My initial question was, if you can do the work with 90 people, why the FUCK were you paying 900?!? And people actually debate against the need to reduce the size of government...
So because you're unable or unwilling to actually provide a debatable point, your response is "You're stupid, I'm right". Well that certainly shows your credibility.
Do you work? Does that consume around 40 hours (or more) of your week? Do you pay bills, and buy food, and pay for gas? Assuming you arent disabled or on welfare or just a scammer sucking off the government teet, then you must WORK to get MONEY to survive. What the fuck makes you think that any artist is any different? Unless you mean to suggest that every person that creates art or music, or who invents anything, must do so on his own time for free, and work a regular job to eat. If that's the case you're even more disgusting than I would have otherwise suggested. Not only are you willing to steal, you're willing to justify your theft by saying anyone who provides you those goods you steal should do so in their spare time. Not to mention that you're suggesting that there should be no professional artists, which ensures that every artist is part time and the quality of art goes straight into the shitter. IF that artist isnt coerced into not doing the art they really want to do for fear that their employer will find it abhorent and fire them.
I dont know if you're naive, or ignorant, a troll, or just completely bought into the occupy wallstreet sort of bullshit being spewed in politics these days.
It most certainly is not without substance. You simply lack a logical retort. I have demonstrated how a person rightfully deserves credit and compensation for something he designs and/or creates.Whether that be physical or digital is irrelevant. I've even demonstrated the truth by going beyond a simple philosophical argument and demonstrating a real-world financial requirement. You simply wish to dismiss my argument so that you can dismiss your guilt in choosing to disregard the rights of the creator and take what you want for no cost to yourself.
In the end your only stance is that if you take it, the creator wont know anyway, and you want it. There is no prerequisite in the definition of theft that the rightful owner be aware.
Car analogy: I bought a used car. Does that mean that the manufacturer is within his rights to deny me the right to resell it? Or drive certain routes? Or pimp it up?
Irrelevant example. Unless you mean to suggest that for every person that creates a digital copy of a legally purchased product, another person ceases to use that product. We both know that's not the case.
Either become so good you'll get patronage (the Wikipedia model)...
This scenario limits to services, not products. This is a different argument because you can charge for access to a service, but charging for limited access to a single product (software/art/games) is more troublesome. Unless you'd like to see every game out there be a subscription model or a pay-for-upgrades model. I'm willing to bet you'd resist that idea.
... or people will commission works from you (the Deviantart model), or get a job that pays your bills (the Joe Average model).
1) The Deviant Art model requires that you show examples of your work to the public to prove your skill, including high enough resolution to demonstrate the level of detail you are able to obtain. Which presents the concept and style you're able to produce to the world, and any other company or artist capable of reproducing that same image can then do so freely unless there are protections for that product. This is particularly helpful to companies or artist that are very technically capable, but lack imagination to concieve of compelling art of their own. As I posted in another response here, this ensures that he with the biggest bankroll and industry at his disposal is able to "steal" the concepts and images and mass produce them on everything from posters, to coffee mugs, refrigeration magnets, for profit and an exponentially greater degree than the original creator. It ensures that the little guy gets little to nothing, while the corporation rakes in the gains.
2) The result of creating commissioned work is not the same as that of something that cames entirely from the mind of the creator. It ensures that the artist is always a slave to the ideas of another, and not free to explore spontaneous avenues during the creative process. Everything must be approved, and the artist regularly finds himself doing that which he feels is unappealing or flat out stupid looking. And this is all AFTER that same artist has proven their skill through creation and display of original works that you support the exploitation of.
Being a creator does not entitle you to have power over anyone else's actions.
Why is this argument any more or less valid when speaking about a physical object rather than a virtual one?
Nor does it entitle you to be paid for the same work over and over and over again. Why on Earth would it?
