Downloading is a human right.

[Vegosiux]

It absolutely does not, because I don't think there is a better definition for, "Artist" then, "A person who produces art".

At the end of the day, whoever you are talking about as an, "Artist" is a human being who needs to eat, and who should be specializing in whatever job you think that artists do. Not scraping by with a day job and only donating there remaining time and energy to a financially free endeavor.

That's a little vague, though, I mean "producing art" thing. It's not a job description, and then we have all that "what is and what isn't art" stuff...

But I suppose we can settle on the description that while art can be a hobby, it does not need to be one? And, of course that there needs to be some personal commitment to the affair past "I just do this to make money"? Basically, it has to have a non-monetary component of motivation somewhere.

But let me put it this way. I sometimes try my hand on writing. I couldn't live off it, nor would I be able to force myself to write anything decent if my life depended on it without proper inspiration. Sure I could pass some junk reading, but nothing good. Am I an artist, or not?

 

[Xanadu84]

It absolutely does not, because I don't think there is a better definition for, "Artist" then, "A person who produces art".

At the end of the day, whoever you are talking about as an, "Artist" is a human being who needs to eat, and who should be specializing in whatever job you think that artists do. Not scraping by with a day job and only donating there remaining time and energy to a financially free endeavor.

That's a little vague, though, I mean "producing art" thing. It's not a job description, and then we have all that "what is and what isn't art" stuff...

But I suppose we can settle on the description that while art can be a hobby, it does not need to be one? And, of course that there needs to be some personal commitment to the affair past "I just do this to make money"? Basically, it has to have a non-monetary component of motivation somewhere.

But let me put it this way. I sometimes try my hand on writing. I couldn't live off it, nor would I be able to force myself to write anything decent if my life depended on it without proper inspiration. Sure I could pass some junk reading, but nothing good. Am I an artist, or not?

Yes, absolutely. Quality may be questionable, but in that respect sure, you are an artist. And if you were exceptional at it, then the world at large would benefit if you did it more often, created more work, and honed your craft. In order to do that more often, you would need to spend less time doing whatever your current job is, and more time writing. I think that sure, an Artist needs to love what he or she does, and the ability to create something people enjoy needs to be a huge boon to the artist. But end of the day, people still gotta eat, and no one should be forced to pay their hard earned money for your work unless they want to. The buisness side should not be ignored, and it can't be discarded. That's just reality, unless the only good artists are those who are already independently wealthy.

Also, I was purposefully vague to demonstrate just how broad this job of, "Artist" is. Whats odd is that I have given a incredibly broad definition, and been told that the term 'Artist is actually OUTSIDE of that broad definition.

 

[Entitled]

What bothers me here, is that this is what allows you to move the goalposts, as pro-piracy advocates always do.

This is how it works.

An anti-pirate advocate describes it as theft, describes it as property rights--in a moral sense. The argument is about the -morality- of piracy, not the -legality- of piracy.

Then, a pro-piracy advocate says 'Oh no, it's not technically theft under convenient law XCSDFG' and thus, having redefined theft from the moral sense to the legal sense, has shifed the goal posts, and redefined terms that the original proponent did not intend.

That's not a valid rebuttal.

The problem is, that copyright apologists bring up the whole theft analogy to justify a moral goalpost-moving to begin with. No one ever says things like "murder is morally theft, because it takes away something against your will".

Because if something is obviously evil on it's own, then no one is trying to justify it, and therefore there is no comparison needed.

In case someone *does* come up with a murder scenario that some people cosider morally OK, then others won't just reply with a thought-terminating cliché about how "murder is wrong because it's theft", but they will start to debate the actual details of the scenario and whether it has a positive or negative overall consequence.

In case of copyright, the thought-terminating cliché is used as an excuse of not having to look at IP law as a set of actual regulations that have a specific purpose and might need to be redefined to better fit that purpose, but as something that is bad because it is categorically considered a crime.

The first question is really simple. If you made a video of that kid, do you have the right to say 'No' to someone publishing it on Youtube. Say I want to publish that video--do you have the right to tell me to fuck off?

In that case, it's depending on whether I have already published the video to the public. I don't support privacy violations that involve breaking into my private files, but I don't think that IP holders should control on which free video sharing site their already published work appears on.

See there's the problem... you don't see the similarity between your own personal right not to publish and someone else's right not to publish. You don't understand that it's the same concept--your privacy rights are bolstered by your intellectual property rights. It's why people can't just break in and publish your movies.

Just because they are determined controlled by a same generic idea, the "control over data" and "information freedom", doesn't mean that commercial copyright laws and personal privacy laws are the exact same thing.

You would reveal my hypocricy, if you would catch me saying something like "I have a right to take picures of your children against your or their will and share them on the Internet, but you have no right to take pictures of my children without my permission". Or "I have a right to break into your home and take the novel that you are writing off your computer, but you have no right to break into my home".

Which I didn't. I didn't change my reply to the latter examples, because you changed "others" to "you". I changed them because you changed other conditions. In the first example, you were talking about a father recording a video, putting it up on youtube, and then trying to control it's distribution. In the latter example, you were talking about creeps secretly recording videos about other people's kids.

