Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercutio01" data-source="post: 4683139" data-attributes="member: 37277">Songs, books, and movies are PRODUCTS, not information.&nbsp; Your greed to obtain those products without fair compensation is flat-out wrong.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; There's no question in that you are advocating the willful theft of personal property to which you do not have the legal right.So you expect every book, every song, every movie to have advertisements held within them? And what do you suggest?In any event, artists have functioned in the same manner since man became civilized.&nbsp; In return for the art, the artist was paid either directly or through trade so that he could continue to make art.&nbsp; Artists that weren't paid went back to whatever they were doing before they thought they could live by their art.You're advocating, effectively, for a socialistic approach to art (note, I'm not attempting to bring politics in, just referencing the idea) in that whatever one person, has everyone is entitled to as well.&nbsp; But that doesn't work in the real world where people need money to provide food, shelter, and safety for themselves and their loved ones.&nbsp; By advocating the free distribution of art (and art alone, since I assume YOU have a job and get paid and are unwilling to part with all of your stuff just to help me out), you want to force artists to find other means to survive.The idea that people shouldn't be paid for their work is ludicrous.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercutio01, post: 4683139, member: 37277"] Songs, books, and movies are PRODUCTS, not information. Your greed to obtain those products without fair compensation is flat-out wrong. Period. There's no question in that you are advocating the willful theft of personal property to which you do not have the legal right. So you expect every book, every song, every movie to have advertisements held within them? And what do you suggest? In any event, artists have functioned in the same manner since man became civilized. In return for the art, the artist was paid either directly or through trade so that he could continue to make art. Artists that weren't paid went back to whatever they were doing before they thought they could live by their art. You're advocating, effectively, for a socialistic approach to art (note, I'm not attempting to bring politics in, just referencing the idea) in that whatever one person, has everyone is entitled to as well. But that doesn't work in the real world where people need money to provide food, shelter, and safety for themselves and their loved ones. By advocating the free distribution of art (and art alone, since I assume YOU have a job and get paid and are unwilling to part with all of your stuff just to help me out), you want to force artists to find other means to survive. The idea that people shouldn't be paid for their work is ludicrous. [/QUOTE]

Verification