Slashdot Mirror

Obligatory...

That article links to this image (NSFW), which I'll now have printed, poster-sized, and paste on my apartment door. No one will ever knock on that door again, ever.

1. http://images.elfwood.com/art/f/a/falck/dragonteapot.jpg
2. http://www.mival.us/Images/Carole%20Goetschel%20Cat%20Teapot.jpg
3. http://www.mival.us/Images/Carole%20Goetschel%20Monkey%20Teapot.jpg
4. http://wondertime.go.com/resources/images/create-and-play/article/little-teapot_art.jpg
5. http://www.leona-craig.com/catalogue_art_gallery/Teapots/stump_teapot_zhu_qiu.jpg

there are more, but some of the were not safe for work...

Mandriva isn't perfect, but I'm not in the mood to learn another package system after learning RPM (and Mandriva's urpmi-tool) so Ubuntu isn't really interesting until I really have to.

I'm really not happy about that they aren't shipping Firefox 3 though. Right now I think I have a badly (halfly) updated Mandriva 2008-2008.1 system that can't run Firefox 3 properly. I have no spelling-control (I hope that isn't seen in this posting...) and GIF-images bigger than 420px*152px will not show (Firefox 3 in Wine 1.0 works just fine though, and it works fine on my mother's Mandriva 2008.0). So an upgrade with RPM-dependency Firefox 3 would be nice. Although I have to say that the installation programming and instruction documentation for Firefox 3 on Linux are way beyond shit. No instructions available in the dist, only a link to a non-working URL, no checking if you have the libs needed, no bloody nothing! Even Sun's Java was easier to install correctly... (And that demanded looking at a web-page, doing some very specific copying to the right dirs and an ldconfig-command, if I remember correctly.).

If anything, I kind of wish that certain "things photographers do most" were MORE difficult to find: I'm one of the art moderators on Elfwood (a big sci-fi/fantasy art web site), and let's just say that the world would be a better place if budding young artists did not immediately pull out the lens flare filter every time they needed a fairy or extra magical sparkle in their work.

Personally, though, I prefer using Painter Classic for general digital art because I find it more comfortable to use. It's not exactly photo-oriented like Photoshop is, but it can still be used for photo manipulation. I use The GIMP occasionally as well, but I can't figure out how to make it recognize my tablet's pressure sensitivity, so I don't use it very often.

If you just want to read/look at scifi stories and art, Elfwood http://www.elfwood.com/ is much easier to access, and it's free. And at the spin-off sites like Elftown http://www.elftown.com/ and Writersco http://www.writersco.com/ you can have a much more intime conversations with or between the writers and artists. But there are also some pretty bad amateurs there, but many see that as a feature, not a bug.

So, you're of a mind that we don't need any new elements in our culture - we can do just fine by eternally "remixing" that which has already been produced?

To quote from my own message, from the very next sentence than the one you quoted:

And, before you answer, please remember that the foundations of western culture were laid down in times when copyrights were not even dreamed of, so it obviously isn't neccessary for people to produce things, a fact also evidence by the sheer amount of (legal) content available for free from Internet - these messages, Elfwood [elfwood.com, Sourceforge...

Some of us actually enjoy the experience of reading/viewing/listening-to something new, innovative, and artfully produced. That takes a lot more work than rehashing other people's work,

Really ? So, to continue with Harry Potter, it doesn't rehash other people's work; wizards, witches, dragons, broomsticks, magick wands - and oh yes, the very concept of magick itself - were all invented by J.K. Rowling ? And a teenage angsty hero, a big baddy that killed his parents, a destined final battle - all of these are original concepts by her, no one has ever used them before ?

and can involve years of planning, research, practice, abandoned efforts, and yes, marketing when the time comes (so that all of that work can be meaningfully rewarded).

So ? I'm not forcing anyone to spend this effort, and have absolutely no obligation to reward it. Neither does anyone else, for that matter.

You ask what's more important, and I say that allowing creative artists to not be your pet entertainment slave is at the top of the list.

