Ha! Like the Apple vs Samsung trial, where the lady couldn't tell the two tablets apart. 'They are confusing, aren't they" (Phil Schiller)
I never wrote that I "feel I am entitled to steal others work".
I firmly believe:
copyright material should be protected,
artists should be rewarded for every item sold, no matter how popular their work becomes,
people shouldn't illegally share or sell that material,
people should read up on local laws before passing judgement. Did you know it's perfectly legal to download copyright material in The Netherlands? Yup, put BitTorrent to work 24/7 - all fine with the Dutch government. (I won't elaborate on that or post a link; you search as to why that's ok)
I pointed out your reference to Switzerland not being a civilised country, which comes across as derogatory. What Relic did, copying her procured DVD's to cloud storage for the benefit of accessing the movies without lugging an invention from 1997 along before being hospitalised. Yes, she did use the word 'pirating' but people should read a post more thoroughly when reading a word like that as it could have been used jokingly. As it was used. What did you expect her to do, buy a laptop with an ODD and take 1000+ DVD's into the hospital?
By your reasoning it was wrong to copy the new Sly Stone album on tape so you could funk out in the car (something which is perfectly legal as the costs of tape contained copyright stuff so the artists would receive royalties. Just like blank CD's et cetera.
No, I never said that. My point was that giving access to "friends " (outside you nuclear family) was in fact stealing.
I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted for using material they themselves own (even within their nuclear family)
Every argument comes back to personal (or family) use and that has never been my contention. Making copies for friends is however.
If you want to give a friend a copy as a gift, buy them one (or gift it on iTunes) Distributing (or giving access to) copies of someone else's work ("friends or not) is stealing, no if ands or buts.
If you are OK with stealing someone else's work, fine. But don't try to rationalize it as something other than that.
Ha! Like the Apple vs Samsung trial, where the lady couldn't tell the two tablets apart. 'They are confusing, aren't they" (Phil Schiller)
I never wrote that I "feel I am entitled to steal others work".
I firmly believe:
copyright material should be protected,
artists should be rewarded for every item sold, no matter how popular their work becomes,
people shouldn't illegally share or sell that material,
people should read up on local laws before passing judgement. Did you know it's perfectly legal to download copyright material in The Netherlands? Yup, put BitTorrent to work 24/7 - all fine with the Dutch government. (I won't elaborate on that or post a link; you search as to why that's ok)
I pointed out your reference to Switzerland not being a civilised country, which comes across as derogatory. What Relic did, copying her procured DVD's to cloud storage for the benefit of accessing the movies without lugging an invention from 1997 along before being hospitalised. Yes, she did use the word 'pirating' but people should read a post more thoroughly when reading a word like that as it could have been used jokingly. As it was used. What did you expect her to do, buy a laptop with an ODD and take 1000+ DVD's into the hospital?
By your reasoning it was wrong to copy the new Sly Stone album on tape so you could funk out in the car (something which is perfectly legal as the costs of tape contained copyright stuff so the artists would receive royalties. Just like blank CD's et cetera.
No, I never said that. My point was that giving access to "friends " (outside you nuclear family) was in fact stealing.
I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted for using material they themselves own (even within their nuclear family)
Every argument comes back to personal (or family) use and that has never been my contention. Making copies for friends is however.
If you want to give a friend a copy as a gift, buy them one (or gift it on iTunes) Distributing (or giving access to) copies of someone else's work ("friends or not) is stealing, no if ands or buts.
If you are OK with stealing someone else's work, fine. But don't try to rationalize it as something other than that.
Problem is, when does giving become stealing? If I've bought a book, I own that book and can do what I want with it. If I give it to a friend, it's not stealing. If I give a friend a song I've got, I don't consider that stealing, either, even if the letter of the law says it is.
There is a fundamental difference between mass piracy and sharing between family and friends. The former is piracy, a form of theft, whilst the latter is not.
Unfortunately, you seem to be incapable of seeing the difference. Therefore, my friend, I suggest you slink off whence you came, so you may contemplate the error of your ways in peace.
Ha! Like the Apple vs Samsung trial, where the lady couldn't tell the two tablets apart. 'They are confusing, aren't they" (Phil Schiller)
I never wrote that I "feel I am entitled to steal others work".
