Downloading is a human right.

[Blood Brain Barrier]

You don't seem to realize that when you make a world where art and entertainment are given no worth, then any art or entertainment we get will be worthless.

And you don't seem to realize that artistic worth goes beyond monetary value.

I won't reply to the rest of your post because this one (incorrect) sentence underlies the attitude of the whole thing. But think about this - Van Gogh barely sold anything during his life. His paintings were given no worth. Was his art worthless?

 

[ShadowStar42]

It says a lot about our modern era that an artist's role is narrowed down to a "job" in and of itself and therefore deserving of payment for services.

There's nothing modern about that. It's fine if you find it distasteful, but your statement is closer to novelty than the one you are commenting on.

You're wrong. Being an artist does not include the notion of being compensated for provision of services - that's a function of the prevailing economic attitudes of the day. Only a modern man could come up with such an opinion. Maybe the proof is in my inbox which is somehow full of such opinions.

It is true that being an artist doesn't require compensation, but being a professional artist does. Most of histories most memorable artists, and arguably it's greatest artists, have always been professional and have created their works for compensation. Shakespeare, Monet, Pollack and the Ninja Turtles were all professional artists. Could you please list us these vaunted, artists who neither seek nor expect compensation for their work?

 

[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".

Also why are you putting artist into quotes? Note that my statement there doesn't mention artists.

Because the person you mentioned was only an artist in a very narrow sense.

Huh? What person did I mention?

"People still deserve to be paid for their work".

I assumed you were talking about the kind of people who are called artists.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

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".

Also why are you putting artist into quotes? Note that my statement there doesn't mention artists.

Because the person you mentioned was only an artist in a very narrow sense.

Huh? What person did I mention?

"People still deserve to be paid for their work".

I assumed you were talking about the kind of people who are called artists.

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion from my post.

Because the person you mentioned was only an artist in a very narrow sense.

Also in that context this quote you made makes no sense.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

My belief with any content is that you should only pirate if you wouldn't be able to get the product any other way. If there is an offical way, support the people who made the thing and buy their product normally. Mother 3 for instance, I'd happily support that if it got an offical western release, but for now we just have to stick to the fan translation. That said, I do really like this law. It really does seem like this first step in taking away the frankly ridiculous power that companies have. I'm not saying they should have no power, because they do need to stop the real pirates, but this should help stop them from abusing that power and targeting fan artist, reviewers, etc.

 

[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".

your kidding right?

are YOU an artist? like I already said...its not always fun and it takes dedication, if you want to be at your best as an artist then you need time, the most valuable thing.Feeling burnt out by your day job may be nessicary somtimes but not good if your want to put out good work

exposure is great and if the art in question is in a place where it is for free then fine

but in cases when it is a product then its not right to take for free...YOU do not dictate what the artist should/does want, thats just arrogant

Again, we're talking about artists. You're talking about a trader of some sort. Artists have not always produced art in return for material benefits and it is not outrageous to claim that the greatest artistic works in history were produced without any returns, nor the intention of any. It need not even be mentioned that artists who do their "work" for the money and find no reward in the production itself, are generally useless.

It says a lot about our modern era that an artist's role is narrowed down to a "job" in and of itself and therefore deserving of payment for services.

Art IS a trade...

This shit was NOT free.

The painting I painted last week was. Am I not an artist?

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

It says a lot about our modern era that an artist's role is narrowed down to a "job" in and of itself and therefore deserving of payment for services.

There's nothing modern about that. It's fine if you find it distasteful, but your statement is closer to novelty than the one you are commenting on.

You're wrong. Being an artist does not include the notion of being compensated for provision of services - that's a function of the prevailing economic attitudes of the day. Only a modern man could come up with such an opinion. Maybe the proof is in my inbox which is somehow full of such opinions.

It is true that being an artist doesn't require compensation, but being a professional artist does. Most of histories most memorable artists, and arguably it's greatest artists, have always been professional and have created their works for compensation. Shakespeare, Monet, Pollack and the Ninja Turtles were all professional artists. Could you please list us these vaunted, artists who neither seek nor expect compensation for their work?

No because I never promised such a list or said one was possible. Being a professional artist is very different from the artist. I think that's why there is so much confusion - I was not talking about the professional artist but the artist as what the artist essentially is.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The painting I painted last week was. Am I not an artist?

What you do with your work is your business, and what other artists do with their work is theirs.

 

[Jaeke]

Wanting compensation for my work in order to not only continue said work but to also provide a living for myself and family is also a right too.


In other words, people got to eat.

*Wanting* compensation might be a right, but actually getting it, is most certainly not.

You can get paid for jobs that that there is a demand for.

But you can't just go out, dig holes in the ground, and then force every passerby to pay you for your hard work. And that's essentially what the current copyright system does.

Instead of letting artists to naturally figure out a business model where they get to directly profit from their work, it grants their publishers special monopolies over the market, and an authority to limit people's personal communication and data sharing, to create an artificial scarcity of information that could otherwise be accessible for everyone.

Wanting is a perfectly justifiable word. If you don't like the product don't buy it. If someone wants to pay me for digging holes, though I doubt many would, then they should go ahead.

People want art, people want to see movies, people want to play games. It's basic supply-and-demand.

Other than that I agree with you.

 

[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".

Also why are you putting artist into quotes? Note that my statement there doesn't mention artists.

Because the person you mentioned was only an artist in a very narrow sense.

Huh? What person did I mention?

"People still deserve to be paid for their work".

I assumed you were talking about the kind of people who are called artists.

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion from my post.

Because the person you mentioned was only an artist in a very narrow sense.

Also in that context this quote you made makes no sense.

Then maybe it would be best if you explained why you replied to my post about what an artist is with the line "people deserve to be paid for their work".

