Why Do The People Who Always Ask Us To 'Respect' Artists Seem To Have So Little Respect For Artists?
from the just-wondering dept
Over the years, we've posted tons and tons of stories of content creators embracing the internet, exploring the new opportunities it creates and often profiting greatly from doing so. We regularly celebrate the great creativity from these artists, and cheer them on as they succeed and (sometimes) make lots of money. And yet... there is a certain contingency out there who keeps insisting that we "hate" artists, or alternatively, that we have no respect for artists. This is bizarre. I adore artists and creativity. Part of the reason we spend so much time here discussing new business models and opportunities is that we want more artists to succeed. I have trouble understanding why that's so bad. At best, it seems to be a case of shooting the messenger. In order to embrace these new models it helps to recognize that the old models just aren't that good anymore. And that gets some people upset. So they shake their fist at the sky... and blame us because we tell them that having an umbrella might be a good idea.But one thing I find most troubling in all of this is that the very same people who constantly yell and scream about how we don't respect artists almost always make sure to mock and denigrate the quality of artists who do succeed these days. Take, for example, Jonathan Taplin, who (for reasons that escape me and many others) is the head of an "innovation lab" at USC, despite an apparent lack of understanding of the very basics of innovation. Instead, he pines for a historical fictional world that never existed. We wrote about some of his bizarre claims a few months ago. A few weeks ago, I was able to debate Jonathan at the Tech Policy Summit. Video of that should be going up soon, but it was more of the same. Taplin didn't have the facts on his side (he repeatedly made statements that were out-and-out false) and once he was called on it, he resorted to personal insults directed at me.
Taplin, in the past, has directly accused me of not respecting artists. But, then, we recently had a blog post about filmmaker Nina Paley and how she's dealing with the fact that copyright laws -- if obeyed -- would hold back her own creativity. And, rather than "respect" artists, or even engage in any form of serious debate, Taplin went on a Twitter rampage tossing insults at Nina and the quality of her work. First, he called her talentless:
Then he called her thoughts on the matter "half-witted":
Text: @techdirt. Only someone as talentless as Nina Paley would excuse theft. She can't even give her work away. Revenge of the nerds
And finally, he made this confusing statement, which is similar to one he emailed me about how (in his head) my vision of the world is one in which we were all forced to watch videos of cats rather than Hollywood movies:
Text: @ninapaley-This is truly sad and half-witted. radar.oreilly.com/2012/06/copyri ... via @radar
First of all, nearly everything he says is wrong. Nina Paley can and does give her work away. You can (and, if you haven't already, should) go watch her excellent movie, Sita Sings the Blues. And, contrary to what he'd have you believe (that no one could possibly make money giving away content for free), Nina does make money. Finally, I'm really at a loss as to how one would ever be "forced" to watch anything they didn't want to watch. In fact, these days, with such a massive explosion in choice, the idea that anyone would ever be a captive audience forced to watch something they didn't like just doesn't make any sense.
Text: If @ninapaley gets her way we will be forced to watch crap like Bob, The Angry Flower. The Revenge of the talentless Nerds
But the larger point is this unfortunate trend that we've seen, exemplified by Taplin's childish outburst here. The people who keep claiming that those of us seeking real solutions don't "respect" artists when we cheer and celebrate their successes and praise their artwork and creativity -- always seem to be the same people who mock and insult those very same artists' work for being successful. It's one thing to criticize their ideas. That's perfectly reasonable. But to take it a step further and insult their abilities as an artist is really quite shameful. And that's doubly true when you're talking about someone who is a public figure like Taplin, a representative for USC. Is this really the face that USC wants to show to the world as its "director" of an "innovation lab"? Someone who mocks an artist and attacks her talent?
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: artists, jonathan taplin, nina paley, sita sings the blues, tech policy summit
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sequel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apples & Airplanes ART v RIGHTS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Apples & Airplanes ART v RIGHTS
excellent spin there i was hoping no one would pull that off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nina did have trouble giving her work away
Of course, pointing that our really doesn't help his whole 'respect for artists' thing, now does it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nina did have trouble giving her work away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your problem:
When you say artist, you mean "someone who creates art."
