Rethinking Profit Motive & Furry Fandom [re: Sibe]
Rog A. Clemson
Furry Fandom and Why We are Here. When you've got fans suing fans and
phoning up law enforcement agencies against former friends, you know
something is terribly out-of-kilter.
I remember a furry fandom from 20 years ago. A close group of people
who just liked cartoons, comics, funny animals and occassional smutty
artwork. Back then there were no furry cons -- zines & comics were
traded (or sold for a nominal fee, to cover postage and expenses)
through the mails (much like mini comix). Many zines were even given
away for free, the only "cover fee" being that the recipient had to
participate in the zine. There were a lot of good zines back then and
a lot of creative people who were all united by their love of the genre
and excited to be SHARING their ideas and creations.
It seems like back then, no one was trying to "get rich" or "make a
living" off of furry fandom. It was just a group of fans who genuinely
loved furry stuff and wanted to share things with their friends,
without worrying about who was going to make a profit. Seems like the
bigger the fandom got, the more we saw people who were only in the
fandom to make a buck off the other fans (as opposed to just being in
the fandom for the fun of it).
Perhaps it's time for furry fans to re-evaluate their fandom.
Personality clashes aside, was Sibe perhaps more right than wrong? --
was he perhaps just simply wanting to enjoy and share furry stuff with
other fans? (much like the old-school furry fans did, two decades ago?)
Isn't SHARING and love for the genre what furry fandom was supposed to
be about in the first place? Think about it. Furry fandom sure seemed
a LOT happier twenty years ago, before all the profit motives came into
play.
I'm not saying what's right or wrong, but perhaps people need to stop
being so petty and sit down and THINK about some things.
Dragon Magic
> Furry Fandom and Why We are Here. When you've got fans suing fans and
> phoning up law enforcement agencies against former friends, you know
> something is terribly out-of-kilter.
We're here because we enjoy a common genre. Period. And I doubt
one can call Sibe a fan in the proper sense, since he was out to hurt
people of the industry. He still doesn't think he did anything illegal, just
feels that people are upset at him.
> I remember a furry fandom from 20 years ago. A close group of people
> who just liked cartoons, comics, funny animals and occassional smutty
> artwork. Back then there were no furry cons -- zines & comics were
> traded (or sold for a nominal fee, to cover postage and expenses)
> through the mails (much like mini comix). Many zines were even given
> away for free, the only "cover fee" being that the recipient had to
> participate in the zine. There were a lot of good zines back then and
> a lot of creative people who were all united by their love of the genre
> and excited to be SHARING their ideas and creations.
So it's not a good fandom unless people do it all for free? That's not
really
a good thing. People will get burned out and have no incentive to stay in
the fandom, since people often will be the most vocal and be the most
absurd about things. I've seen it in the Transformation community already.
People there whine about when people will update, where did this or
that artist go, they must have stopped drawing if they're not updating
their art online for them, can people send them free copies of this or
that... They feel, just like you do, that the fandom should be all free.
And people are getting sick of their requests and problems.
I think that every fandom should have their amateur and free people,
and those who are willing to pay the proper money to get items. That
way both sides of the spectrum can exist, and people can often do
both sides. No harm in it at all.
> It seems like back then, no one was trying to "get rich" or "make a
> living" off of furry fandom. It was just a group of fans who genuinely
> loved furry stuff and wanted to share things with their friends,
> without worrying about who was going to make a profit. Seems like the
> bigger the fandom got, the more we saw people who were only in the
> fandom to make a buck off the other fans (as opposed to just being in
> the fandom for the fun of it).
No one's really trying to do this right now, really. But what you're
forgetting
is that their sales often help with materials, services, or with people like
Nexxus, paying for his free servers and bandwidth and electricity. That
stuff's not free, and it's very expensive. Think he should always provide
that for free or just go away?
People sell their prints, CDs, Magazines, comics, etc., to help compensate
their income, not be their only income. They don't have to provide us with
those at all. They can just go get a professional job drawing or designing
and leave us as a distant memory. After all, why bother spending hours
doing work just to give it away only for free, when they can just draw
for themselves and earn money off their jobs?
And most of the people who were ripped off by Sibe weren't here just for
the money. Most were here because they enjoyed it. They just offered
sales on certain products of theirs to compensate their free services or
products. What people seem to forget is that creative people are really
human, and not machines. They must eat and they get depressed, and
also enjoy knowing that people appreciate them. Instead of insisting that
people just give stuff away for free or for cost, how about thanking the
artists or other creative people more and more. Taking them for granted
or telling everyone that the fandom is better when everyone just gave
stuff away is worsening the situation, not making us clearer.
> Perhaps it's time for furry fans to re-evaluate their fandom.
> Personality clashes aside, was Sibe perhaps more right than wrong? --
> was he perhaps just simply wanting to enjoy and share furry stuff with
> other fans? (much like the old-school furry fans did, two decades ago?)
> Isn't SHARING and love for the genre what furry fandom was supposed to
> be about in the first place? Think about it. Furry fandom sure seemed
> a LOT happier twenty years ago, before all the profit motives came into
> play.
That's funny, I have fun with my furry friends. We buy commissions from
each other. We trade as well. We share things like books, by one person
reading it, then the next reading it, etc. We buy what we want to keep.
Sibe was definitely in the wrong. He was saying that artists and writers
deserve no rights on their hard work (hey, guess what, artists don't click
a mouse button and suddenly they have kick ass art, it takes TIME!),
and that those pieces should be free for all. That's not his decision,
that's
not your decision, that's each individual creative person's right how their
works will be distributed and sold. Period.
And I don't see your point, since people are pissed at the threats and
channel takeovers and dDOS's and other mischief which Sibe perpetrated,
which has nothing to do with sharing art. Does that mean we should
share our works for free to make sure that stuff doesn't happen?
There's more to this than you realize, and people aren't happy at this
point because they had their rights trampled, and most people were
ignoring the problem. Now that we have law enforcement involved and
have more information on who he is, he's finally given up his antics, or
so we all hope.
But that still doesn't make right what was damaged. Don't forget it'll
take many people time to trust the fandom again after the way they
were treated.
Do the right thing and thank more artists for their works. Stop taking
it for granted. And stop telling all of us that we should go back to 20
years ago and make everything for free or at cost, because then we'll
all be happy.
Maybe then, we'll be happy with our fandom.
> I'm not saying what's right or wrong, but perhaps people need to stop
> being so petty and sit down and THINK about some things.
Being petty is stating that everyone's in this for money. How about buying
some of the products from artists and writers and producers, so they'll
have the money to produce more free stuff? That would make more sense.
LancerAdvancd iBuck
the fandom for the fun of it).
Who says the artists and others who want to support themselves, or their
hobbies are only in it for the money? I'm not adverse to making a few bucks,
especially if lets me go and meet people who share my intrests. I'm in the
fandom because I like the crowd... and I'm certianly NOT leeching off the
fandom. If I make money it's because some likes my work enough to lay down
their cash willingly. I just have problems where someone dosn't think I
deserve enough respect to even -ask- before they put my efforts to their own
use.
You also seem to be missing the other side of the growth, blaming the entire
incident on those who have some professional intrests. The fandom has grown in
other directions as well., for every professional it's attracted it's prob also
attracted his equal and oppisite leech or person searching for free wank
material.
It doesn't seem that the fandom really needs to rethink anything.., it's grown,
that's all. Ocassionally you'll get some tensions from oppisite edges of the
fandome, but what are we supposed to do, give up a large and diverse and
active fandom, for a smaller if quiter one?
ICAW
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
Bruce
"Rog A. Clemson" <rcn...@att.net>
wrote in message news:131120011022170382%rcn...@att.net...
<snip>
> was he perhaps just simply wanting to enjoy and share furry stuff with
> other fans? (much like the old-school furry fans did, two decades
ago?)
> Isn't SHARING and love for the genre what furry fandom was supposed to
> be about in the first place? Think about it. Furry fandom sure
seemed
> a LOT happier twenty years ago, before all the profit motives came
into
> play.
>
> I'm not saying what's right or wrong, but perhaps people need to stop
> being so petty and sit down and THINK about some things.
Hahahahahaha!
Okay, done the THINKING - things wrong with your post:
1) Sibe has mental problems. I worked once with/for a manager who was
diagnosed with bi-bipolar disorder. Sibe's posts exhibit MANY of the
symptoms that fellow had. (Not all of Sibe's posts are on this board,
by the way)
2) Sibe enjoys seeing folks hurt. I will pass on his kind of
'sharing'. He is not interested in the love of the genre. 'Power
plays' with a losing hand is what he was attempting.
3) You can't unscramble an egg - especially one as big as this hobby.
What happened twenty years ago was done with a select group of folks;
ancient history now, what will all the baggage that 'furry fandom' has
accumulated since that time.
4) 'Profit Motive' in terms of this fandom is an odd term - quite a
number of the producers of quality art take the money they make from
auctions/cons and plow those proceeds into more paper, pens, pencils,
paints, markers to produce more furry art. The remainder goes towards
airfare, bus tickets, room fees for their next furry con. Where is the
'profit' in this picture? Think of the expensive Japanese CD's being
sold at Further Confusion - helping to pay off those one grand plane
tickets from Tokyo to the states. What did the Japanese artists do
when they hit these shores? - sketch more art is what.
Some of the ancient history I have heard over the years implies that
furry fandom's youth was not all honey and clover anyways.
-Bruce
bevnsag
"Rog A. Clemson" wrote:
>
> In the wake of what happened with Sibe, perhaps it's time to rethink
> Furry Fandom and Why We are Here. When you've got fans suing fans and
> phoning up law enforcement agencies against former friends, you know
> something is terribly out-of-kilter.
No, that is just the result of the fandom getting large enough to pick
up more extreme members.
All kinds of fandoms have conflict between professionals and amateurs in
the ranks. Friends sharing amature/fannish product is a fine good thing,
but there are just so many friends you can share with before it becomes
uneconomical, both in time and material. And in going to conventions,
suddenly you are faced with dozens or hundreds of demands for product,
as well as the often considerable expense of simply being at the con. Is
it so wrong to ask for fair compensation? Alternately, as some of these
early small cells of fans were all creative types, trading in kind, how
unfair would it be to exclude those who couldn't ante up? Segregate into
tiny cliques of creative have and have nots? And scorn undercommitted,
mere "consumer" fans, who can't produce and don't have the wherewithal
to be fannish, but like the stuff and would be happy to take a little
home with them.
Some media fandoms are dominated by professional product, often created
by the studio or PR company of the subject. Others are purely fannish,
and often any product is free or cost of copy exchanged between the
membership, especially where there is no professional product relating
to the subject and/or the fannish activity might run afoul of copyright
and trademark if it made itself too obvious/or for profit (StarWars
fandom was like that for a long time). Science-Fiction fandom has a
strong division between the fans who read the genre and the
professionals who write it. Mainstream comics fans may draw with fannish
gusto, but for the most part, leave the sales (or at least the
expectation of making a career of it) to the professionals. Funny
animal/anthropomorphic/furry fandom seems to cover a lot of subgenres,
some fairly well covered by professional product, others served solely
by fannish efforts. But because there are so many fans/consumers keen on
any particular creative person's efforts, some form of publishing,
usually for some level of compensation, is all but inevitable. And it
isn't a bad thing. It "spreads the wealth" of the creative product to
more people, and encourages/supports the creative person to do more.
no one in particular┊
I'm going to assume that you're innocently yearning for a gentler time
of butter churns and plain black suits, so I won't flame. Just assume that
if you really are loopy, you deserve one.
Okay, going on the innocence assumption, do you *really* think furry
artists should ignore federal laws and surrender their copyrights and
trademarks and because they did not enforce them?
Profit motive is stronger than friendship, sex, etc. With money, you can
buy associates who will act more friendly than friends, buy women for sex
better than any you could ever convince to willingly put out for you, and so
forth.
Try buying a really good meal at Morimoto in Philly with friendly
camaraderie. (Iron Chef RULES!!!)
I know the image people have of some mythical good old days of this
fandom. I refresh your memory with the flame war following the live-action
spoogefest that was CF8.
Sibe is not a fan. He is an agent provocateur and felon and should not
be confused with any sort of freedom fighter. The first amendment gives you
the freedom to say what YOU want, not control the speech of others against
their will. It is a singular right of the originating party. Their speech is
their intellectual property to be disposed of, used, or whatnot as they see
fit.
This fandom is dominated by very smart but very dysfunctional people who
feel estranged from or even abused by society, and the classic human
response in such a situation is to crawl into a corner, sniff, and claim
that they "just don't know what they're missing in me" and that "I'm the one
who's right, I'm the one who's superior".
This domination leads to a fandom obsessed with its superiority in every
way to the mundane world, and the belief that it and its membership can do
whatever they want whenever they want and that laws of man and nature do not
apply to them. Guess again, kids. Sibe is proving that belief so wrong that
any sane person would not think to argue it further.
Outside this fandom, contractual statements of intellectual property,
notices of copyright and trademark, etc., are extremely common. Once again,
if music was dominated by furries, it would never have developed ASCAP and
Napster would have been irrellevant since everyone would freely bootleg
everything.
Whatever. The fandom can do the right thing and grow up and adhere to
and make use of the law, or it can continue to be blindsided by creeps like
Sibe.
-Wayd Wolf
"The more I immerse myself in furry, the more I like my lawyer."
-Yours truly
"Rog A. Clemson" <rcn...@att.net> wrote in message
news:131120011022170382%rcn...@att.net...
Mike & Carole Curtis
Think about this.
We publish 13 titles, all but one anthropomorphic.
I write SHANDA THE PANDA and ATOMIC MOUSE. Carole writes KATMANDU,
Shawntae writes and draws EXTINCTIONERS, Walter Crane does SHEBA etc etc.
Each of us spent much time creating our series, finding people to work with.
We have also invested much money and at times, have postponed buying
medicine and paying bills to keep the business going.
At this moment, I have taken off my day job today to assemble SHANDA 33 and
GIANT SHANDA ANIMAL 6 for the printers. I wrote all of one comic, and much
of the other one.
You know, I WISH I was Daddy Warbucks and could afford not to have the
comics make their costs and not worry about household bills. But that's
life only in the funny papers. And this is real life.
I WISH this fellow Sibe hadn't taken it upon himself to post everyone's work
KNOWING it was in direct violation of their rights, and in essence STEALING
all the work, money and time they put into it.
I am glad he has apparently renounced his ways. However, that's not going
to be the end of the story.
I don't know if you have ever dealt with copyrights and copyright laws. If
you haven't, here's how they work.
When you create and copyright something, there isn't such a thing as the
Copyright Gestapo to make sure somebody doesn't come out with EXTINCTIONERS
action figures without making a deal with Shawntae.
THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER has to protect his property. And the main word her is
HAS.
If Sibe decided to steal SHANDA, and I did nothing, later on if Joe Blow
Comics decided to do their own comic called SHANDA THE PANDA, I would be
UNABLE to stop them. Why? Because I KNEW SOMEONE HAD VIOLATED MY COPYRIGHT
AND DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.
Joe Blow could bring that up in court and the judge WOULD BE FORCED to rule
in THEIR favor, as I would have ABANDONED MY COPYRIGHT.
If Sibe has actually reformed, I'm sure things can be worked out legally
between him and SFA copyright holders. Probably with no losses to him or
us.
Which is actually nicer than what he was doing to us.
Mike Curtis
PUBLISHER
Shanda Fantasy Arts
Dragon Magic
If
> you haven't, here's how they work.
>
> When you create and copyright something, there isn't such a thing as the
> Copyright Gestapo to make sure somebody doesn't come out with
EXTINCTIONERS
> action figures without making a deal with Shawntae.
>
> THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER has to protect his property. And the main word her
is
> HAS.
>
> If Sibe decided to steal SHANDA, and I did nothing, later on if Joe Blow
> Comics decided to do their own comic called SHANDA THE PANDA, I would be
> UNABLE to stop them. Why? Because I KNEW SOMEONE HAD VIOLATED MY
COPYRIGHT
> AND DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.
>
> Joe Blow could bring that up in court and the judge WOULD BE FORCED to
rule
> in THEIR favor, as I would have ABANDONED MY COPYRIGHT.
Actually, copyright can't be abandoned unless you say it is abandoned, that
is,
public domain. The problem here is that you're still right, just another set
of intellectual property.
The trademark of Shanda would be abandoned because you did not enforce it,
and as such, now you would be unable to stop others from using it any which
way they choose.
That's why there's a lot of frivelous trademark and patent lawsuits flying
around.
You *can* lose those. You only lose copyright if you want to.
Still doesn't make it right, though.
Tamar
torks me sometimes. You know why everything isn't free, cause even when an
artist does put artwork on the net for free view, such as on archives or
webpages, with the simple request that the image stays were they originally
posted it, assholes like Sibe wills till still and redistribute the image.
I mean think of it, if you really want folks to see the work, why not just
simply make a link to the picture, no they gotta copy and then repost it
somewhere else.
And personally this damn idea that artists and folks are greedy cause they,
gasp, actually want to make a little money off of their talent. Why, how
unAmerican an idea of that is. Look, as a creator and artists, who tries to
bring quality material to this 'fandom' I don't spend the hours of drawing
and writing just got get paid, but NEWSFLASH, if the work I do doesn't make
some kind of profit so that the publishers can get back some of the money
they spent to publish it and get this material to YOU, the fan, then guess
what, no more Artwork for you to be a fan over.
Man, this frame of thought just puzzles me to no end who people try to
justify stuff like this in the name of sharing. Why damnit, what about the
artists feelings? Huh? Let's equate it to you having a child then someone
kidnapping your child and prostituting it to other cause they want to share
them with the world. You say, hey, you can't do that that's my child, but
they tell you to screw off, they should be shared by everyone? Now imagine
how an artists feels after putting hours of mental, physical in my case
since simply drawing causes me pain, and time restraints into creating the
artwork, characters, and stories you fans so claim to love just to have
someone come along and totally take away all rights and motives of those
same characters or materials. But I guess with that frame of thought
artists should just shut up and be living xerox machines to the 'fandom' and
sacrafice our rights for the 'greater good and enjoyment of all.'
(Okay, I'm stopping now cause I'm rambbling).
--
Tamar the Ebony Leopard
http://www.extinctioners.com
http://www.geocities.com/xenif/extinctioners.html
http://www.yerf.com/howashaw
"Rog A. Clemson" <rcn...@att.net> wrote in message
news:131120011022170382%rcn...@att.net...
AJL
...
> But because there are so many fans/consumers keen on
> any particular creative person's efforts, some form of publishing,
> usually for some level of compensation, is all but inevitable. And it
> isn't a bad thing. It "spreads the wealth" of the creative product to
> more people, and encourages/supports the creative person to do more.
Very well said.
There needs to be room for both professional and amateur in the fandom.
As the fandom grows, it evolves; what doesn't evolve becomes extinct.
There is a new generation (or two) of furry fans. Trying to force the
aspects and ideals from 20 years ago onto them simply won't work.
At the same time, those of us who have been around a while have had to
learn that things can't always be the way they were.
---
Darrel L. Exline
dire...@confurence.net
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<shan...@cyberback.com> wrote:
[...]
> If Sibe decided to steal SHANDA, and I did nothing, later on if Joe Blow
> Comics decided to do their own comic called SHANDA THE PANDA, I would be
> UNABLE to stop them. Why? Because I KNEW SOMEONE HAD VIOLATED MY COPYRIGHT
> AND DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.
Thats trademark law not copyright law.
> Joe Blow could bring that up in court and the judge WOULD BE FORCED to rule
> in THEIR favor, as I would have ABANDONED MY COPYRIGHT.
You can only abandon you copyright by doing so delibrately.
--
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.
Steve Carter
(concerning the infamous "Laurie Moon") back in 1991. I completely agree
with your sentiment here, and add to it a comment I've made on a couple of
occasions: It's called artWORK for a reason.
There are those who don't realise that the artist (at the very least) has
materials to pay for--pencils, pens, markers, computer tablets, and other
such things that don't magically appear out of nowhere. And sometimes there
are real blood, sweat and tears shed over some works, and that's not to be
taken lightly.
"Tamar" <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tv39nre...@corp.supernews.com...
Dragon Magic
Elfquest
> (concerning the infamous "Laurie Moon") back in 1991. I completely agree
> with your sentiment here, and add to it a comment I've made on a couple of
> occasions: It's called artWORK for a reason.
>
> There are those who don't realise that the artist (at the very least) has
> materials to pay for--pencils, pens, markers, computer tablets, and other
> such things that don't magically appear out of nowhere. And sometimes
there
> are real blood, sweat and tears shed over some works, and that's not to be
> taken lightly.
Also, don't forget that not every piece sees the light of day. Those works
which are tossed or redone, count for lost time, materials and work. So
artists often work more getting a finished piece done than most nonartists
believe.
Same with writers.
Don't forget, we may be able to create new works often, but we're not
100% on the dot every time, and we can't push a magic button to make
it all appear. If we want to be paid for our work, why is that bad?
Nothing's
stopping anyone else from drawing or writing their works.
Jeff Novotny
>
> Interestingly enough I made a similar argument about plagiarism in Elfquest
> (concerning the infamous "Laurie Moon") back in 1991. I completely agree
> with your sentiment here, and add to it a comment I've made on a couple of
> occasions: It's called artWORK for a reason.
>
> There are those who don't realise that the artist (at the very least) has
> materials to pay for--pencils, pens, markers, computer tablets, and other
> such things that don't magically appear out of nowhere. And sometimes there
> are real blood, sweat and tears shed over some works, and that's not to be
> taken lightly.
I agree completely with what you and Tamar have said here, but I'd like
to add one point that often isn't emphasized. Intellectual property
should be respected in other creative and technical domains too. That
includes music, literature, computer software, and other engineering
achievements. Too often people feel it's "okay" to get stuff off of
Napster or pirate some cool new video game, but it isn't.
Just as artists have worked hard to produce their works, so too have
musicians, writers, and programmers/engineers. Their work deserves
respect as well.
I know that there are some "grey area" instances, such as trying to
track down the B-side of a rare 45 vinyl record that isn't available on
CD, in which for all practical purposes, people are going to make
copies. However, that situation is the exception, not the rule, and
copying shouldn't be undertaken just because it's easier.
Best;
Jeff
Sibe 0wns J00
to be more sheep then any other species in witch they dont really
think for themselves. I saw postings on vixen controlled archives
about how I was scanning the art, printing it and selling it. That in
fact wasnt the case, I just am a broke collage student at the moment
and I wanted to experience the furry art that those furs with deep
pockets could experience. The only way I knew how to do that was to
use my skills that I gained from starting and serving in some of the
more popular *z channels on dal and efnet to get furs togeather.
It seemed to work, I got a lot of furs saying right on and a lot of
furs quoting copyright law. I personally think art in any form is
far greater then the artist can intend it to be, or control. Why is
it that the majority of furry fans and comic book producers act like
metallica? I discussed this with my boyfriend and we came to the
conclusion that no matter what happened, if it got out that he was my
boyfriend he would have a hard time becoming successful as a furry
artists in this fandom. What measures success as a furry artist in
this fandom though? If you get picked up by radio comix? If you make
a certian amount of money at a convention? At a certin point, furry
art becoms a commercial venture for artists, where they art that they
make is inspired by their internal love for their art.
When that is kept in focus, I can see how the money would just come
naturally. Is it really all about the money now? Is it only worth it
to be a furry artist if you can arrest someone if they share a pic of
yours on the internet? I certinly dont think so, and I still dont
think that what I did was stealing, but rather sharing. Sharing so
that In my eyes, maybe somefurs life could be enriched by what I was
sharing. I certinly think that the time me and my boyfriend spend
reading all of the asb issues (that I bought), we grew closer in those
moments being that we can both relate our relationship to different
parts of danial and marcus's relationship. Isnt that what its all
about?
What about furs that cant afford it? Do you penalize somefur just
because they happen to be poor? Or perhaps too young to order stuff?
When I was 16 I used the internet (BBS's then) to look at whatever
type of porn I wanted to look at. I felt that If I could bring that
to the furry fandom, that would be a great thing... and I succeeded
for a time. I even had Ch'Marr in my channel ranting n stuff, that
was pretty awesome. I never thought that any of the more "powerful"
furs would try to contact me on the phone or on email, like I mattered
or anything. It was all about money though, apparently....
One of the artists I respect the most, chris goodwin who I always
respected because of his eclectic art style, and his love for
advancing his mind in the artistic instead of solely the pornographic.
He did a badge for me at FC... and I had like a few other artists do
badges for me. Frank gemback, Guppy, Sidian and Dark natasha.
Natasha charged me like fifteen bucks for mine, it was cool n such.
Frank and guppy like each charged me something smaller, since I bought
a grip of their prints... and Sidian also charged me 15 bucks... With
chris I was expecting to pay a lot, since he was the one I respected
the most... he charged me like a buck... I couldent believe it so I
like went and bought a lot of prints from him with the money I had
left.
The guy.. damn... I just think hes really about the art and not
totally about the cash. I dunno...
I hope that the past few days has opened somefurs's minds a bit about
what furry art can mean other then how much money it can make you. It
means more then that, and if thats what this whole shutting down
furnation and griping about it is... then maybe as a fandom we have
lost sight about what is important.
-Ross
"Rog A. Clemson" <rcn...@att.net> wrote in message news:<131120011022170382%rcn...@att.net>...
Dar
I see this from both sides. Free is good. Free is not good. We all have
to bear a piece of the burden to have these cons. I myself, spent well over
$400 just to take in the con this year in tacoma. It was my first and will
definately "NOT" be my last. I bought many prints and am very happy
with them. I did get a freebe from malcom in the form of a sketch he did
showing the copywrighted markings of his character. I will cherish this
free item for a long time. What I am trying to say is that nothing is free.
Some
one paid for it. Some win and some lose. Some do both at the same time.
Life is a win lose situation. Win or lose, you lose, you will never be the
same
after its done.
Its just in the cards and will always be. When you put a large group of
people into an area, there will be differences. We all have to do the best
and
flow with the punch. Recoup and go at it again. There will always be a few
to rock the tree and shake down a few of the fruits. They cannot be replaced
and therefore, are just lost. There will always be a "sibe" somewhere in the
woods. Lets just have fun and ignore the person and mabe he will just
quietly
go away. No fame, no fun.
Dar
"Rog A. Clemson" <rcn...@att.net> wrote in message
news:131120011022170382%rcn...@att.net...
DishRoom1
Still, it was wrong what you did. You did not comprehend the consequences the
artists, writers and publishers of the pirating you caused. many of their post
are correct that they need the money to cover such costs as the materials used
for the art, their bills, their trips to furry cons, ect. The Curtises use some
of their profit to pay for their medical treatment. Also noted is the hard work
people put to make those comics, characters, stories possible. So being paid
for making something of culture dosen't always equal greed. If you and your
boyfriend really appricate a comic like ASB, pay for it so that they can do
more stuff you might like. If you get it from some cheap bootleger, either for
free of via paying him, the creators and pulishers would lose their business.
And this "sharing" thing is no escuse for breaking the law. They used the same
thing for Napster and other similar file-swaping Internet bootlegers, whining
about "we should share music", "musicians/record companies have plenty of money
anyway", and the personal 'favorite' was "the Internet is new, so it should be
free of copyrights". That was a bunch of stupid whitewash! Even a
brand-spanking new medium of comunication and enjoyment has to obey the letter
of the law in order to survive. Television as we a familar with now was once a
new thing in the mid-20th Century, and it had to go along with copyrights as
older media (movies, books). No reason for the World Wide Web to do the same.
And when you steal songs, you not only hurt the "fatcat" producers, singers,
and companies, but you also damage the businesses of those "starving artist"
types struggling to get into the music business. What can effect the big guy
can also hurt the little guy, too.
You need to understand artist still do have a sense to joy and pride with their
work as when the fandom began 20 years ago, even if those same artists still
charge you $15 for a portfolio. If you're concerned about getting what you want
vs. what money you want to save after buying, budget you money. If you have
gotten plenty of cash, it should be enough to buy enough of what you can find.
If you do not currently have the money to pay up fo an item, wait till a future
time when you do. It also helps to be mature that you may not always get what
you want.
John Shughart
che...@tigress.com
> Personality clashes aside, was Sibe perhaps more right than wrong? --
I wholeheartedly agree to your thoughtful article, except for this point:
Sibe is a bad example to use, because he was not interestend in trading
furry stuff, but he intentionally did it to piss people off, and that's
why he DEFINATELY is on the "more wrong" side, no matter how you turn
it.
Apart from that: You are right. I think that too many people whose Artwork
isn't worth spending a penny for are bitching far too loudly about loss
of income caused by piracy.
The media industrie's brainwashing has started to take effect. If
art no longer gives you the attention you crave, bitch about
copyright violations.
Granted: It's not an inherently bad thing to do artwork for a living,
and of course it's everyones fundamental right to defend one's copyright.