 

[ShadowStar42]

The painting I painted last week was. Am I not an artist?

You are an artist, but if you art isn't seen an appreciated by other, if it never influences other artists, then I'm sorry but I have to deliver a hard truth. You're art doesn't matter. We remember Michelangelo and Shakespeare and Frank Capra because their art in a very real way changed the world. Those great works of art wouldn't exist if those artists were never compensated for them. Yes, there is absolute nobility in art for arts sake, but when it comes down to it art without audience is irrelevant and without compensation no artist will ever achieve broad audience.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

The painting I painted last week was. Am I not an artist?

What you do with your work is your business, and what other artists do with their work is theirs.

I agree. And if I choose not to sell my painting, which is art, then that means your statement that art is a trade is wrong. It's as simple as 2x2=4

(oops i thought you were the original poster. ignore)

 

[Atmos Duality]

I agree. And if I choose not to sell my painting, which is art, then that means your statement that art is a trade is wrong. It's as simple as 2x2=4

Don't put words into my mouth.

 

[Daverson]

Though, like I said, when we talk about piracy, we're almost always talking about contemporary stuff. I'm not against copyright expiration, I'm just saying that authors should be able to seek legal action against people who pirate their work. If you remove their right to do this, you're effectively making piracy legal.

If piracy is legal, then it's obviously not piracy.

But that's my point, according to the OP's article "A court that tries somebody for violating [copyright law] must now also show that a conviction is necessary to defend democracy itself in order to convict.". Software piracy will still be illegal in the member states, but under the EU constitution (wait, didn't we get rid of that thing?) it wouldn't be possible to copyright holders actually do anything about it, unless we're dealing with a war criminal or something.

When I say "effectively legal", this is what I mean. It's a criminal act, but by removing the means for people to be prosecuted for it, there's really nothing to stop them.

 

[Vault101]

It is indeed, but that has nothing to do with what I said or what we were discussing. (Actually discussing, not what some people thought we were discussing)

you think its OK not to pay for shit..and use all this "I know about ART!!" BS as justification

 

[Gilhelmi]

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

There is plenty of other ways to get paid. Like donations. Or collecting the money first, Kickstarter style. And there is probably other possible schemes too.

Do you get paid to go to work?

If you do then you are a hypocrite. You should work for free and ask you employer for donations. I mean its not like you need money or anything.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

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".

Also why are you putting artist into quotes? Note that my statement there doesn't mention artists.

Because the person you mentioned was only an artist in a very narrow sense.

Huh? What person did I mention?

"People still deserve to be paid for their work".

I assumed you were talking about the kind of people who are called artists.

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion from my post.

Because the person you mentioned was only an artist in a very narrow sense.

Also in that context this quote you made makes no sense.

Then maybe it would be best if you explained why you replied to my post about what an artist is with the line "people deserve to be paid for their work".

That is easy to explain. I never did... That post was not addressed to you at all. What made you think it was a reply to you? Also my post came before any of yours on the topic. So it is impossible for it to be a reply to you.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

It is indeed, but that has nothing to do with what I said or what we were discussing. (Actually discussing, not what some people thought we were discussing)

you think its OK not to pay for shit..and use all this "I know about ART!!" BS as justification

No. I don't think that and I didn't use that. You might want to withhold your rash judgements and actually find out what people are trying to say first.

 

[Nex Vesica]

Interesting point bringing up Van Gogh, an artist who struggled financially and killed himself. His art certainly isn't worthless today, but it wasn't until years after his death that it really had any value. Admittedly, it's hard to say whether or not fame and fortune would have helped him, he might have felt more appreciated and been able to afford better healthcare, but it was also at a point in time where we were still limited, especially when it came to mental health. Really though, this debate is just silly. If Game developers don't get paid, then they aren't going to be able to make games. Same with musicians, directors, writers, and all the other people involved in the business. Yeah, when you buy a cd/game/whatever it goes to the label/publisher/producer and not directly to the game itself. There's a middleman, but there needs to be one. You can't make an awesome game/album/movie/show/whatever else without first having funding. The product in question might go on to make millions of dollars, but without having that initial funding they either A. Aren't going to be able to get off the ground in the first place, B. Won't be able to offer their product in their desired format, having to essentially go "low budget" and as a result charge considerably less because of all the features they're lacking, or in certain cases, C. Use a bunch of existing profits to fund their own product and ultimately fail to make the money back due to pirating.

So yeah, you're not paying the makers themselves, but you're paying the people who fund the makers and are ultimately responsible for them being able to get their product out there. There are some exceptions, especially with the music industry due to the internet, and there are certainly lots of indie games and products that can be considered successful, and some of those self published games/shows/whatever are certainly awesome, but if you talk to those people one of the things that tends to get brought up about how they would love to do awesome thing X/Y/Z, but they couldn't because of lack of funds. This happens when you have a huge budget too, for example, listen to the directors commentary for The Avengers and you'll hear about all the awesome things that they wished they could do if they had a bigger budget.

In a perfect world, yeah, we wouldn't have currency and people could have unlimited funds and just make these awesome amazing projects that everyone could enjoy, but that's simply not how the world works. Being successful doesn't mean that you lose your artists integrity. That's such a vague term anyway, I mean, art can really be described as anything that you're especially good/creative at. You wouldn't ask a chef to cook for free simply because it's their art, or a doctor, or a detective, or *insert your own job that you're good at here*

And considering that people still pirate products even when they do come from self publishers and the like, the argument still holds little merit, it's just people trying to justify to everyone else that they're not stealing with their pirating, and that it's everyone else who's wrong for not letting them have something that they want for free.

 

[Vault101]

No. I don't think that and I didn't use that. You might want to withhold your rash judgements and actually find out what people are trying to say first.

"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"."

implying that getting seen should be enough