Two separate cases, one is a matter of copyright, the other is a matter of privacy right.

If the consumer hasn't bought from you the right to distribute your product--they haven't paid for it, why do they have an intrinsic right to distribute that product? This is a strictly moral question here... does selling something to someone ALSO include giving them the rights to manufacture exact copies and redistribute them for free?

Does selling something to someone give them the right to pick the locks you put on that thing in order to make it tougher for them to distribute it to others for free?

This is where the hypocracy comes into play--once you realize that protecting your privacy REQUIRES acknowledgement of intellectual property rights, you realize that YOUR rights as a human being are jeopardized by the total 'freedom of information' that these people are championing.

I don't think that they have an "intrinsic right" to it, or that "freedom of information" is above all else. As I said in my first post in this thread, I don't think that downloading is any more of a basic human right than copyright is. There are a number of reasons why I think that liberalizing copyright to allow for downloadings would be healthy for all culture, but ultimately it's just a matter of whatever is more convenient for us as a society at any given time.

Yes, it -also- protects economical benefits. There's the rub. Finally someone admits it.

You've JUST admitted there's economical benefits from someone making a work and publishing it--which means there's something to be deprived from them.

It does. Then again, if copyright length would be 110 years instead of 95 years, then publishers would get even more economical benefits. If taking a screenshot from a game wouldn't fall under Fair Use, publishers could charge a few cents for making each of them, thus gaining extra economical benefits. If you wouldn't be allowed to record TV shows for timeshifting, then you would miss tonight's movie, and then you could watch it by paying for it on Netflix, so banning DVD recorders would mean extra economical benefits for publishers.

So the big question is... do the creators of a work have a right to economic benefits from the distribution of that work? Do they, in other words, have the right to sell something you clearly agree belongs to them?

Big question indeed. And here comes back the comment that started our discussion: intellectual property is NOT THE SAME THING AS PROPERTY.

This is not just a fine print of the law, this is a fundamental difference between how ownership works, and how copyright works: you can't truly *own* a piece of content. You can have special licences, that give you the monopoly to sell it's copies. You can have the right to ban it's imitators. You can have the right to arrest people who watch it without your permission. You can have the right to keep these special licenses for 25, 35, 50, 70, 95, or 110 years.

While at the same time, the consumers and the public have their own related rights through the many limitations and exceptions to copyright [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_copyright], that grant them access to content that other people have financial interest in, in the name of freedom of speech and usr rights.

Because even though publishers have "a right to economic benefits", that doesn't mean that they have an absolute right to every imaginable benefit of a piece of content. Because they don't really *own* the content, they only have a major interest in it, along with many others.

The belief that copyright law as it is written right now goes too far, and grants one too many rights to IP holders, (the right to control individuals' non-commercial filesharing), doesn't translate to wanting to "take away their property" from artists, it's about wanting to change the exact set of special monopoly licenses that artists control, for another one that would have a larger emphasis on freedom of speech and user rights.

Likewise, you might have your negative opinion about someone going ahead of the law and making copies that are illegal right now, but it's not analogous to theft, any more than liberalizing copyright is analogous to legalizing theft.

 

[The Material Sheep]

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah people trying to justify not wanting to put down money on things by acting as if it's some noble crusade against corporations wooooooooooooo!

Let's not count the amount time skill, and money that went into all these things whether they are literally physical property or not. Apparently you have a human right to these things that you had no part in the creation of and don't intend on either reimbursing for the service.

You might not be taking something physical from someone but your taking something from someone for free without their consent. Who cares if it's a physical property or not? It's a product their time and effort not yours. You don't get to decide at what price they give it over to you or if there is a price at all.

Point being you are not the judge and jury of what constitutes how other people use their property. The world isn't centered around you. Don't be a dick. Pay for a game if it's worth playing.

 

[thanatos388]

As long as YOU don't have to pay its fine yes?

 

[thanatos388]

It absolutely does not, because I don't think there is a better definition for, "Artist" then, "A person who produces art".

At the end of the day, whoever you are talking about as an, "Artist" is a human being who needs to eat, and who should be specializing in whatever job you think that artists do. Not scraping by with a day job and only donating there remaining time and energy to a financially free endeavor.

That's a little vague, though, I mean "producing art" thing. It's not a job description, and then we have all that "what is and what isn't art" stuff...

But I suppose we can settle on the description that while art can be a hobby, it does not need to be one? And, of course that there needs to be some personal commitment to the affair past "I just do this to make money"? Basically, it has to have a non-monetary component of motivation somewhere.

But let me put it this way. I sometimes try my hand on writing. I couldn't live off it, nor would I be able to force myself to write anything decent if my life depended on it without proper inspiration. Sure I could pass some junk reading, but nothing good. Am I an artist, or not?

Are you selling your work? Then people should pay to see it. If you give it away for free then its for free to anyone who can get your writing. Don't try to muddle the situation with this whole "definition of artist" bullshit. You know that's what your doing.