But it's a very sad thing that commerce is taking the place of sharing
in the furry fandom.
yours,
Cheetah
Simba Lion
whining
I'll remind you that this isn't about napster, and the two can't be
compared, since Napster was shown in several surveys, to be a money-making
operation for the record industry. Further proof of that is seen after
napster went down. Record Industry sales suffered badly. Other file-sharing
services, such as Music City, I don't think carry the same positive effects
that napster had, just the negative. The recording industry shot themselves
in the foot, despite huge neon warning signs telling them it was going to
happen, and therefore deserve every bit of lost profit as a result.
Sibe however, is not napster, he's a pirate. He was not trying to get other
artists noticed, he was essentially, the bad aspects of napster. People
pirating music from bands like Metallica, or Aerosmith.
smb
AJL
> I'll remind you that this isn't about napster, and the two can't be
> compared, since Napster was shown in several surveys, to be a money-making
> operation for the record industry. Further proof of that is seen after
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!
It's EXACTLY like what happened to Napster, and MP3.COM, and all the
other music bootleggers. Piracy of copyrighted material is the same, no
matter WHAT media format it is.
Just because you were in favor of Napster, and not in favor of Ross's
actions, don't try to find a difference between them. Napster was just
as guilty as Ross is.
In this era of the Internet, anyone who speaks up is being heard. This
is regardless of whether they are minors, foreign, poor, etc., as long
as they can post a message, they are given an equal voice. Giving equal
weight to the voice of a person who just last week learned to log in to
AOL, yet hasn't even started growing pubic hair can easily lead to
anarchy. The only people supporting Napster were people who didn't
understand how important intellectual property rights are.
Typically these are younger people, or people who have never had their
works stolen... people who don't realize why copyright law exists. The
only people supporting Ross Reddick's actions probably fit the exact
same demographic.
Recent polls indicate that less than 9% of US Citizens have Internet
access. Of that 9%, approximately one-third are under 25. Any polling
that is based solely on internet responses *will* be skewed in favor of
younger, less experienced opinions.
Therein lies the reason I said "Equal voices bad" in my subject line.
Don't misunderstand... I strongly support free speech and everyone
having their chance to speak up, but you have to give proper weight to
who is speaking and what is supporting their platform.
It's very easy to forget that not everyone is online. In advertising
for The ConFurence Group, I am frequently reminded that I have to send
out physical mailings to be sure news gets out because fully
three-fourths of CF's attendees probably do not check Usenet newsgroups
regularly, and many don't even have EMail addresses. People who spend
all their spare time online, or who have the ability to send 20 or more
messages daily to newsgroups and keep up with all the threads, easily
lose sight that there is a MUCH bigger world out there than what is
online.
An example: Just last week, when Gabriel Gentile posted a query about
whether or not McMoo would approve of a drawing involving his "Zonie"
character in memorium, there was a response that someone hadn't heard
that McMoo hadn't survived his bout with cancer. Michael-Scot McMurray
(a dear friend of mine, and a very talented artist) passed away last
April. There was news here, memorial events at several conventions,
loads of memorial artwork, yet over 7 months after his death, someone
still hadn't heard the news.
The online opinion must not be allowed to take the place of the real
world. It can augment it, be a quick an easy way to get the word out,
but it cannot replace it.
Napster was bad. The court system agreed, despite an online coolition
to support their illegal activity, and shut them down.
Darrel L. Exline
dire...@confurence.net
Blackberry
>
>I really would have to agree with you on that fact. Most furrys seem
>to be more sheep then any other species in witch they dont really
>think for themselves. I saw postings on vixen controlled archives
>about how I was scanning the art, printing it and selling it. That in
>fact wasnt the case, I just am a broke collage student at the moment
>and I wanted to experience the furry art that those furs with deep
>pockets could experience. The only way I knew how to do that was to
>use my skills that I gained from starting and serving in some of the
I'm broke myself, and yet I experience furry art quite a lot -- it's called VCL
and Furnation. I don't have a drive to steal and redistribute everything I see,
so that is no excuse whatsoever. You can enjoy artwork without taking food out
of their mouths.
>It seemed to work, I got a lot of furs saying right on and a lot of
>furs quoting copyright law. I personally think art in any form is
>far greater then the artist can intend it to be, or control. [...]
Good for you. Now justify stealing all of FoxMajik's stuff, threatening
Rascal's life, and redistributing for free products that were for sale.
>Why is
>it that the majority of furry fans and comic book producers act like
>metallica? I discussed this with my boyfriend and we came to the
>conclusion that no matter what happened, if it got out that he was my
>boyfriend he would have a hard time becoming successful as a furry
>artists in this fandom.
I'm sorry, but you should have thought of that long before committing multiple
crimes and spending years pissing off every furry that you encountered. He also
could have thought of that before hooking up with you. There is no way you can
blame that on us.
>What measures success as a furry artist in
>this fandom though? If you get picked up by radio comix? If you make
>a certian amount of money at a convention? At a certin point, furry
>art becoms a commercial venture for artists, where they art that they
>make is inspired by their internal love for their art.
>
>When that is kept in focus, I can see how the money would just come
>naturally. Is it really all about the money now? Is it only worth it
>to be a furry artist if you can arrest someone if they share a pic of
>yours on the internet? I certinly dont think so, and I still dont
>think that what I did was stealing, but rather sharing. Sharing so
>that In my eyes, maybe somefurs life could be enriched by what I was
>sharing. [...]
Right. "Hee hee, that'll teach you, Brian O'Connell" is *all* about sharing and
doing good. Try again.
>I certinly think that the time me and my boyfriend spend
>reading all of the asb issues (that I bought), we grew closer in those
>moments being that we can both relate our relationship to different
>parts of danial and marcus's relationship. Isnt that what its all
>about?
So, you thought, why not take money from the people who produce the stuff that
you prize so much, why not drive the artists and their company so far into the
ground that they'll never recover from the debt? Sounds like sharing to me.
Try again.
>What about furs that cant afford it? Do you penalize somefur just
>because they happen to be poor? Or perhaps too young to order stuff? [...]
So, if you're too poor to own a Mercedes, you should be allowed to steal one?
--------------------
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." -- Willow, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Baloo Ursidae
> Good for you. Now justify stealing all of FoxMajik's stuff, threatening
> Rascal's life, and redistributing for free products that were for sale.
Refresh me here, didn't sibe make the threat before the furmeet at
Rascal's house, then pretend like nothing happened?
--
Baloo
LancerAdvancd iBuck
because of his eclectic art style, and his love for
>>advancing his mind in the artistic instead of solely the pornographic. He
did a badge for me at FC... and I had like a few other artists do badges for
me. Frank gemback, Guppy, Sidian and Dark natasha. Natasha charged me like
fifteen bucks for mine, it was cool n such. Frank and guppy like each charged
me something smaller, since I bought
>>a grip of their prints... and Sidian also charged me 15 bucks... With chris I
was expecting to pay a lot, since he was the one I respected the most... he
of prints from him with the money I had
>>left.
Realistically, doen't your own experience here argue against your rationalle
for doing what you did? Costs and copyright simply arn't a signifigant barrier
in the Furry Fandom. And your mean-sprited strike againt the few who do support
their services to the fandom w. minor sales cetiannly isn't helping. Of course
channel takeovers, nickfloods and the rest are sort of hard to justify in the
name of sharing with poor furs...
I'll take you at your original word, that you were doing this to piss people
off, and get attention... Guess what? IT WORKED, and it's your own fault that
you found what you recieved was not to your liking... Copyright infringment
was just your smokescreen and toy de jure...
If you have any real feelings for the fandom, and those in it you'll get some
help for yourself and take responsibility for your self-agrandizing
destruction.
DishRoom1
>Apart from that: You are right. I think that too many people whose Artwork
>isn't worth spending a penny for are bitching far too loudly about loss
>of income caused by piracy.
>
>The media industrie's brainwashing has started to take effect. If
>art no longer gives you the attention you crave, bitch about
>copyright violations.
>
>Granted: It's not an inherently bad thing to do artwork for a living,
>and of course it's everyones fundamental right to defend one's copyright.
>
>But it's a very sad thing that commerce is taking the place of sharing
>in the furry fandom.
>
>yours,
>
>Cheetah
Don't you read the other post, Cheetah? Furry fandom is *not* taken over by
greed or commerce. We have not turned into another Hollywood just yet. There
are no Michael Eisners or Bill Gates here. Unlike the mainstream media we
still enjoy what we create.
What you and others like you don't understand that many artist and writers not
only lose any money from the bootleging, but they get upset that someone copied
their work with little effort, a work that the original artist/writer gave a
lot of hard work to, and paid a lot of money to buy the paper and/or whatever
tools they use to make the work possible for the rest of us to see or read. And
Nexxus uses the profits of Furnation Magaizne to keep the FN website up for the
rest of us to surf through or show our work with others.
John Shughart
Blackberry
He made it repeatedly before that initial furmeet to which BoundWolf was invited
(but didn't show up) and Sibe wasn't (but didn't show up). And to answer your
question, he constantly admits to and denies everything.
DishRoom1
>I'll remind you that this isn't about napster, and the two can't be
>compared, since Napster was shown in several surveys, to be a money-making
>operation for the record industry. Further proof of that is seen after
>napster went down. Record Industry sales suffered badly. Other file-sharing
>services, such as Music City, I don't think carry the same positive effects
>that napster had, just the negative. The recording industry shot themselves
>in the foot, despite huge neon warning signs telling them it was going to
>happen, and therefore deserve every bit of lost profit as a result.
Aww, please already. That "Napster actually helped advertise/ boost sales for
the record industry" was nothing but naīve whitewash. Even if Napster was set
up with the intent of helping singers and music companies in mind, what it did
hurt more than it helped, and it's still wrong to copy a song and redistribe it
along without the copyright holder's permission. I doubt it if those who
downloaded songs for free actually went a brick-and-mortar music store to throw
away money for the same songs they *ALREADY* got in their computers on a CD.
>Sibe however, is not napster, he's a pirate. He was not trying to get other
>artists noticed, he was essentially, the bad aspects of napster. People
>pirating music from bands like Metallica, or Aerosmith.
Again, it doesn't matter if you claim Napster was doing any better with its
bootleging than what Sibe was intenting. They both commit crimes that are cut
from the same cloth, regardless of whever drove them to intellectual piracty,
bottom line.
John Shughart
artist
<smbl...@hotmail.com> said...
>> thing for Napster and other similar file-swaping Internet bootlegers,
>> whining
>
> I'll remind you that this isn't about napster, and the two can't be
> compared, since Napster was shown in several surveys, to be a
> money-making operation for the record industry. Further proof of that
> is seen after napster went down. Record Industry sales suffered badly.
> Other file-sharing services, such as Music City, I don't think carry
> the same positive effects that napster had, just the negative. The
> recording industry shot themselves in the foot, despite huge neon
> warning signs telling them it was going to happen, and therefore
> deserve every bit of lost profit as a result.
Thats not proof, that's statistics. The large majority of people using
napster where young people who want'ed something for nothing. When the
music industry shut napster down, sales did drop. You could read as a bunch
of spoiled kids will more mouth than brains thought to themselves, "I will
fix them bastards, I won't buy any of their stuff, they will be sorry."
I can't wait untill these guys become the establishment. ;p Then they can
watch as all their hard work get's flushed by a bunch of spoiled rich kids
who wan't something for nothing...
I don't suppose the irony of Metallica going before congress struck anyone
else...
I know these kinds of people, they wan't something for nothing. I watched
as my brother burned a stack of CD's that was 3 inches high the other day.
All I could do was shake my head and repremand him (he doesn't listen to
me, though).
> Sibe however, is not napster, he's a pirate. He was not trying to get
> other artists noticed, he was essentially, the bad aspects of napster.
> People pirating music from bands like Metallica, or Aerosmith.
What about all the other people being pirated? :)
--
ICQ UIN# 106922763
mell...@yahoo.com
http://users.transfur.com/white/
------------------------------------------------
| I dunno, I feel kinda warm and fuzzy inside. |
| I think I swallowed a tribble. |
| -Karl Xydexx Jorgensen |
------------------------------------------------
Sibe 0wns J00
Maybe if I started a telemarketing campaign to sell furnation magazine
that would have been good. Or perhaps, I could have started a spam
engine up and send out a million or so emails promoting furnations
magazine or asb's comic books. Since this fandom is all about making
money, I should be able to make the sharing of magainzines right by
just increasing the margin of the buisnessmen who make money of the
furry fandom. Maybe I could negotiate the con coorindators to make
more money off of each hotel room a furry would book during a
convention, that would put more money in everyones pockets.
-Ross
che...@tigress.com wrote in message news:<9stvtc$b7u$1...@newsread4.arcor-online.net>...
che...@tigress.com
> anarchy. The only people supporting Napster were people who didn't
> understand how important intellectual property rights are.
So, how important are they? I think they're not half as important
as most americans think.
They're important to help the big fish eat the small fish in the
industry. That's what intellectual property is good for in the way
it's enforced today.
Something's wrong.
yours,
Cheetah
Greylocks
any confidence?
Also, I'm afraid that suggestions on how to run conventions may be a bit
inappropriate until your own life has settled and you have made things
right...
che...@tigress.com
> Don't you read the other post, Cheetah? Furry fandom is *not* taken over by
> greed or commerce. We have not turned into another Hollywood just yet. There
> are no Michael Eisners or Bill Gates here. Unlike the mainstream media we
> still enjoy what we create.
But still people TALK like Bill Gates and Michael Eisner, and they
act up as if they were the RIAA fighting the russian bootleggers mafia.
Read this thread and others: Discussions about "how important" Intellectual
Property is, mediocre Artists trying to get attention by playing cops
and thieves, treating the occasional unwanted repost like gold robbery.
And I still remember the times without every second post on fur.artwork
being crippled with a banner saying "Buy this picture on furbid".
This whole issue came up exactly when the public IP debate came up.
What used to be sharing back then, is "piracy" today.
I think, it's the quality and quantity of sharing that makes the
difference between "just sharing" and theft. Sibe might have been close,
especially because of his intent, but then not everyone who copies 20
Brian O'Connel scans from his friend's harddrive because he missed the
official postings should be regarded a criminal.
What scares me is the intensity in which people insist of important
copyrights are, and how evil those pirates are ... without ever even
thinking where the border lies between protecting ones rights in a
way that makes sense and pure arrogance.
*sigh*
I'm ranting, sorry, I shouldn't. Especially because it's after
1am, and I tend to babble incoherently at this time of the night ...
> What you and others like you don't understand that many artist and writers not
> only lose any money from the bootleging, but they get upset that someone copied
> their work with little effort, a work that the original artist/writer gave a
> lot of hard work to, and paid a lot of money to buy the paper and/or whatever
> tools they use to make the work possible for the rest of us to see or read.
