Dotcom raid illegal

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Please don't talk such absolute nonsense. I make a very nice living as a programmer, thank you very much, but I certainly make no apology for hating with a passion the sort of people who try to take that living away from me by operating (and using) pirate sites.

I think we can make distinctions between those who set up illegitimate websites for the sole purposes of selling pirated software and those who torrent ebooks for pleasure.

Or do you hate both groups equally?

[HarryT]

It's the people who download, when they would otherwise bought, who are responsible for depriving authors of their livelihood.

[stonetools]

And it's very debatable that piracy hurts authors in the first place. If anything, simply not being known is the worst thing an author faces. An author with a fanbase will make money.

Only if those fans SPEND money. Guess what, they they don't accept fan adulation and reader appreciation as payment for food at the grocery store.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Only if those fans SPEND money. Guess what, they they don't accept fan adulation and reader appreciation as payment for food at the grocery store.

But they do accept it as payment for word of mouth at the "get your ass noticed in first place" store.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

In context, this quote is about the rights of states, not of individuals.


Having some books/movies/games, to use your scare quotes, "stolen" is inevitable in the digital world, just like in stores. One price for living in human society is that some people will manage to take other people's property, intellectual and otherwise, without their permission. I want to mildly discourage that, and we can discourage it without turning our world into an unfree hell-hole like, oh, say, Jefferson's plantation.

Check out how it works in France, where a free and open internet coexists with a more serious anti-piracy regime (warnings, with eventual possibility of service cutoff) than in most other countries. There was talk of the new socialist government repealing the anti-piracy law, but based on details found here, they are keeping it. This is about what seems in store for the US, and I don't see where my freedom of expression, or freedom to read, will be harmed.

Cosign. The idea that the two options are either a free and open Internet or totalitarian regimentation is a false dichotomy. There is another option-that of ordered liberty and the rule of law. That's been the way of Western civilization since invention of the US constitution ( which had IP rights baked right in-the Bill of Rights was added AFTER the IP rights clause).

There is also this from the UN Declaration of Rights :

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

From the POV of the UN, pirates aren't the harmless pests or "freedom fighters" as many on this forum believe: rather, they are human rights violators pure and simple.

Extending the rule of law to the Internet is going to be next step in the evolution of the Internet. Its inevitable and even better than that, its the right thing to do. We don't know how many artists have been afraid to put their work on the Internet because they're afraid it will be ripped off, but the number must surely be more than zero.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But they do accept it as payment for word of mouth at the "get your ass noticed in first place" store.

You can't cash " word of mouth" either, mate. At some point you have to support artists with the best form of support possible- money.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

You can't cash " word of mouth" either, mate. At some point you have to support artists with the best form of support possible- money.

I'm not denying that at all. I'm simply taking offense at your implication that "adulation" and "reader appreciation" aren't perfectly valid currency in the "I want to be a successful author" market. It all plays a part. The formula for success in this game simply can't be boiled down to $$ like you always seem to want to do. Word of mouth = sales = more books = more word of mouth = more sales = more books = career.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by stonetools

You can't cash " word of mouth" either, mate. At some point you have to support artists with the best form of support possible- money.

No, actually you never do, if you choose not to.
Over time the level of amateur artists with day jobs continues to rise and surpasses the professionals of days gone by.

In art, in literature, and in sports.

And the semi professionals lie in between.

There are garage bands and teenage texas fiddlers putting their stuff on YouTube who are every bit as good as the top 40 acts of decades past. For that matter, there are skits on YouTube every bit as good as fare from the old late night and variety shows.

No matter how many articles on the merits of Indie writers versus BPH articles show up and are debated here, nothing has or will derail the continued ascendance of indies against the BPHs in terms of over all market share. Youths have limited discretionary funds and the habits they develope today will stay with them.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm not denying that at all. I'm simply taking offense at your implication that "adulation" and "reader appreciation" aren't perfectly valid currency in the "I want to be a successful author" market. It all plays a part. The formula for success in this game simply can't be boiled down to $$ like you always seem to want to do. Word of mouth = sales = more books = more word of mouth = more sales = more books = career.

