They're far worse than the guy who introduced the word genocide, final solution, and collateral damage.
No. They aren't mass murderers, but they still try to steal what belongs to the people, all in the holy name of art and artists. Which simply isn't the case. These filthy and sickening rich scumbags are only trying to get more riches. Fuck em.
Relax. It's just entertainment.
Actually, some of it as art. You know "art" as the word "artist" is derived from. Not that all artists live up to this criteria these days, though.
Except that you have no right to public domain. In fact, public domain is where pre-owned intellectual property goes
Yes. I do. Everyone has a right to the public domain. After the copyright expires (which was supposed to happen after a limited period), things should go to the public domain for everyone to enjoy. Thus enriching the culture (not the author).
Copyright was supposed to encourage science and arts. By granting de-facto perpetual copyright, people will only need to create one successful album or work of art and then they can sit on their lazy asses the rest of their lives. If copyright actually expired like it was ment to, people would be encouraged to make more.
As for "pre-owned", there are no more pre-owned, and that's the problem. That's what I'm biatching about.
Without copyright infringement laws, those record companies that you despise so much would be making even more money and the artist would be reamed even more.
Please explain how. And please do note that I'm not principally against copyright laws. I am against the way they have been twisted and perverted to only serve corporate interests and not art nor society.
I'm no biggot. A person's wealth has nothing to do with the principles underlying the actions that the person takes.
Well... I'll admit I'm a copyright infringer, so I really wouldn't call myself a bigot per se, but that's really not for me to judge.
I do however have a problem with an industry being given police-like rights which supercedes any which ordinary individuals can have. This in the name of "art" when it's obviously about rich people getting even richer.
People often mistakenly believe that valueless art is good art.
To restate my original statement in other words: A true artist will make art for the love of art or because he has a need to make it. Not because of financial incentives. Anyone with half a artistic gene in his body will know this.
That we have a monetary system, which creates a need for money as well, does not alter this basic premesis.
the fact that we are willing to pay money for art is the reason that there's so much of it, that it's better than it ever was in the past
So by that logic... Britney is better than Mozart then. Yeah right. Money made is no measurement for the quality of art. It is only a measurement of the consumability of art, which is a entirely different issue. When it comes to genuine art, consumability is the one thing that shouldn't even be discussed.
As for the final statement in this post:
I'll keep my bias, thankyouverymuch.
Richard Dean Anderson porn? - Now spread the news
[ Parent ]