This statement suggests that creators should not try to make a business from their creations because it causes problems, to which I could not disagree more.
I don't think that's what anyone is trying to say. The problem arises when you try to talk about creativity in purely business terms. This is why I like the Doctorow quote above about art being a non-market activity. That doesn't exclude it from having a place in the market, but it does change the nature of that place.
Creators who complain about piracy often include vague threats to the effect that, if copyright isn't more strongly enforced, somehow the world will evolve to be devoid of good music/film/art/what-have-you. But every single one of us knows that's not even remotely true — we know that people will continue to create regardless of the potential for reward (something they already currently do, since they know the potential for reward is low and has been for nearly a century of the entertainment business) because we know that, as Doctorow says, people create for intrinsic reasons starting from early childhood, and will always continue to do so.
This doesn't mean we can't create systems to help creators make money, or that creativity can never be a business. But it does mean that attempting to talk about it in pure market terms is incomplete at best and foolhardy at worst.
if someone is making money off of another's creation is that not of significance?
No. Why should it be?
If what they are doing is preventing the original creator from making money, that is of significance. But why should the mere fact that they are making money themselves matter, unless the original creator just doesn't like seeing anyone else succeed? Sounds petty and childish to me.
There is a great quote on this subject kicking off Cory Doctorow's review of Amanda Palmer's new book:
The question of "business models for the arts" is a weird and contradictory one. For one thing, the arts are a "non-market activity" - people make art for intrinsic reasons, starting from earliest childhood, and even the people who set out to earn a living in the arts are not engaged in any kind of rational economic calculus because virtually everyone who's done this has lost money. Of those who made money, most made very little; and of those who made a substantial sum, most had their careers quickly crater and never earned another penny from their work. Being a "professional artist" is about as realistic as being a "professional lottery winner" - there are lots of people who've tried, and though a few have succeeded, it's a statistical improbability on the order of, well, winning the lotto.
I agree they should have a PC version. But I don't know what you're talking about with Windows Phone. I don't even think "hundreds of millions" of units have ever even shipped -- at least, they only shipped 35-million of them in 2014. Compared to nearly 200-million iOS devices, and OVER A BILLION Android phones. Also Windows Phone's market share fell in 2014, and is now sitting at less than 3%.
Not sure where the windows phone takeover you foresee is supposed to come from :)
Thanks. It seems like everyone saying this is stupid because it's easy is just focusing on the basic science-lesson version of electroplating, which is fine if you want to coat a penny in zinc or whatever -- but is not going to succeed at getting nice, even coatings of chosen thicknesses on complex objects. I'm pretty sure that when you pay the big bucks to a professional electroplater, they aren't just dunking all your stuff in some tupperware with a nail and a battery then walking away.
I'm aware that it's not impossible to do it yourself, but from what I've read and heard from people, it's extremely difficult to get good results that way. It's also messy and complex, and there are a lot of facets to working with different metals and base materials and so on. Professional electroplating, on the other hand, is done in large machines that allow a lot of precise control of the process. A device like this that is halfway between, enabling more professional-level control while still fitting on a tabletop is, as far as I can tell, entirely new.
The visible linking of a couple strings is a concession to the need for clear links in this post -- a post which I think you may be starting to take a little too seriously :)
(look at the rest of the forum -- it's ALL rss autoposts, a bunch from TorrentFreak too. The mental image of you digging through the deep pages of Google and weaving wild conspiracy theories around the stupid automated sites that pop up down there is, I must admit, hilarious to me.)
Are you honestly so oblivious that you didn't notice how all of those "forum posts" are actually the complete text of techdirt blog posts -- each one tagged with a feedburner RSS source link, and clearly being copied by a scraper?
I'm actually way out in front of most for wishing to hang lawyers and tax the hell out of the rich.
This is what baffles me. You insist you have a strong populist, anti-corporate leaning -- and yet you vehemently, angrily defend one of the most blatantly pro-corporate, anti-public laws in our entire modern economy. I strongly suspect that your supposedly radical political views are actually just residue from some boisterous high-school phase you went through, while the simple truth is that the idea of the world changing at all actually terrifies you.