Oh, I do understand this. And you're absolutely right ... but only regarding
the case you're referring to.
What I am ... well kinda "complaining" about is the attitude. I put
"compaining" into quotes because, as I said, it's not a bad thing to
sell art. But the furries producing art, just for the art's sake is
shrinking. Ten years ago, there were days when furries would gather
and trade photocopies of their sketchbooks, and the artists were pleased
that so many people liked their art. And noone would have thought of
accusing them of THEFT or calling the FBI.
Today, you see a lot of artists producing heaps of "whatever sells best",
litereally exploding with rage if someone DARES to re-post something
which isn't being sold, or available freely anyways.
Same goes for other kinds of private, not-for-profit copying that doesn't
really harm anyone.
The whole copyright thing has somehow grown out of proportion. Copying
should only be regarded immoral if it means making a profit with someone
else's work, or when *significant* damage is done.
> Nexxus uses the profits of Furnation Magaizne to keep the FN website up
> for the rest of us to surf through or show our work with others.
And that's perfectly fine. His overreaction however isn't, since it made
it all much worse.
yours,
Cheetah
Baloo Ursidae
> downloaded songs for free actually went a brick-and-mortar music store to throw
> away money for the same songs they *ALREADY* got in their computers on a CD.
Actually, I *won't* buy a CD (unless it's really, really obscure or I've
already been planning on buying it, making this not feasable) unless I've
heard the MP3 first, despite the fact I have a CD burner. The only time I
burn audio CDs is when I'm taking tracks from many different CDs to make a
mix disc.
--
Baloo
Baloo Ursidae
> I don't suppose the irony of Metallica going before congress struck anyone
> else...
I thought that was hilarious, really. Especially Lars, considering he was
the one who encouraged people to bootleg thier music the most before
Napster. Damn hypocrites, I'm glad Napster tore them apart.
--
Baloo
AJL
>
> Ya know if we do things differently we could sell more furry art.
> Maybe if I started a telemarketing campaign to sell furnation magazine
> that would have been good. Or perhaps, I could have started a spam
> engine up and send out a million or so emails promoting furnations
> magazine or asb's comic books. Since this fandom is all about making
> money, I should be able to make the sharing of magainzines right by
> just increasing the margin of the buisnessmen who make money of the
> furry fandom. Maybe I could negotiate the con coorindators to make
> more money off of each hotel room a furry would book during a
> convention, that would put more money in everyones pockets.
>
> -Ross
And I suppose you think that furry conventions make a profit? I've fed
over $40K into The ConFurence Group so far and all I can hope for is
that it will recover some of that in the years to come.
This is a labour of love... and you are just an immature twit who thinks
he knows all the answers.
--Darrel.
Peter Torkelson
It is, perhaps, an attack at what I consider some misconceptions, however,
that I see commonly floated around fandom.
che...@tigress.com wrote:
> But it's a very sad thing that commerce is taking the place of sharing
> in the furry fandom.
The End of Free Art (aka "sharing")
This is hardly the case. Go look at Furnation,, VCL, fur.artwork.*, or one
of a number of places where art is displayed, for free. With the consent of
the artist. Or gotfox? and Mia's, again, given to fandom, for free, with the
consent of the author.
So there we have it, tons of free art, writing, on free sites, with no add
banners, paid for out of the pockets of a few deticated admins.
Hell, this is cheaper than the days of Fanzines before the "furry internet"
where you were at least expected to pay for the cost of photocopying it. Or
the "free" art which was popular at the time, which again, required a fee to
kinkos if you could not abuse work's photocopier.
So, I ask you... what is the golden age of free sharing in furry fandom? Ten,
twenty years ago? Or now?
Now that I consider that myth debunked. Lets move on to the next one:
Profit Motivates Artists Now
Lets take one of the recently pirated magazines as an example. Furnation's.
So this has donated art by various artists, if I am not mistaken, and the
"profits" (after reproduction costs, etc.) go to... Keeping that free art
server online. And the sales don't even cover the costs of running it.
You know, usually what people call profit is net, not gross.
The Furnation magazine is a good example of what most artists are tying to
do, cover their costs. Art supplies are not cheap sketch pads, colored
pencils, matting boards, markers, acid free stock, etc. Printing a comic book
(to take another pirated example, ASB) costs money. A fair bit of it. Going
to conventions to make your art available to your fans costs money... hotel
room, dealers table, art show panels, food... Truth be told, most of your
favorite artists are not making the money back that they have put into this.
And then there is time. It takes time to draw art, hours (to days for some
artists) to finish a full color piece, which seems to be the standard these
days. (Back in the Good Old Days, most furry art was not even inked, much
less colored.) Then you get to actual literature like comic books, like ASB
again. There is characters to develop, writing to do, layouts, editing,
inking, art, more art, covers to commission, printers to argue costs with,
distribution channels to manage, conventions to go to, dealers to work
with... I think you get the idea.
I for one can think of a LOT better ways to be making money.
Lets talk about time some more. Conventions. Where is your favorite artist?
Behind a table. For most of the day. When all the really good programming
is happening. What is he doing? Talking to his fans, maybe doing sketches
for them at really silly prices that hardly even cover their time, or badges,
or what have you. And he is selling his prints, or comic books, or whatever,
just trying to cover the costs of being there.
Again, I can think of a thousand things better to make money doing. Most of
them would let me go to the con to enjoy my time with my friends, attending
events and such, rather than being chained to a desk all day.
I would propose that their motives are a love of the art. Not profit.
Mind you, despite all this, I don't consider these hardships excuses for bad
attitudes. No matter what happens, everyone is responsible for their own
actions. Name calling, flame wars, and the like don't solve problems, they
only create them.
--
______
\ __/___ Peter "WhiteFire" Torkelson http://www.fur.com/wfire
\ \ BI / Furry Peace! http://www.fur.com/peace wf...@fur.com
\/\ / Tapestries MUCK: http://www.fur.com/tapestries
\/
Baloo Ursidae
> What used to be sharing back then, is "piracy" today.
Thank you, RIAA, Microsoft...you've turned good people on each other.
> What scares me is the intensity in which people insist of important
> copyrights are, and how evil those pirates are ... without ever even
> thinking where the border lies between protecting ones rights in a
> way that makes sense and pure arrogance.
Finally, someone else here who actually understands the concept of user
rights without going way off the handle.
> The whole copyright thing has somehow grown out of proportion. Copying
> should only be regarded immoral if it means making a profit with someone
> else's work, or when *significant* damage is done.
In which I have to say, "Right. Like you actually paid royalties when you
and 19 of your friends watched Akira and drank beer together. Like you've
never taped a song off the radio. Like you've never Xeroxed a Dilbert
strip and put it in your cube."
--
Baloo
Dragon Magic
> and 19 of your friends watched Akira and drank beer together. Like you've
> never taped a song off the radio. Like you've never Xeroxed a Dilbert
> strip and put it in your cube."
First off, younging, you're assuming everyone's a pirate and therefore
doesn't deserve to complain when their rights are stomped. Second,
if you purchase one copy of Akira and everyone watches it in your
private home, so long as it's not advertised publicly, etc., it's perfectly
legal. Thirdly, it actually is permissable to tape stuff off the radio or
television for your own purposes, but not to trade, redistribute, etc.
Fourth, Dilbert's creator intends people pinning up his strip in their
cubicles, that's the whole point of its humour.
However, what we're talking about is not stomping on users' rights
with copyrights. No one's saying, "You can't scan FurNation
Magazine!" or "You can't keep those images on your hard drive!"
What we're saying here, is only the proper owners of those rights
should choose how those items are DISTRIBUTED. I don't think
anyone minds if you back up the Catalyst CD for yourself, or if you
scan in a copy of Genus. It's when you start giving those copies
away for free, to many people, and publicly advertise it, that gets
into the problems we have with Sibe.
Bruce
<che...@tigress.com> wrote in message
news:9stvtc$b7u$1...@newsread4.arcor-online.net...
>
<snip>
>
> But it's a very sad thing that commerce
> is taking the place of sharing
> in the furry fandom.
>
> yours,
>
> Cheetah
I guess I must have fallen asleep over the past ten years (I showed up
in the fandom around ConFurence 4). This 'sharing' that everyone talks
about from "the good ol' days" - all along it has mostly been artist 'z'
trading with artist 'y'. It's still around, quite healthy even, it
appears.
And I have never before seen so much quality, FREE, .jpgs available to
the 'non-creative' types on NUMEROUS internet art servers. Artists
willingly SHARING with an unknown crowd out there in the vast digital
cloud known as cyberspace in the year 2001. Heck, I don't even try to
keep up anymore with all of the free stuff appearing each week.
So what am I missing here? My twenty free con sketches from a M. Light?
a T. Smith? a M. Earle? a Dr. Comet? etc. etc. etc? Is airfare,
rooms, and food now free to ALL the dealers and artists attending furry
conventions?
--
Bruce
(feels like I just woke up and don't recognize the community around me)
Bruce
<che...@tigress.com> wrote in message
news:9sv3ag$87r$1...@newsread4.arcor-online.net...
>
> Ten years ago, there were days when furries would gather
> and trade photocopies of their sketchbooks, and the artists were
pleased
> that so many people liked their art. And noone would have thought of
> accusing them of THEFT or calling the FBI.
>
Really? You don't say - has this all come to an end over the past
decade?
In any event, what's the diff if an artist's furry work(s) now appear(s)
gratis on a Velar or a Furnation vs. I have to head down to a Kinko's
with a wad of cash and their sketchbook?
Heck, these days on fur.artwork.erotica you often first get the PENCIL
or the INKED version of someone's art, then some other bloke comes
along, colors it, and then posts the revised color too!
Talk about your embarassment of riches...
-Bruce
Hannah Kincaid
radically different concepts. Do the names "Wolfman Jack" and
"Radio London" mean anything to any of the armchair moralists
on this group? :p
--HK, already waiting for somebody to miss the point. :)
>AJL <grap...@ajlvideo.com> wrote in message
news:3BF2AC15...@ajlvideo.com...
> Simba Lion wrote:
>> [snip]
Tamar
SHARE my work without getting my expressed written permission, see how fast
I bust there ass with as much legal force and otherwise. That's the with
these snot nosed kids today, they don't want to work for anything (And I
know, I work every damn day with them). They want everything handed to
them, don't want to work for nothing, and think that just cause they feel
like doing it it by default should be right and they should be allowed. If
you don't like the laws of the International community and the US then try
to get a petition to change it (if you or others of like mind are old enough
to actually vote).
But see i don't play. My model is similar to Chris Rock's in Rush Hour (and
this is just my personal motto), just as you never touch a black man's
radio, I never ever touch a black man's personal artistic creations.
Homie's do NOT play that.
--
Tamar the Ebony Leopard
<che...@tigress.com> wrote in message
news:9sv3ag$87r$1...@newsread4.arcor-online.net...
DishRoom1
AJL wrote--
>> anarchy. The only people supporting Napster were people who didn't
>> understand how important intellectual property rights are.
>
>So, how important are they? I think they're not half as important
>as most americans think.
>
>They're important to help the big fish eat the small fish in the
>industry. That's what intellectual property is good for in the way
>it's enforced today.
>
>Something's wrong.
>
Huh?
John Shughart
Tamar
you do, bottom line, is never about money, its about an artist or writers
write to have control of their own creations and dictate how, where, and
when they want to display it and no second rate, arm chair 'promoter' like
you has the right to FORCE someone to do anything with their own hard worked
creation of artistic expression when they don't want to. So stop trying to
justify your crimes.
We who bother to create things for this "Fandom" to enjoy shouldn't feel
that our hard worked efforts are pissed on by so called fans. I mean,
cripes, look at the percentage of things artists actually do put out for the
general public to view for free compaired what we may sale at a con we might
go to once a year or the occassional furbid auction in times of finacial
need? Does everything we do have to be free? Can't you all just enjoy the
achived work we put on sites like Yerf, VCL, or our own webpages? What, we
have no right to attempt to earn a little money (And don't get it twisted
folks, it ain't all that much money that's made off of furry art) from time
to time.
Man, guys like you and others even makes me wonder why I even bother trying
so hard to produce worthwhile reading and viewing material to raise this
fandom above the spooge laced rep it's got. Cripes.
Fans like you I could do without. Gladly.
--
Tamar the Ebony Leopard
http://www.extinctioners.com
http://www.geocities.com/xenif/extinctioners.html
http://www.yerf.com/howashaw
"Sibe 0wns J00" <rred...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4aaf835.01111...@posting.google.com...
Baloo Ursidae
> First off, younging, you're assuming everyone's a pirate and therefore
Call me when you're done with your petty insults.
--
Baloo
Cerulean
I'm _so_ tired of trying to teach people about this, but here it is
again:
The concept of intellectual property is not responsible for giving
power to Big Bad Industry. When Big Bad Industry steals something or
crushes competition by winning a copyright/trademark suit, it's
because they've used their vast bins of money to overpower a weak
legal system, stepping over the copyright/trademark laws that would be
_standing_in_their_way_ if not for their vast bins of money.
If it were legal to simply rip stuff off, yes, it would mean that the
people who create nothing could bootleg everything and stick it to the
Big Fish, but it would also mean that the Big Fish has free reign to
completely annihilate the little fish... because it still has vast
bins of money with which to do so.* We'd see a return to the old days
of Bigger Badder Industry, when if you were a creator, an artist, a
_doer_, the best you could hope for was to sign away your rights to
them in return for some meager compensation before they decided to
simply take it from you and give you nothing. Except this time, you
wouldn't even have rights to sign away.
*Yes, it would have the money, even if most people eschewed the
convenience of buying from the source to get a bootleg. Entertainment
industries still own broadcast media, and all broadcast media needs to
make money is advertisers. That economic model would resurge even
greater, as companies pay for advertising slots to be shown with
material made from work that's just lying around free for the taking,
on broadcast bandwidth that will still be owned by the corporations
and still be regulated by the government. When entertainment becomes
free, advertising becomes mandatory, and vice versa. I don't know
about you, but I would like to see LESS advertising cluttering up my
entertainment.
--
___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 ( 77epueJ - ,,iS37q33M awos +o6 I,,
Studio ELIPSE
limited fan distribution of a few pieces (particularly if it's with the
approval of the copyright holders) isn't out of the question. This, within
the context of Old Fandom, is part of the game. Let's face it -- within the
anthro genre, a least, possibly 90% of the working pro and semi-pro talent
came from within one fandom or another, and we work this particular genre
because we _like_ it.
What's wrong in the debacle du jour is that this is an individual who is
seeking to make a name within a group by redefining himself as a "hero" by
walking over the copyrights, intent and wishes of the creators -- all done
in the name of the fans." Obviously unable to contribute anything
original, he decided to try to gain acceptance at the cost of the creators.
