Ah yes, the inevitable "you hipocrites!" comment, from someone who has such a black and white view of the world, it's surprising they aren't constantly bleeding from being cut on all the sharp edges.
You know, maybe some of us have a more nuanced view of how things should be. Maybe we think that the people that actually create something (you know, the artists?) should at least get credit; maybe not rewarded indefinitely, but at least given a chance in the market, while not wanting to see their grandchildren leach off a government granted monopoly. Maybe we are in favor of artists who obviously get it (JoCo sells his music with no DRM, in any format you want, not to mention plenty of free samples) not being plagiarized by huge media conglomerates run by ruthless fatcats without an ounce of creativity, who are still stuck in the mindset of being the gatekeepers.
Or maybe we're all just spoiled hypocritical children like you've painted us. Yeah, that must be it.
Should at least get credit? You are against piracy then I hope. Most content creators when they put a product out asking for money consider you legally paying them their asking price in exchange for their product as "credit".
Also when did a handful of writers at Glee become the stance of the whole Newscorp evil empire? Until every decision by every subordinate is reviewed by Murdoch or the Board of Directors for possible copyright infringement painting Fox as a whole responsible as part of their normal MO is false.
>Most content creators when they put a product out asking for money consider you legally paying them their asking price in exchange for their product as "credit".
It sounds like you are willfully misinterpreting the concept of "giving credit". Paying for something is compensation, not credit. The concept of downloading something without paying for it is totally unrelated to the concept of claiming that you created someone else's work.
Credit in this case means attribution. Pirate sites don't say "I made Game of Thrones" or rename it and try to pretend it's their own work. They present it as "This movie, released by whatever-group". People get far more upset about "stealing" attribution than copyright infringement.
That's a nice way of self justifying piracy. I'm sure content creators get just as pissed when people don't pay for their work too when they are asking you to do so.
Did you read the rest of that sentence, or did you just stop when you thought you'd nailed the commenter, and completely ignore everything else s/he said?
No, I read the whole sentence. I didn't think (and still don't think) that it changes what I was saying. Here it is in its entirety:
Maybe we are in favor of artists who obviously get it (JoCo sells his music with no DRM, in any format you want, not to mention plenty of free samples) not being plagiarized by huge media conglomerates run by ruthless fatcats without an ounce of creativity, who are still stuck in the mindset of being the gatekeepers.
In all fairness, I did use a lot of big words; perhaps monochromatic doesn't understand the meaning of the word "plagiarize". There's also that moniker; I wonder if it is arbitrary or chosen on purpose . . .
Comments
Ah yes, the inevitable "you hipocrites!" comment, from someone who has such a black and white view of the world, it's surprising they aren't constantly bleeding from being cut on all the sharp edges.
You know, maybe some of us have a more nuanced view of how things should be. Maybe we think that the people that actually create something (you know, the artists?) should at least get credit; maybe not rewarded indefinitely, but at least given a chance in the market, while not wanting to see their grandchildren leach off a government granted monopoly. Maybe we are in favor of artists who obviously get it (JoCo sells his music with no DRM, in any format you want, not to mention plenty of free samples) not being plagiarized by huge media conglomerates run by ruthless fatcats without an ounce of creativity, who are still stuck in the mindset of being the gatekeepers.
Or maybe we're all just spoiled hypocritical children like you've painted us. Yeah, that must be it.
Should at least get credit? You are against piracy then I hope. Most content creators when they put a product out asking for money consider you legally paying them their asking price in exchange for their product as "credit".
Also when did a handful of writers at Glee become the stance of the whole Newscorp evil empire? Until every decision by every subordinate is reviewed by Murdoch or the Board of Directors for possible copyright infringement painting Fox as a whole responsible as part of their normal MO is false.
>Most content creators when they put a product out asking for money consider you legally paying them their asking price in exchange for their product as "credit".
It sounds like you are willfully misinterpreting the concept of "giving credit". Paying for something is compensation, not credit. The concept of downloading something without paying for it is totally unrelated to the concept of claiming that you created someone else's work.
Credit in this case means attribution. Pirate sites don't say "I made Game of Thrones" or rename it and try to pretend it's their own work. They present it as "This movie, released by whatever-group". People get far more upset about "stealing" attribution than copyright infringement.
That's a nice way of self justifying piracy. I'm sure content creators get just as pissed when people don't pay for their work too when they are asking you to do so.
So copyright is defensible when the artist "gets it," and the infringer is a "fatcat." But not otherwise.
Got it.
Did you read the rest of that sentence, or did you just stop when you thought you'd nailed the commenter, and completely ignore everything else s/he said?
It was the second one, wasn't it?
No, I read the whole sentence. I didn't think (and still don't think) that it changes what I was saying. Here it is in its entirety:
Maybe we are in favor of artists who obviously get it (JoCo sells his music with no DRM, in any format you want, not to mention plenty of free samples) not being plagiarized by huge media conglomerates run by ruthless fatcats without an ounce of creativity, who are still stuck in the mindset of being the gatekeepers.
Please, enlighten me as to what I've missed.
You've missed the part where plagiarism is not the same thing as copyright infringement.
In all fairness, I did use a lot of big words; perhaps monochromatic doesn't understand the meaning of the word "plagiarize". There's also that moniker; I wonder if it is arbitrary or chosen on purpose . . .
Oh I understand the difference. But I thought there was still some hypocrisy in your "it's not hypocritical" post.
As for the moniker, it's a Calvin & Hobbes reference.