You have the illusion that because there's no physical property there is not real-world investment of funds in the product. You're wrong. A person or a company producing a digital product invests greatly in the creation. They spend hours of their time. They pay for the space in which they work. They pay for the computers that they work on and the network which connects them to the world. They presumably pay for the software they utilize to creat from the OS to the COTS applications. If its a company they pay for insurance, accountants, management, etc. While you feel that a fraction of the users paying a small portion of funds for the product somehow recoups the costs of production, you're flat out wrong. It might take an artists 100 hours to complete a good painting. In order to live that artist needs to obtain at least several hundred if not a couple of thousands of dollars. Otherwise they cannot survive creating that art. If you're talking about a commercial application or game the investment is easily in the millions of dollars for dozens or hundreds of employees. You then must be able t
So you're arguing that you should be able to take for free, something that has no value, and that you would not miss if it never existed.
In other words you're arguing that just because you take it, and use it, and "enjoy" its benefits, its really meaningless to you and therefor has no right to protection.
So why do you feel entitled to take it? How could protecting it with legal ownership rights impact you negatively if you dont care if you ever have it?
Two people spend 8 hours a day for weeks to produce one thing each. These things allow the purchasing (or stealing) end-user to complete a task more easily than would otherwise be possible. Sure, there are other people out there that have produced similar "things" that service the same roles, but maybe cost more or dont do the job as well.
The first person built a design and manufactured a hammer.
The second person wrote software that cleans up viruses.
Each person utilized an equal level of education and expertise. Each followed through on a workable end product. Each has produced a good that has value and benefits the consumer. How is the first person more worthy of equal payment for his work than the second? Is it purely because you can take the latter without physical loss from the creator?
If that is your argument, then why must I pay my accountant? He produces no physical good. I have recieved nothing more that digital information from him, so why should I have to pay? For that matter, why must my employer pay me? I'm a system administrator/systems architect. I produce no physical computer hardware. I simply produce plans to utilize computers/hardware/software manufactured by others in a way that services a need. I dont actually build the solution, I merely come up with the plan and advise on its implimenation. I produce no physical output.
The answer to each of those questions is that the creator is being paid not just for the physical properties of their creation, but also for the hours of time spent in the creation of it.
If you remove the motivation of creators to produce a non-physical item (payment), then you ensure a world with a glut of hammer-makers, and a void of virus cleaners. Ironically you further motivate the hackers that would exploit the infected computer systems that maintain all the finances of the nation who steal the non-physical cash from digital bank accounts, in turn ruining quite real lives.
No, he doesn't. He has to find people who not only believe he should be benefited by his creation, but who also feel compelled to do so. By your definition even if a person loves his work so much that they feel they must have it, all they have to do is find one copy of it that anyone else has obtained (or that has been posted online) and make copies of it for free.
If you mean to argue that even a fraction of consumers are altruistic and will pay as a way to say "atta boy" to the creator, even though they have no logistic or legal reason to do so, then you're either incredibly naive, or willfully ignorant in order to attempt to defend your position.
If I make a digital painting and put it up for sale, any company could take the concept, reproduce it, and mass distribute it for sale. Myself as an individual have no ability to mass produce it or distribute it. I dont have the industry or manpower behind me. Another company could compete with the first, yes. But if there is no protection for any created work it ensures that he who is already wealthy and powerful can profit most from any creative work without putting a dime in the pocket of the creator.
If you argue that everything boils down to "data" that exists on temporary storage, so copyright is irrelevant (as you have), then I ask this; Does no one buy posters? Mousepads? Refrigerator magnets? Coffee mugs? Your argument suggests that you live entirely in a digital box, wholly without material possessions beyond your computer. This is a valid choice for an individual, but it is at odds with a consumer driven market that dominates the US.
Everyone seems to have missed the battery controversy in this article.
Simply put, there won't be a personal-use version of this technology until a revolution in battery technology happens. The energy densities are several orders of magnitude too low right now.
There's no controversy anyway. There are plenty of ways one can create a gun that dont involve 3D printing. The only thing that uneducated people point at to "prove" that this is a controversy is the lack of skill required to 3D print a firearm. That also is a fallacy. Aside from the fact that there arent current materials that make it a viable means to create a weapon, and you must still be able to hone, clean, and assemble firearms in a manner that avoids blowing your own face off when you fire the thing, you can still build a very effective weapon if you can run a drill and screw steel pipes together.