 

[Vegosiux]

Are you selling your work? Then people should pay to see it. If you give it away for free then its for free to anyone who can get your writing. Don't try to muddle the situation with this whole "definition of artist" bullshit. You know that's what your doing.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask, what's your point and what are you trying to say? Considering that you have not been in this particular line of conversation so far I get the feeling you just needed to snap at someone for some reason, and I got to be the "someone". Please don't do that.

Now, if there's a point you want to make for me to address, by all means, go ahead. But please stop just dropping in and being confrontational like that. Such behavior usually relays a distinct lack of genuine interest in a discussion; but I'm willing to give you the benefit of doubt this once.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Are you really of the opinion that an artist is someone who makes goods to be consumed for payment? Is that really why you're studying art?

For me, those are two very different questions. Yes I think an artist makes (or at least can make) goods to be consumed for payment. You can go to Hobby Lobby or a furniture store and buy factory-prints or handmade furniture, so why wouldn't an individual be able to do the same? I see no difference between paying Hobby Lobby for a print to hang on my wall and paying an artist for a handmade work to hang on my wall, apart from a greater percentage of the money going to the creator and the uniqueness of the product. They don't have to, if that's what you're trying to get me to say, but they certainly can. An artist isn't just one thing, but I thought for the purposes of this thread we were talking about artists who were selling their things.

I don't know what this thread is about anymore. If it's about whether artists should be paid then I don't know why I bothered - it's not even a question because like I've been saying all along the essence of the artist is in his/her creating art and nothing more. The professional artist is a person, the artist is a concept. Should people be paid for their work? Of course. But logistics and politics don't interest me. Why talk about artists? I was hoping to go into more interesting questions concerning art and technology but it looks like no one else wants to, even an art student.

As for your second question, why am I studying art, I suppose yes I am wanting to make money for studying art, but I suppose knowing my degree would be more helpful to you. My major is computer animation, so what I'm hoping to make money from is producing animations and motion graphics for either a single client over time or multiple clients at an ad firm. I still consider that art, even though it might not be character animation I still use principles of arts and graphic design to make my work. I don't really want to freelance if at all possible, I do want a certain amount of security and regularity.

But as for everyone else, I don't think I could name a single person I've met in the art department who doesn't have some desire to make money for what they do. Many consider it to be the perfect job--creating stuff day and night, and paying the bills with their work without having to have a day job. Of course they're doing it for the art, but there's no reason they can't make money off of it as well. Just because the job is their passion doesn't mean they can't plan to make a few bucks off of it. I mean, just holding onto the stuff they make isn't reasonable from a practical standpoint. Professional artists can produce hundreds, if not thousands, of works in a single year. You can't just hold onto that stuff, you have to get it moving either through galleries or into the hands of buyers or else you both run out of space and money.

Good luck to you! (with your studies)

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Well that's cool and all but people still deserve to be paid for their work.

If you're an artist "getting paid" is producing your work and having it appreciated. If it isn't and it's about the money, you're not what I'd call an "artist".

If your not concerned with getting paid, then you are also not what I would call, "Well fed" or "Not homeless".

Seriously, there is a middle ground here. Artists want to get paid for doing a good job, just like every other person in the world, and that is a good thing. There's mitigating factors for piracy, and problems with the way things are now, but the idea that artists shouldn't want to get paid for there efforts is fundamentally absurd.

I think you assumed that when I say "artist" I was talking about the person who produces art. I wasn't. That should clear up the misunderstanding.

It absolutely does not, because I don't think there is a better definition for, "Artist" then, "A person who produces art".

At the end of the day, whoever you are talking about as an, "Artist" is a human being who needs to eat, and who should be specializing in whatever job you think that artists do. Not scraping by with a day job and only donating there remaining time and energy to a financially free endeavor.

Great. 11 pages of discussion to reach that conclusion that people need to eat. I'm proud to have participated in it.

 

[chikusho]

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah people trying to justify not wanting to put down money on things by acting as if it's some noble crusade against corporations wooooooooooooo!

Infringing on the copyright monopoly has nothing to do with defending corporations, but allowing this to continue is far more important than the totalitarian laws and technology that would need to be implemented in order to effectively hinder piracy.

Let's not count the amount time skill, and money that went into all these things whether they are literally physical property or not. Apparently you have a human right to these things that you had no part in the creation of and don't intend on either reimbursing for the service.

It's been proven time and time again that free access to culture increases money spent in any media. Good word of mouth can be a far better payment than a few dollars.
Also, noone has a human right to "these things", you clearly did not read the verdict in the original post.

You might not be taking something physical from someone but your taking something from someone for free without their consent. Who cares if it's a physical property or not? It's a product their time and effort not yours. You don't get to decide at what price they give it over to you or if there is a price at all.

No, you are manufacturing your own copy of something from someone who wants to share it. There is no taking involved.
The price of something is highly relevant because no matter what the product is, if someone doesn't want to pay the set price for it he or she never will, piracy or no piracy. Piracy however, and free spreading of content allows knowledge of the product to reach an audience who might want to pay for it.

Point being you are not the judge and jury of what constitutes how other people use their property. The world isn't centered around you. Don't be a dick. Pay for a game if it's worth playing.

There is no "property" involved in piracy.