I think this is charged. Let's provide a hypothetical (because I'm so fucking great with those -- HA). A person isn't going to buy movies. The person can download them via torrent. This is a costless exchange of data. There is, essentially, no product. Regardless, the person is able to enjoy the movies that he/she would not have been able to enjoy prior. If he/she had to pay, he/she simply wouldn't and wouldn't be able to enjoy the movies. What's the point in depriving at this point? In both scenarios the creator of the movie isn't getting anything. Not to be a consequentialist. Edited to correct my first sentence.
Not to double post, but a here's another question: Should we have to pay for education? I think art is equally important as education, as it serves a similar role.
I think you are looking at things in absolutes, while there are none. There was always an element of rebellion, in the 80s we had a famous mixed tape, recordings off the radio, recording videos off MTV, not returning a book to the library, there's a leeway, expectation of loss, and overall, certain degree of free dissemination can be helpful to promote an artist or their work. But that's all it should be - a fine line, walk it at your peril sort of thing, nothing serious on a small, personal use scale, but ultimately, shouldn't be an expectation. If you can get something for free, get it. Most of the time its quality is degraded from what you get when you pay, but sometimes you might get lucky. It's up to the artist to decide how easy they're gonna make it. It takes two and all that. But don't expect anyone to work for free is all.
Because in most cases, that's not really the situation. If that person couldn't get movies illegally, odds are that they would indeed pay for the occasional movie. (I'm assuming that they're not completely starvation-broke. After all, they have a computer and a place to keep their pirated data, even if they're stealing their network connection too, so they presumably have some money.) So why should the movie makers let them decide to not-pay for something that everybody else is paying for? Why should I pay more because they don't want to pay at all? I remember my father telling me about saving up for a few weeks to buy a record that he was interested in, and then saving up for a few more weeks to buy the next one, when he was a teenager. (This would be...in the 1940s? I think I have that right.) If people want something, they'll pay for it.
Education through the high school level is paid for by the government. I believe that now that a college education is a minimum requirement for so many jobs, college education should also be paid for, if the person reaches a certain level of accomplishment in high school. But it is being paid for--the teachers aren't working for free. If you want to argue for a massive increase in government funding for the arts, that's dandy; I'm in favor of that. But I'm not in favor of eliminating the ability to charge for art, because without that, then only the government would be able to decide what art should exist.
I would stress that this is why I commented that capitalism isn't ideal for anything I might entertain as a solution. Or at least, American capitalism. Part of me would think that artists could be supported by the government but the art would be free; however, for this to succeed, funding would have to be supplied, and I this would probably happen through taxation, and then you get into a sticky scenario, and questions of who deserves to be paid come up. Part of me thinks that the artist should bear the burden, though. (If alternatives could not be reached.) I mean, wouldn't most artists continue to make the art they make even if they had no hope of profiting? It is an initial urge; the money is secondary. (Not always, though.) I'm doing what I'd said I'd stop doing, though. I am merely throwing questions. Again, I think there are imperfections that could be rectified, and again, I have no solutions; I am currently a useless critic.
Pretty much. Try giving that speech to any college campus. Do not bother trying to count the snickers and eye-rolls. I am not arguing that you are wrong, just stating that I am part of that audience. Expect about the same reaction as if you passionately plead that same audience not to smoke weed because it is illegal (true) and unhealthy (true). Minor adjustment to point 3: distinguish between existing works and future works. If someone in the future decides not to create something I might enjoy, because it would not be profitable, then I will not have time to complain because I will be too busy catching up on my lists of books to read, movies and TV shows to watch, and songs to listen to. I will be too busy getting things for free to expect anyone to work for free. That is actually the exact statement I have been making all along.
Double post again, sorry. Essentially, I think there are several things that could make society better and a population smarter and more effective in interacting with other societies: art, philosophy, and education. I think these things should be accessible by anyway with ease regardless of economic standing, so that anyone can progress themselves intellectually. ETA: Or not double post.
Again, that assumes that the art has little or no cost to make, and that it can be made in the time left over from earning a living. That would be pretty much the end of most movies, theater, visual art, music that involves more than a few people... And it would make it impossible for most people to access art. Let's say that a couple of millionaires get together to make one low-budget film, and spend half their fortune doing so. Then they can afford to spend the other half of their fortunes renting theaters in a select few cities to show it. Then it's done. They're broke, a few hundred people saw the one movie that they get to see that year, and that's the end of that.
You do know that libraries, museums (many with optional donations or free days), and free concerts already exist, yes?
That's a very small, very specific part of the population. Some of my friends stole software when I was in college, too. (It was harder to steal music or video back then.) They don't do it any more. These days, the guy and I not only pay for our art, we make donations, representing a non-trivial part of our income, to our local theater. People change.
Regarding these larger projects, these could be funded by donations. Or, there could be a public pool of equipment to be utilized under certain parameters. Simple conjecture. I am aware. Minority. Doesn't address the problem either; it is like a soup kitchen.
I don't understand what this means - what's the minority? How is it like a soup kitchen? What is the 'problem' to be addressed?
