Internet piracy

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
59
Location
Seattle, WA
Yet another longer article, I know. This one is about the concept of internet piracy and its effect on local bands. SOPA and PIPA may be written too loosely and open up a can of worms on the first amendment should they be passed. I will agree with that for the sake of argument.

However, the problem of internet piracy IS a problem. There is a pervasive mentality that music, all music, should be free. Well, that sentiment is selfish and destructive. Selfish in the sense that you are telling the artists should just be happy they they are liked and being listened to. Destructive in that the artists have to eat. Do you honestly expect they will keep putting out that music you love for long if there's not at least the possibility of being able to get COMPENSATED for what they do?

The Seattle area is home to some fantastic artists. To name a few: MG The Visionary, The Uptown 4, and Q-dot. these are all incredible musicians. I am friends with these guys. I am also A FAN of their music. And because I am a fan of their music, I bought MG's cd's and played them in my van until they almost melted. I bought Q-Dot's cd... in bulk. True story. I went to the Uptown 4's winter concert and paid cash, full price, even though I hang with these guys on a regular basis. When their album comes out, I am buying that too.

I am not doing this to toot my own horn. I am doing this to say that if you like a musician's music, YOU PAY THEM FOR IT. I could have gotten MG's music for free. Q-Dot's too. It is out there. And when the Uptown 4 puts out their album (which will be EPIC), it is only a matter of time before that is available for free as well.

And damn it, everybody should be paying for the privilege of having a copy of this music. There needs to be enforcement of this right to intellectual property which is granted them by th CONSTITUTION.

These guys are all too nice to say it. They are happy that their music is being listened to, and that they are motivating people. Well, frankly, I am not. If you have their music for free, or the music of another local artist, you are a thief. And a punk *****.

Pay up. They deserve it.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2012-01-25/music/standing-with-the-man/

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
 

CanuckMA

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
56
Location
Toronto
Agreed.

But the response from the industry has not been the correct one. The ability to but RDM free albums and individual songs fom something like the iTunes store will go some ways to curb piracy. It may be time that the content provider do the same on a large scale for both music and movies.

The industry is doing itself a huge disfavour though by spewing $$$ loss figures that make absolutely no sense. I've downloaded pirated movies. But my actions incured no loss to the studio, as they were generally movies that I did not want to go see in the theatre and would not have rented. Blame the high cost of tickets and rentals and a lot of borderline movies being made.

I classify movies in 4 categories.
1) Got to see it. I'll catch it in the theatre
2) Interested in seeing. I'll rent of catch the PPV
3) Wouldn't mind seeing it, but not worth the money, but likely worth the bandwidth
4) Worthless, not even worth the bandwidth, let alone the $$

3 and 4 would never get back to the studio. With the demise of video stores, the increasing costs of PPV, and the ever decreasing bandwidth caps for stuff like Netflix, 2 is in danger of no longer be applicable.

The industry has to adapt to new realities. They have to start producing more quality products. They also have to stop putting so many roadblocks on content delivery companies like Netflix.


There are prople who will pirate no matter what, but the content, or lack of, and the poor delivery methods contribute pushing more people to pirate.

If the industry wants to use their lobbying efforts, don't push for punitive legislation like SOPA, but push for forcing ISPs to stop reducing bandwidht. NA is pathetic when it comes to service to $$ ration on internet delivery. That will allow more people to subscribe to services like Netflix.
 
OP
Josh Oakley

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
59
Location
Seattle, WA
Canuck... Maybe you missed the point of what I wrote. It wasn't focused on the industry. It was focused on local artists. The industry doesn't really represent local artists.

The article is not about the industry either. It is about local artists. The industry faces lost profits from piracy. Local artists face... Extinction. My post and the article are pretty clear on what the focus of this is.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,400
Reaction score
1,055
So canuck in your world its ok to steal something as long as you didn't really want it in the first place. Oh I would never buy that jacket so they would have never gotten my money anyway so its ok if I steal it. Just because you can't hold a movie in your hand like a jacket its still someones property and you still stole it.
 