In doing this, he decided that they were of no particular concern, other
than having put hours of work into material so that he would have it on
hand when he wanted it.
This is not only disturbingly delusional, it's dangerous, in that this
individual attempts to make the Art Starved Fans the bad guys in the
scenario. He's actually playing both sides at once. On one hand, he's
trying to make the fans _appreciate him_. On the other, he's trying to tell
outraged talent that his using their work in a misguided effort to make
himself a SMOF is benefiting them. This is the lowest sort of thief, folks.
Exposure? There are legit archives, in which the copyright holders can
place their work, if they want exposure. As to profit motive, yes, there is
a valid quality to the observation "why buy if you can download free?"
Given this, you might also consider than anthro titles are already on shaky
ground with distributors and comics store owners, who tend ot regard
anything unusual as being poison. If sales dip, even on a single popular
series, this can be easily misconstrued as the death knell for the entire
genre. Doing signings at shops, I can't tell how many times I've heard of
"the death of furry comics."
As for "was Sibe really wrong?" Yes, on multiple levels. He is in clear
violation of copyright on legally registered material. He is also culpable
for making that material available over the Internet. Finally, he is guilty
of, under the poorly rationalized guise of "serving the fans," placing his
personal agenda over that of the intents of the people whose hard work and
emotional input into their work he has violated. Their feelings and rights
were of absolutely no concern to him. He's a predator, plain and simple.
He's found a fandom that seems easy enough to carve a niche in, and he's
out to exploit you. Every one of you who'll buy into the lie and seek out
his pirated material.
So, we have to ask, Why Sibe?
Unfortunately, fandoms in general, being perceived as outsiders due to
their interests, tend to attract and retain their share of oddballs. The
nature of an (ideal) fandom is to accept everyone, and many small fan
groups do this. Most seem to have at least one wingnut -- usually a "gosh
wow fanboy" or a 30s-something , bookish type who can tell you in which
issue of WHIMSICAL WOMBAT they altered the font used to letter the pages,
and lives with his parents.
However (and this is from the perspective of years of fandom in other areas
and helping to coordinate a series of large cons in the late '70s), the
more established and high-profile these groups get, the more rifts and
faction politics they develop.
This is not an economic factor. It's more related to the groups trying to
gain ascendancy and respectability above other groups. Or think of it terms
of natural entropy.
I've run into these people before, and they tend to have little to no self
esteem and an equal lack of talent.
One in particular comes readily to mind. That one not only stole artwork --
in that case passing off obviously traced or actually photocopied work with
the sig changed -- as her own. This peaked when she started snipping bits
of toned artwork out of DC books.
In the case of comics work, I draw a strict line. While I will okay an
occasional fan piece, if I'm approached by an artist wanting to use one of
my copyrighted characters, I strictly limit the use of my characters on a
broad forum such as the 'Net. I've okayed some sketches and killed use of
several pieces sent me on web sites, as I didn't feel this was appropriate.
Best thing to do, in a case like this, is _ask_ the artist or writer. We
generally respond on a per-case basis.
I've been badly ripped off before, about 15 years ago. I was working as a
gag cartoonist at the time, and let me tell you -- nothing beats walking
into a con dealers' room and finding some slug in a Black Oak Arkansas
tee-shirt making a profit selling unauthorized posters and buttons.
I successfully prosecuted the individual, though he was unable to make the
settlement that was levied against him. Big surprise.
In the case of "Sieb," this person repeatedly and openly refused notices
from publishers to desist. He also, the first time he appeared, refused to
honor my advisal that he had _no_ permission from me to reproduce or
distribute work from a story I had in GENUS, a couple of years ago. The
response to my e-mail was a condescending one, amounting to "oh, well, what
I want to do is all that matters." I suspect this is the response others
got, as the individual was clearly off in some little dream world that
_should_ in theory work.
It's not a matter of profit, even for those of us working regularly in
comics. I hardly make enough out to seriously boost my bank account. It's
more a matter of taking years to work up characters and get inside them to
the degree than I can write them, and then have someone decide they can
decide the characters' use. In the case of HAVOC, we're talking a character
I've been developing for over 10 years, and I've been writing Deck and
Chester text stories (and now scripts) for as long. To date, that's over 60
stories and comics scripts.
If you want to detrimentally impact of what furry comics are out there,
then by all means don't respect the intent or proprietary rights of the
creators. You may find the offerings visibly thinned out due of your
efforts. I've seen artists literally give up the ghost because of this sort
of thing.
In my case, it's simply not worth my time to deal with these idiots. I do
what I can, if they have a web presence (and with several years' experience
working for ISPs I know a number of nasty and quite legal approaches to
'Net-based abuse), and I'm not above prosecuting again, if feel it's
justified.
However, if it ever gets to be a definite hassle to just sit back and tell
stories and try to give people a good time, it'd be extremely easy for me
to move onto other things and drop the comics work.
"Rog A. Clemson" wrote:
>
> Personality clashes aside, was Sibe perhaps more right than wrong? --
> was he perhaps just simply wanting to enjoy and share furry stuff with
> other fans? (much like the old-school furry fans did, two decades ago?)
> Isn't SHARING and love for the genre what furry fandom was supposed to
> be about in the first place? Think about it. Furry fandom sure seemed
> a LOT happier twenty years ago, before all the profit motives came into
> play.
Felyne32k
rred...@hotmail.com says...
> I really would have to agree with you on that fact. Most furrys seem
<cricks fingers>
Ok... this one's going to COBOL-finger me, but c'est la vie...
> to be more sheep then any other species in witch they dont really
> think for themselves. I saw postings on vixen controlled archives
> about how I was scanning the art, printing it and selling it. That in
> fact wasnt the case, I just am a broke collage student at the moment
And this college student is *also* Special Forces, NSA, FBI, CIA, and
everything else that's been bantered around?
Oy...
Those government jobs really don't pay well, do they?
<snicker>
Just out of curiousity, what college is it?
Or did you really mean 'collage', and mean that you're a student of
a whole bunch of photos and magazine pictures glued together?
And what level English are you taking? My 110 professor would fail
someone for spelling and grammar like this. I don't mean to flame on
spelling, but I'm genuinely curious. I must've gotten stuck with a
particularly A.R. professor or something.
> and I wanted to experience the furry art that those furs with deep
> pockets could experience. The only way I knew how to do that was to
Look, I don't know what crack-pipe you've been smoking from, or what
Drain-O derivative its contents were spiked with, but I'm likely just as
broke as you are. I've got $5 in my wallet, $10 coming in from renting
myself out as a psychology labrat in about an hour, and I OWE Pittman
$10. I've been kicking around with a K6-classic 200 MHz computer forever
now to save the money of upgrading.
And I'm perfectly content with what I can afford. It covers a new
piece every few weeks, maybe a commission every couple months... but hey,
I can live with that. I'll get out of school eventually, and have a bit
more to play with. Until then, *DEAL WITH IT*.
Suppose I wanted to experience the Patek and Omega watches that
'only those with deep pockets could experience'. Does that justify
smashing open the local jewelry store's display cases, grabbing a few
handfulls, and sharing them with my friends? Hey, more people will enjoy
them, and they can make more anyways, right?
Think about that.
> use my skills that I gained from starting and serving in some of the
> more popular *z channels on dal and efnet to get furs togeather.
>
> It seemed to work, I got a lot of furs saying right on and a lot of
> furs quoting copyright law. I personally think art in any form is
^^^^^(Doubtful)
"I've never seen how a 30-year-old moron can vote better than a 16-year-
old genius..." - Robert Anson Heinlein
Remember that old and tired pair of quotes:
"Information wants to be free."
"Oh? Information wants you to gimme a hundred dollars."
Free translation - Information-sharing, debates about creative-
efforts-as-information aside, is a goodness, but people need to get paid.
It's a simple fact of life. For some, payment in warm fuzzies and
gratitude is enough. The rest of us need to eat.
> far greater then the artist can intend it to be, or control.
Call me a traditionalist, but I have a hard time believing that any
significant amount of art being produced today has the cultural value of,
say, Rodin's /Caryatid/, Umberto Eco's /Foucault's Pendulum/, Picasso's
/Guernica/, or <insert your favorite Culturally Significant song; my
mind's blank>. There, you might have a shade of a case. Here,
postmodernist absurdism aside, I firmly believe that you're nuts.
> Why is
> it that the majority of furry fans and comic book producers act like
> metallica?
Like it or not, Metallica was in the right.
> I discussed this with my boyfriend and we came to the
> conclusion that no matter what happened, if it got out that he was my
> boyfriend he would have a hard time becoming successful as a furry
> artists in this fandom. What measures success as a furry artist in
Perhaps you should have thought about this beforehand.
> this fandom though? If you get picked up by radio comix? If you make
> a certian amount of money at a convention? At a certin point, furry
> art becoms a commercial venture for artists, where they art that they
> make is inspired by their internal love for their art.
<rereads that a few times>
That last sentence seems almost self-contradictory.
Really, I believe that every artist has his own definition of
success, and I don't think that you or anyone else has the right to try
and change that or undermine it.
> When that is kept in focus, I can see how the money would just come
> naturally. Is it really all about the money now? Is it only worth it
> to be a furry artist if you can arrest someone if they share a pic of
Does it matter? Some of the greatest work on earth has come about
'because of the money'.
You'll also note that even people who are nowhere near 'in it
because of the money' care.
> yours on the internet? I certinly dont think so, and I still dont
> think that what I did was stealing, but rather sharing. Sharing so
> that In my eyes, maybe somefurs life could be enriched by what I was
> sharing. I certinly think that the time me and my boyfriend spend
> reading all of the asb issues (that I bought), we grew closer in those
> moments being that we can both relate our relationship to different
> parts of danial and marcus's relationship. Isnt that what its all
> about?
Really. I find this hard to believe, especially in light of your
other posting activity. I remember these two quotes particularly:
> You know youve made it as the furry fandoms bad boy when furs take the
> time to create humerous flash about ya ;>
> -Sibe
>
And
> See Im not an asshole...
> wait
> yes i am!
> hahahahahaahah
>
I don't know, but you sound like you're just getting high on the 'bad
boy' position there.
Even in the event that what you say is true (about the same
probability of rolling my entire collection of d20s and having them all
come up 'corners'), you should remember that "The road to Hell is paved
in good intentions, so watch where you step."
> What about furs that cant afford it? Do you penalize somefur just
> because they happen to be poor? Or perhaps too young to order stuff?
You know, the last time anyone seriously suggested that not giving
the poor all the luxuries of the rich was a Bad Thing and 'penalizing
some[one] just because [he] happens to be poor', an organization known as
the Duma was in power.
Too young to order stuff? What on earth are you referring to? I
don't know what regulations on mail-order are like out there in your neck
of the woods, but *I* was ordering stuff out of Johnson Smith's with
money orders when I was six.
> or anything. It was all about money though, apparently....
That's quite amusing, really. As multiple posts here have shown,
money really isn't an issue; most of the fandom runs at a net loss. Do
you want to know what it's about, more than that? It's about *respect*.
> One of the artists I respect the most, chris goodwin who I always
^^^^^^^
I doubt you really understand the meaning of the word.
Use admire, perhaps.
> respected because of his eclectic art style, and his love for
> advancing his mind in the artistic instead of solely the pornographic.
> He did a badge for me at FC... and I had like a few other artists do
> badges for me. Frank gemback, Guppy, Sidian and Dark natasha.
> Natasha charged me like fifteen bucks for mine, it was cool n such.
> Frank and guppy like each charged me something smaller, since I bought
> a grip of their prints... and Sidian also charged me 15 bucks... With
> chris I was expecting to pay a lot, since he was the one I respected
> the most... he charged me like a buck... I couldent believe it so I
> like went and bought a lot of prints from him with the money I had
> left.
>
> The guy.. damn... I just think hes really about the art and not
> totally about the cash. I dunno...
As my friend Andy says,
"Art's a very selfish thing; it isn't until you get really big and full
of yourself that you start claiming that it's 'all for the fans'. You do
it because you like it. I think it's the same way with money. No sane
amount of money can make an artist do something he doesn't want to. If I
really like the content, I'll draw it whether or not anyone pays me to do
it. Here's the key - money certainly helps me decide whether or not to
let anyone else see it."
>
> I hope that the past few days has opened somefurs's minds a bit about
> what furry art can mean other then how much money it can make you. It
Y'know, if you're really the college student you claim to be, you should
probably take some economics courses. I seriously doubt that you could
turn anywhere near an even remotely lucrative profit from the fandom,
until you achieved cult-following status or became a monopoly provider of
a captive market.
> means more then that, and if thats what this whole shutting down
> furnation and griping about it is... then maybe as a fandom we have
> lost sight about what is important.
>
You mean free porn and trampling over the creators?
Hey, if that's the important thing, I say, "Three cheers for the trivia!"
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
Executive Summary: BULL-SHIT, Sibe! C'mon, if you're
going to feed us excuses, at least make them
GOOD excuses!
Steve Carter
rights. and the right to property is their only implementation. Without
property rights, no other rights are possible and when a person--however
well-meaning--deprives one of the means of securing one's property from
unlimited use by unwelcome strangers, it's a violation of the basic essence
of human life.
The pursuit of the unearned is the cause of 95% of the problems of this
life, and always has been.
"Tamar" <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tv6h8r7...@corp.supernews.com...
che...@tigress.com
>>So, how important are they? I think they're not half as important
>>as most americans think.
>>
>>They're important to help the big fish eat the small fish in the
>>industry. That's what intellectual property is good for in the way
>>it's enforced today.
>
> I'm _so_ tired of trying to teach people about this, but here it is
> again:
> The concept of intellectual property is not responsible for giving
> power to Big Bad Industry.
That's why I added "the way it is enforced today", so you're teaching
the wrong person :)
yours,
Cheetah
che...@tigress.com
> <che...@tigress.com> wrote in message
>> Ten years ago, there were days when furries would gather
>> and trade photocopies of their sketchbooks, and the artists were
>> pleased that so many people liked their art. And noone would have thought of
>> accusing them of THEFT or calling the FBI.
>
> Really? You don't say - has this all come to an end over the past
> decade?
No, of course not. But the mentality has changed. Today we're living
in a world of "limited print run of 5, just $20 a piece", and of
"someone took my left-handed piece of crap artwork and posted it on
usenet, I'm gonna sue that bastard".
Sure, there's still free (or at least affordable) artwork, but the change
in mentality bothers me more than the availability of artwork.
> In any event, what's the diff if an artist's furry work(s) now appear(s)
> gratis on a Velar or a Furnation vs. I have to head down to a Kinko's
> with a wad of cash and their sketchbook?
