2's rant on morality, Sibes response
Ross Reddick
Hash: SHA1
So im reading my email and Im looking and suddenly there is this guy
but hes whining about how you cant steal art.
Listen 2. Your rant is rediculous. Stealing something tangible is
different then sharing information. Your car example is also
rediculous because stealing cars is against the law. Now if you will
note that you are talking about morality. Mr I like drawing dino
boners is talking to me about morality? I like roleplaying anal sex
with griffens is talking to me about morality? See, who the fuck are
you to say what is good and what is bad.
Yah Ill admit I have a negative stance of pedophiles in this fandom,
but sorry thats something that I think creates a poor impression as
well as a dangerous environment in chatrooms for those kids who just
are going through puberty and still like looking at cartoons who just
happen to be having sex.
See 2, you have humerous rants but the fact is you cannot engage in
any type of conversation to support the things that you feel and say
are so wrong. Thats why you have a rant show, and not any type of
talk show. You would get shot down quicker then BlackHawks over
mogadishu if you ever engaged in an intelligent discourse. You seem
to be part of the artists that support nazis like the riaa and the
mpaa. It is the same principle with the furry art. No 2 you dont
have ultimate control of your art. Quit fucking bitching about it. In
fact I hope you quit posting your art because it fucking blows. One
last thing two I notice you have guns and wear a lot of black. Well
take the next step man
Kill yourself. :)
And have a nice day.
- -Ross
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Hush 2.1
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com
wmAEARECACAFAjzyYsMZHHJvc3NyZWRkaWNrQGh1c2htYWlsLmNvbQAKCRCaYrB5n8df
NRqnAJ9EBMMSGVQd+VkFtqQBoK6sx8HyiQCbBnHD86/IcYNDKR4R7anL3XpCSNU=
=emKe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kathmandu
Thank the gods of the internet for the killfile button. Now all they need to
make are idiot detectors to elininate the posts at the source...
--
Kathmandu
Sculptor, artist and writer.
http://www.cableone.net/kathmandu
Be sure to read Salt and Foam
http://www.cableone.net/kathmandu/salt.htm
Also the author of the Sabrina Online Fanfic, The Studio: Photogenisis
http://www.cableone.net/kathmandu/studio.htm
Be sure to check out the Uncle Kat's Story Hour at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Uncle_Kats_Story_Hour/
"Ross Reddick" <rossr...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:828dc90b.02052...@posting.google.com...
Allen Kitchen
Ross Reddick wrote:
> Listen 2. Your rant is rediculous. Stealing something tangible is
> different then sharing information.
By that logic, I should be allowed to have all your banking information. After all, it's
only information. So why don't you post here on AFF all of your Credit card numbers,
expiration dates, addresses, social security card numbers, and a Gif of your drivers
license? It's all information, after all.
And the last time I checked, this comic book you keep ripping off was tangible.
And I knew you hadn't really changed or grown up, Sibe. Somehow, I knew it.
Allen
Paul R. Bennett
Gods help us... As there are some that just will never understand.
Creative work is just that... WORK!
It really is.
It takes time to create something. Creative thoughts do not come out of nothing.
When I sit at the computer and write a story... This is time I could spend doing other
things.... building a model airplane... a model train... snickers... imagines the look on
Shockwave's face when he see's da' fox's closet. A veritable Air Force Museum... In plastic
no less!
Fun stuff!
Building a piece of radio gear.
Doing so much else.
Yet, when those demons of creativity rage.
And there is not a single one of us, who dreams, who has to "share".
We really don't.... Good, bad, drama, art, or crap.
And when someone hoists the "Jolly Roger", grabs the work we do. Flips us the cumulative
finger. Good, bad, or otherwise.
Any creative work takes time... same as the mechanic under yer car's hood. Or the secretary
typing a report, or the carpenter fixing the shelf, or the plumber fixing the toilet.
It is all time. And, would some one really try to explain to me why there is any difference
between a plumber fixing the toilet and an artist doing a piece of artwork or a story?
It is still, when you get down to it... someone committing their time to a task.
Somebody wants to think different, do they? Tell ya' what.... Hope they got waders handy
when the toilet backs up and the plumber laughs.
Ugh... I know that is just so gross an image. But I hope it makes a point.
Gods knows I got issues with "Furry" from a business standpoint. An' there is as how an
overwhelming bunch I will see in HELL before I do business with. But Gods Be, I won't cheat
'em. And I won't see them cheated either. "Chester" gives me the heaves... but, if I hear of
a website of "Chester" art, then as best I can, I will be the first to give Ms. Smith a yell.
What really is the difference...between some knife toting freelance socialist in an alley,
some gun wielding bastard shoving a muzzle through a car window, some collection of armed
thugs kicking the door of someone's home in, and somebody who latches on to some one else's
creative work, spreads it around, and expects a medal.
There isn't, not to me. Just because a weapon isn't involved does not make it nicer. It is
still the nut cutting, throat slicing same.
We all suffer from it. The creative folk, raped(and that is the only word I can think of) of
their efforts, their creativity, any hope of recompense, why should they create? Just one
more image from their time and efforts to coddle and cuddle somebody who is too damn cheap to
spend a cent and wants to cloak it in some fantastical morality that cheats those who do
create.
Allen, I know I sound the nutter. But damn it and pardon my language, but one either
respects others, their time, their efforts, their rights, whether one likes them or not, or
one is some really crappy piece of excrement as I would not even use on my garden.
Time, for each and every one of us, is the most important thing we have. There is no
replacement for it. Time, in whatever endeavour, once spent is gone. There is no going
back. Every second is a priceless treasure to every one of us.
To have those seconds, minutes, hours wasted, raped from us by the greedy, even if they cloak
it in some moral cause, is a cruel traveristy.
Paul
(Now I am gonna go play with my trains.... annoyed... and too sick at heart to write.)
Gabriel Gentile
> Thank the gods of the internet for the killfile button. Now all they need to
> make are idiot detectors to elininate the posts at the source...
If they did that then NOBODY would get to post.
Dragon Magic
was illegal? Was it also illegal when you admitted
to grinding your underaged boyfriend?
Before you impose morals on others, you may
want to clean yours up first.
Matthew W. Miller
> So im reading my email and Im looking and suddenly there is this guy
> but hes whining
Yes, indeed he is. So *are* you setting aside the nym "Sibe" or aren't
you?
Oh, never mind.
--
Matthew W. Miller -- mwmi...@columbus.rr.com
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> Allen
> Gods help us... As there are some that just will never understand.
> Creative work is just that... WORK!
> It really is.
> It takes time to create something. Creative thoughts do not come
> out of nothing.
What are you talking about, creative thoughts do come out of nothing.
Every moment of everyday I'm having some sort of creative thourt.
Little furry movies running around in my head. Perl programs writing
themselves in my head. Solutions to problems spontainiously
appearing.
[...]
> Any creative work takes time... same as the mechanic under yer car's
> hood. Or the secretary
> typing a report, or the carpenter fixing the shelf, or the plumber
> fixing the toilet.
Or a computer programmer working on an OpenSource/Free Software?
> It is all time. And, would some one really try to explain to me why
> there is any difference
> between a plumber fixing the toilet and an artist doing a piece of
> artwork or a story?
True Art/Litriture makes thouse who exprence it better people. So
exposure to Art/Lituture must be maximised. Even that Art/Lituture
can be copied without degradation (unlike my toilet)it is a moral
obligation to copy it and spread it to the largest number of people.
[...]
> What really is the difference...between some knife toting freelance
> socialist in an alley,
> some gun wielding bastard shoving a muzzle through a car window,
> some collection of armed
> thugs kicking the door of someone's home in, and somebody who
> latches on to some one else's
> creative work, spreads it around, and expects a medal.
Well the threat of violence for one.
> There isn't, not to me. Just because a weapon isn't involved does
> not make it nicer.
I would prefur to have my copyrights violated then being violently
assulted. And I think most people would as well. Given the differing
penteese beleave that the court system also recognises a diffrence.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Leslie_R
issue of morality or compensation, it's an issue of Ethics and Respect.
You could argue that there are starving artists who are gonna be a
little hungrier because some people will be getting their works through
Warez channels rather than purchasing portfolios, and you can argue
morality ad-nauseum as many are wont on any side of Every argument. But
what it comes down to is takeing something someone else came up with and
throwing it to the four winds WITHOUT THAT SOMEONE'S PERMISSION is rude,
disrespectful, and just plain not-nice.
How an artist's work should be respected is defined by each particular
artist, and there are those who decide to open their sketch-books to the
world at large and more power to them. The point being here that it is
Their descision and noone else's. When you take the desicion-making
away from someone who by-rights should be making those desicions it is a
violation of their person as well as a violation of whatever rules or
regulations might be trodden on.
2's rant on the subject using the metaphor of the stolen car was indeed
plainly apt, and those who can't see it are denying the forrest by
reason of the trees hiding it from view. It's about respect, for one's
property and one's person. If you let your friend drive your car on an
errand halfway across town and he gets it impounded half-way across the
county that's disrespect for your property and ultimatly reflects a lack
of respect on you. If you lend some of your CDs to a friend to be
played at a party, and during that party you find them used as coasters
that's also disrespect and I doubt anyone here would be too happy about
that. These are pretty clear-cut cases since the items in question are
physical, tangible properties. But does this also apply to intangible
properties like scans of comic-book pages? I'd answer "Hell Yes!"
How one defines what is or isn't respectfull and to what degree is
personal and there is no right or wrong to it, it's just there. One
person has just as much right to guard their worksjealously from all but
a chosen few (though we may mourn the fact we are not of those few), as
another person has to bequeath whatever creation they may produce to the
public trust as soon as it manifest's itself from their imaginations.
This is the creator's right, and Not the right of the consumer. The
creator of something, art or whatever, has the right to decide how their
work is to be deseminated. The consumer has the right to try and
convince the creators to share their work to the utmost, but it is
ultimatly the right of the creator to refuse to see their work spread
about by means not to their liking and it should be respected.
Things get a little sticker when you bring over-corporations like the
RIAA and MPAA into things, things get murky and black and white tend to
blend into grey. I can't tell you how this little rant of mine relates
to the powers that be who want to see John Q. Public shell out
extravegant royalties every time he fires up his MP3 player, someone
wiser than me will have to take up that cause. All I can say is this.
