| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Sciortino wrote:
| |
I refuse to believe what Brittany Spears does is “art.” ;)
|
No argument there, it was just an example of wealth from someone whose supposed
career is making music. Her real career is more truthfully hypnotizing youth
culture with her boobs so that they buy into a fake Barbie & Ken music fantasy
of sugar water and other obnoxious unnecessaries.
| |
...but I don’t see it as such a problem if people can’t make big
money and live in mansions for creating art (even great art). On the other
hand, if they can’t even earn enough to live in a decent house and raise a
family, that’s very bad. The bottom line is, if the system I’ve described
were to actually be implemented, many things wouldn’t change, but many great
things would never be created. You’ve made me think about that. As we say
in Unreal Tourney, nice shot. ;)
|
I’m not sure. If the library database were funded such that it could purchase at
least 50,000 copies of something deemed valuable (say by a direct vote of at
least as many library users) then maybe some people could actually make a living
creating strictly for the library and not being too worried about sales to
individuals. In a way, this scheme could open the door to real patronage
instead of it being strictly at the whim of some fairly bizarre market forces
deemed important by the current publishing/distribution industries.
| |
Then again, people find the time to do what they love.
|
Exactly so.
BTW, there’s this article I was just tipped off to from Slashdot:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/929428.asp?0cv=TB10
Why the government is now in the business of prosecuting patent and copyright
violations remains a mystery to me. One Slashdot commentator made an extremely
astute point about such legislation passing the cost of a what should be a
corporate (and therefore private) concern to the taxpayers (as if the public
should foot the bill of what the music industry wants to do). Do I have to
mention that something that used to be conceived of as a civil dispute between
private parties is now being seen primarily as a criminal matter under more
recent laws (Sonny Bono, etc).
How much more nonsense must we endure before some of this stupid patent and
copyright law is undone and the commons returned to the people? I think when
the law has gotten to a point where it is pointedly ridiculous and unfair,
people just stop caring and move onto things like P2P because it just makes more
sense to them. I mean, I can’t believe the music industry is doing those
crippled CDs that won’t play on computers -- that is not only unfair, it’s not
even complying with Philips CD standards, right? So people mistakenly purchase
something that looks like a CD but isn’t really a CD after all. Yeah, good luck
taking that back to a music retailer after you’ve opened it. Obviously getting
stuff for free is a motivating factor, but so is reasonableness.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Possession
|
| "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:HGuL5F.1xox@lugnet.com... (...) defeat fair (...) there is (...) I say DRM is bad because I just can't imagine a form of DRM that doesn't expand outwards away from the purposes outlined (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