Again, there is mostly a change in mentality. I'm not complainging
about too little free artwork, but about the amount of control over
their works artists demand to have nowadays.
I've been called a criminal for mirroring my favourite artist's
directories on velar on my harddisk, and burning free copies for my
friends who didn't want to download all the stuff again through their
33k line.
There was no damage done. I downloaded publicly available artwork
(which, by the way, is nothing else than creating a copy),
and gave copies to people who could also have *freely* downloaded
the very same stuff. The data on their harddisk would have been
identically bit-by-bit with the copy I gave them, and they knew
the source.
And yet I was flamed and called a criminal, even threatened with lawsuits.
Just because I wanted to help my friends. Just because what I did was
beyond the control of the artist.
That's the change of mentality that I criticize: Criminalization of
acts which are perfectly harmless and friendly.
> Heck, these days on fur.artwork.erotica you often first get the PENCIL
> or the INKED version of someone's art, then some other bloke comes
> along, colors it, and then posts the revised color too!
Yes, and if someone misses the posting, and I repost it, I'll
verbally get the crap beaten out of me. This is exactly the difference
between sensibly defending one's rights and beancounting I'm complaining
so much about.
Or those smart artists hiding their artwork behind java applets so I'll
have to connect to the internet and download their artwork each time
I want to see it, and when the site goes offline, their work is lost.
All right, that's fine for samples of artwork that's for sale or for auction.
But for EVERY piece?
I repeat: I'm not arguing pro/con copyrights, just about the extend of
how artist enforce their rights nowadays, just because they can.
yours,
cheetah
che...@tigress.com
> Well let ME put it to you like this pal
I'm not your "pal". And you obviously didn't read what I wrote, and
you obviously also don't want to understand what I wrote.
> That's the with
> these snot nosed kids today, they don't want to work for anything (And I
> know, I work every damn day with them). They want everything handed to
> them, don't want to work for nothing, and think that just cause they feel
> like doing it it by default should be right and they should be allowed.
Thank you for calling me a snot-nosed kid. Calling someone a snot-nosed
kid is always a true sign of competence and sensibility.
But since I'm not a snot-nosed kid and you're ranting about lots of stuff
I never said, I am really wondering who you're talking to.
yours,
Cheetah
che...@tigress.com
> Let me say, fist off, this is not meant as an attack on any individual.
> It is, perhaps, an attack at what I consider some misconceptions, however,
> that I see commonly floated around fandom.
>
> che...@tigress.com wrote:
>> But it's a very sad thing that commerce is taking the place of sharing
>> in the furry fandom.
>
> The End of Free Art (aka "sharing")
>
> This is hardly the case.
See my other postings in this thread ...
yours,
Cheetah
che...@tigress.com
> I guess I must have fallen asleep over the past ten years (I showed up
> in the fandom around ConFurence 4). This 'sharing' that everyone talks
> about from "the good ol' days" - all along it has mostly been artist 'z'
> trading with artist 'y'. It's still around, quite healthy even, it
> appears.
No, I haven't fallen asleep, maybe just expressed myself too unprecisely.
(I've been in the fandom around Eurofurence 1, and I've been the
director of EF3, EF5, EF6, EF7 and EF8, and I'm first chairman of the
Eurofurence e.V. organisation since EF6 ... so I'm quite familiar with
the workings of the fandom)
In the "good old days" us europeans wouldn't even KNOW who the truly great
furry artists and writers are, if firends in america wouldn't have dug
out and photocopied their old copies of Mythagoras and Albedo and YARF,
and sent them over. I wrote to artists, telling them how much I liked
their art, and they were so happy to have fans in europe.
I did that again, recently, and the response I got was: "You saw
that pic? Where did you get that from!".
Now that's a difference isn't it?
And I just got flamed and called a snot-nosed kid by an enraged artist
with saliva dripping from his chin, merely for just *discussing* the topic
in this thread.
> And I have never before seen so much quality, FREE, .jpgs available to
> the 'non-creative' types on NUMEROUS internet art servers. Artists
> willingly SHARING with an unknown crowd out there in the vast digital
> cloud known as cyberspace in the year 2001. Heck, I don't even try to
> keep up anymore with all of the free stuff appearing each week.
I'm glad that these services exist ... although I wish they'd
be less centralized. Each time one of the large servers goes down
or changes owners, there's usually a lot of valuable stuff lost for
the public ...
Did you know that almost all important historical movies, like
Metropolis, Nosferatu, and many more have only been preserved because
collectors kept private copies? Exaggerated enforcement of copyrights
can *destroy* culture, rather than preserve it. Even George Lucas hat
to find bootleg copies of "Star Wars" to produce his "Special Edition"
of Episodes 4-6, because the one officially archived copy had rotten
away.
Again, I'm not complaining about too little freebies, just about the
hair-trigger copyright defence reflexes so many furries show nowadays,
even though it does more harm than good in many cases. I'm complaining
about vast exagerration.
yours,
Cheetah
che...@tigress.com
> I'm right in line with you, Tam. The right to life is the source of all
> rights. and the right to property is their only implementation. Without
> property rights, no other rights are possible and when a person--however
> well-meaning--deprives one of the means of securing one's property from
> unlimited use by unwelcome strangers, it's a violation of the basic essence
> of human life.
And you are RIGHT in what you say. And still, sharing is the essence
of society, and not everyone who copies stuff even without permission
is not violating the basic essence of human life.
Noone here has ever propagated the abolition of property rights. But
when it comes to cultural goods, the question gets a bit more complicated
than "mine" vs "yours".
Reality does not consist of theoretical extreme cases.
> The pursuit of the unearned is the cause of 95% of the problems of this
> life, and always has been.
I don't understand this sentence, I'm afraid. Could you please rephrase
it?
yours,
Cheetah
che...@tigress.com
> and sent them over. I wrote to artists, telling them how much I liked
> their art, and they were so happy to have fans in europe.
>
> I did that again, recently, and the response I got was: "You saw
> that pic? Where did you get that from!".
>
> Now that's a difference isn't it?
(Note: I forgot to mention that I was commenting on a limited piece my
friend next door had bought.)
yours,
cheetah
bevnsag
>
> Again, there is mostly a change in mentality. I'm not complainging
> about too little free artwork, but about the amount of control over
> their works artists demand to have nowadays.
Not so much a change in attitude, but change in technology. The web and
all that can be done with and to content on it is the big difference.
>
> I've been called a criminal for mirroring my favourite artist's
> directories on velar on my harddisk, and burning free copies for my
> friends who didn't want to download all the stuff again through their
> 33k line.
>
> There was no damage done. I downloaded publicly available artwork
> (which, by the way, is nothing else than creating a copy),
> and gave copies to people who could also have *freely* downloaded
> the very same stuff. The data on their harddisk would have been
> identically bit-by-bit with the copy I gave them, and they knew
> the source.
>
> And yet I was flamed and called a criminal, even threatened with lawsuits.
> Just because I wanted to help my friends. Just because what I did was
> beyond the control of the artist.
>
> That's the change of mentality that I criticize: Criminalization of
> acts which are perfectly harmless and friendly.
>
You just don't get it. The art is not there to be copied and published
in the first place. And no one has any real or implied "right" to own
copies of another's artwork, regardless of the status of the creator or
the thief. Your petty personal desires adds no moral weight to what is
and has been an immoral and criminal act. You have NO RIGHT, legal or
moral, to copy and publish another's work, simple as that, and any
childish rationalization is just that.
bevnsag
che...@tigress.com wrote:
>
> Steve Carter <mouseboy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > I'm right in line with you, Tam. The right to life is the source of all
> > rights. and the right to property is their only implementation. Without
> > property rights, no other rights are possible and when a person--however
> > well-meaning--deprives one of the means of securing one's property from
> > unlimited use by unwelcome strangers, it's a violation of the basic essence
> > of human life.
>
> And you are RIGHT in what you say. And still, sharing is the essence
> of society, and not everyone who copies stuff even without permission
> is not violating the basic essence of human life.
No, in copying, you are both detracting from the uniqueness of the
original and creating a thing of value, counterfeiting, off another's property.
>
> Noone here has ever propagated the abolition of property rights. But
> when it comes to cultural goods, the question gets a bit more complicated
> than "mine" vs "yours".
"cultural goods"? Fah!! That's a rationalizing ploy. You don't even have
the right to see another's work except with their consent (not that
there have been twits out there who have argues otherwise) and copying
and publishing is a violation of trust as well as criminal statute.
>
> Reality does not consist of theoretical extreme cases.
>
> > The pursuit of the unearned is the cause of 95% of the problems of this
> > life, and always has been.
>
> I don't understand this sentence, I'm afraid. Could you please rephrase
> it?
>
That's telling, as it directly applies to you.
Baloo Ursidae
> legal system, stepping over the copyright/trademark laws that would be
> _standing_in_their_way_ if not for their vast bins of money.
So they basically buy the law, which is what he's saying. You both said
the same thing, just phrased it different.
> free, advertising becomes mandatory, and vice versa. I don't know
> about you, but I would like to see LESS advertising cluttering up my
> entertainment.
Advertising isn't mandatory. People just don't entertain for the fun of
it anymore, except on PBS, but even PBS is going to start having ads from
what I hear...
--
Baloo
Hanno Foest
> You have NO RIGHT, legal or
> moral, to copy and publish another's work, simple as that, and any
> childish rationalization is just that.
Really?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/594462.asp?0si=-
Hurga
Steve Carter
<che...@tigress.com> wrote:
> And you are RIGHT in what you say. And still, sharing is the essence
> of society, and not everyone who copies stuff even without permission
> is not violating the basic essence of human life.
Wrong. Commerce, not sharing, is the essence of society, and those who
"share" things they have no right to distribute are STEALING in the literal
sense of the word.
> Noone here has ever propagated the abolition of property rights. But
> when it comes to cultural goods, the question gets a bit more complicated
> than "mine" vs "yours".
Distributing another person's work without permission or compensation is the
ACT of abolishing property rights. An act is greater than an advocacy. And
"cultural goods"? Is that the cliché du jour for property someone wants to
own without merit?
> Reality does not consist of theoretical extreme cases.
Property is not a theory, nor is it an extreme case. But property IS a
component of reality, and this muddy attempt to confuse the issue with
intimidating terms only shows that you haven't thought this through. Dont
make me take you to school.
> > The pursuit of the unearned is the cause of 95% of the problems of this
> > life, and always has been.
> I don't understand this sentence, I'm afraid. Could you please rephrase
> it?
What don't you understand?
Hanno Foest
> No, in copying, you are both detracting from the uniqueness of the
> original and creating a thing of value, counterfeiting, off another's
> property.
"Its peculiar
character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because
every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives
an idea from me, receives instruction himself without
lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine,
receives light without darkening me." - Thomas Jefferson about copyright
Hurga
LancerAdvancd iBuck
hair-trigger copyright defence reflexes so many furries show nowadays,
>even though it does more harm than good in many cases. I'm complaining about
vast exagerration.
Unfortunately it's a conditioned response to the "copyright is evil, get a day
job" stimlus... We could all do without it, but I don't see it going away
untill we all learn to slow down and deal with each other as -people...
The issue isn't copyright, or sharing -both have thier good points and their
bad and can be taken to extremes. I'd have serious problems comparing the
organized, impersonal efforts of Sibe and the like to the personal, informal
sketchbook copying that's been discuseed. Sharing is a personal interaction,
When you can just join a channel and download megs of files without even saying
"hello" it doesn't even begin to qualify. Are you really sharing -your-
intrests if all you're doing is indiscrimately passing around somebody elses
work that you too indiscriminately aqquired?
The real problem however is a basic loss of respect between the fans and
artists, which unfortunately I think the internet fosters. When you're
presented w. near limitless amounts work to pick and chose from, it's easy to
forget about the people behind the work. The same is true when you load your
work up to a faceless gallery. The people on the other end of the art just
arn't there anymore to interact and get to know.
ICAW
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
Rog A. Clemson
<ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well let ME put it to you like this pal, if someone decides they want to
> SHARE my work without getting my expressed written permission, see how fast
> I bust there ass with as much legal force and otherwise. That's the with
> these snot nosed kids today, they don't want to work for anything (And I
> know, I work every damn day with them). They want everything handed to
> them, don't want to work for nothing, and think that just cause they feel
> like doing it it by default should be right and they should be allowed.
I dropped by Sibe's IRC channel out of curiousity, to see what types of
material was being traded by the furry fans there. I wondered what
artists and which comics were considered valuable enough to scan and
trade -- I did note that nearly all of the furry fans present said that
they never bought comics or art much in the first place. I suggested
to them that if they enjoyed what they were downloading, that they
should go out and buy more material by those artists.
To Steve Gallaci, Tamar and Mike Curtis:
If it makes you feel any better, during the time I spent in Sibe's
channel, there were no requests for your artwork or comics. I saw no
material of yours in any of the server file lists I viewed (unless it
was some random art image with an obscure filename). There was NO
interest at all in Albedo, Shanda, Katmandu, or Extinctioners. That
should be some consolation to you.
Or perhaps not.
bevnsag
Not applicable. Unauthorized copying, publishing and counterfeiting is
not a matter of spreading enlightenment, but crude and criminal theft
among those, as often as not, are simply unwilling to ask or pay for the
privilege of ownership.
bevnsag
Hanno Foest wrote:
>
> bevnsag <bev...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > You have NO RIGHT, legal or
> > moral, to copy and publish another's work, simple as that, and any
> > childish rationalization is just that.
>
> Really?
I can't access the site, but if you're going to trot out "fair use", the
infractions far exceed any honest interpetation.
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/594462.asp?0si=-
>
> Hurga
Bruce
"bevnsag" <bev...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BF3D8CC...@home.com...
>
<snip>
> You just don't get it. The art is not there to be copied and published
> in the first place. And no one has any real or implied "right" to own
> copies of another's artwork, regardless of the status of the creator
or
> the thief. Your petty personal desires adds no moral weight to what is
> and has been an immoral and criminal act. You have NO RIGHT, legal or
> moral, to copy and publish another's work, simple as that, and any
> childish rationalization is just that.
Okay. I'll give you the legal aspect.
But in the absence of a jury on this earth composed of celestial angels
from the heavens to specify 'what is right' or 'what is wrong' I am
going to be skeptical of the moral aspect.
What Hanno Foest just posted (I read this same link a while back)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/594462.asp?0si&cp1=1
the founding fathers debated where this copyright stuff should begin and
end at length. It's not cut and dried (from a moral perspective). As
to the artists in this fandom - I support whatever restrictions they
want to put on their artwork, including restrictions on distribution and
who is/was authorized to distribute. Just don't drag me into
discussions of 'morality'.
