why paying for movies/games/audios?

[Coolio]

alasdairm, I have no desire for recognition, credit, or profit from any creative endeavors I finish. I would never copyright or patent anything, no matter how much money I invested in the product or idea. I do not believe any legal framework where you can have a police officer handcuff me and take me to jail for violating the terms of the framework by making duplicates of information without harming your original copy, is a legal framework that I want any part of. It disgusts me. The egotistical desire for recognition that motivates so many successful people also disgusts me.

Intellectual property is a fiction I find offensive.

 

[alasdairm]

My right to copy 0's and 1's freely...

again, what makes you feel you have any such 'right'?

also, what does "information wants to be free" mean?

finally, please post your address and phone number as well as your bl login and password in this thread. thanks.

alasdair

 

[alasdairm]

alasdairm, I have no desire for recognition, credit, or profit from any creative endeavors I finish. I would never copyright or patent anything, no matter how much money I invested in the product or idea.

right. that's your choice. you get to make that choice but you want to deprive others of that choice. what do you feel gives you the right to make that decision for everybody else?

coolio, do you like movies? ever visit the cinema? do you sneak in for free every time?

i should probably make something quite clear at this point. i'm not engaged in this disussion because i think the status quo is perfect. far from it - i think the music industry middlemen are the problem and have been screwing people for years. i think they're hugely overcompensated for what they do.

alasdair

 

[Hatious]

It is realistic. I don't think you appreciate the exponential rate at which technological progress is being made. In our lifetimes self-replicating nanomachines, true artificial intelligence, cyborgs and androids and robots and eugenics and infinitely complex genetic engineering and infinite amounts of clean energy and all sorts of other sci-fi concepts from the 20th century are going to become reality. Humanity might not last very much longer, but its technology will.

Okay, but don't you think that the majority of technological progress that has been made and that continues to be made is because of a system that generally speaking does not operate in a manner consistent with your example of a 'transparent information society'?

Self-replicating nano-machines, AI... etc. will likely be developed by governments or by private companies. Even if such initiatives are publicly funded at first, it is likely that profits of such things will be privatized at least to some extent.

 

[Coolio]

alasdairm, I'm not particularly a fan of movies. I like Tarantino movies (I'd give him free drugs if I ever met him), stoner comedies, and anime.

I also don't really listen to music that isn't mainstream (I like a wide variety of mainstream music, but all of it is stuff you could hear on a radio station in at least one state or country). Some shit, like Melt Banana, but I gave them money when I went to see a show of theirs the one time in the last 5-10 years they toured in New England. If they'd come back I'd give them more money.

But my lack of interest in indie music or movies is irrelevant.

My interest in open source software is far more revealing. It's a model I'd like to see replicated in all forms of art. You're allowed to profit from your creative works, but you can't tell me I can't copy it. If I want to buy your copy, it's because I want to, not because you're imposing your will upon me as a consumer of a meme you created. Art is nothing but a bunch of memes, and memes are self-replicating.



Hatious, self-replicating nanomachines will more likely lead to grey goo or the destruction of life on earth.


name: dennis moran
phone: 603-285-5630
bl login: Coolio
password: blblblbl

 

[anhalonium9]

right - because, again, i propose a lot of people just pay lip service with their "i steal music to stick it to the man not the artist" excuses when, in reality, they don't give a shit about anybody but themselves and their free copy of some cd...

alasdair

i don't think ppl not caring about anyone but themselves is exclusively a copyright protection problem. that would fall under the catagory of ppl that suck in general. my motivation in downloading music, or files, or what ever is not to fuck anyone. it's just simply the only way that i am able to hear the music at all. if i don't, then i'm fucking myself over by reducing the quality of the content i consume. i like music and the power of music. to me its the music that matters. if i have 100 dollars spending money left over, but i wanna add some memory to my compter and i also want to listen to the new smoo mcgoo box set and they both cost the same, then i could get the box set free (ideally...in reality it would prolly not even be available on p2p anyways...b/c there just aren't any smoo mcgoo torrent being posted) and buy the memory instead. but what if i was gonna get the memory instead and what if i was never actually gonna buy the box set. if i was never gonna buy one in the first place, then how is anyone being hurt. the only thing that is happening is i'm being exposed to some of smoo mcgoo's music, and if it's good, i spread the gospel, and i get some other ppl to listen or even buy it and they become fans and go to the concerts and buy shirts....i'm actually doing smoo a favor by giving him free publicity and smoo wins. he makes mad money. but smoo's still whining that he's been violated (metallica) and smoo's record label tracks my ip and sues me based on this and i lose everything because i have to put a legal defense...smoo actually profits from me and then actively prosecutes me and ruins my life b/c i liked his art.

that's why ppl just say fuck everything. why am i being prosecuted on moral grounds by a moral authority which is morally curropt. it's insanity.

same thing with drugs.