OP
Josh Oakley

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
59
Location
Seattle, WA
Guys. Seriously. Local artist focus. Think local/small time/independent music.

This may be crazy, buy can we TRY to stay on topic?

Big movie and music industry is a DIFFERENT ANIMAL ALTOGETHER.

Focus. I know it is possible. This is not about the entertainment industry as a whole. It is not about SOPA even.

It is about internet piracy and its effect on local artists. I really don't know how to be more clear about the topic.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
 

CanuckMA

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
56
Location
Toronto
Ballen, no. People do it, I've done it. Does not make it right. But that rationale needs to be used to counter the loss amount bandied around by the industry. Because looking at how many times a movie was downloaded does not directly correlate to lost profit, as a good % of pirates would not have watched the movie if not available for free.

Josh, Local artists are in a difficult position. The argument has been made that piracy actually helps sales. It does. Not nearly to the amount pirates claim. But certainly more for local artists than big acts. Local artists are less likely to get air time on radio. They need to build a base. And the best way to build a base is to get people to listen to your music. At this point, piracy may be the best way. Once you've sampled the goods, you should buy the CDs.

You're going to put the genie back in the bottle. Creative ways need to be found to lower the amount of piracy. And to find different ways to raise revenues. Visual media is the easiest by using product placement. Audio is different.
 
OP
Josh Oakley

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
59
Location
Seattle, WA
That is what artist websites are for, and their music videos. And no, on the local level, it does not help sales. That works at the big industry level.

Piracy is CRIPPLING to the small names. And a big part of the problem is this BS mindset that piracy is okay.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
 

CanuckMA

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
56
Location
Toronto
Unfortunately, we have probably reached a point where the artists have to derive the bulk of their income from live performances.
 

Carol

Crazy like a...
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
540
Location
NH
Honestly as a former professional musician (with a music degree from a top school), I don't remember a time when small-time musicians could make a living just from their music...at least if they were an original band. Piracy when I was playing meant copying a tape or CD on to cassette, there was nothing like material available through youtube or file sharing. However, even then we didn't earn enough to make bank. We all had to make bank by some sort of day job or pickup work playing Toora Loora Looral or Mustang Sally in the Irish bars around town.

The digital era has brought new ways of promotion, far cheaper methods of recording, and more sophisticated sound processing -- but it also brings new pains as well. There is the issue of piracy. There's also the paradigm shift -- Ian Astbury from The Cult has said that iTunes has essentially killed the album. I think he's right.

I do not like the attitude that "everything must be free", nor do I condone stealing music. But I don't think anyone should go in to an original band thinking they can make a living from it. The odds are just too great.
 

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
I posted this before, But I'm gonna do it again, since I never got a serious answer. Sorry Josh, It's not about Local Artists, although I think file sharing COULD be a positive tool for Local artists to get their name out there, if its not abused.

One of the things about these kinds of discussions I find... troublesome... is that people are willing to accept the answer "Well, it's illegal, thats the way it is, so you have to deal with it. It doesn't have to make sense, and you dont have to understand it, if you do it you have commited a crime."

Ok. I get that. But in this hypothetical discussion, let us assume we understand that above point... and lets see if we can get to the WHY.

First off, I think that we can all probably be more or less in agreement that the reason for copyright laws, or anti-piracy laws, or whatever... is that they are in place to protect the intellectual property of the Owner of said material, their Music, or Movies, or Videogames, or Software programs, and ensure they make their fair profits/wages/gains from their programs, and no one else takes credit for its creation, yes?

Ok, good.

So lets examine some hypothetical scenarios. Note that none of these are for real and when I say "I do this" It is in terms of this excercise, I am not actually doing the items below.

