Modern Art: $5 Million Worth Of Unauthorized Downloads On A Hard Drive On Display
from the can't-be-too-many-songs dept
TheNextWeb has an amusing story about a new art exhibit, called 5 Million Dollars, 1 Terabyte which is, of course, merely a hard drive with some unauthorized downloads on it. There's apparently a pdf file that lists out what's on the hard drive, but as with the author of the article, I was unable to get it to open. Of course, given how the industry seems to value "infringement" these days, I would imagine it doesn't need that many files to reach $5 million.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, hard drive, modern art
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Total Music Vortex is nigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Total Music Vortex is nigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Total Music Vortex is nigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Total Music Vortex is nigh
I remember that article. *Sigh* Scientific journals. I really wonder where all the money goes that they require.
Scientists (etc) submit papers for free, other scientists then review papers for free, Journal charges money.
Scientists use their submissions and editor status to try and get public or industry (and son on)funding for their research.
I think a UK body is trying to start a more reasonable setup. Unfortunately the current journals have high impact factors/pretty entrenched so it can seriously impede young researchers, with limited (or no) papers to their names, taking a risk submitting to practically unknown journals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Total Music Vortex is nigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Total Music Vortex is nigh
I have to agree that the non-internet generation do hold up progress (somewhat) with regards to new innovations while select members embrace it wholeheartedly.
I can see social networking etc being particularly important with regards to informing the non-scientific public after different issues. Mostly newspapers and tabloid aren't really qualified to explain new research, giving a case of Chinese whispers and lowered public trust in the scientific (etc) community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little rant against open access
a- keep the copyright over your own work
b- publish it on your own website. Don't bother going through journals
c- prohibit the university (state funded body) from asserting intellectual property (so called) rights.
PS: these crude ideas were crystalized after spending 10 years in various research centra and I tell you: there is no hope for universities. They are filled with politics, not with content. They don't create ideas, they inventorize them (badly) and the egos of the groupleaders are in inverse proportion to their value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contents of the PDF file.
Sorry about the formatting, I tried to align it from the PDF the best I could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contents of the PDF file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quote of the Day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quote of the Day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quote of the Day
we know you are
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quote of the Day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contents of the PDF file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contents of the PDF file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contents of the PDF file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contents of the PDF file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contents of the PDF file.
(and in the case of, say, NES/SNES/GBC/NeoGeo/etc ROMs, old PC games, and so on, the value is questionable because even Nintendo can't figure out all the license-holders and cut deals with them to get them on Virtual Console, so the market value is more like $0 because nobody's around to sell OR sue)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contents of the PDF file.
It really makes me wonder how those valuations were determined; and if from the companies themselves, it's no wonder their software has so many unauthorized downloads. Maybe if they would restructure their pricing to reach more consumers, they'd see greater gains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contents of the PDF file.
A random sampling:
------------------------------------------------
Adobe Font Folio 11 $2599.00
Agency Complete Family Pack $900.00
Neue Helvetica Complete Family Pack $961.00
Palatino Sans Complete Family Pack $640.00
Linotype Nautilus Complete Family Pack $670.00
ITC Designer Collection $1,299.00
Benton Sans Complete Family Pack $4,608.00
Ibis Complete Family Pack $2,592.00
Stainless Complete Family Pack $1,152.00
------------------------------------------------
Looking at pricing for fonts, is starting to make me feel like the $699 buy in for Photoshop is a steal. I'll assume though that the pricing is high because a lot of work went into these fonts, and they don't sell a ton. Photoshop on the other hand, would sell a TON more if the price was more reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contents of the PDF file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Contents of the PDF file.
"I enjoy having the legal version on the shelf and knowing I helped support a good company."
So helping them, one time, for under $100 justifies you pirating their later, much improved versions?
"If I used it professionally"
I read this line all the time as justification to pirate *Insert expensive software title here*
Then you tell people how it's worth the high price, yet you didn't and won't pay the high price yourself?
I've never seen Adobe sell discounted older versions themselves. Each time a new version of something comes out, the old version disappears off of their site. I'm not aware of an Adobe Outlet.
At the same time, I truly do believe the stories about how Adobe tries, but not too hard, to keep piracy at bay. The stories about getting people hooked on it, so that when they (the kids) do finally get jobs in design, they will demand Adobe software to do their job properly.
Hell, I did it with my boss, only I had a legit version at home, and wanted the same thing at work, to do my job properly. Either pirated or legit, I still would have asked my boss to buy it for me at work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Photoshop Lust
Why bother paying even $10 for Photoshop? Gimp is free and it has a Linux version. Gimp costs you nothing to try. Get yourself familiar with Gimp and your tragic case of Photoshop lust will be completely cured!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Photoshop Lust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contents of the PDF file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serves him right for being a pedo-terrorist that steals from artists!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You imagine it wouldn't take much??????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contents of the PDF file.
Imagine there is the appropriate "http colon slash slash" in front of the tinyurl.
Yea, the formatting still sucks, sorry. Best I can do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contents of the PDF file.
I'd guess that the artist of this exhibit does not claim to have manufactured the copy/copies within it, e.g. "Some bloke in Marakesh gave it to me as a freebie when I bought a rug".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contents of the PDF file.
Of course , if they are held in dynamic RAM, they are re-copied many times every second - so I guess it would technically be illegal.
(Posted just to make clear how nonsensical copyright law is - in the light of modern technology.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contents of the PDF file.
This is why streaming is ok, but sharing is WRONG. Duh?
Of course copyright is nonsensical, but it's very lucrative if you're powerful enough to wield it effectively. Trouble is, because it's lucrative most people think it can be all bad. This is probably why kids aren't taught the unethical and uneconomic trade-off between monopoly and liberty in high school. Monopolies enrich a few at a hundredfold hidden cost to the majority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Contents of the PDF file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contents of the PDF file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contents of the PDF file.
Actually, since the government is assuming control of those corporations when they "buy them out", it is more "National Socialism" that we're talking about there.
Great, now you made me go an godwin the thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contents of the PDF file.
I am guessing the artist never even tried to open the PDF file on Windows.
As an aside: "terrabyte"? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Riding the tangent...
If the built in MacOS PDF generation tools create PDF files that are Windows hostile then that's an important thing to be aware of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contents of the PDF file.
Be kind of funny if it is.
...this gives me an excuse to logon to my Mac. It's been awhile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contents of the PDF file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My kind of art
We are talking about the HDD, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My kind of art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It could just be empty though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
infirngment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[edit: "infringement"]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quibble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quibble
But then art is in the eye of the beholder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quibble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quibble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quibble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The PDF in Firefox 5 and Windows Vista
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
interesting zen moment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]