I signed it. It took a bit because I had to register and wait for an email etc. I also didn't see this till about 20 minutes ago. I'm hoping the long ass signup process doesn't dissuade people from signing, but that's possibly the main reason that it isn't getting the rapid signatures.
Shakespeare and Roman poetry were performance arts, that's how they made their money. Butts in seats. My favorite part of the digital age is watching what I want when I want it. And not having to cram my fat ass into a tiny seat at a scheduled time some 30 - 60 minutes away from home in order to consume content.
Private patronage means only people with money get to pick what media we get to consume. You won't see much that isn't pro-1%. Because that's the best way to make money, don't piss off the people who give you money. Personally I don't really like a world that isn't free to cater to specific views. And forget about the diverse consumer base that the creation of the digital medium has allowed. (Compare tv shows from the 80s (mostly boilerplate family comedies like Bill Cosby Show, Family Ties, and Full House) to tv shows today with the expanded diversity in available stations to watch).
And as to so many classic performances created before copyright, how many are made per year? Was anywhere NEAR the amount of content produced then as now? Now that could be because of the fact that people had to do other things, like be a serf. Or because the world population was much smaller. Or even that many ancient plays and literature are lost to history. This counterpoint to copyright is a little more interesting. But I'm willing to bet that content creation is a more viable way of making a living now than it was before. Most of those poets and authors you mention, like Dante and Chaucer, came from affluent families that didn't have to work. Though the argument could also be made that it shouldn't be a viable way to make a living.
And honestly I want to understand why you feel you have an intrinsic right to something I made simply because I made it on a computer? If I make a game it doesn't automatically benefit humanity as a whole if I distribute it for free or if it is copied repeatedly. If I make the same game out of wood blocks do you suddenly not have an intrinsic right to it?
How is a man who makes money off of "piracy" not also someone who exploits workers since he doesn't give money to anyone who worked to make that content?
"obnoxious, arrogant, self centred fuckheads" pretty well describes most of the women I know professionally. Or at least who managed to achieve anything professionally (caveat, not usually professors though). They're usually unwilling to make compromises, and would rather complain about someone else, or blame someone else than actually solve problems.
I have not had this experience in any professional capacity and I've had the fortune to work with quite a few women. I treat most women I work with as professional and give them the opportunity to win my respect. Most of them earn it. I have met some that don't but I've met more guys that don't. They complain the same amount as the guys I know and make the same number of compromises.
I think most women just want to be treated the same as you do male colleagues. Give them opportunity to earn respect. Give them the same workload. And give them opportunities to do interesting work. I think when they don't get those things is when they complain more or are dismissive of you.
Not trying to say anything about your work style or ethic. It sounds like you would be really good at solving complex problems. But just a critic of that line.
Reading the whole line for a large scale problem it sounds good. But I cringe when I read "long and hard on any problem". It would make me wonder if you would spend a long time trying to determine how to best implement and architect a new button for members to sign up. What I would want as a hiring manager is someone who can quickly understand a problem and spend the appropriate amount of time and effort into fixing it. If it is a large complex problem I want you to work long and hard. But I'm not going to hire someone who is only good at working on large complex problems.
If I knew yes. For the same reason I obey copyright. I think the content creator deserves compensation and I want to help provide funding for him to continue to make more content.
Maybe you're right and I am just short sighted in seeing how I can produce creative content for profit when it is easily legally copied by anyone and where that is the correct moral choice. I can think of one path to have some level of compensation for my labor, the donation path, but I haven't seen that earn enough money where I can actually pursue a dream of making creative content.
The argument that I should be able to pursue that dream is the only thing that would be a flaw here. If the assertion is I shouldn't be able to make a living making creative content that does make me quite sad, but if that is the world you think we should live in...
And to break your hypothetical. I don't deserve compensation for it. Because it isn't worth anything. I'm asserting the content I create is valuable and worth the time people put into it (otherwise they wouldn't. Bad books don't get read and bad games don't get played). If the content is not valuable then no I don't expect to earn a dime and I wouldn't want to. I don't want to steal your money any more than I want you to steal my labor.