I firmly believe:
copyright material should be protected,
artists should be rewarded for every item sold, no matter how popular their work becomes,
people shouldn't illegally share or sell that material,
people should read up on local laws before passing judgment. Did you know it's perfectly legal to download copyright material in The Netherlands? Yup, put BitTorrent to work 24/7 - all fine with the Dutch government. (I won't elaborate on that or post a link; you search as to why that's ok)
I pointed out your reference to Switzerland not being a civilised country, which comes across as derogatory. What Relic did, copying her procured DVD's to cloud storage for the benefit of accessing the movies without lugging an invention from 1997 along before being hospitalised. Yes, she did use the word 'pirating' but people should read a post more thoroughly when reading a word like that as it could have been used jokingly. As it was used. What did you expect her to do, buy a laptop with an ODD and take 1000+ DVD's into the hospital?
By your reasoning it was wrong to copy the new Sly Stone album on tape so you could funk out in the car (something which is perfectly legal as the costs of tape contained copyright stuff so the artists would receive royalties. Just like blank CD's et cetera.
There is no use talking with someone who is a hardliner on any subject, they will always be right and you will always be wrong. Just don't interact with him any longer on the subject, you'll just get frustrated.
Holy Moses, the irony! You just exploded some scientist's instruments with that screamer. You'd better post a dozen times in a row with snippy little nonsenses, awful punnages, and TS reach arounds to balance the scales back.
Holy Moses, the irony! You just exploded some scientist's instruments with that screamer. You'd better post a dozen times in a row with snippy little nonsenses, awful punnages, and TS reach arounds to balance the scales back.
Problem is, when does giving become stealing? If I've bought a book, I own that book and can do what I want with it. If I give it to a friend, it's not stealing. If I give a friend a song I've got, I don't consider that stealing, either, even if the letter of the law says it is.
There is a fundamental difference between mass piracy and sharing between family and friends. The former is piracy, a form of theft, whilst the latter is not.
Unfortunately, you seem to be incapable of seeing the difference. Therefore, my friend, I suggest you slink off whence you came, so you may contemplate the error of your ways in peace.
It becomes stealing when you distribute a copy and keep the original. (Or keep a copy and distribute the original)
Problem is, when does giving become stealing? If I've bought a book, I own that book and can do what I want with it. If I give it to a friend, it's not stealing. If I give a friend a song I've got, I don't consider that stealing, either, even if the letter of the law says it is.
There is a fundamental difference between mass piracy and sharing between family and friends. The former is piracy, a form of theft, whilst the latter is not.
Unfortunately, you seem to be incapable of seeing the difference. Therefore, my friend, I suggest you slink off whence you came, so you may contemplate the error of your ways in peace.
It becomes stealing when you distribute a copy and keep the original. (Or keep a copy and distribute the original)
Get over it man, I know you think we're "enemies" or something, but I really don't give a crap about you, your little squabbles, your man-crush on TS, or your pretend Christianity. Stop dragging this shit over the whole forum, I don't like being stalked.
Problem is, when does giving become stealing? If I've bought a book, I own that book and can do what I want with it. If I give it to a friend, it's not stealing. If I give a friend a song I've got, I don't consider that stealing, either, even if the letter of the law says it is.
There is a fundamental difference between mass piracy and sharing between family and friends. The former is piracy, a form of theft, whilst the latter is not.
Unfortunately, you seem to be incapable of seeing the difference. Therefore, my friend, I suggest you slink off whence you came, so you may contemplate the error of your ways in peace.
It becomes stealing when you make a copy and give it to someone outside you nuclear family. (or keep a copy and loan or give the original)
If you loan someone a book that is not stealing. Same thing with a DVD, unless you have also copied that dvd (and/or are giving them a copy)
You also can't photocopy (or scan) books and then "give" them to people. That is stealing
It's a pretty simple concept, I think the reason some of you are having trouble is that you don't like to think of yourselves as thieves. But, if you are coppying material and distributing that beyond your family, you most certainly are. So own it, or don't do it.