If you've actually been shopping for battery packs recently -- reading reviews and looking closer at the specs and comparing prices -- you'd agree that this is a very good price and significantly lower than usual. Your ability to find one cheaper pack on Amazon (a pack with quite a lot of 1-star reviews complaining it doesn't actually carry 50k mAh) does not change that fact.
You say "sorry to be the village contrarian" but, sorry, that's not true at all. You are not sorrry. You are gleeful about it. You show up on every Daily Deals post and try as hard as you possibly can to find a way to tear it down and complain about it, even when all you can come up with are pretty flimsy complaints. It appears to me to be your new hobby, not something you are sorry about.
Re: IZON camera contains a number of security holes
To clarify: that issue was found in the earlier version of the camera, which was replaced by the View and another model in 2014.
That being said, I'm unable to find anything directly confirming that the security issues have been fixed -- but I'm also unable to find any complaints or security discussions more recent than 2013 and discussing the newer models. My guess would be that the holes have been patched, but I'm uncertain. Take that as you will.
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
I don't think that's what anyone is trying to say. The problem arises when you try to talk about creativity in purely business terms. This is why I like the Doctorow quote above about art being a non-market activity. That doesn't exclude it from having a place in the market, but it does change the nature of that place.
Creators who complain about piracy often include vague threats to the effect that, if copyright isn't more strongly enforced, somehow the world will evolve to be devoid of good music/film/art/what-have-you. But every single one of us knows that's not even remotely true — we know that people will continue to create regardless of the potential for reward (something they already currently do, since they know the potential for reward is low and has been for nearly a century of the entertainment business) because we know that, as Doctorow says, people create for intrinsic reasons starting from early childhood, and will always continue to do so.
This doesn't mean we can't create systems to help creators make money, or that creativity can never be a business. But it does mean that attempting to talk about it in pure market terms is incomplete at best and foolhardy at worst.
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
No. Why should it be?
If what they are doing is preventing the original creator from making money, that is of significance. But why should the mere fact that they are making money themselves matter, unless the original creator just doesn't like seeing anyone else succeed? Sounds petty and childish to me.
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: Re:
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/11/standing-naked-front-audience-amanda-palmer-and-ne w-way-make-art
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Electroplating At Home
Re: Re:
Not sure where the windows phone takeover you foresee is supposed to come from :)
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Electroplating At Home
Re: Re: The what now...?
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Electroplating At Home
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?!?!
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Electroplating At Home
Re: Seriously?!?!
On the post: Daily Deal: Pure Python Hacker Bundle
Re:
On the post: Daily Deal: Pure Python Hacker Bundle
Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: This got funnier after more looking.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: This got funnier after more looking.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: April 12th - 18th
Re: Re: Re: Where exactly are the copyright moderates?
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: April 12th - 18th
Re: Where exactly are the copyright moderates?
This is what baffles me. You insist you have a strong populist, anti-corporate leaning -- and yet you vehemently, angrily defend one of the most blatantly pro-corporate, anti-public laws in our entire modern economy. I strongly suspect that your supposedly radical political views are actually just residue from some boisterous high-school phase you went through, while the simple truth is that the idea of the world changing at all actually terrifies you.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: April 12th - 18th
Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
Arguable.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: April 5th - 11th
Re:
On the post: Daily Deal: Innori 22400mAh Portable Battery Pack
Re: credibility checkup
You say "sorry to be the village contrarian" but, sorry, that's not true at all. You are not sorrry. You are gleeful about it. You show up on every Daily Deals post and try as hard as you possibly can to find a way to tear it down and complain about it, even when all you can come up with are pretty flimsy complaints. It appears to me to be your new hobby, not something you are sorry about.
On the post: Daily Deal: Izon View Security Camera
Re: IZON camera contains a number of security holes
That being said, I'm unable to find anything directly confirming that the security issues have been fixed -- but I'm also unable to find any complaints or security discussions more recent than 2013 and discussing the newer models. My guess would be that the holes have been patched, but I'm uncertain. Take that as you will.
On the post: Daily Deal: Java Developer Course Bundle
Re: Re: I don't understand
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Tech At Home
Re:
Next >>