When they say artist, they mean "someone who makes money for major multinational corporations."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your problem:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your problem:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your problem:
I'm not promoting violence, just stating a fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your problem:
that would be a documentary i would watch over and over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your problem:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Your problem:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your problem:
Other than that, no idea what your comment has to do with my own, or even the others within the thread. You sure you posted in the right spot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your problem:
And other cows. Wouldn't want to waste the economically precious pink slime humans won't eat anymore now that we know what it is.
/offtopic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your problem:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Your problem:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your problem:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At this point I'd have to say if you're over 50, just shut up about the internet and let the kids have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if you're over 50, just shut up about the internet
James Moore, Canada's own "Minister of Canadian Heritage" just turned 36, thinks he's tech savvy (because he knows how to buy Apple products) yet he's about to ram through the Canadian DMCA which will make it illegal to circumvent DRM for *any* reason, including (but not limited to):
Age has nothing to do with open mindedness and the ability to understand new ideas.
Besides, the Internet belongs to all netizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: if you're over 50, just shut up about the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: if you're over 50, just shut up about the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stop bringing ageism into these debates. It serves no purpose.
Some of us "old folks" do get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The old timers who know where the internet came from are the best guarantee that it will not be taken over by commercial interests who want to turn it into something different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
On the other hand, I also know a lot of people of my generation (the millennials) who know nothing about anything technical. Their knowledge of the internet is at the same level as a trained monkey with a tin cup. They push a lever and get a food pellet, that type of thing. There is so much ignorance it's sickening.
In conclusion, my observations, while statistically insignificant, are all I have to go on, and I see that the quote "any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic" completely rings true for anyone unwilling to look below the surface.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't support the exploitation of artists, but I'm also not ready to grant them every privacy invasive, rights grabbing, culture stealing, unreasonably punishing law they come up with to protect big business in the name of copyright. As Lessig did explain very convincingly in "Free Culture", copyright law is out of balance and needs correcting. I agree with that. I don't want to see it abolished. I'm an artist myself.
And if there is so much profit to be made in piracy, then maybe the record labels should start a pirate site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Opinions on "Art" and respecting and artists legal rights, are two very different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always remember and never forget...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Always remember and never forget...
The issue on TechDirt is the belief that the laws no longer apply and that artists RIGHTS should no longer be protected against those who would exploit them illegally. This is of course highly ironic given the sites absolute disdain for record labels, yet giving a free pass to sites that have never paid artists a single penny while profiting from their work illegally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Always remember and never forget...
...the asshole trolls who seem to apply a universal belief to their opponents that doesn't exist. The opinion you state is a fantasy that's not held by many of those you attack. This is why you're labelled a troll and your arguments strawmen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this one I can answer for
Or maybe it's just that there's a lot of crap out there. Then again, I'm far from a triple A musician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am a remix/crossover artist, I like mixing things new and old.
It only takes one complaint from a copyright holder to one of my assets, because they don't like it for whatever reason, to have it removed.
Clearly someone had say that my kind of artist should have no rights on certain things.
Nina Paley did not advocate to take these rights from me.
She wants me to have more rights. This is what you are afraid of.
With enough support you can make anything illegal. Even the stupidest, most ridiculous things.
Making copying illegal is one example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's the rub, Taplin and ilk refuse to see these artists as successful for they don't respect the new playing field and rules that now define success. They don't want to abandon their old metrics for a dead system that they're comfortable with. In other words they refuse to adapt to the new normal. Then again we already know this so like any other relic of a bygone era (like racists or misogynists) we have to dismiss their critiques as the shameful rants of the grotesquely out of touch. That, and keep supporting these adaptive artists so that these types don't bring them down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And therein lies the essential dichotomy between the now and the has-beens in this debate.
The old content industries would (more than a decade after their fall from relevance to the future) like everyone to put the brakes on innovation while they sort out how to capture free radicals and park them in front of the same reality show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are, apparently, unfamiliar with Mr. Taplin.
When he speaks on such matters his negative comments are directed to new businesses that turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the concerns of those whose works are being appropriated to their detriment.