The means to make a weapon is irrelevant. You can make nasty shit with what's under your kitchen sink but you dont hear about a crusade against cleaning products. The only reason that this "controversy" has gained any traction are the shear volume of people with equal ignorance of both 3D printing and firearms.
Saying that this contributes to the "3-D printed gun/rifle controversy" is a falacy. This weapon has limited components associated with 3D printing. The majority of the device appears to be machined aluminum. Not to mention the large about of electronics and power technology incorporated in the design. This has about as much to do with the "3-D printed gun/rifle controversy" as it does the "electrical engineering controversy".
It's not like 911 calls cant be handled by a different procedure. And they should be. But no one needs a record of where I was when I called my son, and where he was.
Everything you just said is perfectly valid. Its unfair to start behind the curve. Its unfair that you might be challenged by your genetics while another is gifted in the same way. Its unfair that assholes sometimes inherit wealth and power. But that wasn't my point. My point was that if you never tried to succeed, you do not deserve to. If you never attempt to better yourself, you wont. And like it or not, there's a growing culture of, "Fuck it. Why should I work when I can draw [disability/food aid/unemployment/etc.]"
I do not suggest for a second that there are not perfectly worthy recipients of assistance. There are many, and I have no issue with providing it. I do have issue with parents teaching their kids how to milk the system, and if you don't think it's happening you're deluding yourself.
Is it not perfectly fair to allow a person that has never even tried to succeed, to fail? Or do you mean to absolve all people of responsibility for failure?
"Fair" does not mean "equal results". Fair means that all else being equal there is equal possibility of an equal outcome, and the more you put in the greater your possibility of a positive result. This is a distinction that seems lost on more and more people.
Slashdot Mirror
A better question is, "You have 900 people doing WHAT?!".
Agree completely. Baby steps.
You presume that software access in managed independently from system access. They should be, but ....
Next thing you know they will be asking for due process for US citizens rather than just killing them with drones.
Customs Agent: "The purpose for your flight to Moscow?" NSA Employee: "Vacation."
My initial question was, if you can do the work with 90 people, why the FUCK were you paying 900?!? And people actually debate against the need to reduce the size of government...
So because you're unable or unwilling to actually provide a debatable point, your response is "You're stupid, I'm right". Well that certainly shows your credibility.
Do you work? Does that consume around 40 hours (or more) of your week? Do you pay bills, and buy food, and pay for gas? Assuming you arent disabled or on welfare or just a scammer sucking off the government teet, then you must WORK to get MONEY to survive. What the fuck makes you think that any artist is any different? Unless you mean to suggest that every person that creates art or music, or who invents anything, must do so on his own time for free, and work a regular job to eat. If that's the case you're even more disgusting than I would have otherwise suggested. Not only are you willing to steal, you're willing to justify your theft by saying anyone who provides you those goods you steal should do so in their spare time. Not to mention that you're suggesting that there should be no professional artists, which ensures that every artist is part time and the quality of art goes straight into the shitter. IF that artist isnt coerced into not doing the art they really want to do for fear that their employer will find it abhorent and fire them.
I dont know if you're naive, or ignorant, a troll, or just completely bought into the occupy wallstreet sort of bullshit being spewed in politics these days.
It most certainly is not without substance. You simply lack a logical retort. I have demonstrated how a person rightfully deserves credit and compensation for something he designs and/or creates.Whether that be physical or digital is irrelevant. I've even demonstrated the truth by going beyond a simple philosophical argument and demonstrating a real-world financial requirement. You simply wish to dismiss my argument so that you can dismiss your guilt in choosing to disregard the rights of the creator and take what you want for no cost to yourself.
In the end your only stance is that if you take it, the creator wont know anyway, and you want it. There is no prerequisite in the definition of theft that the rightful owner be aware.
Car analogy: I bought a used car. Does that mean that the manufacturer is within his rights to deny me the right to resell it? Or drive certain routes? Or pimp it up?
Irrelevant example. Unless you mean to suggest that for every person that creates a digital copy of a legally purchased product, another person ceases to use that product. We both know that's not the case.
