Because art is from the soul, not from demand for cash or self-entitlement.
How are artists supposed to make a living then? Are you suggesting they shouldn't make a living from their work? How would that work..
"If we make everything free", what do they need to make a living for? Everything is free!
Are you talking about a world where food and shelter and *everything* is free? This is completely different to talking specifically about digital goods. In case of that world, then money would not exist anyway (look up Gene Roddenberry's vision). That's quite different to the idea that *only digital creators* should work for free, in world where everyone needs money to survive. So which is it?
You're not interested in 'understanding both sides' at all. You want to argue / debate things unintelligently.
On the contrary, I do want to understand your opinion. So far, whilst other people have made valid points, yours seem to fall apart at the seams. I wish to understand how a world where everyone has the right to make a living except digital artists (whether it be software or any kind of art or intellectual property), could be deemed as 'fair'. I've read all the replies so far, and the varying posters opinions' can only be summarised that there seems to be a great divide in belief. Some think it's only right to rip off the big companies (like microsoft), some (like yourself) think digital artists can make a living whilst still being ripped off (but you don't state how), whilst others admit creation would be almost destroyed while all this copying is going on (and say people don't know what they're talking about). Meanwhile, you've now changed your argument to say that *everything* in the world should be free (a contradiction altogether from your earlier posts).
I call bs.
How ironic!
errrrrrm.. they do [make a living].
But in your world where everything digital is suddenly free, apparently they wouldn't.
(Sep 10, 2014, 12:42 pm)bobwilson Wrote: [ -> ]If someone chooses to work for free, shouldn't that be their choice?
Yes.
So how can you advocate for a society that takes away this choice from some people? A society where digital creators' are forced to suddenly give all their work away for free - that takes away this choice to earn from their work. Your argument is falling apart again. Your 'ideology' is no less than a dictatorship; where people are told what they can and cannot do to earn (by forcing free downloads for everything you take away the option to sell digital goods), instead of being based on a free market where the creator decides whether he wants to try to sell or give away.
(Sep 10, 2014, 12:42 pm)bobwilson Wrote: [ -> ]As for a cure for disease, it's perhaps a little more contraversial, but have you considered the possibilities? What if a man gets a bank loan and spends a huge amount of money and time researching a cure for a disease. Why should we all benefit from his discoveries while he goes bankrupt unable to pay the loan back? Does he not at least deserve recognition and the ability to live a life (pay for his food and roof over his head). All he needs is to get paid for his hard work, like anyone else. Perhaps there are two sides to every coin.
Your argument has no merit to a filesharing thread. It has merit in a fascist European Parliament negotiating trade deals with third world countries. Either way all you're doing is coming off as a heartless bastard.
But then you could also be viewed as heartless. Your arguments advocate for a world where those who created cures potentially live in poverty or die, whilst everyone else benefits. On another level, by forgetting that necessity is the mother of invention, you don't consider the impact on a global scale of the almost complete destruction of creativity. The only world in which your ideas would work, is in a world without money, poverty, or material needs, but instead you argue for only a specific group of people to work for free, in a world where they need money to survive. It's illogical.
You really can't tell the difference between sharing and stealing, and are displaying the psychological maturity of a five year old.
Fuck the sick folks, pay the man!!!
One more time, with feeling please, BUTT IT"S STEALING BAAW!!11!#@
Do you consider your position so weak that it cannot withstand debate? It's a shame that when your opinions are debated you have to resort to petty insults. I'm trying to give you a chance to show logic behind your points. I personally would love a world where everything is free, as I'm sure everyone would. But this would only work if *everything* is free including food and accommodation etc. You can't single-out a specific group of people to not earn in a world where they need to earn to survive. They would just end up having to do different jobs, and the creative industries would be dramatically smaller if not destroyed; big budget films for example would be a thing of the past. Advertising alone has proven not enough to support many ventures. Many creative small software companies would be destroyed, and only the largest would survive (the ones who have the support of big name advertisers).
(Sep 10, 2014, 12:42 pm)bobwilson Wrote: [ -> ]Many of us are guilty of downloading on pirate bay or other sites, but I don't understand this idea that we are somehow noble or doing something right. If we're just sharing stuff people made and chose to be free to share, that's one thing, but we're sharing things that professionals developed and it's their livelihood.