This is incorrect. Having spoken to the man, I can tell you that when he speaks on such matters, his negative comments are directed at companies he *believes* have turned a blind eye based on ignorance and/or lies. In our debate, he regularly made up totally bogus facts. For example, he claimed that Kim Dotcom made $400 million last year alone -- all from Google and all due to piracy.
Of course, the reality is that all of Megaupload, in 7 years of existence made somewhere around $150 million -- and part of the *evidence against them* (which Taplin clearly did not read) was that Google dropped them five or six years ago due to concerns about too much infringement.
Previously he attacked Reddit for profiting from "piracy." That makes no sense.
He has attacked Spotify and Kickstarter too. Neither of which "turn a blind eye and a deaf ear" to such concerns. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Taplin builds strawmen that do not exist. I realize your usual position is to virtually slobber over anyone who loves copyright, but in this instance, someone like yourself who insists you're only here to relay "facts" would be better off holding back. You don't want to associate yourself with this guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I listened to the video you posted some time back (linked in your above article) and left it with the impression that the two persons in the "debate" were talking past, and not to, each other.
Taplin never said that technology, per se, was the bane of the music industry. What he did say is that when technology is being used in a manner that gives nary a thought to the rights under law of artists, the companies using such tech for conducting their profit making businesses should bear some measure of responsibility for what is going on within their business by their customers. In my view theirs is a legitimate concern.
BTW, I do not relay "facts", though I have on occasion raised questions about "facts" being relied upon by those who would relegate our laws to the dustbin of history. What I do generally comment upon are situations where I believe the law is being misstated, by accident or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You make me laugh. I've been reading your comments here and other sites for years. There is no lover of copyright you haven't slobbered over.
I love how you ignore the facts I presented and just make up your own reality. Seriously: even though I think you're usually full of it, I'm providing you a serious suggestion: defending Taplin is a mistake. There are plenty of others to slobber over. Taplin will make you look foolish. The man may know how to make a good movie, but he's way out of his depth on this issue.
Separately, I find it amusing that you regularly tsk tsk any time I speak negatively about someone, but you seem to have no problem with Taplin's obnoxious comments.
Oh, and have you finally realized that screenwriters like Bret Easton Ellis have fans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
who are you talking too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's an interesting admission. How much illegal infringement is too much for Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In answer to your question
I have to admire any artist that is making a living in the present or any past environment doing what they want to do to make a living. Selling out?
Artists have always had to make stuff, music, paintings, plays... that are to the taste of someone that is willing to pay for it. Now it's just easier for those artists to find an audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't imagine why any self-respecting institution would want to be associated with this bozo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet... it's the pirates who dominate your fan club (and comments), not the artists. Funny that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anyway, what was censored? This:
"And yet... it's the pirates who dominate your fan club (and comments), not the artists. Funny that."
Yup, that was "reported".
Why?
Because pirates are slimy douchebags that refuse to allow the dissemination of inconvenient facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The point is that the users of the site (not Mike) reported your comment because it's a bullshit comment. It's not related to the article, it has zero basis in fact and it's actually pretty insulting for a whole bunch of people on here who either are artists or don't pirate or both.
If you'd care to provide any "inconvenient facts" you'll find we're happy to discuss them. As long as you just keep spouting shit then you'll get the report button.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are fewer comments that are uncensored(by the community) that meet all of those characteristics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
the setup of the site that allows its userbase to report items is nothing new, its something that happens on more nearly every site (they all have some reporting mechanism) and re-enforces that you are oblivious to things obvious.
the fact that you cannot see them either means you cant set your system up correctly so that colors can be seen or you cant recognize that there is a gap in comments, so... either you are technologically inept and people who are not so inept are not going to listen to anything you have to say... or you just blindly skipped over the apparent gap in comments thus re-enforcing the whole oblivious thing...
it was reported because it was a stupid overplayed incorrect generalization. something that oblivious people would not pick up or even understand when its pointed out to them.
we are now discussing your items, thus your comment that we do not allow the dissemination of inconvenient facts has been proven wrong. that makes you either oblivious (yet again), a liar, or just plain stupid... ill let you pick which one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The notification is LIGHTLY COLORED. On every computer. It's only a matter of how light, from computer to computer.