That's being silly.
-Bruce
Bruce
"bevnsag" <bev...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BF3FC69...@home.com...
>
>
> I can't access the site, but if you're going to trot out "fair use",
the
> infractions far exceed any honest interpetation.
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/594462.asp?0si=-
> >
> > Hurga
It's a great article (and I am no friend or supporter of Napster).
http://www.msnbc.com/news/594462.asp
for Netscape access.
-Bruce
Bruce
"bevnsag" <bev...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BF3FBA9...@home.com...
>
>
> Not applicable. Unauthorized copying, publishing and counterfeiting is
> not a matter of spreading enlightenment, but crude and criminal theft
> among those, as often as not, are simply unwilling to ask or pay for
the
> privilege of ownership.
>
If this is a discussion on the MORAL right or wrong of copyright it
*IS* applicable because Jefferson's quotes are from the time the U.S.
laws were being formulated. Jefferson felt that from a moral
perspective the laws were too much in favor of the holder(s) of the
copyright.
When you say 'Not applicable', you are commenting based on the CURRENT
LAW, passed in spite of Jefferson's misgivings. So you are correct in
that it is NO LONGER APPLICABLE. Water under the bridge as it were.
-Bruce
LancerAdvancd iBuck
world of "limited print run of 5, just $20 a piece", and of "someone took my
left-handed piece of crap artwork and posted it on
>usenet, I'm gonna sue that bastard".
I hate to say it, but I really don't see this mentality much at all, unless
it's been provoked by a twink like Sibe, it seems that you're complaiing about
a what is a non-problem, minority mentality...
>Again, there is mostly a change in mentality. I'm not complainging
about too little free artwork, but about the amount of control over
their works artists demand to have nowadays.
There's been a change in mentality at the other end of the transaction as well,
it's not a one-way street...
>I repeat: I'm not arguing pro/con copyrights, just about the extend of
>how artist enforce their rights nowadays, just because they can.
Seems to me, that it's not "Just because they can", but more of the "Ive been
nice before and gotten screwed for it" a lot people who abuse what artists
are sharing try to justify it with "because I can" as well.. .
>And yet I was flamed and called a criminal, even threatened with lawsuits.
>Just because I wanted to help my friends. Just because what I did was
>beyond the control of the artist.
I've been flamed and spit on too, for even chiding someone for some egregious
repostings of my work. What justifies the abuse I got on those instances? On
the other had I had a very civil discussion with someone who had placed my work
in a pay for access site without my permission. I think you're attribuiting to
artists in general, what at the worst is the attitude of some individuals, and
which in and some cases is justifiable. The fandom is larger, you're just
paying too much attention to the edge friction...
Peter Torkelson
I have. Read mine. I fail to see this change in mentality AWAY from sharing
that you keep presenting. Evidence does not support it, in any way.
I will, however, add this (and it is more based on opinion than my other
points, I will admit):
Copyrights are Evil
A lot of people are pointing at the Record Music Industry groups and saying,
"they are evil" and, because said groups use the banner of defending
copyrights that "copyrights are evil!" This is guilt by association, not
fact.
I will not disagree that some of the things these big businesses are doing
are evil. They are. And cowardly. The fact is, however, they are not
enforcing copyrights, as they say they are. They are cowardly seeking
to NOT enforce them, for fear of angering their consumers. Instead of
attacking the thieves they are trying ban technology and free speech that
"could" be used to copy the music. This has nothing to do with copyrights
at all.
Instead they should be out there enforcing their copyrights. Disney does
it, it works for them. People may not think a thing of stealing music, even
publicly distributing it, but Disney works? They know the mouse-eared suits
will come for them.
For a law to be taken seriously, it has to be enforced. Witness speeding laws.
Another argument is that copyright laws are about big businesses. This is
NOT the case. It is primarily about the creators. If it was not for these laws,
said big businesses would step all over the creators (and even sometimes
still, manage to do so despite these protections.)
Here are the benefits to the fans of these laws:
1) More work is created. Because these rights are guaranteed to the artists,
writers, etc., they are more motivated to create. By knowing they might
get a return on their investment, and some say in what is done with their
"baby", they feel safer creating.
2) More work is shared. No, seriously. Not only is more created, but more
is published freely. Because an artist knows they can say HOW it is freely
shared, and that people can't go and charge for the work, they are more
likely expose their art to that risk.
These laws also give these creators rights which they can peruse against
the companies that would otherwise just rip off their works and market
them. Again, this gives them more motivation to create.
These rights as presented in copyright law are thought to be so important to
encourage creation, that they are almost universal. Not only law in the US,
almost all countries have these laws, and it is one of the few things that
a majority of countries have agreed to, making it international law as well.
It takes a real need to accomplish that.
Or, in short, the majority of the world agrees that these laws are important
and fundamental.
Enforcement of Copyrights is Evil
See above. To keep these rights... truthfully, to keep any rights... one must
fight for them. That is a fact of life. We are not such an enlightened world
that such rights can be declared, and left at that. Otherwise we would not
have the theft in the first place.
As such, people have to understand there are repercussions for their actions,
so that they think twice about doing them.
At first, this includes informing the ignorant that what they are doing is
not legal.
Later, this involves legal action. So that others will say, "oh, that could
happen to me." That is the important part, not the action itself.
Violating Copyrights Hurts No One
An artist having their copyrights violated is hurt. Lets start right there.
Here are some of the reasons why these things, especially with the very public
and loud people doing it:
1) Disrespect. Pure and simple, they are giving something back to fandom,
and (some) members of that fandom are slapping them in the face. They are
asking someone to respect their legal and moral rights, and that person is
showing that they just don't care, and in some cases are enjoying trampling
on those rights.
2) Control. Especially in a fandom like this one, but true of any creative
work, these are labors of love. Countless hours, even weeks, can go into any
one piece of art. When someone takes it away from you, and does with it what
they want, especially AGAINST your clearly stated wishes... It can leave the
artist feeling helpless. Much as people report feeling when their homes are
violated by a thief.
3) Fiscal Loss. Real or simply perceived, the artist feels that they have
lost the chance to make something back on their labors. Even if they are totally
wrong, they will never know that. There is no way to prove one way or another,
after the fact, that they could have made more or less money after the artwork
is stolen. It feels like this person, claiming to appreciate your work, is
stealing directly from you.
There are more, but these are some of the bigger ones. These may be hard to
understand to people who have not had it happen to them, but they are real,
and they hurt. I've been there. It's not pleasant. It is a violation of one's
self at a very basic level.
So you get a variety of reactions to these violations of their rights. Some
artists deal with it better than others. Some manage to stay polite, some go
into screaming fits or rage, others seek to demand that fans that do respect
their rights are guilty too. I am not supportive of the later behaviors, as I
have argued in the past, you are responsible for your actions, no matter what.
But I do UNDERSTAND them.
But here is how it escalates further creating even more ill will:
Other thieves will defend the first, often making it seem to the artist like no
one cares that they have been violated. These voices are sometimes added to by
other fans when the artist totally loses it, defending the thief because the
artist is being "unreasonable", sometimes with out really thinking about the
fact they are defending someone's "right" to commit a crime.
This, especially when one is feeling violated in the fist place, can lead to a
state where the above mentioned feelings are aggravated, and additionally
(because these people screaming at them often are the loudest) feeling that
fandom as a whole just does not care about what is being done to them, or
worse, that the majority of fans are thieves. It is easy to see how they can
come to these conclusions when you consider what they are hearing, even though
I personally consider them utterly wrong. IMHO MOST fans respect the people that
they are fans of (and sometimes a little too much.)
So how does this impact the fan at large?
Artists depressed about fandom, frustrated with fighting people stealing
from them, and angry to the point of unreason will do less for the fandom.
Or even quit entirely, as has happened in the past. Furry fandom is forever
denied several good artists (who I will not name out of respect for their
wishes to not be associated with it) not because of the majority of fans, but
because of a minority, and a lack of support from that majority, and the
pain it caused them.
A pain they no longer wish to deal with.
So, in the long run, by hurting these people, fandom loses creative members,
and everything that they could have ever brought to us.
I find that rather sad. Don't you?
And I don't mean just the loss of what they would have shared with us. I mean
the breaking of a person's love of this hobby so utterly that they feel that
they can no longer create.
That is a sadness so strong in me, that it made me get involved in this
discussion in this forum. Something I have avoided doing for several years now.
--
______
\ __/___ Peter "WhiteFire" Torkelson http://www.fur.com/wfire
\ \ BI / Furry Peace! http://www.fur.com/peace wf...@fur.com
\/\ / Tapestries MUCK: http://www.fur.com/tapestries
\/
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>LAW, passed in spite of Jefferson's misgivings.
Jefferson was not around to object to in the 1930', 1970's and on when
copyright was reformed and adjusted. His views of course were, but his views
were also formulated in a very diffrent pre-industrial situation from what
existed when those laws were reworked.
In any event, any moral calclus of recent events come's squarely against Sibe.
Any moral calculus must consider the motivation of those involved, and I am not
inclined to believe Sibe's post-ex-facto ramblings about sharing the wealth,
over his "I'm doing this to piss people off" statements when he began, much
less weigh them against people's attempts to financially support their efforts
for the fandom..
bevnsag
I seem to be having a server (?) problem today. Can't connect to most of
my bookmarks or the site in question.
Bruce
"LancerAdvancd iBuck" <lncra...@aol.comstar> wrote in message
news:20011115135209...@mb-cc.aol.com...
>
<snip>
>
> In any event, any moral calclus of recent events come's squarely
against Sibe.
> Any moral calculus must consider the motivation of those involved, and
I am not
> inclined to believe Sibe's post-ex-facto ramblings about sharing the
wealth,
> over his "I'm doing this to piss people off" statements when he began,
much
> less weigh them against people's attempts to financially support their
efforts
> for the fandom..
>
>
> ICAW
>
If you want to discuss Sibe, and not copyright law, then I fully agree -
based on your impeccable logic Sibe has no claim to any moral
foundation. I don't even feel Sibe can claim sanity, from what I have
read.
A most self-destructive individual.
In any event in my case it is a moot point, I go with the artists'
desires in these matters.
-Bruce
LancerAdvancd iBuck
I'd just assume not discuss either, but unfortunately the first has raised the
second as a smokescreen to cover his arse... Any discussion of copyright law
rapidly gets bogged down in a morass of moral extreimism, on both ends, that
doesn't particularly adress the facts on the ground. The only way to logically
and productively discuss it has been proven to on a case by case basis
strictly evaluting the facts of a particular situation...
Doug Winger
wrote:
Passing through. I hate people misusing metaphorical quotes.
I take it you paid for that candle or made it yourself?
If you're confused by that, think harder.
Ideas are free. The product of them, tangible or intangible, isn't.
- Doug, Wearing His Waders Today
Kiala Tekalal
news:3BF30872...@videotron.ca...
> Also, I'm afraid that suggestions on how to run conventions may be a bit
> inappropriate until your own life has settled and you have made things
> right...
Friends don't let friends run conventions ;>
Baloo Ursidae
> Instead they should be out there enforcing their copyrights. Disney does
> it, it works for them. People may not think a thing of stealing music, even
> publicly distributing it, but Disney works? They know the mouse-eared suits
> will come for them.
I can't remember the detail, but I remember Groat at Conifur talking about
a picture he did. The Disney legal folks gave him a cease and desist on a
picture he did, but asked for a copy that now apparently hangs in some
random Disney office. Groat can correct me and fill in details, its a
rather amusing bit.
> For a law to be taken seriously, it has to be enforced. Witness speeding laws.
Though speeding laws would be taken more seriously if radar detectors were
banned. There's a lot of folks who have them to slow down only when they
can tell a cop is nearby.
> is stolen. It feels like this person, claiming to appreciate your work, is
> stealing directly from you.
But that goes back to the respect deal.
--
Baloo
Dr. Cat
: Recent polls indicate that less than 9% of US Citizens have Internet
: access. Of that 9%, approximately one-third are under 25. Any polling
: that is based solely on internet responses *will* be skewed in favor of
: younger, less experienced opinions.
You might want to double-check your source on that. Everything I've seen on
Internet usage statistics indicates that it passed 9% years ago, and is growing
ever-closer to the demographics of the general public in terms of age and gender
as it gets too high a percentage of the US population to not do so. (Though it's
still skewed towards higher incomes, and to a lesser extent towards lower ages.)
Here's a quote from an ZDNet article that just came out:
The number of U.S. Internet users skyrocketed to an all-time high, rising 15 percent from
100.3 million surfers in October 2000 to more than 115.2 million in October 2001, according
to a report released by Nielsen/NetRatings.
Anybody who doesn't believe me, or is just generally Hangdog, can check out the article at:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdfeeds/msncobrand/news/0%2C13622%2C5099585%2C-hud00025nshm3%2C00.html
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Even if you believe me, you can still check the article out if you just want
to know more.)
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<che...@tigress.com> wrote:
> Tamar <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> But since I'm not a snot-nosed kid and you're ranting about lots of stuff
> I never said, I am really wondering who you're talking to.
The voices in her head.
--
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.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<mouseboy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I'm right in line with you, Tam. The right to life is the source of all
> rights. and the right to property is their only implementation. Without
> property rights, no other rights are possible and when a person--however
> well-meaning--deprives one of the means of securing one's property from
> unlimited use by unwelcome strangers, it's a violation of the basic essence
> of human life.
But Copyright isn't a property right. Its a right to a limmited
Monopoly.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> "cultural goods"? Fah!! That's a rationalizing ploy. You don't even have
> the right to see another's work except with their consent
So if the archtect of the sydney oprah house didn't give there concent
to me seeing it I would have to avert my eyes everytime it was visable
to me? If I legitimatly purched an artwork 2nd hand do I have to
contact the artist to get there consent before I look at it?
Hanno Foest
>> "Its peculiar
>> character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because
>> every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives
>> an idea from me, receives instruction himself without
>> lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine,
>> receives light without darkening me." - Thomas Jefferson about copyright
>>
>> Hurga
> Passing through. I hate people misusing metaphorical quotes.
Hate as much as you want whoever you want, but I didn't misuse anything.
TJ was against copyright in the current sense; in fact, he was against
the earlier, weaker and much faster expiring copyright laws, too, because
he feared that they'd develop to the abomination we have now. Read the
full article from which I took the quote, in another post I gave the URL.
Hurga
Hanno Foest
> Wrong. Commerce, not sharing, is the essence of society, [...]
1) Your society perhaps, not mine.
2) Maybe you want to reread about the original intentions of copyright
(ie, to *ensure* that creative works enter in the public domain after
a *limited* time of exclusive use)
3) You're obviously no scientist. Look into "Nature" or whatever scientific
magazine. Are research results shared, or do you see an order form for
the papers with a hefty price tag?