Not necessarily a personal preference. I'm arguing you wouldn't be able to easily at a glance tell the difference. And for an average person who is just going into a store to buy something why should they make the "morally right" choice when you're arguing that it is immoral to not allow this practice.
And most people who count on others to just act morally right usually end up bankrupt or robbed. Personally I choose not to pirate. I think the practice is harmful and I like the socialized cost of major productions that are produced since I really doubt they could be produced at an affordable level otherwise. I don't believe socializing the cost is possible without copyright since the item you produce at the end effectively has no value. The odds of having the original maker's product directly next to the copier's product is actually very small. Those are always deals worked out with stores for display stands. And it wouldn't even have to be up there for that long before the original maker would be put out of business.
Another hypothetical for you:
I create a fantastic game that has the potential to be a market changer. Let's call this game CraftMine. I do a limited release of it to get some user feedback so that I can make improvements. EA gets hold of one of these limited release copies. And they take the game and publish it as EA's WorldBuilder! And it is on shelves in the next week. Without copyright this is not illegal. But the vast majority of the public will believe that EA actually published the title and the original creator is just trying to make mods for the game. I as the original creator wasn't even selling the game yet and am now unable to even try to make money off of my labor.
End Hypothetical
(disclaimer: I have nothing to do with the creation of Minecraft. I just think this is an example where copyright is really extremely useful.)
The argument for cars is true where increased number of venues for the resale of vehicles and the increase in competition makes it so that consumers have to pay a minimum price and everybody still makes a profit. But that isn't the correct analogy because there's not that many companies that actually sell cars. The individual sellers are resellers. Ford sells Ford cars to resellers. If say Ford sold a car and it was not illegal for say Chevy to completely copy their design and make the same exact car without having to pay for any of the research and development that went into creating the car Chevy would easily be able to sell the car at a margin Ford could not find sustainable.
When it comes to creative content like movies and games and music and art the cost to just copy and distribute vs the create and distribute is even more disparate where there is no way someone who creates a large scale creative work could ever compete with a copy and distribute provider.
And there are movies that don't make enough money to be profitable until they hit dvd racks. Not to mention movies and shows that are "straight to DVD". And the argument that straight to DVD is solely made up of poor quality and probably shouldn't be made is not valid because some people do enjoy those movies despite they don't have wide appeal. My niece's favorite movie when she was younger was Aladdin. She loved the straight to dvd sequels too.
I'm another company that has expanded my dvd creation abilities so it only costs me $0.05 to create a DVD. I never create my own work. I wait for someone else to publish something and then sell it at prices that they cannot afford because they had to pay for the creation of the content on the dvd and all I had to do was copy.
End hypothetical.
You can put this into practice for *any* industry. And I do not see why without copyright there would not be businesses that crop up that have this exact model. You get someone else to make your content without you having to pay a dime. It's awesome like free money.
I care about pirates only a little. I care about businesses that crop up and just steal creative work for resale.
I'm asserting I cannot create the things that I really want to make unless I can count on an income. The things I create aren't one off little pieces of crap. They aren't weekend hobby projects. It is where I pour my feeling and thought. I have quite a bit of talent and knowledge in this area. I want to create. It is the reason I love this profession. It is the feeling of creation I get. But at the same time. I like to eat and be able to feel like I get value for my work.
And bullshit. Before copyright knowledge wasn't shared it was held closely by the church or private companies. You'd be able to benefit from the stuff that is there now. But less would be created going forward because the opportunity to do ANYTHING that is creative in those areas can ONLY be weekend work after you're burned out from your 50 - 60 hour hourly wage position that you can't speak up against because there's a lot more competition.
Arguing that I don't want to be creative or that my work is so simple it can be done just 20 hours a week (assuming 10 hours each weekend day) is insulting. You have a very simple world view if you think true creative work can be accomplished by just working on weekends.
And one more note... that person or persons who do give me money to make the game or whatever... they actually will have A LOT more input into what I create than I do because I won't have the option of saying no if I want to have any profit off of it.