Are you now going to try and say it's actually loud fire-engine red or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the point is not that im claiming they are a color they are not. the point is that you seem to be the only one having problems seeing them.
but uh... nice try there buck-O.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep, and lots of the other colours on my screen can be described the same way, and yet I can see them all. Just admit you're the only one with a problem here, fix your monitor and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it were loud fire-engine red or something you'd still find something about it to complain. ("The fire-engine red's too loud! Why didn't you use lightly coloured, almost-unnoticeable pink? Why do you hate my eyes, Pirate Chubby Chicken Little Mike?")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This idiot isn't capable of doing that, unfortunately. Actually admitting a mistake is beyond him, he just keeps digging...
I mean, as mentioned above, he routinely defends domain seizures, shutting down legitimate free speech as collateral damage and false DMCA notices as perfectly acceptable. Yet, he complains about censorship here. A premise so flimsy that when people destroy his argument, he's reduced to arguing over a shade of text rather than admit there's no censorship. He'll make a fool of himself long before he admits defeat.
I actually enjoy this. With some of his arguments, people unfamiliar with his line of bullshit might believe him or think he has some reasonable points, which we then have to repeatedly debunk or prove as lies. With this kind of argument, no intelligent person can do anything other than point and laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I didn't even realize something had been censored here. Why? Because "Mr. Free Speech" (LOL) himself, Mike Masnick, set up this site so the "reported" comment notification is so light I couldn't see it on my laptop. Nice, huh? Just the usual slimy behavior from everyone's favorite piracy-loving weasel.
Anyway, what was censored? This:
"And yet... it's the pirates who dominate your fan club (and comments), not the artists. Funny that."
Yup, that was "reported".
Why?
Because pirates are slimy douchebags that refuse to allow the dissemination of inconvenient facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It seems you should look up the definition of a fact. Facts are checkable and I did not see any source links in your opinions.
You basically got angry because we, the community, reported your comment as offensive - I for one sure got offended when some anonymous nobody told me I'm not an artist. I cried all the way to bathroom while wailing about how the internet is full of not-so-nice people that deny my existance.
(crocodile tears on my face)
.
.
.
(stuffing myself with some junk food and telling myself that pink hidden comments are hidden for a reason)
.
.
.
(going to console myself with piratin' the murky waters of the intertubes!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
are you a jedi sir?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FYI – To date I have animated sequences for presentations, video and television, made graphics for web, apps, and programs including games, made some 3d screen-savers, Illustrated a book, did some CD covers, did a few paintings and some sketches, made store displays, and lots of corporate logos, signs, brochures etc. I've also written my share of code, shot stills and video, made the landscape concept drawings for a public park. And yes, some of my work has been "pirated" and some released as public domain, copyleft and open source.
I don't know if my work history makes me a *real artist* in the eyes of a Anonymous Coward on TechDirt, nor do I even care. I currently and usually have made my living from what is commonly called "intellectual property" and was successful but found something I find that has the graphics aspect but is more than just that. So, no I still make my living at it and never failed, just rounded out my own interests, just keep disrespecting the artists why don't you, it's proving the point here .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you ever read the title of the article: “Why Do The People Who Always Ask Us To 'Respect' Artists Seem To Have So Little Respect For Artists?” Thats you bud! You have done an exemplary job making that point here on TechDirt.
But, hey, it's good to know friends like you are out there with the best interests of artists everywhere in mind. Now I get to make assumptions about you and your work, get back to your spreadsheets, I'm sure you have to show that royalties are not yet due for somebody. Accountants financially shortchange artists more than infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I respect the artists and pay them for their work. So am I a pirate? Or just someone who hates, and has bypassed, the outdated dirtbags you shill for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tell me you really aren't trying to play that card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or are you still arguing that one download = one lost sale?
Aside from that, what's your point? Or is it simply that there are fewer people listing themselves as professional artists nowadays?
And so what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artists create art, if it sells, great. But they don't create for money, they do it for passion.
Entertainers create for money, and then whine when people don't want to pay outragious prices for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try eating passion or sending your kids to college with passion or paying your mortgage with passion. And it's fine if it sells or not. But what shouldn't be tolerated is that others enjoy and/or monetize that artistic output of another for their own benefit without paying for it. If it's too expensive, don't buy it. If it's not available watch/listen to something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If someone else can figure out how to monetise your work whilst offering it for free, why can't you? This just emphasises that it's a business-model failure.
