Art belongs to the world

I'm sorry but no. While I feel rich celebs suing people over MP3 piracy for $30K or more is a load of bullshit, I still support the basic right to OWN your creations. If an artist wants to revoke any access to their work because they have taken a dislike to that work, why should anyone else have a right to say they can't do it? Why should people be allowed to distribute a work without permission?

Yeah, I admit it, I'm a frequent pirate. I'm cheap, that is my only justification for it. I don't have the money, and even if I won the lottery tomorrow and was set for life, I'd still be too much of a cheap ass to buy that shit.

It doesn't make what I do right. If I were president I would vastly weaken the copyright system, but I'd still leave some sort of fine in place for downloading if you get caught- 2X retail is suitable. It wouldn't strain low-tier downloaders or the poor but would still allow something decent for the large-scale shit. I'd also make works go public domain upon the death of the creator, none of that 75 years later shit.

On my initial topic, I still feel as if the creator/IP holder is the only one who has any real right to claim it belongs to them. If they want to limit or revoke access, that's their business. Millions like it but they hate it? If this were a physical form of property we would not be discussing this, yet because it's intangible that makes it different? No, it does not. I mean, if the current legal owner of the original Mona Lisa felt a need to burn it, yeah that might suck, but it would still be their personal property to do as they wish. I fail to see how an artist taking down their work, and possibly deleting their personal copies so it no longer exists, is your decision and not theirs. Too many fans seem to think they have a say, and that's just selfish of them. If you had any respect for the creator, you'd abide by their wishes.

Works should only belong to the public once the creator has passed on and the work has had time to enter general public consciousness. Until then, respect the creator's rights to their property.

Other urls found in this thread:

free-culture.cc/freecontent
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Intellectual property rights are an absurd idea. Don't like how your creation is used? Too bad. Decide to stop creating because of it? Good. You won't be missed.

How do you want to stop it. As you said, it's not material, you can't just say "reeee don't use it". That's kindergarten tier. Just take a simple example, eg. a joke you told someone, and he tells it to a thrid person. How do you want to stop this? Shoot them? Get someone else to kill them? You'd have to spy on everyone to know if they're abusing someone's else's IP. So if you're ok with a omnipresent surveillance state, just so nobody "steals" (even though the concept of stealing absolutely doesn't fit here. You still have it, but it's just that they have it too. No loss, except for the fact that you're not the only person who owns, or has the right to own, it) your jokes, fine.

People don't fucking care to your intellectual property rights under Capitalism anyways. Unless you have a ton of capital to hire a lawyer and sic them on people.

Under Communism, people will basically respect that I am the origin of an idea or a creation, but there won't be a profit incentive for them to exploit it like you see on art sites where artists post art but the website owner profits from all the ad traffic. Nor will I feel bad that someone got access to my art without paying because I no longer have to rely on making money to survive.

Capitalism fucks artists more than any other economic system. Communism/Socialism fully supports the arts. Signed, an artist.

fuck off mate, once you've offered your work to the world, you can't take it back, people will copy/modify/adapt/inspire from it and there's nothing you can do about it except getting a cut as long as you're not dead


this

creation should be funded by universal state managed global license, and all copyright revoked except credit and monnies to the original author for few years

Private property is a spook, and intellectual property is the spookiest spook of all.

If you want to earn money, you should be offering commissions - not claiming a monopoly over the distribution of pre-existing information.

Fuck that, property is a spook.

I'm taking your works for free and idgaf if you stop making them, there's a million other artists out there that are just as good as you are.

Becose the left has soooo many artists to spare…

The left tends to be more popular among artists than engineers. Just because they aren't making epic stalin memes doesn't mean they aren't leftist.

If you want a particular piece made, why don't you pay for a commission? You want artists to get paid, don't you?

I want them to get paid, in contrast with the fag I responded to.

Didn't catgrildrawfag give up recently because she wasn't gettin paid?

Copyrights should be limited to crediting people for work not limiting its use. In the case of music the music itself should be free but they can charge for vinyl, live shows, and merchandise.

If you make art then you're entitled to do whatever you want with it. But once you put out there then you're shit out of luck.

So if you don't want anyone copying your donut steele or sharing a movie you made then do what Prince did and keep it to yourself.

So pay them for their labor rather than paying them for their monopoly created through violence and artificial scarcity. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that you shouldn't pay artists if you want them to draw something for you.