My slave ? Care to tell me how I'm forcing them to do my bidding ? Or are you saying that refusing to obey someone else's wishes for what I can and cannot say or copy makes them my slave ? That must be it, because that is the only thing I've stated...

If you're right, and real artists are just those people that want to remix, then you should have no problem eloquently persuading artists to waive their copyrights. They have that option right now, and always have.

I haven't claimed that real artists are "just those people that want to remix" - indeed, such a claim would be completely redundant, since it is impossible to express anything without remixing existing concepts, and therefore a work of art that doesn't remix is without any meaning (literally - trying, for example, to write without referring to any existing concepts will produce just an incomprehensible mess of letters, since it cannot by definition have any words that have an established meaning).

Nice attempt to make me appear elitist with your strawman, thought. I especially liked how you put emphasis on the word real.

So, you want what they spend their lives producing, but want other people to pay them to produce it for you?

No, their lives are theirs, and I couldn't care less about how they spend them.

You're a parasite, and a hypocrite as well. If you don't like how an author decides to create, sell, and promote her work, just don't buy it, support, or read it. You can reclaim some of your intellectual honesty by simply disregarding the work by people that you say you don't respect.

Really ? So, by refusing to acknowledge that the concept of "intellectual property" has any validity, but then respecting it anyway, I can regain intellectual honesty I've apparently lost by being consistent in words and deeds ? Your logic is rather... original.

You might also consider that citing a non-disclosure agreement between advance r

They don't buy them from Mark Twain.

You might want to think up more convincing evidence for the neccessity of copyrights than the fact that people don't buy from a dead guy.

My question wasn't how *anyone* could make money, it is how can the *content creater* make money, versus, say...someone else.

The real question is, what is more important: the content makers being able to make money or the free exchange and remix of culture that abolishing copyrights would allow (in even larger way than it's happening today) ? And, before you answer, please remember that the foundations of western culture were laid down in times when copyrights were not even dreamed of, so it obviously isn't neccessary for people to produce things, a fact also evidence by the sheer amount of (legal) content available for free from Internet - these messages, Elfwood, Sourceforge...

Personally, I lost any remaining respect for copyright holders or copyright law when I heard that a number of people had been forbidden to talk about a book they'd read (that book being "Harry Potter and the Half-Blooded Prince") just because it might hurt the books sales. Enough is enough, I now copy everything I want for free and the copyright holders can starve to death for all I care. After all, why should I care, when they have proven themselves to be enemies of freedom (of expression) and therefore enemies of me ?

Let us make copyright 0 years.

This is less so! :)

This would remove all financial motivation for most worldly pursuits.

Expect production (you know - making a real physical product, like a house or a car), services (haircuts, car service, etc.), and entertainment (I don't have a 20-meter wide movie screen in my home, do you ?).

In fact, the only really affected worldy pursuits would be entertainment industries and software providers.

I'm not saying that abolishing copyrights completely would neccessarily be a good idea, just that it wouldn't be the end of civilization.

Why write software?

Because either you need it, or someone else needs it enough to pay you for it, or you think you can make money selling services related to the product. Or because you want fame and recognition.

Why write a book?

For fame ? For the ego stroke of admiring feedback ? For the sense of accomplishment ?

I've only written short stories, and only about a dozen of them. I did it because I wanted to contribute something to the online community I was a part of back then, and for the ego stroke of getting feedback. No, I'm not providing a link to them, because I plan on rewriting them.

Considering the amount of text one can find online, I'd imagine these to be a powerfull enough motivating force to keep the culture going...

Of course, most of the online writings are terrible in quality, but that isn't really different from published texts, now is it ?-) Besides, I feel a new business idea forming - a recommendation service, where real human beings shift through the endless sea of online content and provide links to the true gems for their subscribers.

Why create music?

Same as above, plus as a commercial about your skills, in the hopes of getting a patron/concert.

