Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Coreyartus" data-source="post: 7689865" data-attributes="member: 5399">Your definition of &quot;reasonable&quot; may be very different from others, as well as &quot;control&quot;.&nbsp; And you're simplifying creativity to &quot;information.&quot;&nbsp; It's not the same thing.&nbsp; It's not simply data.&nbsp; And the effectiveness of Intellectual Property as a construct and its capacity to &quot;serve&quot; is working in favor of the artists--that doesn't mean it's not effective anymore.&nbsp; It's just less effective for those that don't want to take the time to follow legalities.You can't simplify everyone's wants or needs regarding their own stuff to something commensurate to what you want done with yours.&nbsp; How do you define &quot;reasonable amount of wealth&quot; and why should you be able to set that standard for me?&nbsp; Someone may work really hard on 20 properties that helped inform the 1 that happened to be runaway successful--how do you quantify that?&nbsp; There's a joke about a designer that takes 10 minutes to design a logo for a company, and the president says &quot;Why should I pay you so much for something that took you 10 minutes?&quot;&nbsp; And the designer says, &quot;Because it took me 10 years to learn how to do it in 10 minutes.&quot;&nbsp; You're trying to apply an informational standard to a completely different body of work based on creativity.&nbsp; It doesn't work.You may be very happy relinquishing control over something you've worked hard on, but do you actually expect you'd get name credit when people can't even be bothered to do that now?&nbsp; Have you seen how people rip off whatever imagery they see on the internet?&nbsp; The lack of any basic understanding of plagiarism?&nbsp; What it means to actually credit a photograph?&nbsp; No one's going to care if your work is credited--they can't be bothered to care as it is in today's world.&nbsp; What little control a creative person has over their IP or artistic expression is already almost completely disrespected--that's supposed to be morally okay after a certain time because, hey, &quot;you had your chance?&quot;&nbsp; What of the new movie capabilities that enabled the creation of Lord of the Rings?&nbsp; What of the popularity of comic characters?&nbsp; What of newly discovered writers?&nbsp; Those creators shouldn't ethically reap the benefits of how their work is being used because business says &quot;Tough luck, sucker! I need to make my money now off your stuff.&quot; ?!?No.&nbsp; Today's internet world is incredibly self-indulgent, and more than a bit lazy when it comes to proffering credit.&nbsp; They don't want to be bothered with permissions because they won't be able to do what they want on the timetable and at the price they want to do it.&nbsp; And that's cavalier bunk.&nbsp; You want to give your stuff away?&nbsp; Great.&nbsp; Make it Creative Commons.&nbsp; But don't assume everyone wants that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Coreyartus, post: 7689865, member: 5399"] Your definition of "reasonable" may be very different from others, as well as "control". And you're simplifying creativity to "information." It's not the same thing. It's not simply data. And the effectiveness of Intellectual Property as a construct and its capacity to "serve" is working in favor of the artists--that doesn't mean it's not effective anymore. It's just less effective for those that don't want to take the time to follow legalities. You can't simplify everyone's wants or needs regarding their own stuff to something commensurate to what you want done with yours. How do you define "reasonable amount of wealth" and why should you be able to set that standard for me? Someone may work really hard on 20 properties that helped inform the 1 that happened to be runaway successful--how do you quantify that? There's a joke about a designer that takes 10 minutes to design a logo for a company, and the president says "Why should I pay you so much for something that took you 10 minutes?" And the designer says, "Because it took me 10 years to learn how to do it in 10 minutes." You're trying to apply an informational standard to a completely different body of work based on creativity. It doesn't work. You may be very happy relinquishing control over something you've worked hard on, but do you actually expect you'd get name credit when people can't even be bothered to do that [I]now[/I]? Have you seen how people rip off whatever imagery they see on the internet? The lack of any basic understanding of plagiarism? What it means to actually credit a photograph? No one's going to care if your work is credited--they can't be bothered to care as it is in today's world. What little control a creative person has over their IP or artistic expression is already almost completely disrespected--that's supposed to be morally okay after a certain time because, hey, "you had your chance?" What of the new movie capabilities that enabled the creation of Lord of the Rings? What of the popularity of comic characters? What of newly discovered writers? Those creators shouldn't ethically reap the benefits of how their work is being used because business says "Tough luck, sucker! I need to make my money now off your stuff." ?!? No. Today's internet world is incredibly self-indulgent, and more than a bit lazy when it comes to proffering credit. They don't want to be bothered with permissions because they won't be able to do what they want on the timetable and at the price they want to do it. And that's cavalier bunk. You want to give your stuff away? Great. Make it Creative Commons. But don't assume everyone wants that. [/QUOTE]

Verification