This art-piracy, The type we're talking about right here, right now, is
hurtfull. It's not hurtfull of mega-media corporations, nor is it
stinging to the 'artists' who are shielded from their fans by such
constructs. It hurts another John Q. Public, who through study,
experince, or the blind luck of born talent found he could draw or write
something his fellows could find entertaining. And when that John. Q
Public is stung by his fellow's lack of respect for his work and lack of
respect for his person it ultimatly hurts us all, the fans.
Thank you.
-Leslie
--
Just another source of smut.
http://vcl.ctrl-c.liu.se//vcl/Artists/Leslie-Rashana/Stories/
ilr
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote in message
news:slrnaf5nuo....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
>
> What are you talking about, creative thoughts do come out of nothing.
> Every moment of everyday I'm having some sort of creative thourt.
> Little furry movies running around in my head. Perl programs writing
> themselves in my head. Solutions to problems spontainiously
> appearing.
>
That's called Brain Chemistry. And yes, that qualifies it as a form of work
since muscle tissue is also manipulated by bio-electrical impulses. I shouldn't
ever have to correct you on anything unless you're carrying some sort of
Agenda with it, which you were in the past on this topic as I recall. :p
Ross Reddick
PWND!
-Ross
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote in message news:<slrnaf5nuo....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>...
Brian Graeme
matter drrawing or animating it ISN'T work? I'd be amazed if it just somehow
drops out of your ass fully formed... But the folks who simply come up with
ideas don't actually work per se... If I implemented every good idea I ever
had, I'd have Bill Gates polishing my car and calling me "sir"... Everyone
has ideas, that takes no work or effort, it's IMPLEMENTING those ideas that
takes work... I dare you to prove otherwise...
Show me how writing isn't work... You do it out of love? Bullshit, it's
still work...
The difference is that you aren't getting a paycheck, but if you were, I
guarantee you, that you WOULD consider it as work, especially doing it ad
nauseum for anyone else, who bitches you out for not doing it exactly the
way they want, or on a regular basis...
It's fucking work, it's fucking work, and for those with their heads so
firmly up their asses that the shit clogs their ears: IT'S FUCKING WORK!!! I
am SO fucking tired of this debate, so I'm only going to say it once: If you
don't do it for a living, don't presume it isn't fucking work! When you take
something you love to do, and have to do it every day to the whim and wills
of assholes aplenty, and get shit on 24/7 for your efforts, and your work
gets ripped off by every asshole on two legs, then come and tell me you
weren't working... Then maybe, just MAYBE you would have some semblance of a
fucking clue...
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote
in message news:slrnaf5nuo....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
Brian Graeme
in message news:slrnaf5nuo....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> True Art/Litriture makes thouse who exprence it better people. So
> exposure to Art/Lituture must be maximised. Even that Art/Lituture
> can be copied without degradation (unlike my toilet)it is a moral
> obligation to copy it and spread it to the largest number of people.
Furthermore, it is NOT MY FUCKING OBLIGATION TO GIVE MY ART TO ANYONE... Got
it? You want to hand out stuff to be used as toilet paper? Fine, go ahead,
but get off this fucking moronic socialist mentality that everyone should
hold themselves to that rule... It is NOT a moral obligation to copy and
distribute artwork without the artist's permission, PERIOD, unless said
artist is dead, or said artist gave written permission to do so...
If everyone went by your example, there would be no Monet, no Picasso, or no
other classical artists who's names I could pull out of my ass... There'd be
a bunch of classical paintings with no identifiable artists, since some
dumbfuck scratched their names out of the paint, scrawled their own in, and
then sold prints to everybody claiming it was theirs... THAT is the issue of
2's rant, but unfortunately ratfucked morons like Sibe (and obviously
others) cannot get it through their microcephalic titanium plated skulls why
this is fucking wrong...
And this is why I still refuse to repost anything online, because fucking
idiots like you cannot tell the difference between right and wrong on a
wider scale than the mere pittance you toss into the fandom's artists'
coffers... Fuckers like you simply aren't worth the effort or time of
working for, because you cannot even learn the basest of human abilities,
such as common sense and empathy... If I was to count how many furries order
artwork on average, out of those who are screaming idiots and total wastes
of biomass, I wouldn't even run out of fingers... Fucks like you get
everything you deserve, because you do your damnnedest best to make sure you
deserve nothing at all...
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> Personally, I think you Both missed what it's really about. It's not an
> issue of morality or compensation, it's an issue of Ethics and Respect.
I don't see the diffrence between the two.
[...] But
> what it comes down to is takeing something someone else came up with and
> throwing it to the four winds WITHOUT THAT SOMEONE'S PERMISSION is rude,
> disrespectful, and just plain not-nice.
However respect is a two way street. If artists wish there desires to
be respected then they should provide something in return.
[...]
> This is the creator's right, and Not the right of the consumer. The
> creator of something, art or whatever, has the right to decide how their
> work is to be deseminated.
However at the end things are a balence between the rights of the
consumer and the rights of the rights of the artist. How the artists
can control the desemination of his work is balenced by the rights of
the consumer as owners of a phiscal manifestation of that work.
For example if I have boart a print then the artist can't prevent me
selling it second hand, nor can they prevent me from saying "This
print is crap" and using exaples from the print itself to illestrate
how crap the poster is.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote in message
> news:slrnaf5nuo....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
>>
>> What are you talking about, creative thoughts do come out of nothing.
>> Every moment of everyday I'm having some sort of creative thourt.
>> Little furry movies running around in my head. Perl programs writing
>> themselves in my head. Solutions to problems spontainiously
>> appearing.
>>
>
> That's called Brain Chemistry.
So they have slightly more active dopamine recpetors.
> And yes, that qualifies it as a form of work
> since muscle tissue is also manipulated by bio-electrical impulses.
I perceive no additional effort between thinking creativly and
maintaining a regulare rythem of breathing.
> I shouldn't
> ever have to correct you on anything unless you're carrying some sort of
> Agenda with it,
We all carry out agendas with everything we post,
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wrote:
> OMG A PLATYPUS AGREES WITH ME
No I don't agree with you. You seem less interested in the
philosphical ins and outs of the ethics of sharing and more intrested
in attracting attention to yourself threw negitive means.
Your childish mall tantrems have made it more difficult for me to
argue my case successfully.
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>be respected then they should provide something in return.
Like oh lets say -THEIR ARTWORK!-
When an artist puts their artwork out for others to view, they're allready
showing their respect to the public, it's when the public wants to do anything
other than look an ooohh and ahhh, that it's the public's turn to demonstrate
respect....
iBuck
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com/Furry
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
Leslie_R
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 May 2002 22:50:35 -0500, Leslie_R <tro...@atoka.net> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I think you Both missed what it's really about. It's not an
> > issue of morality or compensation, it's an issue of Ethics and Respect.
>
> I don't see the diffrence between the two.
>
Morality and Ethics are two distinct things, though the seperation
between Good and Evil and Right and Wrong is often ambiguous to the
extreme, for good or ill. However I thought the idea of un-authorized
distribution being more offensive for it's lack of respect than lack of
monetary compensation was pretty clear-cut.
> [...] But
> > what it comes down to is takeing something someone else came up with and
> > throwing it to the four winds WITHOUT THAT SOMEONE'S PERMISSION is rude,
> > disrespectful, and just plain not-nice.
>
> However respect is a two way street. If artists wish there desires to
> be respected then they should provide something in return.
What should they provide? They provide their art in a venue of their
choosing as is (to quote David Hopkins *Jack.Keenspace.Com*) "(their)..
dead-soldier given right", all they ask is that you follow the rules
they ask you to follow and play nice.. weather it be paying cash moneys
for a Portfolio, a Print, a Comic Book, a CD-ROM etc.. or just visiting
their publicly available and free archives and look and perhaps download
to private archives and not alter or abuse their work. None of this
seems un-reasonable to me.
>
> [...]
>
> > This is the creator's right, and Not the right of the consumer. The
> > creator of something, art or whatever, has the right to decide how their
> > work is to be deseminated.
>
> However at the end things are a balence between the rights of the
> consumer and the rights of the rights of the artist. How the artists
> can control the desemination of his work is balenced by the rights of
> the consumer as owners of a phiscal manifestation of that work.
Yes, you own the physical manifestation.. and yet, see below.
>
> For example if I have boart a print then the artist can't prevent me
> selling it second hand, nor can they prevent me from saying "This
> print is crap" and using exaples from the print itself to illestrate
> how crap the poster is.
If you bought a print you can do pretty much whatever you want with it,
stick it on your wall, stick it on your toilet, burn it and burry it in
lime, draw a hitler mustache on it and whatever witty slogan you care to
think of on it.. you can even go and sell it to whoever you'd like or
even give it away.
However, these rights are property rights that only cover that peice of
photo-quality paper in your hands that happens to have the artist's
image on it, and no way no how do those property rights carry over into
making you a copyright holder for the image on that paper.
To reiterate, you could say the print you bought was crap, you can
proclaim that from the highest mountaintop that it is crap, you can even
go on the fur.art.* newsgroups and say "The artist *insert name here*
drew a picture of *insert object or topic here* and it blows chunks."
These are your rights to excersize. You are NOT however endowed with
the right to post a scanned image of that print to fur.art.* attatched
to your post lambasting said artist.
In the Big Picture Copyright law is intended to help maintain
profitability of intellectual property and thus encourage others to
produce more intellectual property, more big ideas and nifty ways of
doing things and so forth. It's enforcment at this level may not have
always been ideal but all laws have potential for exploitation, some
more than others.
In the Small Picture Copyright law is the only legal protection
available to persons like those we know here in the fandom who see their
work abused without reguard for their rights or even their feelings in
such matters. It should be enough that an artist asks you to respect
themselves and their work in exchange for making it available in a way
they are comfortable with but it isn't, and that's a damn shame.
-Leslie
Kurin Kitusagi
ok here's a better example, your friend gets done restoring a 1968 'vette
Stingray, and since he can't drive it for 90 days due to a suspended
liscence, but he wants to make sure that it works he lets you take it for
the 90, it's not stolen and he give you his phone number in case there's any
problems with Jhonny Law. well after those 90 days you bring it back, and
what does he find, the leather interior has numerous stains of a non-food
nature on it, the car which was originally black has been repainted red, the
liscence plate on the back is clearly not the one that was originally on
there and did I forget to mention that it has the look of a rally car and
has obvious sings of going off road. So after you repair it again, get your
own plates on there and start driving it, you see one girl run up to you and
then go, oh your not (your friend's name here) I thought this was his car.