Either become so good you'll get patronage (the Wikipedia model)...
This scenario limits to services, not products. This is a different argument because you can charge for access to a service, but charging for limited access to a single product (software/art/games) is more troublesome. Unless you'd like to see every game out there be a subscription model or a pay-for-upgrades model. I'm willing to bet you'd resist that idea.
... or people will commission works from you (the Deviantart model), or get a job that pays your bills (the Joe Average model).
1) The Deviant Art model requires that you show examples of your work to the public to prove your skill, including high enough resolution to demonstrate the level of detail you are able to obtain. Which presents the concept and style you're able to produce to the world, and any other company or artist capable of reproducing that same image can then do so freely unless there are protections for that product. This is particularly helpful to companies or artist that are very technically capable, but lack imagination to concieve of compelling art of their own. As I posted in another response here, this ensures that he with the biggest bankroll and industry at his disposal is able to "steal" the concepts and images and mass produce them on everything from posters, to coffee mugs, refrigeration magnets, for profit and an exponentially greater degree than the original creator. It ensures that the little guy gets little to nothing, while the corporation rakes in the gains.
2) The result of creating commissioned work is not the same as that of something that cames entirely from the mind of the creator. It ensures that the artist is always a slave to the ideas of another, and not free to explore spontaneous avenues during the creative process. Everything must be approved, and the artist regularly finds himself doing that which he feels is unappealing or flat out stupid looking. And this is all AFTER that same artist has proven their skill through creation and display of original works that you support the exploitation of.
Being a creator does not entitle you to have power over anyone else's actions.
Why is this argument any more or less valid when speaking about a physical object rather than a virtual one?
Nor does it entitle you to be paid for the same work over and over and over again. Why on Earth would it?
You have the illusion that because there's no physical property there is not real-world investment of funds in the product. You're wrong. A person or a company producing a digital product invests greatly in the creation. They spend hours of their time. They pay for the space in which they work. They pay for the computers that they work on and the network which connects them to the world. They presumably pay for the software they utilize to creat from the OS to the COTS applications. If its a company they pay for insurance, accountants, management, etc. While you feel that a fraction of the users paying a small portion of funds for the product somehow recoups the costs of production, you're flat out wrong. It might take an artists 100 hours to complete a good painting. In order to live that artist needs to obtain at least several hundred if not a couple of thousands of dollars. Otherwise they cannot survive creating that art. If you're talking about a commercial application or game the investment is easily in the millions of dollars for dozens or hundreds of employees. You then must be able t
So you're arguing that you should be able to take for free, something that has no value, and that you would not miss if it never existed.
In other words you're arguing that just because you take it, and use it, and "enjoy" its benefits, its really meaningless to you and therefor has no right to protection.
So why do you feel entitled to take it? How could protecting it with legal ownership rights impact you negatively if you dont care if you ever have it?
You've proven your own argument to be a strawman.
How does it ring false?
Two people spend 8 hours a day for weeks to produce one thing each. These things allow the purchasing (or stealing) end-user to complete a task more easily than would otherwise be possible. Sure, there are other people out there that have produced similar "things" that service the same roles, but maybe cost more or dont do the job as well.
The first person built a design and manufactured a hammer. The second person wrote software that cleans up viruses.
Each person utilized an equal level of education and expertise. Each followed through on a workable end product. Each has produced a good that has value and benefits the consumer. How is the first person more worthy of equal payment for his work than the second? Is it purely because you can take the latter without physical loss from the creator?
If that is your argument, then why must I pay my accountant? He produces no physical good. I have recieved nothing more that digital information from him, so why should I have to pay? For that matter, why must my employer pay me? I'm a system administrator/systems architect. I produce no physical computer hardware. I simply produce plans to utilize computers/hardware/software manufactured by others in a way that services a need. I dont actually build the solution, I merely come up with the plan and advise on its implimenation. I produce no physical output.
The answer to each of those questions is that the creator is being paid not just for the physical properties of their creation, but also for the hours of time spent in the creation of it.
