who financed their content themselves by re-mortgaging their family homes and working their asses off in their day jobs.
So boo ya sucks to that argument.

And what about those unique small companies that had plenty of custom until their products were pirated. They trusted the public enough not to put serials on their products.. but then went bust because of piracy. You don't hear about them, but they do exist. Then the very customers who pirated their products, complain that they went bust.

Again, I'm not advocating any opinion but would like to understand the logic behind this a little better.

I don't believe you.


Well this comment says more about yourself. Believe it

[Picklock]

I can't believe I put this link here

Show Content

Spoilerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKB48

Show Content

Spoilerhttps://www.stage48.net/forum/index.php?threads/attending-akb48-handshakes-how-to-work-in-progress.6909/

That's how some lame artist with lame music get their profit based on CD sales using promotion(worst kind of) tactics

even there's ton's of digitally pirated versions of it.
even IF the peoples that downloaded their songs ILLEGALLY is can walk freely and keep doing it.
even there's actually peoples do really listen to it

they still even made great profit from the sales..
Heck! the fans not really listen to their music anyway!!!

not saying some emo white ***** with music made on studio's can do some sort of event to boost the sales though....you cannot tell what those self centered "artist" hands have been doing all this time...


but again maybe that just some Japanese peoples resilience and professional mentality as a someone that work in entertainment industries..
They bust their ass so hard to gain success from the love for and from the fans with their hard works
ps:
( I puked to the fact that I used the word the love for and from the fans ...it's AKB....shit!!!!!)

surely that kind of mentality is not applied and had by the peoples that whining and complaining behind the copyright issues for the unsuccessful path of carrier that they choose...
peoples is called "talented" not by themselves..but by another peoples that sees it, no matter how subjective that is.
if your music is not sold well and you called yourselves "gifted" and should earn more.....

Get A *****ing Mirror