There is no use talking with someone who is a hardliner on any subject, they will always be right and you will always be wrong. Just don't interact with him any longer on the subject, you'll just get frustrated.
That is good advice. I wish more people would copy it.
There is no use talking with someone who is a hardliner on any subject, they will always be right and you will always be wrong. Just don't interact with him any longer on the subject, you'll just get frustrated.
That is good advice. I wish more people would copy it.
It becomes stealing when you make a copy and give it to someone outside you nuclear family. (or keep a copy and loan or give the original)
If you loan someone a book that is not stealing. Same thing with a DVD, unless you have also copied that dvd (and/or are giving them a copy)
You also can't photocopy (or scan) books and then "give" them to people. That is stealing
It's a pretty simple concept, I think the reason some of you are having trouble is that you don't like to think of yourselves as thieves. But, if you are coppying material and distributing that beyond your family, you most certainly are. So own it, or don't do it.
Surely this thread is dead by now... but well... just in case... I have a small question for you IndyFX:
How do you feel about the 1000's (millions actually) hours of entertainment available on YouTube? Is it not also "stealing" which very possibly could/should/would make Google an accessory to the "crime of thievery"?
I ask at this late stage of the discussion because I've been on a week-long project, which put me at a private house party of relative strangers a few days ago. We got to talking about Robin Williams, and being here in Germany, I thought (correctly) that few if any had ever seen his stand-up routines. Which of course are absolute original and classic comedy perfection. So where do we head off to find such a thing? Why YouTube of course.
Lo and behold, more than enough material to show off his style and genius, but also FULL shows including "Weapons of Self Destruction" and the true classic, "Evening With Robin Williams", in SF late 80's. The later show being on YT (uploaded) in Nov. 2011 by a fan with a "Standard YouTube License" (whatever that is)... and since RW's death been enjoyed more than 1 million times. It currently has slightly more than 2 Mil. views, and is appreciated world-wide with some lovely comments to boot (a rather strange occurrence on YT).
We at the party had a great time, me especially explaining/translating some of the "turbo-talk". Laughter all around and something we all really enjoyed, and even commented how incredible it is today to be able to call up moments in cinema like this. Whether music, film, TV shows, stuff for kids... YT has something for just about anyone to engross themselves in for hours if not days if you look.... but... BUT...
... easily 50% is copyrighted material and does NOT belong there, nor has it been uploaded by the original and/or current copyright holder(s).
Why do I get the impression that you IndyFX, would have shut the computer off and given us all a lecture on "copyright theft"? Why do I think that socially speaking, not only would you have been a complete bore and "Debby Downer", but also have had a very hard time convincing the "normal people", let alone some of the CEOs and media folk in the group, that this was a bad thing we were doing. As bad as you'll probably chew me out for posting the links here.
We discussed copyright and media streaming a bit, and to a person we all agreed that the benefits of easily accessible media was better than closed distribution... with the caveat that we really haven't figured out a good way to monetize media successfully for all artists, works of art, and the creatives involved including those behind the scenes (where I'm guessing due to your forum name, you find yourself most days).
Before Google, Yahoo was the bad "digital copy store" guy, and before them the UseNet/AOL/Compuserve newsgroups. Today we also have Pinterest (and assorted pinboard sites), reddit, storage lockers, millions of forums, etc. etc. etc. where people exchange ideas and what they like and enjoy with others in their community of choice. That "community" is world-wide and includes people we could actually call "friends" at this stage. Because there are things that we share about ourselves in those groups, like common interests, that we don't in our "real" lives with anyone else. You or we, will never be able put this genie back in the bottle... and as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't even try or waste our time trying. We do need to find "better ways" at protecting and monetizing (see above), I agree; but eventually we will. Beating everyday normal people over the head with your "moral convictions against thievery" whether legally and morally right (or wrong), is not and will not get us any closer to that day.
TL;DR - Here's a short essay, from the talented, successful, and massively infringed photographer Trey Ratcliff. If you read nothing else I wrote... please read this:
*** Personal Note: imagine my surprise when I got on that newfangled thing called the Internet in 1992 (CompuServe), and I found a rather nice but very bad quality scanned collection ( a few 79kb GIFS... aaaargh!... and far from a collection, even though I'd like to call it that ) of some of my published works?! Since that time, literally 100s of my designs/digital paintings have been passed around, and even been used without my permission outside of the Internet. Small example: in a Covent Garden store circa '98, staring back at "my girl" printed on T-Shirts and mugs... which floored and enthused me at the same time.