...thats an extreme example, but i bet that scenerio has already happened.

but really i just wanted to listen to music cuz i thought smoo was a stand up guy and i wanted to support his art.

 

[anhalonium9]

i should probably make something quite clear at this point. i'm not engaged in this disussion because i think the status quo is perfect. far from it - i think the music industry middlemen are the problem and have been screwing people for years. i think they're hugely overcompensated for what they do.

alasdair

you get some gutterpunk points for that.

 

[alasdairm]

alasdairm, I'm not particularly a fan of movies. I like Tarantino movies (I'd give him free drugs if I ever met him), stoner comedies, and anime.

you didn't answer the second question - have you ever been to the cinema? did you sneak in?

My interest in open source software is far more revealing. It's a model I'd like to see replicated in all forms of art. You're allowed to profit from your creative works, but you can't tell me I can't copy it.

how do you see that working practically?

you should probably delete that personal information. the question was more to make a point than to have you actually post it...

alasdair

 

[anhalonium9]

to me it's simply selfish and it reminds me of spoiled kids but maybe i'm stretching it a little far now. their arguments certainly strike me a childish as does the "me! now!" attitude in general.

finally, i truly hope these people one day create something and it is stolen. not because i wish them misfortune or harm. just because i think that's the only way they might catch a glimpse of what it feels like...

alasdair

1. there are ppl like that, but to label everyone in the community as such is a stereotype and is wrong.

2. i had a HD stolen with all my poety on it from a special period of my life. that's theft. it is gone. i don't have it. i don't need to know what it feels like cuz i'm willing to bet it feels alot worse on my side.

 

[Coolio]

alasdairm, I don't think I've ever snuck in. There are two reasons I wouldn't sneak into a cinema.

One, I've never gone except in a group. The rest of the group has never suggested sneaking in.

Two, if caught I could have the cops called on me for trespassing. I would have to deal with some punkass security employee, then police, in a worst case scenario.

Because the theatre is owned by someone, and operated by someone, and I'm paying for the privilege to sit in their seats and be bombarded with a unique stream of photons coming from their physical movie projector, I am not particularly offended by this. I'm very offended by their no cameras allowed policy, especially since it's a policy that's not in the best interests of the consumer.

 

[anhalonium9]

i think the less money artist have, the better their art is.

and also we should all keep an artist in the cellar as a slave to produce our content. then we can trade our slave for someone elses slave. i think it would be a great distribution system. and when your slave isn't producing content for you, you can have a gang rape party for all your friends.

 

[alasdairm]

1. there are ppl like that, but to label everyone in the community as such is a stereotype and is wrong.

if you had been here longer, you might know a little more about me and know that overgeneralising is a hot button of mine too. i didn't mean to imply that those omments applied to everyone in the community. i thought it was obvious that my comments were aimed specifically at those taking a "i'll copy music and i don't care what anybody thinks" position in this thread.

2. i had a HD stolen with all my poety on it from a special period of my life. that's theft. it is gone. i don't have it. i don't need to know what it feels like cuz i'm willing to bet it feels alot worse on my side.

i'm obviously sorry to hear that.

One, I've never gone except in a group. The rest of the group has never suggested sneaking in.

I live my life the way I want to live it...

are you two related?

Two, if caught I could have the cops called on me for trespassing. I would have to deal with some punkass security employee, then police, in a worst case scenario.

there was me thinking you were some crazy-eyed rebel in the badlands of obvlivion, living your life the way you want to live it and flipping off the system but you're scared of some spotty 20-something security guard at a cinema?

as hatious said, way to tell the system to go fuck itself.

Because the theatre is owned by someone, and operated by someone, and I'm paying for the privilege to sit in their seats and be bombarded with a unique stream of photons coming from their physical movie projector, I am not particularly offended by this. I'm very offended by their no cameras allowed policy, especially since it's a policy that's not in the best interests of the consumer.

why is sitting in a cinema seat watching a movie a privilege but listening to a music track is not?

i'm exaggerating a little to make the point but i think your arguments are inconsistent and your responses just reinforce, to me, the fact that a lot of music/data copying is done in the name of high ideals when, in reality, it comes from a rather more selfish place.

thanks for your responses. i did ask you a few more questions which you've chosen to skip. i'm still interested in answers to those.

alasdair

 

[Mehm]

I'll definitely read this thread later tonight or something.