Time moves on and so does technology, media, marketing, publishing, distribution. It's no longer 1970, 1980 or even 1990. Theory, practice, theory. If the media industries can't re-theorise that's their loss. They'll stagnate whilst others soar.
Get over it, many professionals already have.
So basically, you've decided you don't like how it works and that they need to re-theorise so that you can get their stuff for free, but you don't know how they would do that. And you think I have the psychological maturity of a 5 year old?
(Sep 10, 2014, 12:42 pm)bobwilson Wrote: [ -> ]Just because we don't have the money to download music, does this make it right to steal it? Or should we maybe do a few more hours overtime to earn the things we want? I'm not advocating any particular opinion but could someone explain this concept to me that these things should be free and their creators live in poverty? We can't assume every creator is rich like Bill gates.
Cest la vie.
And, yes, you are advocating.
Furthermore 'work more hours' is offensive on every level.
In your mind it's ok for working stiff, Joe Pleb, to live in poverty but not Joe Media Creator.
I'm afraid your panties are showing.
I enjoy my panties showing. 'working hours' was a crude example. When I worked as a waiter, I saved for months doing overtime to buy a piece of gear I wanted. I saved even harder to get an education. You assign Joe pleb and Joe creator designations as if it's part of their genetic code. You forget that Joe pleb has the option to be a creator. But no, in my mind, it's ok for working stiff Joe Pleb to work his way up to live comfortably, and Joe Media Creator to work his way up from zero to live comfortably.
In your mind, it's ok for Joe stiff pleb to get everything for free whilst he sits at home every day on benefit while Joe Media Creator works his ass off 12 hours a day and lives in poverty.
(Sep 10, 2014, 12:42 pm)bobwilson Wrote: [ -> ]If the whole world worked for free, do you think society would funciton?
Yes.
Awesomely.
And who would do the jobs no one else wants to do? Take the rubbish out... run restaurants... inspect peoples' poo-ey ass holes for diseases. But seriously, since you've thought it through so carefully, tell us how this would work.
(Sep 10, 2014, 12:42 pm)bobwilson Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt many people would bother to create anything. Who would drive the trains, run the shops, make clothes or grow food? And what about software? What right do we have to decide whether a programmer who spent years studying & working, has a right to get paid for his work or not? What gives us the right to force him to starve unable to afford his bills or roof over his head, while we benefit from his work for free?
I would suggest there would be more creativity, shed loads more of it, and the jobs that need doing would still be being done. Some people enjoy driving trains, collecting garbage, cooking your food. It may be unthinkable to you, but so are many other things.
Quite the contrary, I'm an advocate of Gene Roddenberry's vision. But we live in a world where many people would rather stay at home watching Jeremy Kyle than do an honest days' work. That's the current reality of it. Until the human race evolves beyond this, a solution would need to be found to do the less desirable jobs, and simply saying "someone will do it" is unfortunately not a realistic answer. Your idea of making digital creations free, only targets digital creators. If instead you want everything to be free, stop targeting online downloads for your own benefit, and start making a world campaign to make everything free! It's an entirely different concept.
There are many jobs that not enough people *want* to do; cleaning up blood in an abertoir for example. In order to get society function they have to offer extra compensation to get enough people to agree to do those jobs.
(Sep 10, 2014, 12:42 pm)bobwilson Wrote: [ -> ]We all think of the big companies who hold monopolies, like Microsoft or Apple but what about the small to medium sized businesses or average men who have mortgage and bills to pay and need to feed themselves like everyone else- what gives us a right to take away their income for their hard work?
Oxygen.
I've had personal thanks from musicians and film directors after I 'illegaly' bought their work and shared it. Not rich egomaniac celebrity gods, but folks who financed their content themselves by re-mortgaging their family homes and working their asses off in their day jobs.
So boo ya sucks to that argument.
And what about those unique small companies that had plenty of custom until their products were pirated. They trusted the public enough not to put serials on their products.. but then went bust because of piracy. You don't hear about them, but they do exist. Then the very customers who pirated their products, complain that they went bust.
(Sep 10, 2014, 12:42 pm)bobwilson Wrote: [ -> ]Again, I'm not advocating any opinion but would like to understand the logic behind this a little better.
I don't believe you.
Well this comment says more about yourself. Believe it