A) I subscribe to HBO. I watch the series True Blood, which airs, Sunday Nights at 7pm. I work Sundays from 5-11. But My Cable company has provided me a DVR, or Perhaps I own a PVR. I can legally record this show, or even set my oldskool VCR to record a copy of the show, so that I can watch it later. I paid for the product. The Correct people made their money, and I have seen the show. Hooray! Everbody wins.

OR

I subscribe to HBO. I watch the series True Blood, which airs, Sunday Nights at 7pm. I work Sundays from 5-11. I decided against purchasing a DVR, because I am going to buy my own PVR. So that I can watch it later, I grab a copy off of Bittorent when I get home from work. I paid for the product. The Correct people made their money, and I have seen the show. BOO! I broke the law and can be held accountable.

Wait. Wait. I paid for it in both cases. Actually in case 2, at least 2 people paid for it, myself and the original up loader, at least. Why am I in trouble for #2, but not #1?

B) Joe Public goes into Target on release day with 50 bucks in his hand and buys a copy of the brand new "Mario Stripper" for Nintendo Wii. He takes it home plays it for a week and decides it sucks. Joe can't return opened software, so he takes it to "Gamestop" and gets a 30 dollar credit for selling a used game. Joe then Buys a copy of "DeathRace Donkeykong 2000" for his Wii for 24.00 used. I wanna play "Mario Stripper" for myself, but read in "Games Reviewd Magazine" that it only got 4.5 stars outta 10, so I say, Gotta buy it used, and pick up Joe's copy of it from Gamestop.

Now, Joe paid for his copy of the first game, and Nintendo got their fair profit. Joe paid for his copy of the second game... but Nintendo didn't get anything, because someone like Joe traded it in. And in fact, Nintendo didn't make anything off of me either, because I bought from Gamestop, the same copy Joe paid for. Nether of us broke the law, but Nintendo only made their profit from the sale of that original disk the first time it sold. We have effectively both just hurt Nintendo's profits. In fact, I can tell you IRL, not Hypothetically, for my 360, I NEVER purchase new games. With 3 exceptions, Every one of the games I own have come from Gamestop or Disc Replay. Aside from 3 titles I picked up when I purchased my system, None of the developers have made any profits off of me.

But If Joe had kept his original copy of "Mario Stripper" and I had copied it for myself from his copy... I would be breaking the law... even tho in neither of those situations Nintendo made any profit off of me, only from the initial sale to Joe.

I have like six more examples of this, but Ive been typing for like 45 minutes and this is getting long... in the end, they all demonstrate ways that the so-called "Piracy" is NOT impacting the profits of the companies/parties involved, but rather just the method or technologies involved in obtaining the product determines in a seemingly arbitrary way what is and is not illegal.

Now, none of this, BTW, is meant to excuse the people distributing illegal copies. But there is a lot of focus on people who "obtain" copies... and that's what I am looking to address.
 
OP
Josh Oakley

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
59
Location
Seattle, WA
I posted this before, But I'm gonna do it again, since I never got a serious answer. Sorry Josh, It's not about Local Artists, although I think file sharing COULD be a positive tool for Local artists to get their name out there, if its not abused.

One of the things about these kinds of discussions I find... troublesome... is that people are willing to accept the answer "Well, it's illegal, thats the way it is, so you have to deal with it. It doesn't have to make sense, and you dont have to understand it, if you do it you have commited a crime."

Ok. I get that. But in this hypothetical discussion, let us assume we understand that above point... and lets see if we can get to the WHY.

First off, I think that we can all probably be more or less in agreement that the reason for copyright laws, or anti-piracy laws, or whatever... is that they are in place to protect the intellectual property of the Owner of said material, their Music, or Movies, or Videogames, or Software programs, and ensure they make their fair profits/wages/gains from their programs, and no one else takes credit for its creation, yes?

Ok, good.

So lets examine some hypothetical scenarios. Note that none of these are for real and when I say "I do this" It is in terms of this excercise, I am not actually doing the items below.

