reading the first page. all i can say is that beliathon and arnold chippy.
if you ever take hours making a song, you should only in your whole live be paid $0.008 (spotify's revenue from one listener) and then the song should be made free because that listener copied it?
code a program/website.. and maybe get $8-$50, just once..
your own opinions means that you wont make more then minimum wage for the hours you initially put into it. and then thats it.. no more income, ever
do you honestly think that activision should only get 1 payment of $50 for call of duty... and then the rest of the 7billion people dont have to pay because that single person that bought it, then copied it 7 billion times
do you really think that teams of hundreds of people working for over a year on the game should get a split of only $50 (meaning each employee is only paid a couple cents for a years work)....
seriously, is that your mindset?
Why create a special set of rules that benefit writers/musicians etc? Let them have that as a hobby and do productive work for a job, just like everyone else.
I design and make mechanical components, so who do I run to when my work's copied?
Apparently, the author JK Rowling is now worth ~ $1 Billion...
...I mean, come on, for that sh*te?
If writers and musicians can elevate their art to a degree
that others are willing to pay for it, then it is just
as valuable and productive as anything else.
It sounds like you are jealous... that an author can create
a book than thousands or millions of people would willingly
pay money for in the marketplace,
and that they will be
rewarded for their **effort**.Saying I sound jealous is just a way to avoid answering the legitimate points that have been raised.
Yes, rewarded for their effort and not some superimposed fancy legal wording that can impose an offence on someone for reading and listening.
The only points I see that you raised in this post are:
1. why create special rules for artists and musicians?
2. artists and musicians should do it as a hobby , not a profession
3. JK Rolling is a billionaire.
to that , I say:
1. no special rules are needed -- I think anyone should be
allowed to create a digital publication of any kind and copyright it.
2. No, disagree... they should be allowed to do it professionally if the market supports it
as i just got done explaining...
3. so what? if true, then he earned it. why does that bother you?
Jonald.
Shall we (me and you) charge a copyright fee for this discussion, sthat o other viewers must continue to pay us to read it 20 years from now?
Have you ever read a newspaper that you didn't buy or listened to music you didn't buy - did you turn yourself in for doing so?
As I said initially, where does it all end?
I think you see this issue completely in black and white. I understand that you would like to see all ideas be free and not owned by anyone but what you don't get is that true free markets can and should protect intellectual property as well as allow to the freedom to distribute ideas. It's a tough concept to grasp because it does contradict itself but what I am describing is neither moral or immoral. It is a completely gray area
Furthermore you are using hyperbole to prove your point with an unrealistic (and very literal) interpretation of copyright.
Atlas Shrugged describes a world in which the ideas owned by intellectuals and entrepreneurs are hijacked by the government in order to solve a global economic crisis. They acted on the idea that these ideas and properties should be available for everyone. So what happens in the book? The smartest and most talented people in the world leave because they have no reason to produce anything for a world that would rather take than receive.
Shall we (me and you) charge a copyright fee for this discussion, sthat o other viewers must continue to pay us to read it 20 years from now?
That is nonsense. I actually feel dumber for reading that.
If you want to know where it ends, I have the answer. It lies with the creator of the product. If they choose to require payment for the work they have done then that is their choice. Under your logic, if they only were paid once for their contributions then they would ultimately stop producing anything substantial in the future. Capitalism drives progress whether you like it or not, but it can also drive greed as well. It is up to the property owner to decide if they want to distribute their ideas for free or require payment. In conclusion, it is simply their right to ask for payment.
I suggest (and this is purely a suggestion) that you become more acquainted with the ideas and principles behind free markets because at this point you fundamentally disagree with the very essence of Bitcoin itself.
One more thing. Before you go on and say Bitcoin proves your point, I'm going to tell you that you are wrong. Satoshi choose to make Bitcoin open source and let his idea free. If he had chosen to patent Bitcoin and keep it closed source then we would not be having this conversation right now, but Satoshi would likely be an extremely wealthy man after selling his patent to a bank. Again, it was his choice. You don't have the right to take it from him; he has the right to give it away and that is why you are wrong.