Also, see Elfwood, an amateur fantasy- and sci-fi art gallery with written works too. Quite a lot of the more talented artists there imply that they might not be completely averse to taking commission work. Of course, the art there is copyrighted and can't be distributed without the artists permission, but it is free for anyone to view.

For the love of the endeavour? Sure. But what percentage of people would be willing to invest hard money in such a pursuit?

One of the neat things about computers and the Internet is that they reduce the need to invest money in such endeavours. To publish online, all you need to invest is time, tears and sweat - but your wallet is safe.

Why would a publisher give an author an advance?

Why would you need a publisher, if you can just upload the fruits of your labor to your website ?

Why do you think the publishers are so scared about p2p, anyway ? Hint: it's not the artists they fear for.

Why would a record label front the production cost of an album? For a profit on the manufacturing process?

There seems to be quite a lot of legal music available online. So, presumably, you can get get music produced even without record companies. I'm not an expert at music production, thought, and can't claim to know what steps are required to produce it, exactly speaking. Perhaps someone else can comment on this ?

Personally, I would be *estatic* with 14 years. Or 14 years with a renewal for another 14 years. 28 years of exclusive control. If you write something at age 20, you have until you're 48 to produce something new. That's not so bad, is it?

Personally, I'd think that the creators life + 10 years (to keep people from being assassinated for their music or whatever) with only real human beings being counte

::notes profession::

Okay, explains. . . . ah, some things.

Yes we take pride in being nerds, but. . . .

Metaphor time.

You don't walk up to a black guy and call him a N******. Well not unless you want to be flat on your back.

Well we ARE pasty faced nerds here for the most part, but it is only alluded to jokingly. In addition one most often times has to admit to being such before one can use the term.

Also, if you say that sociological studies interest you, then broadband SHOULD be of a good deal of use to you. After all, a lot of internet communities can only be (meaningfully) accessed with broadband.

www.newgrounds.com has a very. . . . interesting culture to it. If you are not on broadband then you will not be able to witness half of it. Well you COULD witness half of it, but nobody has THAT much patience quite frankly.

I like my two minute videos to take two minutes to watch.

Oh, and if you want to reference TV, then you are not any dumber if you watch the educational shows on PBS, consider the history channel halfway decent TV but not in depth enough, and realize that Discovery is on crack (but that they still show some nifty gadgets from time to time. Just that most of the time you have read about them on /. a few years before. :) )

You want sociology compare the Ars-Technica Forums to the Hardocp Forums. BIIIG difference. Quite interesting too.

Also, on scientific proofs.

Saying that a piece of technology is going to die just because YOU do not like it is NOT accrete.

My own MOTHER likes broadband access. Why?

She does artsy stuff, and only has a small amount of her time to do it. Waiting four or five minutes for a page full of thumbnails to load is not exactly something that she wants to do.

A lot of elderly computer users like always on broadband, it is significantly easier to use then a dial up modem and the lack of any sort of a wait makes it seem a lot more like an appliance rather then a job that has to be worked at to get anything done.

(not to mention that if a person is 70 years old they do not need to be spending half of their remaining life span waiting for web pages to load. ;) )

Artists like broadband access because it lets them do all sorts of nifty things with their computer. A lot of the Artist orientated sights out there on the net are VERY bandwidth intensive.

Or just for surfing www.elfwood.com it is nice to be able to actualy look at a picture.

Heck used to be that on the computer I would have my gameboy with tetris by my side so that I had something to do in between sites loading. Ouch.

Now the Gameboy wouldn't be able to even boot-up in-between sites. :)

Broadband has a VERY large potential market. In fact it can reach into some places that CableTV does not reach. A good deal of the artsy types do not care for TV but they just go cookoo over Flash animations and homemade movies. (...)

The elderly who do not want to spend all of their time waiting for pages to load.

Young children who do not have the patience for web pages to load. ( ^_^ )

Working aged Americans (hmm, already mentioned elderly.... oh wait, sorry, not a political debate here. };) ) who do not have a lot of extra time on their hands.

Uh.

Wow that just about covers everyone. :)