Ok now tell me what you'd want to do to a friend who did all that, and his
only excuse was that you wouldn't care because you were asking for someone
to make sure it was running good... please put your responses here.
Ska Kitty
Blackberry
>
>I'd agree here woth the last part....
>
I'm not sure what your example is supposed to illustrate. Are you saying that
copyright violators are really just putting a different "spin" on the material
that they are violating? It's still an invasion. The person you describe in
your example "invaded" his friend's personal property by modifying his car
without permission.
--
I believe in everything, nothing is sacred.
I believe in nothing, everything is sacred.
- from "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" by Tom Robbins
batty den
>What are you talking about, creative thoughts do come out of nothing.
>Every moment of everyday I'm having some sort of creative thourt.
>Little furry movies running around in my head. Perl programs writing
>themselves in my head. Solutions to problems spontainiously
>appearing.
And how much effort do you put in to get those ideas out of your head and
onto the page?* Do they seep out of your fingers through some process of
osmosis?
I spend fucking *hours* writing my stories, and rewriting them again and
again before I'm happy enough to publish them. I spend time creating
something I like, and that others like them is a bonus. If I get money,
then that's great.
(*Page, referring to canvas, paper sheet, computer screen, scripting tools
etc.)
>Or a computer programmer working on an OpenSource/Free Software?
What happens if the programmer's name is removed from the distribution?
>True Art/Litriture makes thouse who exprence it better people. So
>exposure to Art/Lituture must be maximised. Even that Art/Lituture
>can be copied without degradation (unlike my toilet)it is a moral
>obligation to copy it and spread it to the largest number of people.
If Bruce Sterling said information should be free, why does he still sell
his stories? Why does he still get paid to write?
Why was Harlan Ellison so pissed off at someone distributing his stories on
the internet?
How do Michael Whelan, Boris Vallejo or Anne Macaffrey feel about their
material?
What is the difference between the above named artists and writers, and
fandom artists and writers like Mike & Carol Curtis? Or wannabes like me?
>
>[...]
>
>> What really is the difference...between some knife toting freelance
>> socialist in an alley, ... and somebody who
>> latches on to some one else's
>> creative work, spreads it around, and expects a medal.
>
>Well the threat of violence for one.
The end result is not. The artist has still had something stolen. How
(computer or sharp pointy thing) and what (art or cash) is immaterial.
den
--
Credendo Vides
Bat Rescue Diaries soon at http://www.ozemail.com.au/~denbat
_____________________________________________________________
I know this might sound strange,|www.battyden.net
but all I want is a normal life |denbat at ozemail dot com.au
_____________________________________________________________
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> I perceive no additional effort between thinking creativly and
> maintaining a regulare rythem of breathing.
If creative thinking was that easy everyone could make millions off of
creative endeavors by using them to entertain others. As it stands tons
try, and only a few succeed. The mathematics stand against your
argument. And if you truly think it's that easy, do this. Come up with a
daily/weekly comic strip of some sort, that is non-furry and non-gamer.
The reason I say no to those last two, is because it prevents you from
attracting niche crows. And the last criteria? Make it successful. Get a
few thousand hits a week. Bonus points if you can sell t-shirts. I'll
even let you "cheat" and get some artist to draw for you if you can't.
But the artist can't make your jokes, they have to be your own
handiwork. Go ahead. Let's see how you do. Either you'll fail miserably
and see how hard it really is or you'll have success and find out how
much real work is involved.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
> >What are you talking about, creative thoughts do come out of nothing.
> >Every moment of everyday I'm having some sort of creative thourt.
> >Little furry movies running around in my head. Perl programs writing
> >themselves in my head. Solutions to problems spontainiously
> >appearing.
As Batty Den was ripping you here, making your creative thoughts work
is hard work. Your level of "creative thoughts" at this point is no more
viable than the creative thoughts of a four year old with a set of
crayolas. Make them work, put your effort where your mouth is and you'll
have a solid argument. Otherwise, it's way too easy for any of us to
blow you off on this one.
Nothing personal about this mind you, it's just your waaaaaaaaaay off
base.
TT
Felyne32k
den...@ozemail.com.au says...
> If Bruce Sterling said information should be free, why does he still sell
> his stories? Why does he still get paid to write?
Bruce Sterling didn't say that information should be free. That was
Stewart Brand. Bruce Sterling said that "Information wants you to gimme a
hundred dollars."
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
DISCLAIMER: The poster tends more towards
agreeing with Sterling.
Felyne32k
dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au says...
> On 28 May 2002 00:10:06 -0700, Ross Reddick <rossr...@hushmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > OMG A PLATYPUS AGREES WITH ME
>
> No I don't agree with you. You seem less interested in the
> philosphical ins and outs of the ethics of sharing and more intrested
> in attracting attention to yourself threw negitive means.
>
> Your childish mall tantrems have made it more difficult for me to
> argue my case successfully.
>
<stagewhisper> You weren't doing too great a job to begin with; to a guy
who has never been more than two thousand feet above sea level, scaling
Everest with proper gear just about as hard as scaling Everest on
Rollerblades. </stagewhisper>
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
lapses brought by sleep deprivation.
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>> philosphical ins and outs of the ethics of sharing and more intrested
>> in attracting attention to yourself threw negitive means.
>>
>> Your childish mall tantrems have made it more difficult for me to
>> argue my case successfully.
Unfortunately, you CAN'T argue the ethics of sharing and the philosophical ins
and outs without dealing with how to handle people who break and abuse the
system.
Sibe exists, I can handle him in my paradigm, can you do better than telling
to take his tantrums elsewhere?
batty den
>Bruce Sterling didn't say that information should be free. That was
>Stewart Brand. Bruce Sterling said that "Information wants you to gimme a
>hundred dollars."
Ah. My bad. I mixed them up.
Cerulean
>I perceive no additional effort between thinking creativly and
>maintaining a regulare rythem of breathing.
You're watching a marathon runner and saying, "That looks easy, it's
just putting one foot in front of the other. I can do that, I walked
to the mailbox this morning." If I were a different kind of
cartoonist, I could stop the creative process at your "effortless"
stage and churn out whatever pops into my head, three times a day if I
liked. Warren could say "Exploding fish are in my mightstand quibble
fribble dibble!" and then turn into a photograph of Burt Convy, and
the punchline would be "Yo Quiero Bocce Balls." In fact, that sounds
pretty funny at first glance, but people would get bored of more of
the same garbage in less than a month. Instead, I make hard decisions
and solve complicated problems to make my creations meet a high
standard. I agonize over having to skip a day in my three-a-week
schedule because everything I've come up with so far isn't good enough
to put my name on. And try to tell my aching right hand that drawing
isn't work!
What you are experiencing may charitably be called inspiration. That
and a quarter will get you a gumball. An artist goes on to do the
other 99 percent.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( hJJaLd-,,hemhue 6u!ua+s!7 s! auo-ou 'a)edS uI,,
Kurin Kitusagi
someone takes a peice and just does some fancy photoshop filters erases the
artist signature and puts in their own.
what I was trying to do there is show that Art (including writing and
sculpting and other such modes) IS WORK! I was trying to ask those idiots
who don't have respect for people what they would do to a friend who did
that to their car that they worked on. Notice I also said that he was going
around claiming it as his own, he did stuff other than listening for
problems.
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
news:ad0mt...@drn.newsguy.com...
Ross Reddick
U R A biter :>
-Ross
Ross Reddick
> Ross Reddick wrote:
>
>
> > Listen 2. Your rant is rediculous. Stealing something tangible is
> > different then sharing information.
>
>
> By that logic, I should be allowed to have all your banking information. After all, it's
> only information. So why don't you post here on AFF all of your Credit card numbers,
> expiration dates, addresses, social security card numbers, and a Gif of your drivers
> license? It's all information, after all.
>
> And the last time I checked, this comic book you keep ripping off was tangible.
>
> And I knew you hadn't really changed or grown up, Sibe. Somehow, I knew it.
>
> Allen
Allen if you can h4x0r my banking information you can go right ahead and use it.
Im serious.
Gg to you as well.
-Ross
Ross Reddick
> On 28 May 2002 00:10:06 -0700, Ross Reddick <rossr...@hushmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > OMG A PLATYPUS AGREES WITH ME
>
> No I don't agree with you. You seem less interested in the
> philosphical ins and outs of the ethics of sharing and more intrested
> in attracting attention to yourself threw negitive means.
>
> Your childish mall tantrems have made it more difficult for me to
> argue my case successfully.
omg pwnd.
Just dl the shit and smile :)
-Ross
Ross Reddick
Hey wheres that commission I paid you 20 dollars for in 98? lol
Im gonna steal from you on gp. in fact we have a lot of your old art
that you cant pull because someone has it on their hd. More and more
furries mirror websites now because of dumbfucks like you want to
powertrip over the i can draw and u cant.
Fuck you brian.
-Ross
"Brian Graeme" <doge...@ibtta.moc> wrote in message news:<acvhn0$13tp$1...@velox.critter.net>...
Felyne32k
lncra...@aol.comstar says...
> >> No I don't agree with you. You seem less interested in the
> >> philosphical ins and outs of the ethics of sharing and more intrested
> >> in attracting attention to yourself threw negitive means.
> >>
> >> Your childish mall tantrems have made it more difficult for me to
> >> argue my case successfully.
>
> Unfortunately, you CAN'T argue the ethics of sharing and the philosophical ins
> and outs without dealing with how to handle people who break and abuse the
> system.
>
> Sibe exists, I can handle him in my paradigm, can you do better than telling
> to take his tantrums elsewhere?
