Imagine copyright free Europe
- Thread starter cvrle77
- Start date
- Status
13 comments
ServerDeals
Active Member
People would just stop making stuff. Whats the point of making a new action flick for millions of dollars if you will not make back your investment? Why would a artist tour to promote a album that isn't going to sale? I know uploaders will not care about these two facts, but if things like this happen. Better be ready to watch dogs getting chased in backyards on home video before you see a Ironman 3. Its natural economics. If it doesn't work...Stop using the model.
Plus I enjoy taking girls too the movies
What am I going to do then? Try and convince them to come back to the house?
Plus I enjoy taking girls too the movies
What am I going to do then? Try and convince them to come back to the house?People would just stop making stuff. Whats the point of making a new action flick for millions of dollars if you will not make back your investment? Why would a artist tour to promote a album that isn't going to sale? I know uploaders will not care about these two facts, but if things like this happen. Better be ready to watch dogs getting chased in backyards on home video before you see a Ironman 3. Its natural economics. If it doesn't work...Stop using the model.
Plus I enjoy taking girls too the movies
I can't disagree more.
There's tons of artists giving their music for free, because that's how it supposed to be. Music is art. I will live without exploiters, and parasites.
Also, TONS of artists can't make better movies with better scripts, because of monopoly some people have on making movies.
There would be no uploaders, if all stuff is free. Movies and music would be FAR better.
Economics is not natural thing. It's invented, to enslave you. If you don't know nothing about economy, it's not worth discussion. Luckily you are not running any country.
ServerDeals
Active Member
As much as I wished people were more giving I cannot believe it would work itself out. Imagine you are a artist. You have spent years and years looking for a big break. Put in hours and worked multiple jobs to help provide for those around you while still chasing a dream.
Now you've realized your dream and want to make a living off of it. Well firstly if you are not independently signed then you have a record label. This entails that you make a certain number of records and go on a certain number of tours. Tour money is great don't get me wrong but you have no life. No you get a percentage off record sales which is small but if you make 10% on every dollar then you want to sell more. But because of the free interest others have in acquiring your goods free of charge you may sale about 100,000 on a good day nowadays if you are up and coming. So you made a whole 10,000 off of a album that your probably put in about 3-4000 in equipment or booth rental fees that you may or may not have acquired. They take a cut for your time depending on your deal. Everything you do or need makes a piece of pie disappear. So now you are forced to tour and tour and tour and there is no guarantee that record label will still promote you without making a profit, but you still have a contract you are obligated to take care of making little to no money at all.
I'm sure those people would prefer that you go out and support them more then download and distribute. Most artist make samples for youtube and other outlets to give back to the fans. Whats wrong with spending 12 dollars on a album which can make or break a persons career.
I am no saint but a truly negligible law hurts most people more then it does the big fish.
Now you've realized your dream and want to make a living off of it. Well firstly if you are not independently signed then you have a record label. This entails that you make a certain number of records and go on a certain number of tours. Tour money is great don't get me wrong but you have no life. No you get a percentage off record sales which is small but if you make 10% on every dollar then you want to sell more. But because of the free interest others have in acquiring your goods free of charge you may sale about 100,000 on a good day nowadays if you are up and coming. So you made a whole 10,000 off of a album that your probably put in about 3-4000 in equipment or booth rental fees that you may or may not have acquired. They take a cut for your time depending on your deal. Everything you do or need makes a piece of pie disappear. So now you are forced to tour and tour and tour and there is no guarantee that record label will still promote you without making a profit, but you still have a contract you are obligated to take care of making little to no money at all.
I'm sure those people would prefer that you go out and support them more then download and distribute. Most artist make samples for youtube and other outlets to give back to the fans. Whats wrong with spending 12 dollars on a album which can make or break a persons career.
I am no saint but a truly negligible law hurts most people more then it does the big fish.
What you don't see is, that those who aren't pirated, sell nothing. And make nothing. Because they sux. Piracy is free advertisement internet platform for every artist. Even with millions of free downloads of Madonnas latest album, I don't see her on the street, begging for money. This is the part 99% of people don't get at all. Both you and DMCA mafia, think, if someone downloaded free song, he would never buy it, because he have it already, and he can listen it free. The thing we see in piracy is, we can listen and see what we should buy, before we do it, and this is what they don't offer as option. There's more crap than good things. Actually, there's only 10% of good, and 90% of things just to take money out of your pocket for complete crap. They know they produce crap most of the times, that's the reason why you can't watch the movie before you buy it.
