 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Dave Schuler
| | | | (...) That makes a lot of sense. My concern, at present--and forgive me for lapsing into my own pet crusade for a moment--is that the scourge of Postmodernism, among others, has yielded an unprecedented load of manure, and many (not here, (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Frank Filz
| | | | | (...) People who write worthwhile material will be supported irrespective of ability to copy protect their work. In fact, ultimately, the consumers will protect the works (why should I let you read my copy of XYZ, when you can download it yourself, (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Dave Schuler
| | | | | (...) Where and when is this magical land? And how does one get there, because clearly this philosophy has little to do with the state of the market today, or of any time in the past four centuries, since the concept of authorship came to the fore. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Dave Schuler
| | | | | (...) Ooops! No, it doesn't, but I sure thought it did. Did it previously? Dave! (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen
| | | | | (...) I didn't think there was a non-profit status, as such? More a sort of "not profitable right now" status, the last time this came up. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