A) I subscribe to HBO. I watch the series True Blood, which airs, Sunday Nights at 7pm. I work Sundays from 5-11. But My Cable company has provided me a DVR, or Perhaps I own a PVR. I can legally record this show, or even set my oldskool VCR to record a copy of the show, so that I can watch it later. I paid for the product. The Correct people made their money, and I have seen the show. Hooray! Everbody wins.

OR

I subscribe to HBO. I watch the series True Blood, which airs, Sunday Nights at 7pm. I work Sundays from 5-11. I decided against purchasing a DVR, because I am going to buy my own PVR. So that I can watch it later, I grab a copy off of Bittorent when I get home from work. I paid for the product. The Correct people made their money, and I have seen the show. BOO! I broke the law and can be held accountable.

Wait. Wait. I paid for it in both cases. Actually in case 2, at least 2 people paid for it, myself and the original up loader, at least. Why am I in trouble for #2, but not #1?

B) Joe Public goes into Target on release day with 50 bucks in his hand and buys a copy of the brand new "Mario Stripper" for Nintendo Wii. He takes it home plays it for a week and decides it sucks. Joe can't return opened software, so he takes it to "Gamestop" and gets a 30 dollar credit for selling a used game. Joe then Buys a copy of "DeathRace Donkeykong 2000" for his Wii for 24.00 used. I wanna play "Mario Stripper" for myself, but read in "Games Reviewd Magazine" that it only got 4.5 stars outta 10, so I say, Gotta buy it used, and pick up Joe's copy of it from Gamestop.

Now, Joe paid for his copy of the first game, and Nintendo got their fair profit. Joe paid for his copy of the second game... but Nintendo didn't get anything, because someone like Joe traded it in. And in fact, Nintendo didn't make anything off of me either, because I bought from Gamestop, the same copy Joe paid for. Nether of us broke the law, but Nintendo only made their profit from the sale of that original disk the first time it sold. We have effectively both just hurt Nintendo's profits. In fact, I can tell you IRL, not Hypothetically, for my 360, I NEVER purchase new games. With 3 exceptions, Every one of the games I own have come from Gamestop or Disc Replay. Aside from 3 titles I picked up when I purchased my system, None of the developers have made any profits off of me.

But If Joe had kept his original copy of "Mario Stripper" and I had copied it for myself from his copy... I would be breaking the law... even tho in neither of those situations Nintendo made any profit off of me, only from the initial sale to Joe.

I have like six more examples of this, but Ive been typing for like 45 minutes and this is getting long... in the end, they all demonstrate ways that the so-called "Piracy" is NOT impacting the profits of the companies/parties involved, but rather just the method or technologies involved in obtaining the product determines in a seemingly arbitrary way what is and is not illegal.

Now, none of this, BTW, is meant to excuse the people distributing illegal copies. But there is a lot of focus on people who "obtain" copies... and that's what I am looking to address.

Cryo, the reason I didn't give you a serious answer before is because this thread IS about local artists, and the effects of internet piracy on said artists.

This is the case both in the article I posted ( did you read it?) and in my opening post. Write about that, and ill answer it. Otherwise you're hijacking the thread, bro.
 

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
Whether we're talking about local artists or giant recording companies, I think the subject of this thread strikes to the very root of intellectual property. Imagine that a very clever caveman invents a way to use a stick to throw another stick (an atlatl) and is able to more easily kill animals to eat. Now, imagine that the best hunter in the tribe witnesses this, takes this new technology and kills a whole bunch of animals with it. It is the hunter's choice to give something back to the creator of the atlatl. This especially becomes apparent after more time passes. Imagine the hunters had children and grandchildren and are now dead. Do the families who use the atlatl now owe the family of the creator? There is nothing universal about intellectual property rights.

Consequently, Led Zeppelin ripped off a huge number of artists. If you listen to the artists that influenced them they stole all kinds of music and mashed it together into a package the ****ing rocks. Zeppelin were the best hunters in the pack and their skill has inherit value. The songs that they produce that are recorded and repeated are valueless like two sticks lying on the ground. If someone can use them to create something with their skill, the skill is what has value and the skill is actually the only thing owned by the individual.