Last edited:
ServerDeals
Active Member
There are also things called mixtapes which artist release free of charge to promote their upcoming albums free world piracy would make it pointless to even bother trying to sale because production costs would outweigh the profit on music. Many times if people purchase music it is because they either can't find a song so they buy on amazon or they have stressed all viable free outlets or were scored from a bad download. Mixtapes offer a album worth of free music from a artist. Their blood sweat and tears worth of music which will never see the opportunity to sell. I am no saint when it comes to things like downloading but I can make no proper justification for it at the end of the day because everyone has to eat and if I was a artist I wouldn't want to have to work at a grocery store part time to maintain a decent income.
the thing that you dont understand is that, if there is no copyright, there will be no creation, for the simple thing that you can easily steel any song/software/anything and can promote it as you yourself created it.
this will certainly spawn a new generation of stealers (they are already here), who's sole motive will be to copy / modify creations.
sole purpose of copyright is to protect the rights to copy, without the permission of creator.
you should not force the creator , and creator must be able to use his creation in anyway he wishes (to give it free, to sell it or to completely destroy it). Sometimes money is the sole motivator of the creator.
i would like a clear opinion about economy from you, because what i understand from your posts, you are suggesting that we simply stop using money, and go back to stone age.
p.s. - have seen hundreds of similar discussions, but it never gets old
keep arguing about this.Nothing should be taken personally.
LMFAO: if there is no copyright, there will be no creation
Are you SERIOUSLY serious? What do you think there was, before copyright law? We had no art? We had an art in it's pure form. What you see now is commercialization, and has nothing to do with creativity, or art, for that matter.
When you create something for free, no one will 'steal' it because it's free. Who stole firefox? How did it managed to survive all these years? Who stole Open Office? Who stole Linux? And there is nothing bad if you improve something to perfection, or have ability to change something to suit your needs, or taste and not being scared to go to jail because of that.
Sole purpose of copyright is to rip you off your money, and stop creation spirit. Because, you can't modify it. You can't make it better. You can only buy original crap. Artist makes only max 10% from sales, that is like $4 per sold CD with price tag of $40. Cost of that CD per CD to be made is $5/100.000 sold copies. rest is pure profit that someone showed up his ass.
Creation is spirit, form of expression, vision, sense, you don't need money for that. Money is bad motivator, it's already scientifically proved.
Here's the example of that: creation of CPUs.
At the time dual core CPUs were out, creators already had technology to develop CPUs far more than you are currently able to buy. But, they won't sell you 64/128 core CPU today, because they can slowly rip you off your money through years. THAT is economy, and THAT is slowing down progress. Because of copyright.
You are not buying the most quality stuff. Puma almost got closed because of that, 25-30 years ago they made shoes that could last for a decade. They almost got broke because once you buy their shoes, they don't see you for a decade. So, instead of having best, we have worst, overpriced stuff, wasting resources, because that's the way you make more profit.
I say, fuck that.
What about resources, pollution, future generation that will live in mountains of trash we made? My kids and grandkids, your too, are supposed to live in a future WE built.
Are you SERIOUSLY serious? What do you think there was, before copyright law? We had no art? We had an art in it's pure form. What you see now is commercialization, and has nothing to do with creativity, or art, for that matter.
When you create something for free, no one will 'steal' it because it's free. Who stole firefox? How did it managed to survive all these years? Who stole Open Office? Who stole Linux? And there is nothing bad if you improve something to perfection, or have ability to change something to suit your needs, or taste and not being scared to go to jail because of that.
Sole purpose of copyright is to rip you off your money, and stop creation spirit. Because, you can't modify it. You can't make it better. You can only buy original crap. Artist makes only max 10% from sales, that is like $4 per sold CD with price tag of $40. Cost of that CD per CD to be made is $5/100.000 sold copies. rest is pure profit that someone showed up his ass.
Creation is spirit, form of expression, vision, sense, you don't need money for that. Money is bad motivator, it's already scientifically proved.
Here's the example of that: creation of CPUs.
At the time dual core CPUs were out, creators already had technology to develop CPUs far more than you are currently able to buy. But, they won't sell you 64/128 core CPU today, because they can slowly rip you off your money through years. THAT is economy, and THAT is slowing down progress. Because of copyright.
You are not buying the most quality stuff. Puma almost got closed because of that, 25-30 years ago they made shoes that could last for a decade. They almost got broke because once you buy their shoes, they don't see you for a decade. So, instead of having best, we have worst, overpriced stuff, wasting resources, because that's the way you make more profit.
I say, fuck that.
What about resources, pollution, future generation that will live in mountains of trash we made? My kids and grandkids, your too, are supposed to live in a future WE built.
Last edited:
barcodenation
Active Member
People would just stop making stuff. Whats the point of making a new action flick for millions of dollars if you will not make back your investment? Why would a artist tour to promote a album that isn't going to sale? I know uploaders will not care about these two facts, but if things like this happen. Better be ready to watch dogs getting chased in backyards on home video before you see a Ironman 3. Its natural economics. If it doesn't work...Stop using the model.