I gave up the "mine, mine... they're all MINE and you must pay to enjoy my endeavors and beautiful creations!" attitude a long time ago. To my benefit in health, happiness.. and most of all... creativity.
Copyrighted material
At the time of uploading a video, YouTube users are shown a message asking them not to violate copyright laws.[207] Despite this advice, there are still many unauthorized clips of copyrighted material on YouTube. YouTube does not view videos before they are posted online, and it is left to copyright holders to issue a DMCA takedown notice pursuant to the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. Three successful complaints for copyright infringement against a user account will result in the account and all of its uploaded videos being deleted.
The response from Google apparently was:
goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works
Another reason for me to despise the company.
Viacom files a $1B lawsuit against Google, who responded:
For its part, Google said the only way the legal action would be resolved was in court.
Google's vice president of content partnerships David Eun has said: "We're going all the way to the Supreme Court. We've been very clear about it."
After the legal action was first started, YouTube launched an anti-piracy tool that checks uploaded videos against the original content in an effort to flag piracy.
I don't care about video so much, but music. Will there be any great music written now?
I believe most definitely YES.
Because it is the obsessed, dedicated, "I-can't-imagine-doing-anything-else-in-life" artists that create the great masterpieces throughout history in all of the arts. War, torture, expulsion, peer critique, public ridicule, psychosis, derision... or a bit of all aforementioned that describes the life of most "true" artists... hasn't stopped them thru time, so I doubt the Internet will.
So... "Same As It Ever Was"... which brings me to the recent list on The Guardian of the greatest live concert films ever: #1 Talking Heads - Stop Making Sense
[quote name="PhilBoogie" url="/t/181770/microsoft-says-surface-pro-3-more-powerful-flexible-than-macbook-air-in-latest-ads/200#post_2582057"] 1) Excellent post sir![/QUOTE]
A sincere Thank You!
[QUOTE]2) Wiki has info on copyright issues on YT: The response from Google apparently was: Another reason for me to [I][B]despise[/B][/I] the company.[/QUOTE]
Google is a tough one for me. I can't say that I despise or like them as a whole... and in order to stay objective, prefer to judge each part of Google separately. I know the prevailing trend is to lump everything together and see either Black or White, Good or Bad, Holy or Evil... but I do my best to stay away from that kind of thinking and analysis. It allows you to see "the good", no matter how small and hidden it may be. Please be advised I'm talking about tech here... and for the most part people as well... unless thru their despicable and inhuman actions have proved them unworthy of any consideration, civility and/or respect from anybody, let alone an optimistic pragmatist as myself.
If I'm not mistaken, Viacom was also trying to "game" YouTube at the same time they were claiming DMCA violations. They want to play on YT... but not play the game as it's used by a majority of the users/uploaders on the platform.
Again... it's hard to argue that, regardless of Google rewriting copyright and EULAs to suit [B][I]their[/I][/B] needs... we all benefit from this incredible free service from time to time.
[QUOTE]3) Love your closing paragraph, and thought on the topic. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
One of my better "word puzzles that wasn't"... thanks for noticing... ))
[QUOTE]4) Mr Trey R. is one clever fella![/QUOTE]
That he is... and far more eloquent than I am in making his case.
[QUOTE]5) Thanks for the other links as well; I like that 10 min interview with Naom: [/QUOTE]
Beyond cool isn't he?!
**** I'm not sure if the gist of my post got thru... but it was mainly an attempt to see copyright infringement in a different light and to be more inclusive of all creative works and the creatives associated, rather than just "films".
Also, attacking people for "one" kind of infringement that effects them financially (assumed), does not exonerate those very same people (of what I'm sure) enjoying copyright infringement on a different level or medium.
