Quote:
Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob
You have admitted that there is ownership of art. You had to admit it to not make yourself look like a giant fucking asshole by saying I can profit off of KATG.
|
i never said that? in fact i've said many times that you profiting from someone else's work requires the copyrights, that's been a fundamental point in my argument? how can you say that i'd advocate such a thing out of nowhere and then argue against that fictional point?
browneyedbitche's last point was based on lack of understanding of the current law, i wasn't dodging anything, i gave her material so she could understand, her stance was a misinformed one.
for the last couple pages i've been trying to help you finally express your point of view, which you really need to do because you started out yelling 'thief thief' and we all thought you were saying 'thief' based on copyright law and the system. you were very anti-theft and anti-changing the system.
at around page 19 you finally clarified that you were going 'thief thief' based on your own ideals and morals because based on the current law you are too a thief.
what i don't understand, and i assume it's because you've been evolving your point throughout this which is fine, but when i said that the concept of stealing is defined by the state, you said i was an idiot? however now you say that you would like to change the state's concept of being a thief not to include making digital copies for your own personal use.
so now we're in the process of understanding your point of view for what you think is right and what should be implemented in the future. as far as i've seen the people who say my point of view is fundamentally morraly wrong are people that admit they haven't read the thread and don't understand my point, or don't understand the current copyright laws and the main argument against my model is that i'm a thief which by today's us law i am and is missing the point entirely. and also you making shit up and not understanding my model and then scolding me for what you think i believe and not what i've said even when the stuff you invent me saying completely contradict my point. a lot of this thread you've been arguing against yourself.
what i want is to understand your concecpt of 'owning art' as another possible way to move into the future, as you've explained it so far i see a flaw that you're not addressing.
don't just say i'm wrong and move onto attacking me,
explain why you're right. can you take a break for a little while and just explain your concept of 'owning the art'. and start by directly answering these questions in as short and clear manner as possible.
if you own the art, why does paying for the rights to watch a movie in a movie theatre not give you the rights to the art?
under your model can you take a video camera into a movie theatre if you're only using the copy for your own personal use?
what are the limits of owning art? if i purchase a cd, can i play it for my friends where 2 of the 3 present do not own a copy of the art being played? what gives them the right to the art?
what if one of my friends listening pulls out their cell phone and makes an exact copy using the microphone to record the song at better than cd quality, which he then uses for his own personal use? is he breaking the law? am i breaking the law?
under your model is playing the same cd, in my driveway while i sit on my porch breaking the law?
what if 5 of my neighbours gather and listen to it without them owning the art being played?
what if 20 gather and i don't even know some of them?
what if someone pulls out their cell phone and makes an exact copy for their own personal use? did that person steal? did that person steal from me or the artist?