Intellectual property rights need legalized force to exist. They are an opinion with a gun. Take away the gun and they disappear. That's how you know they aren't real, that they aren't valid and universal principles philosophically. The only way intellectual property rights can exist on the internet is if the government can exert legalized force through the internet. The moment this happens, it ceases to be free.
 

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
Cryo, the reason I didn't give you a serious answer before is because this thread IS about local artists, and the effects of internet piracy on said artists.

Well, BRO, since I copied and pasted that from a thread from like 11 months ago, your point about not giving me a serious answer is moot... and its clear that you did not even look above to see if I had posted that in your thread above. The comment about never receiving a serious answer wasn't directed at you.

This is the case both in the article I posted ( did you read it?) and in my opening post. Write about that, and ill answer it. Otherwise you're hijacking the thread, bro.

Hmm, well, The Title of this thread is "Internet Piracy", NOT "Internet Piracy and its effects on Indie Artists" so of course you are going to attract people who want to discuss piracy. If you want a niche discussion, start a thread thats is clearly on that niche... it's obvious from the number of times you had to comment about everyone hijacking your thread that others have seen the title and come into this thread with a wish to discuss the problem at large.
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,400
Reaction score
1,055
Whether we're talking about local artists or giant recording companies, I think the subject of this thread strikes to the very root of intellectual property. Imagine that a very clever caveman invents a way to use a stick to throw another stick (an atlatl) and is able to more easily kill animals to eat. Now, imagine that the best hunter in the tribe witnesses this, takes this new technology and kills a whole bunch of animals with it. It is the hunter's choice to give something back to the creator of the atlatl. This especially becomes apparent after more time passes. Imagine the hunters had children and grandchildren and are now dead. Do the families who use the atlatl now owe the family of the creator? There is nothing universal about intellectual property rights.

Consequently, Led Zeppelin ripped off a huge number of artists. If you listen to the artists that influenced them they stole all kinds of music and mashed it together into a package the ****ing rocks. Zeppelin were the best hunters in the pack and their skill has inherit value. The songs that they produce that are recorded and repeated are valueless like two sticks lying on the ground. If someone can use them to create something with their skill, the skill is what has value and the skill is actually the only thing owned by the individual.

Intellectual property rights need legalized force to exist. They are an opinion with a gun. Take away the gun and they disappear. That's how you know they aren't real, that they aren't valid and universal principles philosophically. The only way intellectual property rights can exist on the internet is if the government can exert legalized force through the internet. The moment this happens, it ceases to be free.

So are you saying there should be no copyright or patient laws. Once you invent something it should be free to anyone that wants it?
 

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
So are you saying there should be no copyright or patient laws. Once you invent something it should be free to anyone that wants it?

Yes. Consider my caveman example again. Imagine that the family of the man who created the atlatl grows large enough to bully the tribe. They begin to threaten to throw anyone who uses the atlatl without permission and without paying them a tithe of meat into a cage where they will be raped and mistreated in all number of ways. The people with the skill to use the atlatl better suddenly don't have the resources to develop that skill to an even higher level, because the product of their skills is being leached off to people who didn't work at all.

This is how copyright and patent laws hold society back from it's full potential when it comes to innovation and enterprise. Imagine what kind of innovation we would see if medicine and technology and all kinds of other important things were allowed to exist in an open creative space and people could take all of the effects of their skill to develop even higher levels of skill? This is the true potential of the internet. This is where real freedom could take us.

Ultimately, copyright and patent laws are a form of socialism. They collectivize and funnel the fruits of other people's labor to a small select group of entitled people who are willing to use legalized force and steal. Copyright and patent laws are outgrowths of corporations. They allow the corporation to maximize its profits through government coercion.

The bottom line is that if you are forced to pay to use an idea, THAT is theft.
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,400
Reaction score
1,055
So how are people supposed to make a living if I invent something spend thousnads on research and development of something or thousands on recording and production of music or movie how do I eanr it back or should I just do it for the good of mankind?
 