I guess that's one way to look at it. Iirc age felt that comics about obscure political ideologies was too niche to live on, and there was the psychological factor of her artist friends landing big gigs with large companies.

How did she expect to get paid?

She had slash has a Patreon

what does this fucking *mean?*

That doesn't really work unless you can engineer a following of stupid furries who will throw money at you in return for whiny blog posts.

She'd be better off offering porn commissions for cash and then creating the catgirl comic in her spare time.


This means that they should be paid for the hours they worked on a single piece as a one-off payment. This is usually done through commissions where the commissioner asks them to create a specific piece of art and offers money in return.

This is copyright. Artificial scarcity means cracking down on things like torrent sites and sending out DMCA notices. Violence is the threat of prison for people who refuse to comply with said DMCA notices.

Digital media is completely worthless because it is limitlessly and instantly replicable. The only way they can make money off it is by creating artificial scarcity, by sending government thugs to kick in your door if you reproduce it yourself, making their official copies that you have to pay for the only ones available. Enforcing someone's 'right' to complete control of their artwork is very similar.

Under capitalism is ludicrous to suggest people shouldn't try to sell their art, people gotta eat. Under FALC an artist could make art just because, and display it or not, and the cash wouldn't come into it

She stopped doing the comics because she had no spare time because she had to take commissions, you fucking moron.

Digital media isn't completely worthless just because you can copy and paste you fucking dweeb. The person who made it in the first place had to buy equipment, tablets, software, computers, not to mention invest countless time practicing and money into training or instruction.

There is a famous instance that is known in the art world where Picasso charged a woman like 3000 pesos for a simple portrait. She objected, complaining that it only took him a few minutes. He responded by reminding her that it took him his whole life for him to be able to even do it in a few minutes. Your argument is literally no different from the woman here.

Are you that faggot who keeps shitting up our art threads on /fur/? Rights are spooks, all art is my property. Now stop shitting up our board you worthless nigger. Read Stirner.

B A S E D
A
S
E
D

Because in an era of infinite digital reproduction and instantaneous online distribution, that is simply not possible unless you're okay with cyber-cops closely watching the activity and content of every computer connected to the Internet — and even then, they would hardly be able to intercept everything they're supposed to.

Turn it around. Why should you have the right to say they can't use it?

Fake artist detected.
Other people enjoying your creations is good enough, or your creations aren't any good.

Nice!
Oh shit nigger, what are you doing? You know right and wrong don't real, right?

Reminder that if artists always had their way, we wouldn't have the chance to read Kafka's novels because he asked his friend Max Brood to burn them after his death. He obviously didn't.

kafka may have been onto something tho; overrated novelist as are most of them.

Lolno
Don't worry. You don't have to be "altruistic." I'm going to copy that floppy no matter what you say or do to save you the trouble of having to decide to share or not share. I will share for you.

Live libre or die.

Oh well, now she's like 99% of other workers out there. Welcome to the fucking club.

no he isn't you haughty faggot

It takes a lot of time and effort to build a factory. I guess that means porky deserves to keep the profits from the factory, right?

ITT: "I want free shit, you shouldn't be allowed to own things"


Please trespass on my property and try to take my belongings, I'd love to legally shoot you for being so stupid.

People have every right to own things, either physical or ideas. Fuck me, do you fags object to video games on physical media as well? You probably "buy" things on Steam because it's convenient.

Don't like a creator owning their ideas? Too bad, you're a selfish clown that thinks you're entitled to be entertained with zero compensation to the creator. Yeah I pirate, I also admit I'm a cheap bastard that's in the wrong but I don't care. YOU try to justify it with "muh freedoms, porky, world enrichment" and other garbage. A least I admit I'm too cheap to pay for it, you pretend you're a superhero for not paying.

Did porky himself built it with his own hands?

99% of artists cheat their paying customer and insist on keeping the finished piece, and apparently "work for hire" somehow doe snot apply and the law sides with them.

I don't pay someone to build me a house and let them keep the house, why should I not get ownership of what I paid for just because it's a drawing?

This is the same shit that tricks people into "buying" digital shit instead of physical media. I buy DRM-free physical media such as a DVD or a video game cartridge, I can trade/sell it if I don't want it anymore. I can use it 10-20 years later if I wish. I can't trade a digital copy, and if the platform it runs on is shut down or made obsolete, there goes my right to use it.