This is the conundrum we and our lawmakers find ourselves in to date. What is infringement and what isn't, is then complicated by "how much", "how useful", how culturally beneficial... and twisted again by cultural differences of opinion and sovereign entities to govern their people how they see fit. Then add an ever changing tech landscape and abilities... and I don't realistically see anything happening any time soon.
Other than personal morals and principles taking over as Trey mentioned... eventually paying and supporting your favorite artists... I don't know what we as creatives should expect for the future. We certainly aren't all going to get rich (or even survive) any time soon, that I can guarantee.
Then again, when has every single artist ever gotten rich, no matter how talented they were? My Dad didn't want me to be an "artist" (graphic designer) and "do something with my talent" (architecture school)... because the common logic in the 70's was that you only got rich as an artist after you died. Besides living in squalor with Turpentine Asthma for the majority of your life, if you really wanted to make it big... be sure to cut off your ear, go mad, or [I]become[/I] a homosexual before you died (Midwestern view of "art").
I leave you with those myopic quasi verbatim remarks from my not famous, beer-drinking, flag-waving, everyday bloke postman... but great... Dad... (^_^)
Edited: silly me... I forgot the most important characteristic of my beloved Dad: religious and God-FEARING!***
*** See that [@]Benjamin Frost[/@]? I was brought up right, just too bad I didn't stay that way, huh?
Comments
Ha! Like the Apple vs Samsung trial, where the lady couldn't tell the two tablets apart. 'They are confusing, aren't they" (Phil Schiller)
I never wrote that I "feel I am entitled to steal others work".
I firmly believe:
copyright material should be protected,
artists should be rewarded for every item sold, no matter how popular their work becomes,
people shouldn't illegally share or sell that material,
people should read up on local laws before passing judgement. Did you know it's perfectly legal to download copyright material in The Netherlands? Yup, put BitTorrent to work 24/7 - all fine with the Dutch government. (I won't elaborate on that or post a link; you search as to why that's ok)
I pointed out your reference to Switzerland not being a civilised country, which comes across as derogatory. What Relic did, copying her procured DVD's to cloud storage for the benefit of accessing the movies without lugging an invention from 1997 along before being hospitalised. Yes, she did use the word 'pirating' but people should read a post more thoroughly when reading a word like that as it could have been used jokingly. As it was used. What did you expect her to do, buy a laptop with an ODD and take 1000+ DVD's into the hospital?
By your reasoning it was wrong to copy the new Sly Stone album on tape so you could funk out in the car (something which is perfectly legal as the costs of tape contained copyright stuff so the artists would receive royalties. Just like blank CD's et cetera.
No, I never said that. My point was that giving access to "friends " (outside you nuclear family) was in fact stealing.
I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted for using material they themselves own (even within their nuclear family)
Every argument comes back to personal (or family) use and that has never been my contention. Making copies for friends is however.
If you want to give a friend a copy as a gift, buy them one (or gift it on iTunes) Distributing (or giving access to) copies of someone else's work ("friends or not) is stealing, no if ands or buts.
If you are OK with stealing someone else's work, fine. But don't try to rationalize it as something other than that.
Problem is, when does giving become stealing? If I've bought a book, I own that book and can do what I want with it. If I give it to a friend, it's not stealing. If I give a friend a song I've got, I don't consider that stealing, either, even if the letter of the law says it is.
There is a fundamental difference between mass piracy and sharing between family and friends. The former is piracy, a form of theft, whilst the latter is not.
Unfortunately, you seem to be incapable of seeing the difference. Therefore, my friend, I suggest you slink off whence you came, so you may contemplate the error of your ways in peace.
Funny how you admit the letter of the law isn't with you then pompously tell other people they need to see the error of their ways.
If you give a book to a friend, then you no longer have that book. If you give a song to a friend, do you also delete that song from your library?
Ha! Like the Apple vs Samsung trial, where the lady couldn't tell the two tablets apart. 'They are confusing, aren't they" (Phil Schiller)
I never wrote that I "feel I am entitled to steal others work".