If you remove the motivation of creators to produce a non-physical item (payment), then you ensure a world with a glut of hammer-makers, and a void of virus cleaners. Ironically you further motivate the hackers that would exploit the infected computer systems that maintain all the finances of the nation who steal the non-physical cash from digital bank accounts, in turn ruining quite real lives.
No, he doesn't. He has to find people who not only believe he should be benefited by his creation, but who also feel compelled to do so. By your definition even if a person loves his work so much that they feel they must have it, all they have to do is find one copy of it that anyone else has obtained (or that has been posted online) and make copies of it for free.
If you mean to argue that even a fraction of consumers are altruistic and will pay as a way to say "atta boy" to the creator, even though they have no logistic or legal reason to do so, then you're either incredibly naive, or willfully ignorant in order to attempt to defend your position.
So your solution is that creators stop creating. Or only create if they freely give any and all creation to everyone?
Again, how do creators eat?
If I make a digital painting and put it up for sale, any company could take the concept, reproduce it, and mass distribute it for sale. Myself as an individual have no ability to mass produce it or distribute it. I dont have the industry or manpower behind me. Another company could compete with the first, yes. But if there is no protection for any created work it ensures that he who is already wealthy and powerful can profit most from any creative work without putting a dime in the pocket of the creator.
If you argue that everything boils down to "data" that exists on temporary storage, so copyright is irrelevant (as you have), then I ask this; Does no one buy posters? Mousepads? Refrigerator magnets? Coffee mugs? Your argument suggests that you live entirely in a digital box, wholly without material possessions beyond your computer. This is a valid choice for an individual, but it is at odds with a consumer driven market that dominates the US.
So how does a creator put food on his or her table if anyone and everyone can copy what as little as one person paid for?
Simply put, there won't be a personal-use version of this technology until a revolution in battery technology happens. The energy densities are several orders of magnitude too low right now.
There's no controversy anyway. There are plenty of ways one can create a gun that dont involve 3D printing. The only thing that uneducated people point at to "prove" that this is a controversy is the lack of skill required to 3D print a firearm. That also is a fallacy. Aside from the fact that there arent current materials that make it a viable means to create a weapon, and you must still be able to hone, clean, and assemble firearms in a manner that avoids blowing your own face off when you fire the thing, you can still build a very effective weapon if you can run a drill and screw steel pipes together.
The means to make a weapon is irrelevant. You can make nasty shit with what's under your kitchen sink but you dont hear about a crusade against cleaning products. The only reason that this "controversy" has gained any traction are the shear volume of people with equal ignorance of both 3D printing and firearms.
Saying that this contributes to the "3-D printed gun/rifle controversy" is a falacy. This weapon has limited components associated with 3D printing. The majority of the device appears to be machined aluminum. Not to mention the large about of electronics and power technology incorporated in the design. This has about as much to do with the "3-D printed gun/rifle controversy" as it does the "electrical engineering controversy".
How long will a species survive without the ability to detect and evade predators?
It's not trivial to do so until after you've already been there. And Google Ads are freaking everywhere.
It's not like 911 calls cant be handled by a different procedure. And they should be. But no one needs a record of where I was when I called my son, and where he was.
Whoosh.
Everything you just said is perfectly valid. Its unfair to start behind the curve. Its unfair that you might be challenged by your genetics while another is gifted in the same way. Its unfair that assholes sometimes inherit wealth and power. But that wasn't my point. My point was that if you never tried to succeed, you do not deserve to. If you never attempt to better yourself, you wont. And like it or not, there's a growing culture of, "Fuck it. Why should I work when I can draw [disability/food aid/unemployment/etc.]"
I do not suggest for a second that there are not perfectly worthy recipients of assistance. There are many, and I have no issue with providing it. I do have issue with parents teaching their kids how to milk the system, and if you don't think it's happening you're deluding yourself.
Is it not perfectly fair to allow a person that has never even tried to succeed, to fail? Or do you mean to absolve all people of responsibility for failure?
"Fair" does not mean "equal results". Fair means that all else being equal there is equal possibility of an equal outcome, and the more you put in the greater your possibility of a positive result. This is a distinction that seems lost on more and more people.