>
David said that, not me. =P
Brian Graeme
you little pedophilic fuck, cost furry arrtists hundreds, if not THOUSANDS
in sales, you deserve jail for petty larceny at best... And guess what,
pityfucked moron, you don't have EVERYTHING, you hae at best 1/10th of the
artwork I archived over a 10 year period, you don't have shit... Talk about
OWNED (guess what else, leetspeek asshole, I know how to spell! Can you say
the same? Durrrrr...), you pathetic little clinging turd on the rectum of
life... So fuck you very much, if you had the balls to follow through, you'd
have been here (and died) by now considering the (relayed to the FBI)
threats you made... You don't even know what they're looking into you on,
which just goes to show your balls are way bigger than your brains... Kill
yourself, you're an even bigger waste on the air and food that people (with
IQs larger than 100) need to keep alive... Fuck off and die horribly, the
army wouldn't even take you because you fell below THEIR standards (think
about it folks, how much it takes to get into the military)... You simply
aren't shit, your words aren't worth shit, your claims of higher morality
aren't worth shit, you aren't worth shit... You are barely below bacteria
that my immune system eats for lunch, you are NOTHING...
"Ross Reddick" <rossr...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:828dc90b.02052...@posting.google.com...
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wrote:
> And writing it in, typing it in, spell checking or debugging, or for that
> matter drrawing or animating it ISN'T work?
No I find it fun and relaxing. Things I find fun and relaxing I
regard as play.
[...]
> The difference is that you aren't getting a paycheck, but if you were, I
> guarantee you, that you WOULD consider it as work, especially doing it ad
> nauseum for anyone else, who bitches you out for not doing it exactly the
> way they want, or on a regular basis...
I do get a paycheck for my unix system administration. I regard that
as play as well. Though when I was working tech support and the
dealing with manigment and users, that is work.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote
> in message news:slrnaf5nuo....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
>
>> True Art/Litriture makes thouse who exprence it better people. So
>> exposure to Art/Lituture must be maximised. Even that Art/Lituture
>> can be copied without degradation (unlike my toilet)it is a moral
>> obligation to copy it and spread it to the largest number of people.
>
> Furthermore, it is NOT MY FUCKING OBLIGATION TO GIVE MY ART TO ANYONE.
Excluding people who have payed for it.
[...]
> Fine, go ahead,
> but get off this fucking moronic socialist mentality that everyone should
> hold themselves to that rule.
If your going to argue that I'm should act in a capitallist mannor
then shouldn't I be hounding you for thouse 3 commisions I ordered off
you way back in 1996?
I mean what your doing is quite clearly theaft, just as what Sibe is
doing is a violation of copyright laws.
[...]
> And this is why I still refuse to repost anything online, because fucking
> idiots like you cannot tell the difference between right and wrong
I can tell the diffrence between right and wrong, I just have a
diffrent view on where thouse boundries should be.
> on a
> wider scale than the mere pittance you toss into the fandom's artists'
> coffers...
At the income I was making at that time, and with the Australian
dollar as it was at that time 3 commisions at your standing rate meant
that I had to skip having dinner for a week.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 27 May 2002 22:50:35 -0500, Leslie_R <tro...@atoka.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Personally, I think you Both missed what it's really about. It's not an
>> > issue of morality or compensation, it's an issue of Ethics and Respect.
>>
>> I don't see the diffrence between the two.
>>
> Morality and Ethics are two distinct things, though the seperation
> between Good and Evil and Right and Wrong is often ambiguous to the
> extreme, for good or ill.
Can you tell me what you consider the diffrence between morality and
Ethics to be?
[...]
>> For example if I have boart a print then the artist can't prevent me
>> selling it second hand, nor can they prevent me from saying "This
>> print is crap" and using exaples from the print itself to illestrate
>> how crap the poster is.
[...]
> To reiterate, you could say the print you bought was crap, you can
> proclaim that from the highest mountaintop that it is crap, you can even
> go on the fur.art.* newsgroups and say "The artist *insert name here*
> drew a picture of *insert object or topic here* and it blows chunks."
> These are your rights to excersize. You are NOT however endowed with
> the right to post a scanned image of that print to fur.art.* attatched
> to your post lambasting said artist.
As long as I use less then 10% of the artwork (according to Australian
Laws and Precedcence) I'm able to make copys and distribute thouse
copies as a part of my critism.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<kruink...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> well that's also part of the whole copyright issue in the fandom when
> someone takes a peice and just does some fancy photoshop filters erases the
> artist signature and puts in their own.
I have always stated that the right of attribulation should remain.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wrote:
wrote:
>>What are you talking about, creative thoughts do come out of nothing.
>>Every moment of everyday I'm having some sort of creative thourt.
>>Little furry movies running around in my head. Perl programs writing
>>themselves in my head. Solutions to problems spontainiously
>>appearing.
>
> And how much effort do you put in to get those ideas out of your head and
> onto the page?* Do they seep out of your fingers through some process of
> osmosis?
Well as I take my hour long trip to the city I pull out my notebook
and write stuff down. When i have finished a story I set infrount of
my comptuer and then transcribe it back. I then spell and grammer
check, make sure my chars have the same name threw out. Check for
obvice errors, occasionally I get someone to also proof read it for
me.
[...]
>>Or a computer programmer working on an OpenSource/Free Software?
>
> What happens if the programmer's name is removed from the
> distribution?
I consider the right of attribulation to be diffrent to the right to
control how your artwork is copied.
[...]
> Why was Harlan Ellison so pissed off at someone distributing his stories on
> the internet?
Why was Harlan Ellison so pissed off that his entry in "Fantasy
Encyclopedia" is not fulsome enough?
[...]
> What is the difference between the above named artists and writers, and
> fandom artists and writers like Mike & Carol Curtis? Or wannabes like me?
Nothing.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>>
>> I perceive no additional effort between thinking creativly and
>> maintaining a regulare rythem of breathing.
>
> If creative thinking was that easy everyone could make millions off of
> creative endeavors by using them to entertain others. As it stands tons
> try, and only a few succeed. The mathematics stand against your
> argument. And if you truly think it's that easy, do this. Come up with a
> daily/weekly comic strip of some sort, that is non-furry and
> non-gamer.
Ok I have charitors, setting, a plot and a theam. I also have about
10% of the script written down (the rest is still in my head at the
moment). Though I must say that I cheated as I was planning to doing
something like this for a while and wrote most of the stuff while I
was board on holidays.
> The reason I say no to those last two, is because it prevents you from
> attracting niche crows.
However there are a number of furry chars in it because its inherent
to the plot line. And my creative mind tends to spit out furs because
thats where my interests lie.
[...]
> I'll even let you "cheat" and get some artist to draw for you if you
> can't.
My main problem is finding an artist who is willing to draw for me.
Any artist type willing to be part of an interesting exprement?
> But the artist can't make your jokes, they have to be your own
> handiwork.
Thats find, I was planning for it be drammitic anyway.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> Quoth David Formosa:
>
>>I perceive no additional effort between thinking creativly and
>>maintaining a regulare rythem of breathing.
[...]
> If I were a different kind of
> cartoonist, I could stop the creative process at your "effortless"
> stage and churn out whatever pops into my head, three times a day if I
> liked. Warren could say "Exploding fish are in my mightstand quibble
> fribble dibble!" and then turn into a photograph of Burt Convy, and
> the punchline would be "Yo Quiero Bocce Balls."
Oddly I've never been able to do Non sequencesers.
RHJunior
THIS AGAIN?
Newsflash: when you take and/or *resell* someone else's work, without
recompensing them, you are cheating them out of the fruits of their labor.
As the man pointed out, *even a whore gets paid.*
The car analogy doesn't give you a thrill? Try this: Suppose you spent a
week doing yardwork for someone-- trimming the hedges, mowing the yard,
scraping dog poop, clubbing moles and gophers to death with a stick, etc--
and then, just as you're about to go up and collect your pay, some RETARD
comes along, goes up to the front door, and proceeds to collect your pay
*for himself!* Not only that, he proceeds to go around to all your clients,
past and potential, and inform them that he can get you to do their yardwork
*for free* from now on. You'd be regally honked. Fact is, you'd probably
take that mole-whacking stick and proceed to put a sizeable dent between the
bastard's ears.
A man owns more than the things he can hold in his hands. He owns his
physical labor, his reputation, and his ideas. Giving them away without his
permission is nothing more than plunder, and claiming them for yourself is
just as much theft as if you claimed his *car* was yours.
Second Newsflash: National and International law have recognized the
existence of intangible property-- eg, copyright-- for many years now. Screw
with that at your own peril.
When you openly, blatantly CHEAT people like that, don't be so surprised
when more polite society treats you like something that needs to be scraped
off its collective shoe.
--
"What was that popping sound?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>David said that, not me. =P
></stagewhisper>
This newsreader/poster atributition sucks...
but I did snip your comment so I could reply to David...
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>regard as play.
Kind of like a sport such as Baseball? Soccer, Golf? You'll note that there
are plently of profesional athletes.
>I do get a paycheck for my unix system administration. I regard that as play
as well.
And if artist got paid what Unix adminstrators got paid for their "play"
they'd probably would be a lot looser with letting their work ge spread
around...
LancerAdvancd iBuck
People who just share works now can't be bothered to attribute or link back
work now, why expect it to change?
Baloo Ursidae
Hash: SHA1
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote:
> I do get a paycheck for my unix system administration. I regard that
> as play as well. Though when I was working tech support and the
> dealing with manigment and users, that is work.
The irony is the sysadmin is less work than the tech support is, and you
get paid less for the tech support...
- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE89OURNtWkM9Ny9xURAtX1AJ928GluzXTdANgvfY/iucCqhz/1bwCfQBMO
FZtJUSXhjKW+5Lk4NrEe9mM=
=SPeV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Baloo Ursidae
Hash: SHA1
batty den <den...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>Or a computer programmer working on an OpenSource/Free Software?
>
> What happens if the programmer's name is removed from the distribution?
Usually the programmer writes to the maintainer about this oversight and
it's fixed. Failing that, it comes down to whether or not they can
afford a lawyer.
> If Bruce Sterling said information should be free, why does he still sell
> his stories? Why does he still get paid to write?
You're not paying for the content, you're paying for a convienent
package. Same with The New Hacker's Dictionary, AKA The Jargon File,
also freely redistributable.
- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE89OZgNtWkM9Ny9xURAjp/AJsFa4mlTkUG1q20bM1J6DkJJTiNHACfbXZ7
oBBrWcqbfHYOQjiLBBjFqO8=
=ZQ50
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Baloo Ursidae
Hash: SHA1
LancerAdvancd iBuck <lncra...@aol.comstar> wrote:
> And if artist got paid what Unix adminstrators got paid for their "play"
> they'd probably would be a lot looser with letting their work ge spread
> around...