And where exactly is it written that passion should be financially rewarding anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait - you don't consider programming an art? Somebody is opposing my view on the internet - oh noez, call the internet police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about you... do you actually create stuff, or are you just one of those armchair quarterbacks the arts community tends to attract on the periphery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow. Can you perhaps give me tonight's Texas Lottery numbers. Seeing as how you're omnipotent and all knowing and perhaps even a Force user and whatnot. I say that based on how you apparently know that everyone who dominates Mike's fan club is a pirate. Wait, what's that you say? You have no definitive proof of that claim. Oh, I see. So you're just full of shit... like usual. But the headline hit home, regarding you being one of those same people who regularly ridicule/mock any artist who does things outside of the "business norm". Oh, okay. That explains things then. Carry on, Troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"And yet... it's the pirates who dominate your fan club (and comments), not the artists. Funny that."
These comment threads are not fan clubs,. They're some of the most hostile and confrontational on the net. Example: You.
David Lowery deep-sixed the use of the word "pirating" once and for all when he replaced it with "looting" - behaving unethically, not illegally. We will always be able to get around any restriction and technically not be pirates. That's not the point. The point is compensating creators so they continue to produce. Right, trolly? I'm feeding you now, and on purpose! And I'm saying you win! My god it's full of stars.
I'll take up your challenge - Nina Paley allows me to compensate her when I encounter her work outside of a paywall. If David Lowery does the same, I will do the same. Sound good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yet... there is a certain contingency out there who keeps insisting that we "hate" artists, or alternatively, that we have no respect for artists.
And yet... it's the pirates who dominate your fan club (and comments), not the artists. Funny that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Citation needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yet... there is a certain contingency out there who keeps insisting that we "hate" artists, or alternatively, that we have no respect for artists.
And yet... it's the pirates who dominate your fan club (and comments), not the artists. Funny that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sadly, he forgot the caveat that the lie has to be believable and preferably have some basis in fact before people will actually fall for it. Lenin's tactics don't work if people are too busy mocking you or laughing at you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But anyway, yeah. He repost because he thinks he's taking a stand against "censorship". Of course, you have to ignore that he was an outright and VERY vocal supporter of SOPA, an act which would have allowed for outright censorship (the kind where if I don't like your website I can have it taken down entirely and it would not be viewable at all, which is what censorship actually is). SOPA was perfectly fine and he's still sore that it was stopped by those nefarious pirates. I mean "us" (because to him we're all pirates). But heaven forbid a comment get reported, particularly a comment that consist soley of ad homs and the usual Troll/Shill AC type remarks. We'll never hear the fucking end of it then. That it says "hey, click here to view what was flagged by the community" is ignorable in his eyes.
Just report the comments of his that are worth reporting and don't waste a breath replying to him and carry on abotu your business. He's derailed entire threads (and coincidentally, they're always threads where artists are trying something new or being given an opportunity to speak for themselves... or better said artists who are willing to try new business models that is) with his "censorship" rants (along with "illegal exploitation" ones too).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But yeah, basically, just report and move on. Don't bother asking questions of him. Don't bother trying to reason with him. Don't bother trying to explain things to him. Etc. He's not here to be reasonable or discuss things, he's not here to listen to the opinions of others, he's not here to present facts. He's here to troll/shill and disrupt any attempts at discussion. Pure and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait. This coming from an AC who posts link after link to that silly Trichordist site where what you call "censorship" is running wildly rampant:
From The Trichordist site:
At least Techdirt lets all voices be heard. If the community here thinks your comment sucks then that is your problem dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why does Hollywood have ridiculous accounting practices?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Asshat?
And I quote,"Those who can, do; those who can't, teach".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Asshat?
I really hate this quote, because it isn't at all true. I'd fix it by saying "those who can't, teach badly." Like the teachers that get tenure and then don't teach anything more for the rest of their career.
In order to teach something effectively, you have to know how to do something well enough to be able to convey the process to others. Sure, you can wing it, but you are discovered as the charlatan you are before too long (and unfortunately, many education systems are set up to keep the charlatans around entirely too long.)