Some people like being able to pick the Uwe Bolls though. And honestly I would never be able to publish anything personally. Since I wasn't born into a rich family and the odds of me being able to pimp an idea to get enough funding to actually produce it are incredibly small. Alot of the artists we know didn't make a dime and lived in poverty and were appreciated only years after their deaths. I think a system where people can be paid for the output of their work instead of raising funding before hand based solely on ideas and promises is a much more liberating world where risks are even possible to be taken.
In a world without copyright. I cannot take the risk to start my own game company. There is no potential for gains unless I get someone to buy into me first. I need to be a marketer first and a producer second and a developer somewhere down the line. I can't let my product speak for me because I won't be paid for my product.
Actually it puts the creation of content into the hands of those that can afford to pay for creating it (i.e. the elite). Consumers don't usually pay for stuff sight unseen or if they do they usually don't pay for much or work by unknown (independent) artists or craftsmen.
And just to throw it out there, before copyright a very select few creators of content were paid. Not nearly the variety we have today.
I would say boycott the avenger if they kept this guy, but since they dumped him it is ok. However any company that keeps this asshat needs to be boycotted.
I don't view pharmaceutical companies in a bad light because the pills are expensive. I understand the expense I am paying for is the drug (including all the research) not the individual pill. The only time I view them in a bad light is when they try to lock in a price past time for the patent to expire because they want to keep making big profits past their allotted time.
The same thing is true of games for me. I understand I'm not paying for the 1s and 0s being put on my machine. I'm paying for the development on it.
I have been asked to do this in a programmer position. It was a rotating thing. I hated it, but it was part of the job to mop the floors in the bathroom.
Slashdot Mirror
I signed it. It took a bit because I had to register and wait for an email etc. I also didn't see this till about 20 minutes ago. I'm hoping the long ass signup process doesn't dissuade people from signing, but that's possibly the main reason that it isn't getting the rapid signatures.
Shakespeare and Roman poetry were performance arts, that's how they made their money. Butts in seats. My favorite part of the digital age is watching what I want when I want it. And not having to cram my fat ass into a tiny seat at a scheduled time some 30 - 60 minutes away from home in order to consume content.
Private patronage means only people with money get to pick what media we get to consume. You won't see much that isn't pro-1%. Because that's the best way to make money, don't piss off the people who give you money. Personally I don't really like a world that isn't free to cater to specific views. And forget about the diverse consumer base that the creation of the digital medium has allowed. (Compare tv shows from the 80s (mostly boilerplate family comedies like Bill Cosby Show, Family Ties, and Full House) to tv shows today with the expanded diversity in available stations to watch).
And as to so many classic performances created before copyright, how many are made per year? Was anywhere NEAR the amount of content produced then as now? Now that could be because of the fact that people had to do other things, like be a serf. Or because the world population was much smaller. Or even that many ancient plays and literature are lost to history. This counterpoint to copyright is a little more interesting. But I'm willing to bet that content creation is a more viable way of making a living now than it was before. Most of those poets and authors you mention, like Dante and Chaucer, came from affluent families that didn't have to work. Though the argument could also be made that it shouldn't be a viable way to make a living.
And honestly I want to understand why you feel you have an intrinsic right to something I made simply because I made it on a computer? If I make a game it doesn't automatically benefit humanity as a whole if I distribute it for free or if it is copied repeatedly. If I make the same game out of wood blocks do you suddenly not have an intrinsic right to it?
Sounds like he wants to educate people about what is piracy instead of adding more laws.
How is a man who makes money off of "piracy" not also someone who exploits workers since he doesn't give money to anyone who worked to make that content?
"obnoxious, arrogant, self centred fuckheads" pretty well describes most of the women I know professionally. Or at least who managed to achieve anything professionally (caveat, not usually professors though). They're usually unwilling to make compromises, and would rather complain about someone else, or blame someone else than actually solve problems.
I have not had this experience in any professional capacity and I've had the fortune to work with quite a few women. I treat most women I work with as professional and give them the opportunity to win my respect. Most of them earn it. I have met some that don't but I've met more guys that don't. They complain the same amount as the guys I know and make the same number of compromises.