Your issue is societal. Get people not to take culture for granted and
you might get paid what the IT folks do.
- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE89Ok8NtWkM9Ny9xURAstwAJ9bxW/7YRqCkXyN4kcJOUPdyUzLKQCeK1oE
fJgBOzbuxZb/81ngmzhIEPk=
=eC0L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Blackberry
>
>well that's also part of the whole copyright issue in the fandom when
>someone takes a peice and just does some fancy photoshop filters erases the
>artist signature and puts in their own.
>
>what I was trying to do there is show that Art (including writing and
>sculpting and other such modes) IS WORK! I was trying to ask those idiots
>who don't have respect for people what they would do to a friend who did
>that to their car that they worked on. Notice I also said that he was going
>around claiming it as his own, he did stuff other than listening for
>problems.
Right, then I agree with you about all that. I haven't seen it happening for a
year or so, but it's always happening somewhere.
Blackberry
>
>Oddly I've never been able to do Non sequencesers.
Don't you mean perdido basement?
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>package.
By that argument, a furry artist's comissions shouldn't run more than the $5
worth of materials used, and digital comissions should be gratis.... Or
could it be that you're not really paying for the content, or the package,
but the LABOR going into developing the content? It's the artist's choice to
decide the method by which he gets paid or even to seek payment...
>Same with The New Hacker's Dictionary, AKA The Jargon File, also freely
redistributable.
Last I saw Sterlings stories weren't freely distributable, that the authors of
the jargon file decided to make their work freely distributable, dosnt
invalidate Sterling's decision not to...
If you want your content free and uninhibited, persuade the creator to give it
to you that way, don't tell him you're entitled to make that decision for
him...
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>you might get paid what the IT folks do.
Well, then perhaps it would be a good thing if more artists started holding
their work back and slapping the hell out of people who violate their space, in
order to get people to not take it for granted...
Brian Graeme
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote
in message news:slrnaf98m9....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> On Tue, 28 May 2002 02:12:23 -0700, Brian Graeme <doge...@ibtta.moc>
wrote:
> > "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
wrote
> > in message news:slrnaf5nuo....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> If your going to argue that I'm should act in a capitallist mannor
> then shouldn't I be hounding you for thouse 3 commisions I ordered off
> you way back in 1996?
>
> I mean what your doing is quite clearly theaft, just as what Sibe is
> doing is a violation of copyright laws.
>
I don't see Sibe working to repay those debts, while I am... Secondly, I
don't draw slowly because I intend to rip anyone off, I draw slowly because
I have a massive backlog and often lose orders in the shuffle... Sibe is
doing what he does deliberately, with the sole purpose of fucking the
artists over and pissing everyone else off, while attempting to paint
himself as Robin Hood (only in his case, he's stealing from the poor to give
to the rich, stupid bitch... Hmmm, make that Dennis Moore, sans lupins)...
If anyone cares to pay for me to have a staff, so nothing ever gets lost,
and is shipped right on time, feel free, but it ain't so easy to do all the
work on your own...
>
> > on a
> > wider scale than the mere pittance you toss into the fandom's artists'
> > coffers...
>
> At the income I was making at that time, and with the Australian
> dollar as it was at that time 3 commisions at your standing rate meant
> that I had to skip having dinner for a week.
>
Which is what I, in turn, have to do whenever someone attempts to find any
moral or rational excuse to steal my work...
Leslie_R
LancerAdvancd iBuck wrote:
<snippage>
> If you want your content free and uninhibited, persuade the creator to give it
> to you that way, don't tell him you're entitled to make that decision for
> him...
> iBuck
Here-Here!
-Leslie
--
Just another source of smut.
http://vcl.ctrl-c.liu.se//vcl/Artists/Leslie-Rashana/Stories/
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>If anyone cares to pay for me to have a staff, so nothing ever gets lost,
>and is shipped right on time, feel free, but it ain't so easy to do all the
>work on your own...
You know, Brian, no one *forces* you to take more commissions than you can
handle. You have the capacity to refuse some.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
make it clearly successful you will find yourself working harder than
you imagined down the line, enjoyment or no enjoyment.
TT
Kitryn de Pluie
the audacity to state the following:
> Omen u robbed that shit from 2.
> U R A biter :>
> -Ross
...
Hardly robbed, since it was free for the taking in the first place.
--
Kitryn de Pluie the Anthro Fox
--DRAGONCODE--
DC2.H^Mcf Gm L6f W T Pw Sku Cbk,bag,ebl,cag,wrb A- Fr++"mango" Nu
M(r+v+++1|2*) Ov+3 F+o R+ Ac+++ J+ S- U--- I V Q Tc++[anything but
programming] E
--ENDDRAGONCODE--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GL d+ s++:++ !a C++++ U--- !P L+ E-- W++ N++ ?o ?K w
O-- M-- !V PS+++ PE Y PGP- t+ 5- X+ R tv+ b++ DI
D+++ G e-/* h! r++ y?
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Email is nonexistant. whi...@whatthefuck.com to reply.
Brian Graeme
web with stupid debates like this that leave me with little to no time, or
incentive to draw... But ahwell, what does it matter that I'm frustrated and
harassed to the point where I hate drawing and don't want to do it as much
as I used to, since every time I show an opinion or do a drawing, I
practically lie down with my mouth open for a classic japscat enactment from
the fandom...
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
news:ad3a9...@drn.newsguy.com...
Felyne32k
says...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
> > I do get a paycheck for my unix system administration. I regard that
> > as play as well. Though when I was working tech support and the
> > dealing with manigment and users, that is work.
>
> The irony is the sysadmin is less work than the tech support is, and you
> get paid less for the tech support...
>
coal mining in a third-world country. What's your point?
There are fewer people who can admin, and the work is as important (if
not more so) as tech support. The consequences of a sysadmin screwing up
(system goes down) are vastly more damaging to a corporation than the
consequences of an average tech support guy screwing up (usually,
customer's problem isn't fixed, so another support call gets made).
So, where's the irony?
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
DISCLAIMER: The poster is known to experience judgement
lapses brought by sleep deprivation.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> In article <10226823...@ursine.dyndns.org>, ba...@ursine.dyndns.org
> says...
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > > I do get a paycheck for my unix system administration. I regard that
> > > as play as well. Though when I was working tech support and the
> > > dealing with manigment and users, that is work.
> >
> > The irony is the sysadmin is less work than the tech support is, and you
> > get paid less for the tech support...
> >
> Well, tech support is less work than farm labor, which is less work than
> coal mining in a third-world country. What's your point?
Was it you or someone else that pointed out that jogging *looks* as
easy as walking. I.e., one foot in front of the other. Farm labor is
done with your body, not with your mind. Same with coal mining. Just
because it's not as phyiscal, doesn't mean it's any easier. But I will
disagree with David, being a sysadmin is harder than tech support. The
mental work load is more even if you have more "free" time with no
problem. Because once a problem hits, you may be the only person that
*has* to fix it. Whereas with tech support, you can get by with guess
work and work your way around a problem. No I have not done sys admin
work, but I was the head of a tech support dept. once.
TT
Blackberry
>
>Economics force me to, unfortunately most of my time gets gobbled up on the
>web with stupid debates like this that leave me with little to no time, or
>incentive to draw... But ahwell, what does it matter that I'm frustrated and
>harassed to the point where I hate drawing and don't want to do it as much
>as I used to, since every time I show an opinion or do a drawing, I
>practically lie down with my mouth open for a classic japscat enactment from
>the fandom...
Well, if you're taking so many commissions that you have to refund people's
money, it's not really getting you anywhere, is it?
Brad Austin
> I have always stated that the right of attribulation should remain.
Would you envision a legal mechanism to enforce correct
attribution in lieu of copyright, in the system you would
consider ideal? And if so, how would it work?
a here.c | Brad Austin
r t o |
tax@ne m | Oceanside, CA USA
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Wed, 29 May 2002 16:58:11 -0700, "Brian wrote:
> >
> >Economics force me to, unfortunately most of my time gets gobbled up on the
> >web with stupid debates like this that leave me with little to no time, or
> >incentive to draw... But ahwell, what does it matter that I'm frustrated and
> >harassed to the point where I hate drawing and don't want to do it as much
> >as I used to, since every time I show an opinion or do a drawing, I
> >practically lie down with my mouth open for a classic japscat enactment from
> >the fandom...
>
> Well, if you're taking so many commissions that you have to refund people's
> money, it's not really getting you anywhere, is it?
Yeah, why don't you take them on a one by one basis?
TT
Baloo Ursidae
Hash: SHA1
Brad Austin <dont-repl...@address.com> wrote:
> Would you envision a legal mechanism to enforce correct
> attribution in lieu of copyright, in the system you would
> consider ideal? And if so, how would it work?
It's in place. Look at how the GNU world works out these problems.
This is what we consider ideal.
- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE89bkMNtWkM9Ny9xURArarAKCuYvlXxH8vkAlgljMjnlwclqNbnACfZHpx
gM6xm+IQFhgl3Ae5kxnR6Wo=
=kx1P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Baloo Ursidae
Hash: SHA1
LancerAdvancd iBuck <lncra...@aol.comstar> wrote:
>><stagewhisper>
>>David said that, not me. =P
>></stagewhisper>
>
> This newsreader/poster atributition sucks...
> but I did snip your comment so I could reply to David...
Probably wouldn't suck so bad if you left your own attributions in tact
instead of chopping it off.
- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE89b2TNtWkM9Ny9xURAp6eAJ9VslOlXvyu0lrA17VWIMVgatG6rQCgp5Fb
pOW3j07fHZgTPlmWthzsxNE=
=MuMV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Baloo Ursidae
Hash: SHA1
LancerAdvancd iBuck <lncra...@aol.comstar> wrote:
> Well, then perhaps it would be a good thing if more artists started holding
> their work back and slapping the hell out of people who violate their space, in
> order to get people to not take it for granted...
No, more like sharing the information/art you have and making sure
people know the source. Geeks didn't start making big money by keeping
information bottled up, they made it by sharing it and letting people
know who the source was. Which is why the Bill Gates atttidue annoys
many traditional geeks; he's a suit in geek's clothing.
- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE89cFsNtWkM9Ny9xURAswFAJ0RuS6hEdGKptmAbc1eHlM4pN0EsACffD5T
7Tx9bOTdI/kHyKaXxo1iRxI=
=aL4x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Baloo Ursidae
Hash: SHA1
Felyne32k <Fely...@softhome.net> wrote:
> Well, tech support is less work than farm labor, which is less work than
> coal mining in a third-world country. What's your point?
Under the rules of supply and demand, shit work that nobody wants but
needs to be done should pay far more than average. The one theory that
capitalism bases itself on breaks badly here.[1]
> There are fewer people who can admin, and the work is as important (if
> not more so) as tech support. The consequences of a sysadmin screwing up
> (system goes down) are vastly more damaging to a corporation than the
> consequences of an average tech support guy screwing up (usually,
> customer's problem isn't fixed, so another support call gets made).
Not in all cases. If you're a field tech, you're being sent out because
the sysadmins on site don't know what to do.
[1] Just because it's the dominant way of doing things doesn't
necissarily mean it's not as broken as the alternatives.
- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE89cWUNtWkM9Ny9xURAjdWAJ0SxyaxMPRlo8FPwGJymBtuRWgL/ACgjrJz
1K/w2nOx7VkzmiP0wOrwx9g=
=b+nO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Baloo Ursidae
Hash: SHA1
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani <redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> disagree with David, being a sysadmin is harder than tech support. The
> mental work load is more even if you have more "free" time with no
> problem.
I guess it depends on the person, too. When I was one of the admins for
the Beaverton School District, I looked forward to something breaking to
fix. Though it's an experiance that still makes me cringe when I see
people use CNAMEs in ways they were never intended, because when you
point a record at a CNAME, it breaks things. I'd continue, but it's a
long discussion better suited for a different newsgroup or email.
> Because once a problem hits, you may be the only person that
> *has* to fix it. Whereas with tech support, you can get by with guess
> work and work your way around a problem. No I have not done sys admin
> work, but I was the head of a tech support dept. once.
Well, being a tech support supervisor's gotta be a royal bitch. I did
escallations, it was still a bitch.
For those outside the industry, the carrer path for a support tech is
Support Tech
Senior/Escallations Support Tech
Tech support supervisor
Hostage Negotiator
Apologies to User Friendly.
- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE89ceENtWkM9Ny9xURAiiGAKCqQN9iaiUNdMC2iWux3heAH+Ct0QCeOtNH
d4nluuP7CaHpU3k5Q9Yp7jE=
=aliV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Baloo Ursidae
Hash: SHA1
Brian Graeme <doge...@ibtta.moc> wrote:
> Considering the BS you put me (and others) through? $20 is nothing... You,
The way you tend to screw artists, Ross, that $20 is gone. Consider it
asshole tax.
- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE89cfnNtWkM9Ny9xURAuaeAJ9HPPK3P1cfKNn5m61m4d0xhovpiACbBg2u
wij0or3xcfstHkCGz98nRmM=
=itbf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kurin Kitusagi
person....who shall remain nameless what was pretty much being said.
BTW r0$$ U D0 |<|\|0\/\/ 7h47 1337 |z s700p|d r|gh7?
Ska Kitty
"Kitryn de Pluie" <annhi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Xns921DB5A5...@130.133.1.4...
Baloo Ursidae
Hash: SHA1
Felyne32k <Fely...@softhome.net> wrote:
> Bruce Sterling didn't say that information should be free. That was
> Stewart Brand. Bruce Sterling said that "Information wants you to gimme a
> hundred dollars."
I think Richard M Stallman adopted this mantra, though. If he didn't,
he definately plays it, though.
- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE89cyWNtWkM9Ny9xURAmnuAJ9ITGV5mjfwkcQhS2sXxeuTn1tPsQCggBr4
+7HkMhkjbuxRCCQNWnolbJE=
=1/gW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> > Because once a problem hits, you may be the only person that
> > *has* to fix it. Whereas with tech support, you can get by with guess
> > work and work your way around a problem. No I have not done sys admin
> > work, but I was the head of a tech support dept. once.
>
> Well, being a tech support supervisor's gotta be a royal bitch. I did
> escallations, it was still a bitch.
I love claiming that title, because it was legitimate, but I only had
two guys underneath me ;-P Bwa ha ha. Mind you, if they were both as
dumb as that one dude was then my job would have been hell. "Escalation"
consisted of literally walking in the other room to tap the head of
sales because we ran into some new funky problem we couldn't solve. Mind
you, our customers were *all* millionaires and people selling million
dollar pieces of real estate. So it's not like I was doing something I
could take lightly...
TT
Baloo Ursidae
Hash: SHA1
LancerAdvancd iBuck <lncra...@aol.comstar> wrote:
> By that argument, a furry artist's comissions shouldn't run more than the $5
> worth of materials used, and digital comissions should be gratis.... Or
> could it be that you're not really paying for the content, or the package,
> but the LABOR going into developing the content? It's the artist's choice to
> decide the method by which he gets paid or even to seek payment...
With a commision, yes, you're paying for the labor that resulted in a
nice piece of art, assuming the creator hasn't reserved redistribution
rights. Otherwise, you're paying for the content. When I buy books,
magazines or art, I'm buying the convienent form that content that
appeals to me. If I have money to spend on such things, I will go buy
some of thier art (and let them know I found out about thier art on the
net and liked it). The way I see it, the money I spend does three
things, 1) Shows appreciation, 2) gives me a piece of thier work in a
tangable form I can take with me, put on the wall or whatever, and 3)
encourages them to keep some of thier art moving where the public can
enjoy it. My respect for the artist, even if I disagree with it, will
keep a commission proprietary when requested. To correct Sterling and
add to Brand's comment, "Information wants to be free, appreciation
wants you to give me a hundred bucks."[1]
On the network, the only thing that moves is the content, and the behind
the network when it was created back in the 60s was to move information
freely in even the worst conditions imaginable.[2] People do need to
keep this in mind when putting stuff they care about up on a server open
to the public; if you post it, they will come, and there's no real
gaurantee where it will go from there. It's all about sharing; if you
don't want to share something, don't put it on the net.[3]
> Last I saw Sterlings stories weren't freely distributable, that the authors of
> the jargon file decided to make their work freely distributable, dosnt
> invalidate Sterling's decision not to...
You're right, and Sterlings stories aren't included in the
redistributable version. But what do you expect from someone whose most
recognizable quote equates to "appreciation must be shown up front."
> If you want your content free and uninhibited, persuade the creator to give it
> to you that way, don't tell him you're entitled to make that decision for
> him...
You pinned it. With any luck, society will change for the better and
it'll be automatically expected you want it that way. On a roundabout
level, it already does. @Home used to pay me to share both my, and
thier collective, knowledge for free (anybody who called, got it). The
only part I didn't really understand is why they had me sign an NDA for
the job, which primarily involved giving away information...[4]
[1] Before someone brings it up, I didn't just describe shareware. The
information's not free in shareware. I'm saying, if you appreciate what
is being done, do something for them that they value. In the furry art
world, trading a physical piece of art for cash or another physical
piece of art appears to be acceptable; in the GNU world, contributions
of code/beta testing/proper documentation to the project or cash to
GNU/FSF/insert-creating-org-here is acceptable. Know your trading
partners and don't get stingy on them. Believe it or not, the furry
community is amazingly clueful on this even if they don't consiously
grok the details.
[2] Yes, originally it was closed to everybody not in .mil and .edu
territory, but even then, among those groups, the entire point was to
share what they knew for the benefit of all.
[3] This *should* seem obvious.
[4] Yeah, there's a privacy aspect. Personal information is about the
only information that I believe it's right to own, because such
information can severely jeopardize the personal freedoms of those whom
the information pertains to. Hell, I live an amazingly open life. It's
not that terribly difficult to figure out my real name, phone number and
address. That's public record, anyway, once you get a driver's licence
(oppose to generic state ID) or register a vehicle (yup, if you own a
car, you drive around with your name and home address on your car,
available for the general public to look up, and until a few years ago
in Oregon, for free. You shoulda saw the stink when some guy went and
paid the DMV $218 to buy the entire vehicle registration database on CD
(it was free for the first few lookups, then there was a fee for a
greater number of lookups), wrote a frontend for it and put it on the
web. My best friend got all the code for it and was gearing up to host
it himself before he decided he didn't need that kind of media attention
for himself (I think he still has it, but considering it's the database
as they were when it was copied around '95...) Do a google for "Oregon
License Plate Database" for dead links to it and media hooha.
- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE89dXlNtWkM9Ny9xURArteAJ0d5++pwNLK9mwwvXR75iJWviroNgCfSJ+m
QDhFtLxnAJw7z/+91cNXYpQ=
=sJ/y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Brian Graeme
the work done for customers... doing a little here and there, but have to
balance hucksterism with production, have to sell some work to keep doing
new work on past orders, to keep above water...
"Blackberry" <le...@NOanthrobunnySPAM.com> wrote in message
news:ad3uq...@drn.newsguy.com...
Brian Graeme
for a living... Since the average furry fan is willing to part with $50 at
the most, having that as a semiweekly income would be pointless... And with
every artist, EVERYONE has to wait, anywhere from a month to years while
their artwork is being done... Ask anyone who's bought artwork from the
other big name furry artists how long they've waited, and you'll see my
point...
This isn't artwork mass produced by a staff of dozens of underpaid factory
artists a'la Disney or black velvet paintings from Mexican sweat studios,
it's almost always being done by individual artists, who, to break even from
the time and money (art supplies cost big $$$, just look what a 100 marker
Tria set costs sometime) spent on the artwork, have to often sell many
orders in advance, which is where you get your delays...
The problem is, most folks think that original artwork is just a mouse click
away, it isn't... It takes blood, sweat and tears to produce, if you want to
buy furry artwork with instantaneous grratification in mind, save your money
and buy a portfolio or collected works disc instead... That's the ONLY way
you'll get big titted spoogy vixens by the truckload in a few seconds
time...
"Tlalocelotl Tlatoani" <redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3CF5B890...@sprintmail.com...
Kay
> Oh dear sweet Christ.
> THIS AGAIN?
>
> Newsflash: when you take and/or *resell* someone else's work, without
> recompensing them, you are cheating them out of the fruits of their
> labor.
What happened to the "first sale" docterine?