[...]
> Property is not a theory, nor is it an extreme case.
This is not about property. Property is something which can be taken away
from you. But if I copy something, the original is still there. This is
why copyright violations are called "copyright violations" and not "theft".
"Copyright was created as a policy that balanced the interests of authors,
publishers, and readers. It was not intended to be a restrictive property
right. But it has evolved over recent decades into one part of a matrix of
commercial legal protections now unfortunately called "intellectual property."
Again, http://www.msnbc.com/news/594462.asp?0si=-
> But property IS a
> component of reality, and this muddy attempt to confuse the issue with
> intimidating terms only shows that you haven't thought this through. Dont
> make me take you to school.
Um, maybe you'd better go to school on your own. You obviously need it.
History class, and some law school as well.
Hurga
Hanno Foest
> But Copyright isn't a property right. Its a right to a limmited
> Monopoly.
Yes! You got it right! The first US citizen who... wait, .au domain?
*sigh*
Hurga
Gingercat
"Baloo Ursidae" <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote...
> artist <mell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I don't suppose the irony of Metallica going before congress struck
anyone
>> else...
> I thought that was hilarious, really. Especially Lars, considering he was
> the one who encouraged people to bootleg thier music the most before
> Napster. Damn hypocrites, I'm glad Napster tore them apart.
Right. Because it's cool to rip off people if they don't come up to your
own
high moral standards.
Gingercat
Gingercat
<che...@tigress.com> wrote in message
news:9sv3ag$87r$1...@newsread4.arcor-online.net...
> The whole copyright thing has somehow grown out of proportion. Copying
> should only be regarded immoral if it means making a profit with someone
> else's work, or when *significant* damage is done.
*tips you a salute* Gotcha.
So if I write a very personal love poem, or spend twenty or thirty hours on
a portrait of my lover that reflects some intensely private aspects of our
relationship[1], you can just wander over and snag a copy of it in spite of
the fact that, quite frankly, I don't think you rate seeing it. Because
it's cool for you to violate my privacy as long as you don't make cash off
of it or show it to my boss and get me fired from my job.
That would be *significant*. Feeling used and unthanked and robbed is just
artistic temperament, and doesn't matter.
Jesus, while we're at it, let's make breaking and entering legal as long as
there's no theft or assault. Because it's only a violation of privacy,
then, so who cares if you come home to find your home broken into and you
can't sleep at night and spend the day crying?
It's not like anything *significant* happened.
Gingercat
---
[1]Still working on it, hon.
Gingercat
<che...@tigress.com> wrote in message
news:9t0jkl$71c$1...@newaread4.arcor-online.net...
> Steve Carter <mouseboy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> The pursuit of the unearned is the cause of 95% of the problems of this
>> life, and always has been.
> I don't understand this sentence, I'm afraid. Could you please rephrase
> it?
Best guess:
"95% of the problems that happen in life are caused by people grabbing for
stuff that they have no right to grab at."
Gingercat (thinks that estimate may be a touch high, herself)
Gingercat
"Hanno Foest" <hu...@tigress.com> wrote...
> "Its peculiar
> character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because
> every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives
> an idea from me, receives instruction himself without
> lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine,
> receives light without darkening me." - Thomas Jefferson about copyright
Ah, here we go again.
Copyright does not apply to an idea. Copyright applies to the *specific*
*expression* of an idea.
The quadratic equation cannot be copyrighted.
The picture of Falstaff leaning back against a blackboard on which the
quadratic equation appears and giving you a
come-hither-and-help-me-with-my-homework look can be copyrighted.
Gingercat
(praying that there won't be another "but what if the Evil Corporation[TM]
copyrights algebra/physics/ones-and-zeroes?!" argument here)
Hanno Foest
>> "Its peculiar
>> character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because
>> every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives
>> an idea from me, receives instruction himself without
>> lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine,
>> receives light without darkening me." - Thomas Jefferson about copyright
> Ah, here we go again.
> Copyright does not apply to an idea. Copyright applies to the *specific*
> *expression* of an idea.
And that's what he meant. Read the article, I posted the URL twice.
Hurga
LancerAdvancd iBuck
Nice article for society in general, and the abuses that big corporations are
prone to at the edges of the law, but does it really apply to furry artists
and the fandom who are by and large operating at the core of the concept of
copyright?
Copyright may be a govermnet granted limited monopoly, but that doesn't mean
that it's inherently morally wrong. Copyright creates a particular bottleneck
to give the work that produces the art some value, other systems for creating
value produce other bottenecks with their on moral dilemmas.
http://www.lanceradvanced.com/Ian/art.html
for some thoughts on the subject...
Gingercat
<che...@tigress.com> wrote in message
news:9t0jpj$71c$2...@newaread4.arcor-online.net...
> che...@tigress.com wrote:
>
>> and sent them over. I wrote to artists, telling them how much I liked
>> their art, and they were so happy to have fans in europe.
>> I did that again, recently, and the response I got was: "You saw
>> that pic? Where did you get that from!".
>> Now that's a difference isn't it?
> (Note: I forgot to mention that I was commenting on a limited piece my
> friend next door had bought.)
That would probably be the difference.
There is a distinction between "You saw the work that I made publically
available for mass distribution" and "You saw the work that, when I made
it available to a very few people (of which, IIRC, you are not one), I
also made a commitment that it would actually be a limited piece and I
would really like to keep that commitment, has someone been making me a
liar by breaking their promise to me?"
Gingercat
Sibe 0wns J00
and my stuff didnt? I must have missed those Independant analysis of
the issue. I would imagine that Nexxus has gotten several more orders
for furnation issue #2 after the group I used to be affild with
released it. In fact that was my intention... the digital copy dosent
compare with the paper if it is what you wanted to have. If you have
the digital, and dont want the paper, you wouldnt have bought it
anyways. Of course if you did buy it, you would have disliked it.
Either way, survey says Sibe is putting money into the fandom with
distro of scans of magazines/comics rather then taking money out.
-Ross
"Simba Lion" <smbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9su2m1$2d3s$1...@velox.critter.net>...
> > thing for Napster and other similar file-swaping Internet bootlegers,
> whining
>
> I'll remind you that this isn't about napster, and the two can't be
> compared, since Napster was shown in several surveys, to be a money-making
> operation for the record industry. Further proof of that is seen after
> napster went down. Record Industry sales suffered badly. Other file-sharing
> services, such as Music City, I don't think carry the same positive effects
> that napster had, just the negative. The recording industry shot themselves
> in the foot, despite huge neon warning signs telling them it was going to
> happen, and therefore deserve every bit of lost profit as a result.
>
> Sibe however, is not napster, he's a pirate. He was not trying to get other
> artists noticed, he was essentially, the bad aspects of napster. People
> pirating music from bands like Metallica, or Aerosmith.
>
> smb
LancerAdvancd iBuck
Also as a side note the article pretty much skips from the founding fathers to
the DMCA without examing what happened and why in between. I'm not entirely
familiar with all the changes made, but it was revised in 1909,1978 and 1992,
primairly because of the tendancy of publishers to abuse it, not with regards
to the public, but with regards the artists who created the work.
It's only within the last few years that corprate abuse of copyright has
shifted from the artists to the public in general, mainly because the laws now
have enough teeth that an artist -can- fight an exploitative publisher.
Copyright as it exists now isn't a simple two-way balance relationship between
artist and public, it's a complex three way balance between artist, publisher
and public.
Gingercat
"Hanno Foest" <hu...@tigress.com> wrote in message
news:9t2302$241$1...@hydrogen.yatho.de...
> Gingercat <tor...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
I did.
However, I thought I'd make it clear that your above quotation refers to
something that copyright does not apply to.
Jefferson may have *meant* that copyright did not apply to ideas. But he
does not say it there.
Gingercat
Felyne32k
> Steve Carter <mouseboy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Wrong. Commerce, not sharing, is the essence of society, [...]
>
> 1) Your society perhaps, not mine.
I suppose you're sharing the use of your house, food, water, furniture,
appliances, and car free of charge. I suppose the grocer 'shares' his
wares with you, no questions asked.
> 2) Maybe you want to reread about the original intentions of copyright
> (ie, to *ensure* that creative works enter in the public domain after
> a *limited* time of exclusive use)
Uh... where did Mr. Carter suggest anything about unlimited duration?
Paragraph, line, and message ID, please.
Even now, after DMCA, SBMCA, and all the other Acts that have extended
copyright time into the stratosphere, it's theoretically "limited". I'll
agree with you that it should be shorter (my theoretical ideal is
life+35, or 50 from publication, in the case of corporations, but that's
another discussion).
The point, though, is that you can't take that limited time to zero, or
there's very, very little incentive to create.
> 3) You're obviously no scientist. Look into "Nature" or whatever scientific
> magazine. Are research results shared, or do you see an order form for
> the papers with a hefty price tag?
>
Are you?
Since that's what's most readily availible to me (I, as a rule, keep
a few issues in reach), I checked out IEEE Spectrum. I notice that, while
you are (roughly) correct in that research results are shared,
commercially viable specifics are glossed over with handwaving.
And intellectual property (this time in form of patents and such) is
protected. o.O
I also notice that subscriptions to these publications isn't cheap.
Even student rates (almost always the rock-bottom) for Nature call for
$99 a year. Postdoctorates get it for $30 more. The rest of the mehum
have to get it at $159 a year. Where is the money going?
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
DISCLAIMER: The poster is known to experience judgement
lapses brought by sleep deprivation.
LancerAdvancd iBuck
scans of magazines/comics rather then taking money out.
You got an independant anylasis to prove that?
> I would imagine that Nexxus has gotten several more orders
for furnation issue #2 after the group I used to be affild with
released it. In fact that was my intention...
Why should I believe that over..
>p.s. I do this to piss you copyright nerds off.
or
> <Sibe> F##k fn <Sibe> i hope it goes offline.
?
Get help, get lost... but first take some responsibility for your actions..
Felyne32k
rred...@hotmail.com says...
> So the difference that Simba is saying is napster helped record sales
> and my stuff didnt? I must have missed those Independant analysis of
> the issue. I would imagine that Nexxus has gotten several more orders
> for furnation issue #2 after the group I used to be affild with
> released it. In fact that was my intention... the digital copy dosent
Uh-huh. You're getting to be a real bullshit artist, you know that?
Maybe you can commission excuses for not doing homework and things of the
like; build yourself some positive karma.
This must be why you were fine and dandy when Furnation went down.
Or why you admitted to not giving a shit what happened to it.
Or maybe it's the reason you went and slandered Nexxus when he made
it quite clear that the attention was unwanted.
Was that why you posted at 600 DPI?
So many unanswered questions...
Steve Carter
> > Wrong. Commerce, not sharing, is the essence of society, [...]
> 1) Your society perhaps, not mine.
I see from your IP that you're posting from Germany, and the existence of
the Deutschmark destroys your claim of a non-commerce society. I guess I
shouldn't be surprised at the rest of the commentary, but let's try it.
> 2) Maybe you want to reread about the original intentions of copyright
> (ie, to *ensure* that creative works enter in the public domain after
> a *limited* time of exclusive use)
On this side of the ocean, the lifetime of the copyright holder + 75 years,
last I checked. Nobody's foisting hundred-year-old art here, but modern
works from people still living and--clearly--objecting.
> 3) You're obviously no scientist. Look into "Nature" or whatever
scientific
> magazine. Are research results shared, or do you see an order form for
> the papers with a hefty price tag?
I see a price on the cover and synopses of larger bodies of work that are
available from the researchers, who make their living studying the things
they publish about. One needs not be a card-carrying scientist to know that
more information is available. I've been tracing articles and authors for
more information since I learned how as a boy of twelve.
"Nature" is a publication for sale. It costs money to produce, market, and
purchase (that commerce thing again). Same with the pubs that I *do* read:
Psychology Today, Scientific American, IFC Rant, Time, Newsweek, Richard
Chandler's Gallery... all of these pubs the average person would get busted
for reproducing without permission, which is the core issue of distributing
artists' work without their consent.
Why am I having to explain the basic nature of publishing?
> This is not about property. Property is something which can be taken away
> from you. But if I copy something, the original is still there. This is
> why copyright violations are called "copyright violations" and not
"theft".
So if you make hundreds of copies of a newly released movie and send it out
to anyone who asks for it, denying the producers who expended the time and
energy to create a quality product the resources they have earned through
their productive labour, leaving those products unpurchased on the shelves
("still there") to be thrown away and clutter up the environment, this is
somehow not stealing? See below:
> "Copyright was created as a policy that balanced the interests of authors,
> publishers, and readers. It was not intended to be a restrictive property
> right. But it has evolved over recent decades into one part of a matrix of
> commercial legal protections now unfortunately called "intellectual
property."
This should answer your "This is not about property" above with the
invocation of intellectual property (quotes purposely removed) as a tangible
asset.
I'd also like to add that the protection goes both ways. Intellectual
property rights (the logic behind them, anyhow) is what prevents Joe Blow
from signing on as Hanno Foest and claiming to enjoy anal sex with giraffes.
After all, he'd only be sharing your name, which--by your own
reckoning--hasn't been taken away from you and thereby is not your property.
> Um, maybe you'd better go to school on your own. You obviously need it.
> History class, and some law school as well.
I have. First, the history of man is replete with theft, rape, torture,
slavery, and mass murder with the sole intention of one party gaining
control of resources it has not earned, depriving resources from those who
HAVE earned them, or of destroying those who have more resources in a frenzy
of jealousy or blind hatred. I'd cite a regional example, but that would
invoke Godwin's Law.
Second, I've had to legally defend my work from plagiarists in the past.
They make exactly the same arguments you've listed here, and they have
always faltered.
Now that I've shared, I'm going to go back to my drawing board and produce
some intellectual property that you will never see, even though I know for a
fact that it's a topic you love. ;o)
Dave Huang
Baloo Ursidae <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:
>Call me when you're done with your petty insults.
You first.
--
Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: kh...@azeotrope.org | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 26 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++
Dave Huang
Steve Carter <mouseboy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I see a price on the cover and synopses of larger bodies of work that are
>available from the researchers, who make their living studying the things
>they publish about. One needs not be a card-carrying scientist to know that
>more information is available. I've been tracing articles and authors for
>more information since I learned how as a boy of twelve.
Okay, how about http://www.arxiv.org/ then. Free complete papers, not just
abstracts. Quite useful. FWIW, Nature costs money because 1) it costs
money to print, 2) the publisher is greedy, which is pissing off the
scientists who write the papers that they publish.
(See http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/newscientist.htm )