Thanks for that link, mr. ploppy. That article certainly is better than the questionable one given earlier. And, I might add, quite illuminating.
Your Join Date is given as April 2010, so I doubt you've been giving this argument for a year and a half, at least not over here. So the fact I haven't seen that evidence isn't because I'm hard of learning, it's because I don't follow you around on the Internet or in your personal life to know what arguments you've made elsewhere.
Any researcher worth his salt will tell you that survey results are debatable. And specially when it comes to surveys paid for by a party or group with a vested interest in one particular outcome... well.
This survey was paid for by Vuze; hardly an objective third party. Would you also gladly accept the results of a survey paid for by Koch Industries (Google 'Koch Industries' and 'biggest polluter' to see why I mentioned them) that showed there is no such thing as global warming?
You're right. Your answer wasn't worth it. Mainly because it was way off base. The change I made didn't change the meaning. It merely turned your argument back against you. Something I did to demonstrate that such righteous indignation can be said by anyone about anything.
And I guess we should all just take your word for it.
I assure you, there is plenty of ignorance on display here on both sides of the fence.
If someone can't afford to spend what it takes to defend their ownership, that's unfortunate, but it's not an argument in favour of abolishing copyright altogether. One could, for example, create an organisation or group that would pool together resources to fight such battles on behalf of authors that can't do it on their own.
Laws allowing individuals to launch suits against corporations that have harmed them are also only beneficial to those that can afford the legal fees. Since not everyone can, should we just get rid of them entirely? Just say 'tough luck' to, say, the people whose water supply has been poisoned by scrupulous chemical plants?
Neither you nor any one of the other 'good guys' have said anything that proves abolishing copyright will necessarily help creativity flourish, nor that existing copyright is preventing the same. You
say it is, but that's just your words against someone else's.
I am absolutely willing to see the supposed errors of my ways, with a sound argument based on facts and irrefutable logic and evidence, but no one here has yet succeeded in doing that. All I see are personal anecdotes, hearsay, vague but grandiose platitudes, and self-serving proclamations.
What a pointless remark. In any case, I assure you, your own opinions on what other creators should do carry absolutely no more (or less) weight than mine. So please, do leave the attitude at home.
And for the record, I couldn't care less about "what [you] should do creatively without people to tell [you] what they think".