I firmly believe:
copyright material should be protected,
artists should be rewarded for every item sold, no matter how popular their work becomes,
people shouldn't illegally share or sell that material,
people should read up on local laws before passing judgment. Did you know it's perfectly legal to download copyright material in The Netherlands? Yup, put BitTorrent to work 24/7 - all fine with the Dutch government. (I won't elaborate on that or post a link; you search as to why that's ok)
I pointed out your reference to Switzerland not being a civilised country, which comes across as derogatory. What Relic did, copying her procured DVD's to cloud storage for the benefit of accessing the movies without lugging an invention from 1997 along before being hospitalised. Yes, she did use the word 'pirating' but people should read a post more thoroughly when reading a word like that as it could have been used jokingly. As it was used. What did you expect her to do, buy a laptop with an ODD and take 1000+ DVD's into the hospital?
By your reasoning it was wrong to copy the new Sly Stone album on tape so you could funk out in the car (something which is perfectly legal as the costs of tape contained copyright stuff so the artists would receive royalties. Just like blank CD's et cetera.
There is no use talking with someone who is a hardliner on any subject, they will always be right and you will always be wrong. Just don't interact with him any longer on the subject, you'll just get frustrated.
Funny how you admit the letter of the law isn't with you then pompously tell other people they need to see the error of their ways.
If you give a book to a friend, then you no longer have that book. If you give a song to a friend, do you also delete that song from your library?
If you've nothing constructive to say, it's better to keep quiet.
Holy Moses, the irony! You just exploded some scientist's instruments with that screamer. You'd better post a dozen times in a row with snippy little nonsenses, awful punnages, and TS reach arounds to balance the scales back.
Holy Moses, the irony! You just exploded some scientist's instruments with that screamer. You'd better post a dozen times in a row with snippy little nonsenses, awful punnages, and TS reach arounds to balance the scales back.
Seems as though you're doing that for me.
It becomes stealing when you distribute a copy and keep the original. (Or keep a copy and distribute the original)
Problem is, when does giving become stealing? If I've bought a book, I own that book and can do what I want with it. If I give it to a friend, it's not stealing. If I give a friend a song I've got, I don't consider that stealing, either, even if the letter of the law says it is.
There is a fundamental difference between mass piracy and sharing between family and friends. The former is piracy, a form of theft, whilst the latter is not.
Unfortunately, you seem to be incapable of seeing the difference. Therefore, my friend, I suggest you slink off whence you came, so you may contemplate the error of your ways in peace.
It becomes stealing when you distribute a copy and keep the original. (Or keep a copy and distribute the original)
Which Apple condone with Home Sharing.
Seems as though you're doing that for me.
That... doesn't even make any sense. Figures.
Get over it man, I know you think we're "enemies" or something, but I really don't give a crap about you, your little squabbles, your man-crush on TS, or your pretend Christianity. Stop dragging this shit over the whole forum, I don't like being stalked.
In related news Apple stock just broke $100 after more than a year in the doldrums. Bet Odo immediately sold. I'm still a 'hold'.
I've been a hold for the last 12 years, see no reason why to change anything.
Problem is, when does giving become stealing? If I've bought a book, I own that book and can do what I want with it. If I give it to a friend, it's not stealing. If I give a friend a song I've got, I don't consider that stealing, either, even if the letter of the law says it is.
There is a fundamental difference between mass piracy and sharing between family and friends. The former is piracy, a form of theft, whilst the latter is not.
Unfortunately, you seem to be incapable of seeing the difference. Therefore, my friend, I suggest you slink off whence you came, so you may contemplate the error of your ways in peace.
It becomes stealing when you make a copy and give it to someone outside you nuclear family. (or keep a copy and loan or give the original)
If you loan someone a book that is not stealing. Same thing with a DVD, unless you have also copied that dvd (and/or are giving them a copy)
You also can't photocopy (or scan) books and then "give" them to people. That is stealing
It's a pretty simple concept, I think the reason some of you are having trouble is that you don't like to think of yourselves as thieves. But, if you are coppying material and distributing that beyond your family, you most certainly are. So own it, or don't do it.
That is good advice. I wish more people would copy it.
That must be the reason this place starts to smell nice again, without the need for de-odo-rant (shamelessly copied from Marvin*)
*without permission I should add
edit:
this place starts to sell nice againthis place starts to smell nice again
Me too. There's a time for moving on.
