|
7th March 2010, 20:06 | #161 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
7th March 2010, 20:06 | #162 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
asghasdhoaidhoqhdoqjwod;asdadas |
|
7th March 2010, 20:13 | #164 |
|
Lightspeed
lol why you getting your dick in a twist over what Biff says, everyone knows anything he says amounts to dogshit.
p.s Fuck Up xpand Last edited by ?>Superman : 7th March 2010 at 20:14. |
7th March 2010, 20:21 | #165 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
7th March 2010, 20:22 | #166 |
|
Hannibal, isn't it time you started banging on about the 128k upstream limit again?
|
7th March 2010, 20:24 | #167 | |
|
lol, I'm just a great fuckin' troll when I want to be. I laughed when I posted this:
Quote:
TM always has to have the last word too, but he's not pushing any agenda as far as I can see. It's your own bigotry that compels you to see everything as some kind of religious attack.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
7th March 2010, 20:28 | #168 | |
|
Quote:
It's just that people give me an excuse to say something! |
|
7th March 2010, 20:30 | #169 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
7th March 2010, 20:32 | #170 |
|
Do you have any other accounts other than Biff and Hannibal?
|
7th March 2010, 20:32 | #171 |
|
Oh good I was hoping someone would ragequit but I had my money on Bandalador tbh
|
7th March 2010, 20:32 | #172 |
|
Wow
|
7th March 2010, 20:34 | #173 |
Awesome Ring Master
|
^^ ? fuck off
|
7th March 2010, 20:35 | #174 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
7th March 2010, 20:36 | #175 |
|
So, this Copyright Amendment Bill..................
__________________
asghasdhoaidhoqhdoqjwod;asdadas |
7th March 2010, 20:36 | #176 |
|
Hmm... the name rings a bell... same old shit as his other accounts?
So... Biff, Hannibal, Ross, Haliburton... am I missing anything? |
7th March 2010, 20:36 | #177 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
7th March 2010, 20:37 | #178 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
7th March 2010, 20:39 | #179 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
7th March 2010, 20:40 | #180 |
|
I'LL KILL YOU!
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
7th March 2010, 20:43 | #181 |
|
I'LL KILL YOU BACK!
|
7th March 2010, 20:43 | #182 |
Awesome Ring Master
|
CAN SOMEONE KILL ME, PLEASE?!
|
8th March 2010, 02:15 | #183 |
|
So lets get back to the topic at hand, namely copyright.
I typically buy games made by companies whose games I've enjoyed in the past or games that are cheap enough and convenient enough to purchase that I don't care if they're shit. I "steal" games I suspect aren't worth the money or that I might eventually buy if it turns out to be of value. I "steal" all traditional media because it's not supplied in a format that is worth paying for, except for the occasional album I'll buy that's DRM free. I enjoy classical music for free because that's how classical music should be enjoyed. In my opinion of course. And I think I'm justified in my behaviour. I've grown up with all these things intrinsic to being who I am, intrinsic to being a kiwi. Now I've grown to be an adult and I don't want this dished out to me as certain "industries" feel fit to serve. Like fuck I'm giving money to jack-offs who are trying to get rich from something they haven't produced. Particularly for cultural treasures like art, music, media.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
8th March 2010, 02:19 | #184 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
8th March 2010, 15:15 | #185 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
|
8th March 2010, 15:23 | #186 |
|
I'm assuming he's talking about oldschool shit which was written by composers centuries ago.
|
8th March 2010, 15:26 | #187 |
|
Orchestras still have to play the music and somebody has to record it, make the CDs and distribute them.
