This supposes that art should continue to be commodified, rather than all produce of art being shared with all.
I guess every single product or item that does not use a pre-existing word in the creator's native language is no longer copyrighted or trademarked, then. So much for poor Kodak and Häagen-Dazs.
I agree, using animated pornography to defend animated pornography is a superior exercise in humour. Although I am concerned that due to its subtly it might not register to the uninformed.
If there are no copywrites then why share art if someone else can just claim ownership of it. I mean some people won't care but it would scare off more creators, we already see signs of this as we are now and that is with technically having legal protections.
I mean, you're free to go out and have actual sex. In fact, you're strongly encouraged to do so. Especially if you live in japan.
Now we're back to people needing to feel ownership for its own sake, rather than feeling satisfaction for adding to the human experience. How bourgeoisie capitalist of you.
I'm humbly of the opposite opinion of Neuromancer. I think governments should support copyright protections of their creators. In fact, I think they should probably increase protections by eliminating things like fan art, fan music, or the underground fan work market you see in comic book and anime conventions.
Technically they can't. Fan art and such isn't supported by fair use and such and if someone really wanted to they could pursue the creators, there just isn't enough money in it to really do it. Also, I keep expecting you to start complaining about interracial dating because of your wordage.
What a weird thing to say. Just because you create something doesn't mean you should be happy with someone else claiming they made it, then again this does sound kinda sarcastic, but then again with some of the weird socialists we have on this site, might be totally straight faced.
Who wrote the Epic of Gilgamesh which, given its placement in history, could be the most influential tale ever written? Oh, right, nobody knows. Maybe I did. Does that change its influence and place in the human experience? Creators are the least important necessary part of art.
The government should regulate it. They can pursue both creators, and venues that support them.
I believe I've mentioned several times that I'm african american. What made you think that this was an appropriate thing to say?
Not all anime, hentai or not is like that and you know it. You're thinking of only the bad or shitty stuff.
Once again, I have yet to see anyone in Downtown Detroit wear a hentai shirt out in broad daylight, so I have no idea you're worried about an imaginary concern.
And you have just as many politicians in their 30s and 40s that don't know and most likely not caring either, changing butt fuck nothing. That company doing this copyright bullshit could not give a crap about anyone's ideals on this thread. They sure as hell don't dive a damn about you or me. Just another corporate, greedy, parasite try to earn money with next to no effort, while trampling on others. I would not be so eager to suck their dicks and clits so soon. You can if you want, but they would be just using you, and once they have no need for you, you will be yesterdays trash from them. Good day, and moving on to other things.
Pornography is, by its nature, expoitative, and encourages the worst impulses in our character. In the same way I think that we should regulate alcohol and cigarettes, we should regulate pornography. In any case, I fail to think of any hentai that is not "bad or shitty." It's not even like sexually explicit material can't have artistic or societal value. The works of Marquis de Sade are of high societal interest and value, and have been researched by literary and historical scholars for years. I certainly gleaned a great deal of insight and enjoyment from them.
I have not yet seen someone cannibalize their brother in public. I'm sure it is very rare. That does not mean it should be legal.
I agree. I also hate the corporatist political class. As I've mentioned, I think we should replace it with a communist party that can oversee social moral health.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
The least important. There is no less or more necessary. Either something is necessary, or it isn't. A creator is necessary for art to come into existence, yet is superfluous afterwards. Therefore, while being necessary, a creator is least important, compared to the other necessary components of art, its content and the feelings generated from its observation.
No..... it's by far the most important. The creator making the thing in the first place is most important to that things existence. If you do not have that person then you don't have the content of that art or the feelings generated from it.
Ewok isn't saying that creators aren't necessary for art to exist. He's saying that out of the things necessary for a work of art to exist, paper, pencils, crayola crayons, creators are the least imprtant. Creators are worth less then paper.
Nonsense. As I made an example of earlier, nobody knows who came up with the Epic of Gilgamesh. Museums are littered with statues, architecture, and art pieces whose authorship is unknown or suspect. Would they exist without a creator? No. They also wouldn't exist without marble, bronze, fabric, paint. And ultimately, even authorship and materials do not imbue an object with value. What's a novel without themes, characterization, and feeling? What is a painting without passion and awe? Objects become art when their contents inspire feelings. That is the essence of art, and is what allows it to endure through ages, speaking to us as it spoke to its own people 10,000 years ago. That is what the human experience means. The only value lost when knowledge of an art piece's creator is lost is monetary. Yet the destruction of the art piece's material and message results in the loss of its value to the human experience.
Sounds like you're talking about products not art.
I think you will find more that people don't wanna do art because rather than express themselves they have to mold it around to sell it, and can only survive as artists if they sell their art as a commodity.