I think most women just want to be treated the same as you do male colleagues. Give them opportunity to earn respect. Give them the same workload. And give them opportunities to do interesting work. I think when they don't get those things is when they complain more or are dismissive of you.
Not trying to say anything about your work style or ethic. It sounds like you would be really good at solving complex problems. But just a critic of that line.
Reading the whole line for a large scale problem it sounds good. But I cringe when I read "long and hard on any problem". It would make me wonder if you would spend a long time trying to determine how to best implement and architect a new button for members to sign up. What I would want as a hiring manager is someone who can quickly understand a problem and spend the appropriate amount of time and effort into fixing it. If it is a large complex problem I want you to work long and hard. But I'm not going to hire someone who is only good at working on large complex problems.
If I knew yes. For the same reason I obey copyright. I think the content creator deserves compensation and I want to help provide funding for him to continue to make more content.
Maybe you're right and I am just short sighted in seeing how I can produce creative content for profit when it is easily legally copied by anyone and where that is the correct moral choice. I can think of one path to have some level of compensation for my labor, the donation path, but I haven't seen that earn enough money where I can actually pursue a dream of making creative content.
The argument that I should be able to pursue that dream is the only thing that would be a flaw here. If the assertion is I shouldn't be able to make a living making creative content that does make me quite sad, but if that is the world you think we should live in...
And to break your hypothetical. I don't deserve compensation for it. Because it isn't worth anything. I'm asserting the content I create is valuable and worth the time people put into it (otherwise they wouldn't. Bad books don't get read and bad games don't get played). If the content is not valuable then no I don't expect to earn a dime and I wouldn't want to. I don't want to steal your money any more than I want you to steal my labor.
Not necessarily a personal preference. I'm arguing you wouldn't be able to easily at a glance tell the difference. And for an average person who is just going into a store to buy something why should they make the "morally right" choice when you're arguing that it is immoral to not allow this practice.
And most people who count on others to just act morally right usually end up bankrupt or robbed. Personally I choose not to pirate. I think the practice is harmful and I like the socialized cost of major productions that are produced since I really doubt they could be produced at an affordable level otherwise. I don't believe socializing the cost is possible without copyright since the item you produce at the end effectively has no value. The odds of having the original maker's product directly next to the copier's product is actually very small. Those are always deals worked out with stores for display stands. And it wouldn't even have to be up there for that long before the original maker would be put out of business.
Another hypothetical for you:
I create a fantastic game that has the potential to be a market changer. Let's call this game CraftMine. I do a limited release of it to get some user feedback so that I can make improvements. EA gets hold of one of these limited release copies. And they take the game and publish it as EA's WorldBuilder! And it is on shelves in the next week. Without copyright this is not illegal. But the vast majority of the public will believe that EA actually published the title and the original creator is just trying to make mods for the game. I as the original creator wasn't even selling the game yet and am now unable to even try to make money off of my labor.
End Hypothetical
(disclaimer: I have nothing to do with the creation of Minecraft. I just think this is an example where copyright is really extremely useful.)
Ok exactly the same except using a different font for Disney. Would an average person know the difference?
The $4 one. As an average buyer I don't know what the difference is. They both say "Famous Movie directed by John Doe".
Honestly without copyright they can look 100% the same. It is possible that the two boxes would look *exactly* the same.
The argument for cars is true where increased number of venues for the resale of vehicles and the increase in competition makes it so that consumers have to pay a minimum price and everybody still makes a profit. But that isn't the correct analogy because there's not that many companies that actually sell cars. The individual sellers are resellers. Ford sells Ford cars to resellers. If say Ford sold a car and it was not illegal for say Chevy to completely copy their design and make the same exact car without having to pay for any of the research and development that went into creating the car Chevy would easily be able to sell the car at a margin Ford could not find sustainable.
When it comes to creative content like movies and games and music and art the cost to just copy and distribute vs the create and distribute is even more disparate where there is no way someone who creates a large scale creative work could ever compete with a copy and distribute provider.