Plus I enjoy taking girls too the movies
Actually most musicians dont really tour to promote their cds its more of a promotion to the group/band/artist. Yes people are likely to purchase a CD because of the concert but in most cases they either already have the cd, dont need it, and are their for the live experience. If this happens they wont quit making music or movies because there will always be people that go to the theaters to watch it for the experience and bands will do probably twice as many live shows to make up for it. Speaking of that chances are there will be a boost in amounts of music and movies and an increase in the amount of cds or albums created to make up for the decline in cd sales. Sure it could go either way but it wont. Real musicians will still produce music and actors who dont wanna do anything else will just try to be in more movies. Basically movies will have to be better, and live shows will have to be twice as good. if you are a crappy actor or a shitty musician... C-yA!
---------- Post added at 01:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 AM ----------
Very well said my friend... Very well said!
Lemme quote
Clearly,if there was no copyright, i would be developing a new browser named "waterhorse", from the source of firefox, and firefox could not make me shut it down, or claim that i am using their code. on the contrary , i would be saying in my website that firefox stole my original code. and since i am doing this from the time of firefox's start, most people would be confused,as the new releases would be almost similar.
and ultimately firefox will have no option than to either secure their source code or shut down further development. both will defeat the whole purpose.
you cannot force a creator to freely share his work, neither can you force him to NOT share his work for free.
Whoever shares his work for free, its good, but who sell their stuff, its not bad .
I have always been a supporter of more freedom on internet, but a totally free internet would be a nightmare.
Let me again quote our uncle Ben Parker,
Internet has great power,and "with great power comes great responsibility."
That too reminds me about the fact in copyright free world, i have my own comics company named "Marvelous" (i can even name it marvel, since there is no copyright) , and the new issue of "Revengers" is out.
also, i am not so much sure about the dual core thing you mentioned, but competition is a solution for such things, if there is no monopoly in market, there will not be such cases.
You can't steal firefox code, and claim it's yours, because yourself wouldn't have any copyright. And ofc there's more than one version of firefox out there, modifications, etc. It's free to be modified, and you don't pay for it ffs. Did they shut down their development? No they didn't, your argument failed.
They are keeping the right on their trademark. Note the difference between the trademark, and patent copyright.
When you put a copyright on a song, or a movie, no one can use any part of it, watch it free, modify it, or do anything else, than pay, and watch/listen in a closed box. You are not even allowed to sing it, and make a video, it cannot go in background of your video, while your are recording something completely irrelevant even.
WTF do you see bad in that? How's it bad to stimulate someone's creativity? That only motivates original creator to make things better, or be replaced. It's called freedom. I can modify your product, and make it better, and offer it for free to others. Where is the bad thing in that? Whle you are looking at the benefit of minority, I am looking at benefits of entire population, in every aspect.
Well, I am, and about which competition we are talking when there's 3 main companies on the market developing CPUs (IBM,Intel,AMD), and holding the monopoly over it?? They make internal deals, and all profit from that. They are buying other small companies, and kill them, because they develop too fast. Best example of this is 3dfx Interactive, that had fastest GPU in their time of existence, got bought off by NVidia, and their project got shut down completely because of the bankruptcy. If there's 100s of CPU makers, things would probably be different. Exactly same thing is happening with every small company, they are either being killed by big dogs, or eaten by them.
They are keeping the right on their trademark. Note the difference between the trademark, and patent copyright.
When you put a copyright on a song, or a movie, no one can use any part of it, watch it free, modify it, or do anything else, than pay, and watch/listen in a closed box. You are not even allowed to sing it, and make a video, it cannot go in background of your video, while your are recording something completely irrelevant even.
WTF do you see bad in that? How's it bad to stimulate someone's creativity? That only motivates original creator to make things better, or be replaced. It's called freedom. I can modify your product, and make it better, and offer it for free to others. Where is the bad thing in that? Whle you are looking at the benefit of minority, I am looking at benefits of entire population, in every aspect.
Well, I am, and about which competition we are talking when there's 3 main companies on the market developing CPUs (IBM,Intel,AMD), and holding the monopoly over it?? They make internal deals, and all profit from that. They are buying other small companies, and kill them, because they develop too fast. Best example of this is 3dfx Interactive, that had fastest GPU in their time of existence, got bought off by NVidia, and their project got shut down completely because of the bankruptcy. If there's 100s of CPU makers, things would probably be different. Exactly same thing is happening with every small company, they are either being killed by big dogs, or eaten by them.
Last edited:
- Status