Surely this thread is dead by now... but well... just in case... I have a small question for you IndyFX:
How do you feel about the 1000's (millions actually) hours of entertainment available on YouTube? Is it not also "stealing" which very possibly could/should/would make Google an accessory to the "crime of thievery"?
I ask at this late stage of the discussion because I've been on a week-long project, which put me at a private house party of relative strangers a few days ago. We got to talking about Robin Williams, and being here in Germany, I thought (correctly) that few if any had ever seen his stand-up routines. Which of course are absolute original and classic comedy perfection. So where do we head off to find such a thing? Why YouTube of course.
Lo and behold, more than enough material to show off his style and genius, but also FULL shows including "Weapons of Self Destruction" and the true classic, "Evening With Robin Williams", in SF late 80's. The later show being on YT (uploaded) in Nov. 2011 by a fan with a "Standard YouTube License" (whatever that is)... and since RW's death been enjoyed more than 1 million times. It currently has slightly more than 2 Mil. views, and is appreciated world-wide with some lovely comments to boot (a rather strange occurrence on YT).
We at the party had a great time, me especially explaining/translating some of the "turbo-talk". Laughter all around and something we all really enjoyed, and even commented how incredible it is today to be able to call up moments in cinema like this. Whether music, film, TV shows, stuff for kids... YT has something for just about anyone to engross themselves in for hours if not days if you look.... but... BUT...
... easily 50% is copyrighted material and does NOT belong there, nor has it been uploaded by the original and/or current copyright holder(s).
Why do I get the impression that you IndyFX, would have shut the computer off and given us all a lecture on "copyright theft"? Why do I think that socially speaking, not only would you have been a complete bore and "Debby Downer", but also have had a very hard time convincing the "normal people", let alone some of the CEOs and media folk in the group, that this was a bad thing we were doing. As bad as you'll probably chew me out for posting the links here.
We discussed copyright and media streaming a bit, and to a person we all agreed that the benefits of easily accessible media was better than closed distribution... with the caveat that we really haven't figured out a good way to monetize media successfully for all artists, works of art, and the creatives involved including those behind the scenes (where I'm guessing due to your forum name, you find yourself most days).
Before Google, Yahoo was the bad "digital copy store" guy, and before them the UseNet/AOL/Compuserve newsgroups. Today we also have Pinterest (and assorted pinboard sites), reddit, storage lockers, millions of forums, etc. etc. etc. where people exchange ideas and what they like and enjoy with others in their community of choice. That "community" is world-wide and includes people we could actually call "friends" at this stage. Because there are things that we share about ourselves in those groups, like common interests, that we don't in our "real" lives with anyone else. You or we, will never be able put this genie back in the bottle... and as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't even try or waste our time trying. We do need to find "better ways" at protecting and monetizing (see above), I agree; but eventually we will. Beating everyday normal people over the head with your "moral convictions against thievery" whether legally and morally right (or wrong), is not and will not get us any closer to that day.
TL;DR - Here's a short essay, from the talented, successful, and massively infringed photographer Trey Ratcliff. If you read nothing else I wrote... please read this:
Five Reasons Why I Don't Care if My Stuff is Pirated - A New Way of Thinking
Also.. we can all bow before this guy... who may have created the most stolen image of all time:
Story originally posted at FStoppers:
Fstoppers Original: The Stolen Scream
The photographer Noam Galai's website: http://thestolenscream.com/
*** Personal Note: imagine my surprise when I got on that newfangled thing called the Internet in 1992 (CompuServe), and I found a rather nice but very bad quality scanned collection ( a few 79kb GIFS... aaaargh!... and far from a collection, even though I'd like to call it that
I gave up the "mine, mine... they're all MINE and you must pay to enjoy my endeavors and beautiful creations!" attitude a long time ago. To my benefit in health, happiness.. and most of all... creativity.
I don't care about video so much, but music. Will there be any great music written now?
1) Excellent post sir!
2) Wiki has info on copyright issues on YT:
The response from Google apparently was:
Another reason for me to despise the company.
Viacom files a $1B lawsuit against Google, who responded:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7420955.stm
3) Love your closing paragraph, and thought on the topic. Thanks.