This is just an asshat, who, thanks to the Peter Principle, has reached the zenith of his career.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Asshat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Asshat?
It's an old saying - and it never was true.
In reality you keep the very best corn for seed.
The thing is - I don't think Taplin does any actual teaching. He would have a problem with bright students calling him out on his errors. The lecture theatre would not be a safe environment for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Asshat?
For further history: Wikipedia Article on Mr. Taplin
Very much a member of the copyright industry, it does note that he is a clinical professor in Communications and Journalism. He conducts three seminars a year. If I remember seminars, from school, it was pretty much sit in the seat and listen to all the folks speak, with very little interaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Asshat?
And I quote,"Those who can, do; those who can't, teach".
For what it's worth, that's an unfair assessment of Taplin. He has actually "done" quite a bit in the entertainment industry -- producing some classic movies and albums. But he seems to filter his views entirely through the prism of "this is how I made money in the 1980s, why can't it be like that any more"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Asshat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only thing you accomplish with tweets like that is to get like-minded people to give him a pat on the back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, yeah, this is a nor brainer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, that's the best compliment on my music I've ever gotten...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
an average rating of 8.3/10 and a 67% "want to see" rate?
That ain't faint praise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But by all means, prove Mike's headline right. You just did.
Oh, and for the upteenth time. Marcus/Leigh's music is purely done as a hobby. Not with the intention to make a successful career out of it.He's stated this repeatedly. It's his way of having some fun, letting his hair down, cutting loose, etc. That you seem so focused on it and making a point to bring it up as often as possible leads me to wonder if perhaps Marcus has a secret admirer. Shame, shame, shame AC. All you have to do is tell him you like him. No harm in that. As long as you accept who you are and are happy with whatever life style you may have, then who cares what others think. Now, I'm not saying he'll reciprocate your obsessive feelings for him. But hey, at least you'll get that off your chance and possibly have him reciprocate, or have him shoot you down at last at which point you can move on. Like they say, "to each their own".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and this supports your argument how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proof Nina is Talentless
QED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proof Nina is Talentless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have no argument, so you go for the ad hominem insult. How is that possibly respecting artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are the living embodiment of everything this article is talking about. With one troll post, you've proved Techdirt is right.
Keep up the good work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's comments like this from douchetards like you that make me glad for a "report" button. Then I can just skip down the page hitting "report" on your nick and not have to read the bile and unfocused hatred you spew.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2. then they ridicule you
3. then they fight you
3.5 then they turn into immature rage-fueled douchebags spewing hateful and puerile gibberish
4. then you win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Culture Hatred
I really think this guy is just not happy with those who dare make their works freely available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He can eat all the hollywood feces he wants, I'll pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enough with this Nina already!
That's being said, can we please never mention this "Sita sings ..." thing ever again? Or is it one and only her somewhat successful piece?
No matter what you do, someone will call you idiot. Does it worth yet-another-iteration-about-how-great-nina-is? Not really.
And about "talentless" part - there's proverb in my language, saying "cheap fish - bad soup". I say "Sita ...", and yep, it is cheap. But hey - some people prefer plastic jewelry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enough with this Nina already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enough with this Nina already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enough with this Nina already!
Twelve thousand dollar pens!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let Taplin keep putting his foot in his mouth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let Taplin keep putting his foot in his mouth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The mighty have fallen
This Taplin guy would seem to be a walking-talking anti-USC advertisement.
Or is he the PR shill there to ensure the dinosaur content industries will hire USC grads. If that's the case, USC would do well to teach its students that they are being trained to be employees these days (teach them important phrases like "yes, master")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The mighty have fallen
The "lab" where this guy works? At USC? I bet it gets money from somewhere really close to USC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob the Angry Flower is crap?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bob the Angry Flower is crap?!?!
I've been linking to and promoting his site to friends and coworkers for almost a decade now =P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, that's their problem. They can't force people to listen to pre-approved radio stations, watch pre-approved movies or TV, read pre-approved books or pre-approved videogames.
People can watch, listen to or play whatever they want, and the majors have never been noted for their attention to actual quality. They know they're screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Jonathan Taplin, Nina Paley is a threat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Taplin
He is also listed on IMDB.