Provided, free services (library, museums, what have you) are the minority, when relative to commercial industry. The problem is the lack of free and open community access to art, education, and educational material. A soup kitchen does not address the problem of poverty, but it attempts to soothe its effects. I am suggesting that, in a distant and not-so exact way, that a library or museum are the same as a soup kitchen in terms of the problem, being the lack of free access to art, education, blah.
I disagree with that, as long as you include the internet in your 'what have you' category. There are people in the world without internet access, certainly, but for those who have it there's a practically inexhaustible supply of art and educational material. And a great deal of it is available for free without violating copyright laws. If people want everything exactly on their terms (eg. 'I don't want to look at art on a screen, I want to see the originals hanging on the wall', or, maybe more relevantly for this thread, 'I don't want to read free classics or fanfiction, I want to read the latest blockbuster') then, fine, they don't have access to the art they want. But that's much different, to me, from not having access to art at all.
But if the problem is free access, and libraries and museums provide that free access, how does that not solve the problem?
I'd actually suggest that a complete digital database would be the best option, because there is no cost to reproduce material. I wouldn't equally suggest a free physical database, because it is destructible, more costly and requires more resources, and isn't as easily transferred between individuals. While I agree that there is a ton of educational and artistic material online, I would suggest (and this is more regarding educational aspect) that there isn't as much academic peer-reviewed material. I am not saying that there isn't any, and I'm truly talking out my backside here, but I imagine a lot of the works coming out as "education" (formally) are copyrighted and not open. I apologize for not outlining my definitions here.
They aren't complete, and they do not institute a system that tries to eliminate the occurrence of the problem. It is a sort of treatment. Take the soup kitchen example. A soup kitchen doesn't solve the problem of poverty; it just tries to feed people.
Yes. This whole idea that it's okay to pirate/steal something because one either doesn't have the money or simply doesn't want to spend that money is just another example of the "I'm entitled" mindset. Thankfully, most people grow out of that.
I'd say regardless, both sides are entitled. The side of "I want it free," is entitled to have it for free. The side of "I want my money from my work" is entitled to their supposed due.
Well, then I'd have to rephrase BayView's comment - if people want what they want and not what's available, Tough Shit. Nobody gets everything they want just because they want it. And don't fool yourself into thinking there's no cost to reproducing all this art and educational material for some giant database. There's a huge cost, which is why various online archives develop slowly and are constantly seeking contributions. It takes time, people, money - not to mention the care needed in digitalizing the more fragile pieces of art. "Digitalize" is an easy answer until one understands what's really involved - just like people saying ebooks should be a small percentage of the price of print. If you only look at the surface of a solution, you're not really solving anything.
Actually, no that's not true. You can't divorce the art from the principle, that one person owns a thing and the other person is stealing it. Calling it 'art' is no different from stealing a bottle of wine, a loaf of bread, an apple, a car, pretty much anything you haven't earned. Art is a type of possession, that is all. You have no right to take that possession if you haven't entered into a deal with the owner to take it, whether that's through money, or magic beans. It's the owner's choice whether to offer it for free, not the person stealing it. To do otherwise is taking the away the freedoms of that owner. Nor is the availability philosophy a good enough excuse. If you can't afford it, you eat something else, watch something else, read something else. There are plenty of other books, film, music and food stuffs offered freely by their owners for you to enjoy. There is actually no excuse and no reason for piracy. It's actually pretty childish.
Why? Just because they want it? Just because they don't want to spend their money for it? At least the person who created the work actually did the work. They're not asking for a handout. They earned it. Geez. I suppose you think every little kid who throws a tantrum should get whatever toy catches their eye, too. Because that's what I'm seeing. Somebody wants something so they should just take it.
If you amass a database and divide that cost amongst every taxpayer (using the U.S. in this circumstance) it is a minimal cost, when relative to every person buying the same amount of printed material. The cost is low relative to printed equivalents. Who has the freedom to own something? I think this is a contestable point, especially when this ownership isn't directly related to privacy of space (owning a house). If I make a novel, why should I claim dominion over it restrictively? I find your pathetic add-ins rather unnecessary. I am not speaking of someone throwing a tantrum. Do not reduce my stance to something such as that without cause. This idea of "what I get" is the problem here. I'm not saying that people get free shit because they want it. I'm saying that this specific free shit could possibly serve a greater role in society, and as society with its best interests in mind, we might consider this idea of free and open exchange for educational and artistic material. This is not childish. This is not some petty game of ownership. This is an attempt to move beyond these individualistic ideas of ownership. It is more of an investment in a community. People don't realize that when they speak about what others don't deserve they speak of what they themselves deserve. I am trying to abandon this circular point in itself. ETA: Define earn.
Okay, let me just say this and then I'm out of this nonsense. If someone wants something, they can work and save and earn that something. To me, that work ethic (which I realize is a poisonous phrase to some) is worth 1000x the value to society as handing it out free. We're not talking about food or shelter or clothing - we're talking about things that enhance but do not sustain life. They are, in fact, luxury items (versus necessities). My investment in community is making my work available. I earned the right to be compensated for that availability because I did the work. Define earn? Seriously? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/earn