4) Mr Trey R. is one clever fella!
5) Thanks for the other links as well; I like that 10 min interview with Naom:
[VIDEO]
I believe most definitely YES.
Because it is the obsessed, dedicated, "I-can't-imagine-doing-anything-else-in-life" artists that create the great masterpieces throughout history in all of the arts. War, torture, expulsion, peer critique, public ridicule, psychosis, derision... or a bit of all aforementioned that describes the life of most "true" artists... hasn't stopped them thru time, so I doubt the Internet will.
So... "Same As It Ever Was"... which brings me to the recent list on
The Guardianof the greatest live concert films ever: #1 Talking Heads - Stop Making SenseStrike Thru: I could've sworn I saw it on The Guardian... but I found the exact same list here http://productionadvice.co.uk/the-best-live-dvds/
1) Excellent post sir![/QUOTE]
A sincere Thank You!
[QUOTE]2) Wiki has info on copyright issues on YT:
The response from Google apparently was:
Another reason for me to [I][B]despise[/B][/I] the company.[/QUOTE]
Google is a tough one for me. I can't say that I despise or like them as a whole... and in order to stay objective, prefer to judge each part of Google separately. I know the prevailing trend is to lump everything together and see either Black or White, Good or Bad, Holy or Evil... but I do my best to stay away from that kind of thinking and analysis. It allows you to see "the good", no matter how small and hidden it may be. Please be advised I'm talking about tech here... and for the most part people as well... unless thru their despicable and inhuman actions have proved them unworthy of any consideration, civility and/or respect from anybody, let alone an optimistic pragmatist as myself.
[QUOTE]Viacom files a $1B lawsuit against Google, who responded:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7420955.stm[/QUOTE]
If I'm not mistaken, Viacom was also trying to "game" YouTube at the same time they were claiming DMCA violations. They want to play on YT... but not play the game as it's used by a majority of the users/uploaders on the platform.
Again... it's hard to argue that, regardless of Google rewriting copyright and EULAs to suit [B][I]their[/I][/B] needs... we all benefit from this incredible free service from time to time.
[QUOTE]3) Love your closing paragraph, and thought on the topic. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
One of my better "word puzzles that wasn't"... thanks for noticing...
[QUOTE]4) Mr Trey R. is one clever fella![/QUOTE]
That he is... and far more eloquent than I am in making his case.
[QUOTE]5) Thanks for the other links as well; I like that 10 min interview with Naom:
[/QUOTE]
Beyond cool isn't he?!
****
I'm not sure if the gist of my post got thru... but it was mainly an attempt to see copyright infringement in a different light and to be more inclusive of all creative works and the creatives associated, rather than just "films".
Also, attacking people for "one" kind of infringement that effects them financially (assumed), does not exonerate those very same people (of what I'm sure) enjoying copyright infringement on a different level or medium.
This is the conundrum we and our lawmakers find ourselves in to date. What is infringement and what isn't, is then complicated by "how much", "how useful", how culturally beneficial... and twisted again by cultural differences of opinion and sovereign entities to govern their people how they see fit. Then add an ever changing tech landscape and abilities... and I don't realistically see anything happening any time soon.
Other than personal morals and principles taking over as Trey mentioned... eventually paying and supporting your favorite artists... I don't know what we as creatives should expect for the future. We certainly aren't all going to get rich (or even survive) any time soon, that I can guarantee.
Then again, when has every single artist ever gotten rich, no matter how talented they were? My Dad didn't want me to be an "artist" (graphic designer) and "do something with my talent" (architecture school)... because the common logic in the 70's was that you only got rich as an artist after you died. Besides living in squalor with Turpentine Asthma for the majority of your life, if you really wanted to make it big... be sure to cut off your ear, go mad, or [I]become[/I] a homosexual before you died (Midwestern view of "art").
I leave you with those myopic quasi verbatim remarks from my not famous, beer-drinking, flag-waving, everyday bloke postman... but great... Dad... (^_^)
Edited: silly me... I forgot the most important characteristic of my beloved Dad: religious and God-FEARING!***
*** See that [@]Benjamin Frost[/@]? I was brought up right, just too bad I didn't stay that way, huh?