And there are movies that don't make enough money to be profitable until they hit dvd racks. Not to mention movies and shows that are "straight to DVD". And the argument that straight to DVD is solely made up of poor quality and probably shouldn't be made is not valid because some people do enjoy those movies despite they don't have wide appeal. My niece's favorite movie when she was younger was Aladdin. She loved the straight to dvd sequels too.
Hypothetical:
I'm another company that has expanded my dvd creation abilities so it only costs me $0.05 to create a DVD. I never create my own work. I wait for someone else to publish something and then sell it at prices that they cannot afford because they had to pay for the creation of the content on the dvd and all I had to do was copy.
End hypothetical.
You can put this into practice for *any* industry. And I do not see why without copyright there would not be businesses that crop up that have this exact model. You get someone else to make your content without you having to pay a dime. It's awesome like free money.
I care about pirates only a little. I care about businesses that crop up and just steal creative work for resale.
nods agree it is a good thing. and I think there are opportunities with open source. Just didn't think it was the best rebuttal :)
I'm asserting I cannot create the things that I really want to make unless I can count on an income. The things I create aren't one off little pieces of crap. They aren't weekend hobby projects. It is where I pour my feeling and thought. I have quite a bit of talent and knowledge in this area. I want to create. It is the reason I love this profession. It is the feeling of creation I get. But at the same time. I like to eat and be able to feel like I get value for my work.
And bullshit. Before copyright knowledge wasn't shared it was held closely by the church or private companies. You'd be able to benefit from the stuff that is there now. But less would be created going forward because the opportunity to do ANYTHING that is creative in those areas can ONLY be weekend work after you're burned out from your 50 - 60 hour hourly wage position that you can't speak up against because there's a lot more competition.
Arguing that I don't want to be creative or that my work is so simple it can be done just 20 hours a week (assuming 10 hours each weekend day) is insulting. You have a very simple world view if you think true creative work can be accomplished by just working on weekends.
In the scale of the number of employees employed by fortune 500 companies I would say that 300 is few.
And one more note... that person or persons who do give me money to make the game or whatever... they actually will have A LOT more input into what I create than I do because I won't have the option of saying no if I want to have any profit off of it.
Some people like being able to pick the Uwe Bolls though. And honestly I would never be able to publish anything personally. Since I wasn't born into a rich family and the odds of me being able to pimp an idea to get enough funding to actually produce it are incredibly small. Alot of the artists we know didn't make a dime and lived in poverty and were appreciated only years after their deaths. I think a system where people can be paid for the output of their work instead of raising funding before hand based solely on ideas and promises is a much more liberating world where risks are even possible to be taken.
In a world without copyright. I cannot take the risk to start my own game company. There is no potential for gains unless I get someone to buy into me first. I need to be a marketer first and a producer second and a developer somewhere down the line. I can't let my product speak for me because I won't be paid for my product.
Actually it puts the creation of content into the hands of those that can afford to pay for creating it (i.e. the elite). Consumers don't usually pay for stuff sight unseen or if they do they usually don't pay for much or work by unknown (independent) artists or craftsmen.
And just to throw it out there, before copyright a very select few creators of content were paid. Not nearly the variety we have today.
Yes. They are. A lot of people I knew who supported Bush supported him solely because of his support of the military.
I would say boycott the avenger if they kept this guy, but since they dumped him it is ok. However any company that keeps this asshat needs to be boycotted.
But you are vastly missing out if you don't get the unicorn horn. It just changes the whole cup.
I don't view pharmaceutical companies in a bad light because the pills are expensive. I understand the expense I am paying for is the drug (including all the research) not the individual pill. The only time I view them in a bad light is when they try to lock in a price past time for the patent to expire because they want to keep making big profits past their allotted time.
The same thing is true of games for me. I understand I'm not paying for the 1s and 0s being put on my machine. I'm paying for the development on it.
I have been asked to do this in a programmer position. It was a rotating thing. I hated it, but it was part of the job to mop the floors in the bathroom.
Those are the wuss version of lawn jarts. It isn't real lawn jarts if it isn't made of metal with a 3 inch spike on one end.