OP
Josh Oakley

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
59
Location
Seattle, WA
Well, BRO, since I copied and pasted that from a thread from like 11 months ago, your point about not giving me a serious answer is moot... and its clear that you did not even look above to see if I had posted that in your thread above. The comment about never receiving a serious answer wasn't directed at you.

Oh, so feisty. The way you wrote BRO in all caps like that. That was hot. I like TOTALLY needed to change my huggies right there.

Yeah baby. Talk dirty to me.

Hmm, well, The Title of this thread is "Internet Piracy", NOT "Internet Piracy and its effects on Indie Artists" so of course you are going to attract people who want to discuss piracy. If you want a niche discussion, start a thread thats is clearly on that niche... it's obvious from the number of times you had to comment about everyone hijacking your thread that others have seen the title and come into this thread with a wish to discuss the problem at large.

Oh you are so totally right! Man it was just CRAZY of me to think people would read the original post, or the related article. MAN, WHAT A MORON I AM! Next time I will, like, TOTALLY post a title that leaves absolutely no question about what the topic is, in case people don't actually read and respond to the original posts.

MAN OH MAN. I sure did a disservice to the posters who read "internet piracy" and having formed their post, OP sight unseen,
and went ahead and just did their thing.

Cryozombie, where would I be without you?


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
 
OP
Josh Oakley

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
59
Location
Seattle, WA
Whether we're talking about local artists or giant recording companies, I think the subject of this thread strikes to the very root of intellectual property. Imagine that a very clever caveman invents a way to use a stick to throw another stick (an atlatl) and is able to more easily kill animals to eat. Now, imagine that the best hunter in the tribe witnesses this, takes this new technology and kills a whole bunch of animals with it. It is the hunter's choice to give something back to the creator of the atlatl. This especially becomes apparent after more time passes. Imagine the hunters had children and grandchildren and are now dead. Do the families who use the atlatl now owe the family of the creator? There is nothing universal about intellectual property rights.

Consequently, Led Zeppelin ripped off a huge number of artists. If you listen to the artists that influenced them they stole all kinds of music and mashed it together into a package the ****ing rocks. Zeppelin were the best hunters in the pack and their skill has inherit value. The songs that they produce that are recorded and repeated are valueless like two sticks lying on the ground. If someone can use them to create something with their skill, the skill is what has value and the skill is actually the only thing owned by the individual.

Intellectual property rights need legalized force to exist. They are an opinion with a gun. Take away the gun and they disappear. That's how you know they aren't real, that they aren't valid and universal principles philosophically. The only way intellectual property rights can exist on the internet is if the government can exert legalized force through the internet. The moment this happens, it ceases to be free.

I think you have this backwards. Copywrite and Patent protection are anti-socialist. If I as an individual create something, the copywrite or patent is the government recognizing my idea as MY property. This is an individualistic approach to property.

To say that the idea I come up with does NOT belong to me, but rather to society at large, is COLLECTIVIST, and therefore fits with socialism more closely.

And there is no such thing as an undeniable, universal right. All the "rights" we have are earned at some point, and must be maintained or they can at some point be lost.


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
 
OP
Josh Oakley

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
59
Location
Seattle, WA
So how are people supposed to make a living if I invent something spend thousnads on research and development of something or thousands on recording and production of music or movie how do I eanr it back or should I just do it for the good of mankind?

And this is exactly what some of my friends have faced with their careers.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
 

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
So how are people supposed to make a living if I invent something spend thousnads on research and development of something or thousands on recording and production of music or movie how do I eanr it back or should I just do it for the good of mankind?

https://buy.louisck.net/

He spends his own money to produce it. He puts it out on the internet and enforces no traditional copyright. He makes millions. It's a new model and it works. The problem is that Hollywood doesn't like it because it cuts them out. Talentless morons no longer have a way to mooch a living if this catches on.
 
Top