Here's how I see it. Almost all of the music on my computer is stuff that I probably would never listen too if I didn't download it for free. If I then listen to the music and like it, there is a very high probability that I will pay that person for their work when the opportunitiy arises (IE I see their album somewhere or they perform live in some location).

Basically, I'm going to either take something for free, be exposed to it, and probably give that artist money when I can, or I'll never hear it in the first place and the artist will never see a dime from me.

I'm sure artists prefer the first to the second.

I mostly listen to internet radio anyways..

 

[Coolio]

there was me thinking you were some crazy-eyed rebel in the badlands of obvlivion, living your life the way you want to live it and flipping off the system but you're scared of some spotty 20-something security guard at a cinema?

as hatious said, way to tell the system to go fuck itself.

I'm more interested in not dealing with confrontation. I don't have any moral qualms about paying the cinema employees for operating the projector and such. This is physical reality, where it takes time and effort to produce the services paid for.

In the case of copying music, the only time and effort it takes to generate a copy of the music is my own.

why is sitting in a cinema seat watching a movie a privilege but listening to a music track is not?

Because the music is made up of sound waves, produced by my own stereo equipment, and the information which encodes the pattern of sound is stored on my own media. I've put forth the time and effort to store and reproduce the sound waves on my own physical property. I don't believe the person who created the first instance of this specific pattern of sound waves has any moral right (of course they have a legal right) to tell me what I can do with my own stereo equipment, and the air molecules in between my speakers and my eardrums.

In no way am I saying I think artists who create music I enjoy don't have a right to make a living by creating music. I'm saying they don't have a right to force artificial scarcity in a market just because it's more comfortable for them that way. Until they can find a way to live comfortably while creating music using an unregulated free market, or not enough people agree with me or psychetool or the Pirate Party to make it possible for me to duplicate copyrighted material for free, I'm going to disregard copyright law where it's applicable and not feel any remorse.

 

[SA]

I mostly listen to internet radio anyways..

same here

 

[anhalonium9]

same here

me three

 

[alasdairm]

I'm more interested in not dealing with confrontation.
In no way am I saying I think artists who create music I enjoy don't have a right to make a living by creating music.

i think this is where we disagree. to me, your actions say exactly that.

i have to admit i am trying to approach this with an open mind but i am finding it extremely challenging, if not impossible, to see it your way.

do you feel that a composer has the right to not have their work altered without their consent?

do you feel a composer has the right to be attributed as the composer of a piece?

what do you feel gives you the right to make decisions regarding content on behalf of others?

(hypothetically) you write a story. somebody copies it, attributes it to themselves and sells it for a million dollars and publicly basks in the fame . truthfully, how would you feel?

thanks

alasdair

 

[Coolio]

do you feel that a composer has the right to not have their work altered without their consent?

no

do you feel a composer has the right to be attributed as the composer of a piece?

Honestly, I have no idea. It's a seemingly harmless request, and I can't see anyone taking offense to this kind of requirement being law. I hold very extreme views, and while I can imagine someone else with more extreme views, I'd find it hard to imagine someone who would say no, the composer doesn't.

what do you feel gives you the right to make decisions regarding content on behalf of others?

The fact that I am not interacting with their content, I'm interacting with a duplication of it that exists outside of the original copy, and hasn't harmed their original copy in the duplication process. The whole concept of intellectual property is an unnatural modern concept that may serve a seemingly noble purpose, but it's an affront to nature to consider intangible thoughts and ideas and knowledge as property.

 

[StagnantReaction]

If independent artists get robbed simply by not raking in enough money for a living due to big corporations, then I'll gladly steal from the big corporations. Hell, I steal all the time from any chain store I can.

I'll steal this country into socialism, damnit.

 

[alasdairm]

Honestly, I have no idea. It's a seemingly harmless request...

the right to be identified as the creator goes to the very heart of the moral issues we're discussing. i find it odd that you haven't considered it.

The whole concept of intellectual property is an unnatural modern concept that may serve a seemingly noble purpose, but it's an affront to nature to consider intangible thoughts and ideas and knowledge as property.

an affront to nature? what's nature got to do with it.

so you have no rights regarding your own thoughts? they're not yours? they 'belong' to me (or, say, the ministry of truth) as much as they belong to you?

on alteration without consent, you feel it's ok for the bl admins to edit your bl posts so they say something totally different, without your consent?

again, (hypothetically) you write a story. somebody copies it, attributes it to themselves and sells it for a million dollars and publicly basks in the fame . truthfully, how would you feel?

alasdair