This one one reason I pirate, albeit not the main(I'm too cheap to pay for shit and I don't care if it's wrong). If I'm going to pay for digital air and get no actual property, then I'm wasting money. Not that I even pay for physical media anymore, again, too cheap but if I was buying I'd insist on a physical copy with no usage or trade restrictions.

Did the artist teach himself from nothing without any help?

A lot of porkies did do some work to create their initial capital. Yes, they pay workers to build the factory, just like the artist pays a teacher to teach them art. In both cases it still costs them time.


That's why you make sure you have a written contract stating that by accepting the money they are giving you ownership of the IP. The courts definitely should side with you.

Nobody is pretending to be a super-hero by saying property over works of the mind is unwarranted and unenforceable. That's just the reality of the information age. You can very well believe that an artist ought to be compensated in some way for his work (and tbh a solid UBI would deal with that matter) but that doesn't make intellectual property rights any less arbitrary or obsolete.

Yeah you're that butthurt faggot from /fur/. When I told you to fuck off back then, I didn't mean to come here and shit this place up.

Artists don't "own" anything, faggot. You're getting the bullet along with the cappies
Why don't you go join the RIAA/MPAA along with the other walking human trash?

Same reason you don't get to decide who gets to wear war bonnets just because your skin has a reddish hue.

lol is this supposed to be bad

I'm sure you feel the same way about how your ancestors colonized wherever you are. Those other organisms that just happened to live there were on YOUR land and you just had to "legally" take it by force.

porcodio

...

I'm glad you're a communist now!

Look into copy left and read free culture. I have attached a PDF, but it is also available in physical form through Amazon if you're into hard copies.

Intellectual property and Commons must be protected but that doesn't mean that the cost of artists getting paid for their work. There's an area of a grey that needs to be explored in this book is pretty good primer into it.

I've been trying to convince fellow YouTubers on Leftypol to use the copyleft license option available on YouTube. They seem pretty apprehensive about it but I really think it comes down to them not understanding what copy left actually entails.

I really think copy left is something all leftist creators should align themselves with ideologically because it is the closest thing to communism in intellectual property that we've got under the law.

Piracy on its own is a different extremist ideology involving the copyleft ideas where the belief is make things free by force. I somewhat align with that in a selfish sense but also through self-preservation in a capitalist system. I have a job in the industry who's software I only know as well as I do because I pirated all of it since I could at an early age. Without access to the software through piracy I wouldn't know as much as I do due to lack of access and money growing up.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law, that's why whenever I find an image I like I save it… and you can't do anything about it :^)

Don't spoiler it buddy, let your spirit go free.

be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or
by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the
prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.

Tell me, if you make a statue and sell it or give it away to someone, it got passed and sold around, can you just claim it back because you dislike it?

No. You made a book, or a painting, or digital art, you gave it to the world for all. End of the story, you can't take it back.

Why? Why do we have to be forced to pay for something that litterally takes no labour to reproduce? If the costs of labour are accounted for, shouldnt it be free? Why are they entitled to eternal compensation for labour they did once?

ISIS was in their full right to destroy their private property of irreplacable priceless archeological artifacts. Uhuh

They can do that, but you say we must allow artists to destroy other peoples copies. This is ridiculous

I have respect for their creations. A good work of art can be made by a genocidal maniac.

No

She was looking to broaden her audience and try to land a better/stable job or generate enough following to work directly on donations.

Which he gave under the copyleft license outlined here:

free-culture.cc/freecontent

A piece of work can be copyrighted and copyleft it at the same time. One's a limit while the other is a freedom.

The right to "own" ideas is the right to use violence against anyone who makes a copy of your unique set of 1s and 0s
You're the thief and violent thug

Holy shit this is such a no brainer that I didn't even bother to read until this sentence. OP is unironically a loony.

As long as there's a restriction at all, it's not freedom totally. Just a less unfree version of copyright. If it were truly free it would be public domain.

To be fair share-alike copyleft is arguably even better than public domain. Ideally the only restriction should be a requirement to share all derivative works freely. It's like public domain, but virulent.

I admit that isn't what a lot of creative commons licenses are like though. Once you have non-commercial, attribution, etc. clauses it starts being a bit too restrictive.