Hmm, should Powells [ http://www.powells.com/ ] be mailing royalty
checks to all the authours who's used books they sell?
- Kay, GNU/Furry
--
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
Ralph wasn't completely clear what he meant grammatically, but I see
what he's saying. He's not refering to reselling in general, but when
you resell something you did not have the authorization to own to resell
in the first place. Like when you buy a book? You've bought the propery,
to resell it is moral and not a crime. But if you make copies and sell
those? That's immoral and a crime. When you download someone's pics off
the web and sell them on a CD without their permission, that's immoral
and a crime.
TT
Tim Gadd
wrote:
>>However respect is a two way street. If artists wish there desires to
>>be respected then they should provide something in return.
>
>Like oh lets say -THEIR ARTWORK!-
>
>When an artist puts their artwork out for others to view, they're allready
>showing their respect to the public,
I'm not arguing with your overall point, but how do you work out that
merely putting artwork on display demonstrates respect for anybody? I don't
see that it demonstrates anything other than a desire to have one's artwork
seen.
--
Tim Gadd | fluke .com.au
Hobart, Tasmania | @southcom
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/university/222/
A black eyed dog he called at my door
The black eyed dog he called for more
A black eyed dog he knew my name
Nick Drake
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>I'm not arguing with your overall point, but how do you work out that
>merely putting artwork on display demonstrates respect for anybody? I don't
>see that it demonstrates anything other than a desire to have one's artwork
>seen.
With the specific instance of putting it on the web, (though it's also
aplicapable to galleries and other RL situations) it''s demonstrating your
respect the public enough to trust them to play by the rules with the artwork
without asking for something up front...
If there weren't issues of respect and trust in the public with puting one's
work out in the first place then we probably wouldn't be having this
discussion...
iBuck
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com/Furry
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>This is what we consider ideal.
Licences, attached to every peice of free software, all giving the rights to
one entity who engages in legal action to defend those rights...
Sound like the RIAA/MPAA?
How do you do it WITHOUT the FSF with everypeice of creative work in the
world?
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>nice piece of art, assuming the creator hasn't reserved redistribution
>rights
You're paying for the labor with ANY peice of artwork you obtain, weather it's
through cash, or trade, or an understood agreemnet to limit your uses of the
peice. That's all copyright is ever about, securing a return for the artists
investment of time to produce the work. You may be only be paying for a small
slice of the time and effort disguised a convientent package, but you are still
making a after-the-fact payment for the work..
>On the network, the only thing that moves is the content,
The content wouldn't exist with out the labor, and the content is being made
acessable, in return for your agreemnet to play by an established set of rules
known as copyright law, that basically says you will not redistribute the work
without permission, If you don't want to play by those rules, you'll have to
bargin with the artist or the rulemakers to obtain your access to the work
another way...
>It's all about sharing; if you
>don't want to share something, don't put it on the net.
An artist puting work on the in some easily exchanged form does not relax his
legal rights over the work, it may be more difficult for me to exercize those
rights, but YOU are still obligated by law, to restrict your activities...
This whole thing was started by Sibe scanning printed work and droping
non-netdigital content onto his server... the artists hardly were intending it
to be distributed on the net....
>[3] This *should* seem obvious.
That you are still bound by law while on the net should be obvious as well...
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>people know the source.
We try to let people know the souce, the people who do the secondhand shareing
are almost universally failing at passing that information along in a
meaningfull fashion...
As for sharing the information/art, there no better way to make people take
something for granted, than to make it free, which is the exact oppisite of the
intended concequence...
I've seen some fairly good arguments that freeing up information, encourages
secondary work, and a rich public discourse, I haven't yet seen much evidence
at all that it makes it PAY better...
>> Geeks didn't start making big money by keeping
>information bottled up, they made it by sharing it and letting people
>know who the source was
I see geeks making big money enabling big companies to make big money easier
regardless of independant of their commitment ot free software principles...
> Which is why the Bill Gates atttidue annoys many traditional geeks; he's a
suit in geek's clothing.
Which proves your point how? , he's making big money keeping information
bottled up....
Lemme put it this way, would you pay an good furry artist an hourly rate
comparable to an IT professional (mine is $45 an hour for software testing/web
design) at a con for a char portrait, if he public domained it?
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>the network when it was created back in the 60s was to move information
>freely in even the worst conditions imaginable
The design purpose of a system, to perform a task does not translate to a moral
imperitive to use that system to it's fluulest extent possible, and the
abolishment of the social mores and laws restraining it's use to that extent..
Consider a gun, or worse an bomb.. machines exquistily designed and perfected
over the course of centuries to their lethal task... Does their perfection
demand their unrestricted use??
The network is designed accurately route information from it's source to it's
receiver, under a wide variety of conditions conditoions, any claim that it is
supposed to do so "freely" or to "share" are human moral add-ons that can be
evaluated independantly of the functionality of the system..
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>redistributable version. But what do you expect from someone whose most
>recognizable quote equates to "appreciation must be shown up front."
Do you really have any clue who Bruce Sterling is?
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>it'll be automatically expected you want it that way.
If Society is moving to expect it that way, society is moving in the dirrection
of telling the creatives that it's entitled to make the decision for them,
rather than persuading the creatives to do so willingly...
> On a roundabout
>level, it already does. @Home used to pay me to share both my, and
>thier collective, knowledge for free (anybody who called, got it)
Hardly free... I assume that the vast majority of any callers you got at your
help desk were paying @Home customers, who had on demand help service as part
of their buisness contract..
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>is being done, do something for them that they value. In the furry art
>world, trading a physical piece of art for cash or another physical
>piece of art appears to be acceptable;
Why stop there, it's self evident that you are capable of appreciating the
content without packaging. If the mere appreciation is of value, why only show
it by purchasing a -another- work that has some independant value at a later
point??? Why not donate some cash to the artist for a digital work that you've
gotten form him? Or simply by simply respecting the rules that he sets on the
distribution of his work...
I see a strange dichotomy, in a lot of this that either the labor, or the
physrep is the only thing that can have any value, that the content itself is
ephemera without any value. On the other hand people cite the value of the
content to them, in justifying why it's exchange should be uninhibited...
If the content is unimportant ephemera, then people have lost nothing of value
if it's denied them. If the content does have independant value (no matter how
arbitrary), then return something for that value, even it it's as simple as
obeying conditions on it's use...
Brad Austin
> I see a strange dichotomy, in a lot of this that either the labor, or the
> physrep is the only thing that can have any value, that the content itself is
> ephemera without any value. On the other hand people cite the value of the
> content to them, in justifying why it's exchange should be uninhibited...
Sure, because it's two entirely different kinds of value.
In fact it's two entirely different concepts, for which
the same word, "value", happens to be used.
The first kind of value fundamentally involves a kind of
scarcity. Things that have that kind of value necessarily
have the property that the benefit they provide can only
be taken by one person at a time. If one person gives it
to another person, then the first person doesn't have it
anymore. If only X number of instances of a certain thing
exist, then at most only X number of people can have one at
any given time. The "value" of the thing, measured in
dollars, derives from the fact that people are willing to
exchange some amount of debt for the priviledge of being
one of the inherently limited number of people who has one.
The physical representation of a piece of art, and the
labor it takes to design/invent an artistic work, both have
the first kind of value. If I own an original piece of art,
and you steal it from me, then I don't have it anymore.
You've stolen something that has inherent value because of
its scarcity. If I want a job done that I don't want to do
myself, I have to pay money to get someone else to do it for
me, since whoever does the job has to expend time and effort
which he then can't use to do other things that he may want
to do instead. So if I hire someone to do a job, and he
does it, and I don't pay him, then, I may not have literally
stolen from him, but I've certainly cheated him.
These are things that humans understand innately, and don't
depend on laws imposed by governments. They are true in
every single culture on the planet. Even feral children
who have been raised by wolves understand them without
having to be explicitly taught them.
The second kind of value applies to things that provide a
benefit to everyone, by virtue of merely existing. If you
come up with a great new invention or innovation, then
everyone can benefit from that without taking anything away
from you. (Provided there isn't some artificial legal
mechanism in place, such as copyright, that prevents people
from utilizing that invention or innovation without your
permission, or without paying you.) That kind of value has
nothing to do with scarcity. The only way a thing with that
kind of value can be scarce is if it doesn't exist at all
(or if the person who creates it keeps that fact a secret
from the rest of the world). That kind of value also cannot
be measured in dollars, because the distribution of that
kind of value to humanity is not a zero-sum game. The more
people who are able to take advantage of a thing existing,
without being inhibited by artificial legal restrictions,
the more overall value, in the second sense, the thing has.
So from a utilitarian point of view, the less amount of
artificial restriction to the distribution of a thing with
the second kind of value, the better.
The content of a piece of art is ephemera without any
inherent value in the first sense, because without copyright
the thing has no scarcity, and if a thing has no scarcity it
has no value in the first sense. However the fact that the
content of a piece of art has value in the second sense, does
give weight to the argument that people should be able to
copy it without restriction, because the more people who are
able to enjoy it, the more value it has, in the second sense.
The two statements are not inconsistent, because they are
talking about two entirely different concepts called "value".
You're just getting confused because the same word is used
for both.
Cnipur Daphim
"Baloo Ursidae" <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:10227404...@ursine.dyndns.org...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Brian Graeme <doge...@ibtta.moc> wrote:
> > Considering the BS you put me (and others) through? $20 is nothing...
You,
>
> The way you tend to screw artists, Ross, that $20 is gone. Consider it
> asshole tax.
>
> - --
> Baloo
>
Ilr would have to file for bankruptcy if such a tax existed..
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>talking about two entirely different concepts called "value".
>You're just getting confused because the same word is used
>for both.
I don't think that I'm particularly confused, I just don't artificialy
seperate the types of value that a work has depending on the phase that it's
in.. the physical embodyment does not exist without the content, does not
exist without the labor. If there's any illogical thing to this debate it's
that the 3 phases of work can be seperated and paid for (or not) seperately..
On a seperate point, it's not imposible to attach a monatary value to the
emotional value, it may be impossible to rigidly quantify it, but it's not
impossble to or otherwise return it, we do it all the time, calling it
"damages for pain and suffering", "respect" or other terms of art...