|
8th March 2010, 15:40 | #188 | |
|
Quote:
But what about the rest of what I said? Is it all bullshit, or does it have some merit?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
8th March 2010, 15:51 | #189 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
8th March 2010, 15:59 | #190 | ||
|
Quote:
If you feel media is in a format that is not suited for you, buy it and format-shift it (yeah, I know, legalities etc) but don't share it, either that or just don't use/watch/listen-to it. Both radio and internet broadcast costs money, and internet is entirely privately-funded - how do you propose remunerating the people for that broadcast? Quote:
You've declared many badly-stated justifications for copyright infringement, which basically boil down to "I buy games from outfits I've had good games from previously and the rare album, but other than that I feel entitled to media I've put no effort into the production of, for free." and that does not a defence against copyright infringement make. Disclaimer: I'm no better than you on this score
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية Last edited by crocos : 8th March 2010 at 16:01. |
||
8th March 2010, 16:01 | #191 | ||
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
1. The composer is dead and the music is in the public domain. 2. People know it, and like it, in that order, because of that order. There's lots of great new classical music getting written, but you'll never hear it because it's new therefore people don't know it therefore people don't like it therefore it's not sellable. Edit: knew I'd posted something like this before. Quote:
|
||
8th March 2010, 16:18 | #192 | |
|
Quote:
As I was saying... There are no good defences against copyright infringement - but then that's not the issue; The root motivation is that it's simply more convenient to "pirate" the media/games/etc and the more impediments they put in-place for prevention of that piracy actually encourages more people to pirate - the media companies need to move with the times. Copyright legislation was supposed to encourage and nurture creativity, but as it gets more draconic in defence of Big Media it is starting to have the opposite effect because of how Big Media are choosing to enforce their rights: Yes your rights as the copyright owner are better protected, but because of how these things are being enforced there's a HUGE public backlash against traditional media sources, making it harder to be compensated for your efforts, so less actual creative endeavours are embarked upon and you get the "generic boy-band" effect where those that can provide backing are only investing in known-working formulas, which means the public become less interested so less people buy them, which makes Big Media apply more political pressure... a classic vicious cycle that benefits no-one (except those political animals that have their hands out). EDIT: Oh so Mr big-shot forum admin type can edit his posts /grump <3 ya really Si
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية Last edited by crocos : 8th March 2010 at 16:23. |
|
8th March 2010, 17:19 | #193 | |
|
Quote:
When you had to pay for physical CDs/Vinyl the publisher would pay for the work, and get the profit from CD sales. However since copying music now is as easy as *click* *click* *drag* *click* this model breaks down. So I would suggest in this new world of digital media where if it's digital, it should be free. It's not easy to know how the new model will fall out. But to answer your question: I don't know who would pay. I have a few ideas how the orchestra could get paid. 1) Some rich fucker pays the orchestra, and then gives out the music for free digitally, cos they are rich. 2) A loose co-op forms in order to commission a piece. Each members stumps up money, which then is spent on hiring everyone to make and record the piece. The co-op then gives away the music. 3) Someone sets up a live performance in order to record it. Punters pay ticket prices to hear the music. Recording is given way for free (cos the audience would be recording on their cellphones anyway). 4) Someone stumps up money to record the piece, gives it away via a website where you have to listen to some ad before you can download the music. Assume only 10-20% of people will actually see/hear the ad and the other 80% will copy it sans advertisements.
__________________
"I distinctly remember leaving my God at home in my room where he won't interfere with my life." -Quan Zee Teng |
|
8th March 2010, 17:53 | #194 | |
|
I think the important thing you highlight is that there are other ways.
Quote:
But who cares if they can't sell it. If a person truly wants to make such music, they will make it.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
8th March 2010, 20:49 | #195 |
Always itchy
|
Sure a composer will still write such music, but there's little point when they can't get the 50 odd people together under one roof to perform a full orchestral piece.
Lightspeed, it's cool that you think the human spirit has an indomitable desire to create, but there is a financial reality that you continue to pretend does not exist, that causes many people to simply not be able to abandon their daily grind to go and write the next Great Kiwi Novel or breakthrough Composition. Sure, a single writer could go and live in a hippy commune - what about anyone with dependents? Or debts? Or those that like to live in a world where they can go and get a Big Mac whenever the fancy takes them? Someone needs to fund the great majority of creativity. Pretending that everything that is created now will still be created if the creators live off lentils in a hippy commune is just deluding yourself about the reality of the situation. Full time creativity is a job.
__________________
4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36° |
10th March 2010, 07:36 | #196 | |
|
Post-three-strike-law-france
Quote:
|
|
10th March 2010, 10:28 | #197 |
|
^big surprise.
|
10th March 2010, 20:05 | #198 | |
|
Quote:
Do you not have mates who both have bands and full time jobs? I have several. Employment in Western society is typically only 40 hours per week. That leaves a lot of time for people to follow their passion. And personally I am much more interested in art that is created out of passion rather than necessity.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
10th March 2010, 20:39 | #199 | |
|
Quote:
The underlying question is whether or not people would still 'create' in the broader sense of the word, be it art/music or new technologies to help progress mankind further, if they knew there would not be any money involved. I answer yes since I still write music to this day without a dollar sign in my head. If Copyright is abolished or redesigned I would guarantee that real artists who have a true passion in an art form would still provide the world with their creations.
__________________
asghasdhoaidhoqhdoqjwod;asdadas |
|
10th March 2010, 21:03 | #200 |
Always itchy
|
lightspeed, how many of those mates sell copies of their albums? Sure, music isn't all about making money - but a reasonable measure of the success of an artist is how many people want to listen to them.
Xpandz, have you tried selling your music? Did many people want to listen to it? My point isn't to attack you or your friends musical abilities, but to highlight the massive divide between a hobbiest, and professional musician. I can't actually the point of this? Something about copyright is bad? : >
__________________
4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36° |