Then we agree. What I'm arguing is the idea that creators should be thankful for getting "word of mouth" from having their work pirated.
Should Harry T be thankful if someone sends him an email saying " Wow, I downloaded this from Pirate Bay and this is great software! I'm forwarding the TPB link to all my friends! Thanks and keep up the good work!


With much love and Admiration,
Free Downloader.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Then we agree. What I'm arguing is the idea that creators should be thankful for getting "word of mouth" from having their work pirated.
Should Harry T be thankful if someone sends him an email saying " Wow, I downloaded this from Pirate Bay and this is great software! I'm forwarding the TPB link to all my friends! Thanks and keep up the good work!


With much love and Admiration,
Free Downloader.

Sorry, I didn't get that sentiment from your post. All I read was a dismissal of anything other than money in the author/reader relationship. My apologies... we do agree in this instance.

EDIT: But to be clear... even though I don't condone (or practice) piracy (or as I like to say "downloading for free what the authors expect to be paid for")... neither do I consider the appreciation/word of mouth/adulation that can be accrued through that particular practice completely and utterly "unspendable" by the author. That is all.

[stonetools]

No, actually you never do, if you choose not to.
Over time the level of amateur artists with day jobs continues to rise and surpasses the professionals of days gone by.

In art, in literature, and in sports.

So wait a second, do you pay much if anything to watch amateur sports? Do you get treated by amateur doctors? Do you take legal advice on important affairs from amateur lawyers? Because you're a fool if you do.

I'm afraid art is like everything else, mate. It requires dedication and constant effort to create good art and an insane amount of dedication to create great art. Just read your MALCOLM GLADWELL
Any true artist is going to want to dedicate himself to his art full time. He can't do that unless he can make a living at it. If Steven King couldn't have made a living writing books, with a wife and child to support , he'd had gone into the laundromat management business (or something else) and that would most likely have been that.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's the people who download, when they would otherwise bought, who are responsible for depriving authors of their livelihood.

And it is equally true, then, that

• It's the people who borrow from the library, when they otherwise would have bought, who are responsible for depriving authors of their livelihood.
  
• It's the people who borrow from friends, when they otherwise would have bought, who are responsible for depriving authors of their livelihood.
  
• It's the people who buy from secondhand stores, when they otherwise would have bought new, who are responsible for depriving authors of their livelihood.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I'm afraid art is like everything else, mate. It requires dedication and constant effort to create good art and an insane amount of dedication to create great art. Just read your MALCOLM GLADWELL
Any true artist is going to want to dedicate himself to his art full time. He can't do that unless he can make a living at it. If Steven King couldn't have made a living writing books, with a wife and child to support , he'd had gone into the laundromat management business (or something else) and that would most likely have been that.

Self-proclaiming that one is an artist does not make one an artist.

Dedication and effort aren't enough. What's needed, first, is talent.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by stonetools

So wait a second, do you pay much if anything to watch amateur sports? Do you get treated by amateur doctors? Do you take legal advice on important affairs from amateur lawyers? Because you're a fool if you do.

I'm afraid art is like everything else, mate. It requires dedication and constant effort to create good art and an insane amount of dedication to create great art. Just read your MALCOLM GLADWELL
Any true artist is going to want to dedicate himself to his art full time. He can't do that unless he can make a living at it. If Steven King couldn't have made a living writing books, with a wife and child to support , he'd had gone into the laundromat management business (or something else) and that would most likely have been that.

If your mind equates a neccesity like medicine with luxuries like art and sports, I can see how you were able to arrive at the position you are flailing so wildly to defend.

Thus you arrive at your contention that works by people working a regular job are not art (however well recieved and enduring in popularity) because the artist wasn't "dedicated."

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Self-proclaiming that one is an artist does not make one an artist.

Dedication and effort aren't enough. What's needed, first, is talent.

All three are needed. We agree.

A fourth is also needed: a way to get paid.
An artist who isn't getting paid will be doing work where he does get paid.