Perhaps it should be argued that If people belive that all they are paying for
is the physical object and expect it at the cost of reproducition and
distrobution, then they have no right to any use of the content thereby
embodied. Similarly if they don't beleive that they should pay for the labor
already done but unpaid for then they should have access only to the fruits of
the labor that they have paid for. Copyright is a mechanisim to shift the
value from the labor and representation to the content so that artists can
still get recompense while the public gets acces to work that they have neither
paid the labor for or purchased a physical embodyment of...
The reason we have trouble is that now people can have thier content without
the physrep, but still do not wish to pay for the labor...
Cerulean
>The content of a piece of art is ephemera without any
>inherent value in the first sense, because without copyright
>the thing has no scarcity, and if a thing has no scarcity it
>has no value in the first sense. However the fact that the
>content of a piece of art has value in the second sense, does
>give weight to the argument that people should be able to
>copy it without restriction, because the more people who are
>able to enjoy it, the more value it has, in the second sense.
>The two statements are not inconsistent, because they are
>talking about two entirely different concepts called "value".
Content does have a kind of scarcity, though. When creative people
aren't given any reward as incentive for delivering this stuff that is
so "valuable to the world," you will find that the world gets less of
it while potentially creative people decide that eating has priority.
People want to think of art as an infinite natural resource, like
oxygen, but every artist (or, to put it in more detail, every hour
that someone devotes to being an artist) is a tree that we've got to
decide whether to nourish or to cut down to make room for something
else. In this way, the two modes of value are linked together.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( hJJaLd-,,hemhue 6u!ua+s!7 s! auo-ou 'a)edS uI,,
Baloo Ursidae
Hash: SHA1
LancerAdvancd iBuck <lncra...@aol.comstar> wrote:
> This whole thing was started by Sibe scanning printed work and droping
> non-netdigital content onto his server... the artists hardly were intending it
> to be distributed on the net....
I'm *not* talking about Sibe redistributing art here. None of my
examples had anything to do with Sibe, which is probably why you're
looking at all may posts through rose colored glasses thinking if you
all had kept it bottled up, this wouldn't have happened.
- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE89rYuNtWkM9Ny9xURAkJkAJoDdFdKOaZ1E3FZdoGcvLKBo9cQVwCgqNIQ
bTm3lWv6jCqGd9ZL0ldOO5Y=
=3sZr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Baloo Ursidae
Hash: SHA1
Brad Austin <dont-repl...@address.com> wrote:
> The first kind of value fundamentally involves a kind of
> scarcity.
Which the only thing scarcity is artificially created for legally is
information. You try pulling that stunt with anything else and you'd
get slapped with a price-fixing or collusion charge right quick.
> So from a utilitarian point of view, the less amount of
> artificial restriction to the distribution of a thing with
> the second kind of value, the better.
Bingo.
Brad here explained what I did in much more clear terms.
- --
Baloo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE89ridNtWkM9Ny9xURAgP6AJ9Gc5gHKLU4A68EuwC6KDCwwAdBvACfRQdB
bw9oZYnZn3ZNU7QMup8p3jM=
=fyuI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
LancerAdvancd iBuck
have you looked at the topic line lately?
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>examples had anything to do with Sibe,
Lesse "Don't put it on the a public server if you don't expect it to be
redistributed" I think that's DIRECLTY ON POINT with Sibe redistrubiting 2's
Rants and Jack.
>which is probably why you're
>looking at all may posts through rose colored glasses thinking if you
>all had kept it bottled up, this wouldn't have happened.
Who's responsibility is it to obey the law on non-redistribution? Not the
artists... You can argue that it somehow doesn't apply to content given away
online, but sibe's redistribution of RL work publihed work shows how thin an
excuse that is...
LancerAdvancd iBuck
Except it misses the same point, which is why if you'e not paying for the
packaging or the labor you're entitled to even obtain the content in the first
place?
Felyne32k
says...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > Well, tech support is less work than farm labor, which is less work than
> > coal mining in a third-world country. What's your point?
>
> Under the rules of supply and demand, shit work that nobody wants but
> needs to be done should pay far more than average. The one theory that
> capitalism bases itself on breaks badly here.[1]
>
No, it doesn't. You're taking an extremely simplistic view of capitalist
theory: "shit work that nobody wants but needs to be done" doesn't
necessarily have to pay more than average, because there is almost always
someone who is either desperate enough to do it for minimal wages, or
incompetent enough not to be qualified to do anything else. Capitalistic
economics doesn't revolve around one simple curve of supply and demand,
but around the junctures of many such curves, including "There is no
other work, but I require work so that I may earn money". Surely you, of
all people, would support the assertion that there are a great many
incompetent people in the world.
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
DISCLAIMER: The poster is known to experience judgement
lapses brought by sleep deprivation.
Brad Austin
> Quoth Brad Austin:
> >>The content of a piece of art is ephemera without any
>>inherent value in the first sense, because without copyright
>>the thing has no scarcity, and if a thing has no scarcity it
>>has no value in the first sense. However the fact that the
>>content of a piece of art has value in the second sense, does
>>give weight to the argument that people should be able to
>>copy it without restriction, because the more people who are
>>able to enjoy it, the more value it has, in the second sense.
>>The two statements are not inconsistent, because they are
>>talking about two entirely different concepts called "value".
>
> Content does have a kind of scarcity, though. When creative people
> aren't given any reward as incentive for delivering this stuff that is
> so "valuable to the world," you will find that the world gets less of
> it while potentially creative people decide that eating has priority.
Which is the reason that I advocate merely reforming
the copyright system to make it fairer to the public,
rather than abolishing it entirely, as David advocates.
I'm well aware that many people who produce art in the
current system would choose not to do so if copyright
were abolished. But that's entirely a pragmatic
consideration. It has nothing to do with the question
of what kind of compensation an artist is morally
entitled to, or what kind of control he is be morally
entitled to have over what other people do with what
he produces.
> People want to think of art as an infinite natural resource, like
> oxygen, but every artist (or, to put it in more detail, every hour
> that someone devotes to being an artist) is a tree that we've got to
> decide whether to nourish or to cut down to make room for something
> else. In this way, the two modes of value are linked together.
The key word there is "we".
The value (in the first sense) of something that only
benefits one person at a time is determined by the
laws of supply and demand, which, in order to give a
meaningful result, require that there be a certain
minimum amount of competition. If you have something
you want to sell, and there are several different
people who want to buy it, then the price is determined
by what the second highest bidder is willing to pay.
The phenomenon that makes it possible to ascribe an
inherent value to something, is that as the number of
potential buyers, and the number of people selling
equivilent items, simultaneously go up, the price such
an item can fetch at auction becomes more and more
consistent and predictable. Essentially it approaches
an imaginary constant, and this imaginary constant is
called the "fair market value" of the item.
This is of more than theoretical interest. If you
destroy someone else's property through negligence, for
example, the amount of compensation he is morally
entitled to from you is equal to the fair market value
of the thing you destroyed. (Situations in which the
fair market value is impossible to calculate are morally
ambiguous.)
Getting back to the "we" issue: If you have something
you want to sell, and there is only one person who
wants it (and assuming you don't want it yourself, or
else there would be two people who wanted it - you and
the potential buyer), then supply and demand goes out
the window, and the fair market value becomes impossible
to quantify. The price you can get for it in that
situation is highly volatile, and is based on a game of
speculation and chance. One of you states a price,
taking a chance that the price offered is something that
the other person is willing to pay/accept, and also that
the other person won't think he can negotiate a better
deal from you. The other person then either accepts,
or makes a counter-offer, taking a chance that the offer
you made isn't the most generous he can get. Both
players are weighing their desire to make/save money
against the risk that the deal won't be accepted and
both players lose. And while it's certainly possible
for two people in such a situation to negotiate a price,
there is no longer any basis for saying what a "fair"
price would be, or whether either the buyer or seller
got a good or bad deal.
And this is the situation faced by someone who wants to
force-fit the concept of value (in the first sense) to
the content of an artistic work. Because (and this is
the key point), there is only one "we".
Even if you want to argue that, if an artistic work has
value in the second sense, it therefore must have value
in the first sense (which I still don't agree with),
it doesn't matter because that value is impossible to
quantify. The only thing that can give something a
fair market value is the laws of supply and demand, and
the laws of supply and demand break down when there is
only one potential buyer (in this case the public,
acting as a single entity).
Blackberry
>
>[...] People do need to
>keep this in mind when putting stuff they care about up on a server open
>to the public; if you post it, they will come, and there's no real
>gaurantee where it will go from there. It's all about sharing; if you
>don't want to share something, don't put it on the net.[3]
So, you shouldn't own a car or a house because having it out there in public
like that is just begging for it to be stolen or burglarized, and furthermore is
even an *invitation* to steal/burglarize as well as tacit permission from the
owner?
I don't know what's going on, but you've gone from "fringe" to "warped" in the
past month or so; first publicly insulting me with absolutely no provocation,
then spouting this "information anarchy" stuff.
I tell you what; if you want to steal something, steal it from yourself. I
hereby declare that I give no permission to anyone (including you and Sibe) to
steal anything of mine even though it may be within your reach.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> In article <10227398...@ursine.dyndns.org>, ba...@ursine.dyndns.org
> says...
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Felyne32k <Fely...@softhome.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, tech support is less work than farm labor, which is less work than
> > > coal mining in a third-world country. What's your point?
> >
> > Under the rules of supply and demand, shit work that nobody wants but
> > needs to be done should pay far more than average. The one theory that
> > capitalism bases itself on breaks badly here.[1]
> >
>
> No, it doesn't. You're taking an extremely simplistic view of capitalist
> theory: "shit work that nobody wants but needs to be done" doesn't
> necessarily have to pay more than average, because there is almost always
> someone who is either desperate enough to do it for minimal wages, or
> incompetent enough not to be qualified to do anything else. Capitalistic
> economics doesn't revolve around one simple curve of supply and demand,
> but around the junctures of many such curves, including "There is no
> other work, but I require work so that I may earn money". Surely you, of
> all people, would support the assertion that there are a great many
> incompetent people in the world.
Supply and demand work like this. Great supply, low demand, equal low
price. Low supply, high demand equal a high price. There are tons of
people ready to pick oranges, therefore they are paid little. Very few
people on the other hand, are willing to be garbagement, therefore they
are paid more. Of course unions factor into this as well... but I
digress.
TT