Nina is a great artist, I have one of her books. It is a shame to see Mr. Taplin spending his time name calling, There must be something more productive he could be doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Jonathan Taplin, Nina Paley is a threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To Jonathan Taplin, Nina Paley is a threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as I can see, their definition of "respect" is "a requirement to receive a significant percentage/portion of one's potential income".
If you work with that definition, the entertainment industry is significantly more "respectful" of most artist than the rest of us will ever be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The last word on "piracy," from Billboard magazine
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/guest-post-jay-frank-on-npr-s-emily- white-1007388552.story
I never thought I'd see the say when the anti-pirate New York Times and Billboard slap down the "just say no to piracy" position with a verve that makes TechDirt look like the Snuggles bear, but that just happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The last word on "piracy," from Billboard magazine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The last word on "piracy," from Billboard magazine
Eh, if he were perfect, he'd be Jesus Christ, downloading loaves and fishes.
Downloading isn't stealing, but if someone says "I feel like I've been stolen from when people share my work and don't compensate me," I can respect that.
Of course, most of the time rightsholders and their trolls are just yelling like homeless people. If you're screaming "entitled thief" at me to push me into taking out my wallet, without any regard as to why I'm on your radar, the big bum in the alley comes first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The last word on "piracy," from Billboard magazine
That is, indeed, the best article I've seen to date on the whole affair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps because Ms. Paley has decided and announced that her desires as an artist are superior to those of others who may not have such desires?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why, precisely, does that create butthurt among your crowd? And why do you use it as a rationalization for your badmouthing of her?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are they really artists though?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Is that disrespectful??
Hope so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Isn't that what everyone who supports the copyright system today says too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ha! You did it again. I call you on your bull, and you try to move the goalposts. You didn't say artists vis a vis other artists. You said that Nina's desires as an artist were superior to "others." And that's the whole POINT of copyright law: that the desires of the artist to forbid the sharing of their work, outweigh the desires of the "others" (fans) who wish to share the work.
I can't wait to see you tapdance on this one, just like that thread where you spoke out of ignorance, claiming Bret Easton Ellis couldn't possibly have fans, nor could he have hired a real producer for his new film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When Ms. Paley stated she would hereafter not defer to copyright, the only logical conclusion is that she was referring to her desires versus those of other artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artists vs fans as a general rule comprises a different set of dynamics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I fail to see the down side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Without copyright laws....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Without copyright laws....
clickclickclickclick
Where would music be now if Bach had been able to copyright equal temperament for life +70 years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want to learn all about Bob and why he is an angry flower but instead all I get is whinging drama-mongering on twitter.
For shame futile guy. You're wasting what talents you have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.angryflower.com/
There isn't really an explanation of why he's angry. It's absurdist comedy, and fantastic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criticism Deserved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0850038/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. Go find out more about the source components used.
2. Check what specific government granted exclusivity licenses are attached to components, the date ranges covered and exemptions.
3. Review an artwork before commenting on it.
4. Optional - Try and do better!
Notice that by writing your comment you have done exactly what she has done, taken existing components and mixed them to form something new. In your case, you composited existing words. Just pointing out that none of us can ever really make something original without some level of copying from others. And if nothing different is done then results will not be different, which is not the case presently discussed because of compositing. Elsewhere there are plenty of discussions about how much change should be required for various categorization of works.
Here is a somewhat relevant quote I like:
"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
- Isaac Newton
After noting trends by various Anonymous Coward commenters on TechDirt and occasional others, I have come up with a little quote of my own:
"The most sure-of-themselves art critics, do the critique sight-unseen."
- Terry B
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is hurricane head anyway? Slonecker's still kicking around... well, was kicking around, up to about last year at best when his boyfriend average_joe up and never logged in again. I'm still waiting for his sleeping giant artist friends. Maybe he strangled himself to death choking on Lowery's imaginary phallus.
...Fuck, did that happen to Slonecker too? I fucking swear, give these tumblr activists a platform to post their ramblings, and suddenly they think they're gods. I don't give two shits what you sexually identify as! You fucking breathe oxygen, not Cowper's fluid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]