Creativity is free

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I pretty much see creativity as payment since it's usually so rewarding. Monetary payment is just a bonus, depending on whether people actually like what you're doing.

Creativity is fun and I would do creative things without payment even if I had to hold down a full-time non-creative job, but if I wasn't getting paid for my creativity and instead had to spend 8-10 hours a day working a full-time non-creative job, I wouldn't be able to make as much creative stuff, nor would it be nearly as good because I wouldn't have the time to put into advancing my skills.

People who pay for creativity also get rewarded, because by paying the creative people they make it possible for them to make more and better creative stuff.

[Reginald Ret]

I remember getting into a very heated argument regarding the RICH economy theory.  She was definately in the "Protestant Work Ethic" school.  She couldn't get past the fact that some people with no "job" might just sit around getting stoned all day.

heh i see that too with some people, hey guess what? its okay for some people to be lazy bastards!(<< this is the real reason i like this idea ofcourse, i wanna be paid for my laziness! so the idea must be stupid right? right?)
Damn that RAW dude! he totally stole MY idea! gurrrr

oh and for the record i don't mind creative ppl getting paid, I do mind being told not to use a skill I have just because somebody said its theirs. I want an re-evaluation of the definitions of property, if only because 'property is 9/10ths of the law' and i want teh laws to die!

Regret,
naive and angry anarchist.

[LMNO]

Hitting "play" on your ipod is a skill?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I remember getting into a very heated argument regarding the RICH economy theory.  She was definately in the "Protestant Work Ethic" school.  She couldn't get past the fact that some people with no "job" might just sit around getting stoned all day.

It's interesting to note that the so-called Millenium Generation (people graduating high school around 2000) appear to have substantially less connection with the Protestant Work Ethic than previous generations. Our HR department has run into serious challenges in trying to hire talent from this particular group... as they seem willing to forgo a high paying/high-demand job, for a low-paying/ low-demand job. Any hint that they would be expected to work more than 40 hours a week, or have any less than 14 days of vacation as a start, sends them right back to flipping burgers and dropping fries.

Of course, this appears to be the same generation that has reportedly proven incompetent  at managing a budget or understanding how credit works. In short, it appears that they may be a generation that could (in the future) move to something closer to the RICH economy (or similar concept) and further away from the Protestant Work Ethic (perhaps moving more closely to the Hacker Work Ethic as described by Pekka Himanen ). Or they could all end up as burger flipping Chanfags.

[Triple Zero]

i want teh laws to die!

naive and angry anarchist.

[Reginald Ret]

Hitting "play" on your ipod is a skill?

yes but not a very impressive one :P
seriously i was talking about recording/downloading music you haven't paid for, or the eedjots that are copyrighting genes o_0
You want to make money as an artist? perform. incidently removing all those silly copyright laws would make it impossible for big corporations to take advantage of musicians, and i asume everything will work out alright for the real artists.(weak point alert! use this to say i'm stupid if you are so inclined.)
Without the money from the music corporations no commercials will be possible thus making hyped horrors like britney spears impossible.(this is my real reason for wanting this TBH)

[AFK]

Hitting "play" on your ipod is a skill?

yes but not a very impressive one :P
seriously i was talking about recording/downloading music you haven't paid for, or the eedjots that are copyrighting genes o_0
You want to make money as an artist? perform. incidently removing all those silly copyright laws would make it impossible for big corporations to take advantage of musicians, and i asume everything will work out alright for the real artists.(weak point alert! use this to say i'm stupid if you are so inclined.)
Without the money from the music corporations no commercials will be possible thus making hyped horrors like britney spears impossible.(this is my real reason for wanting this TBH)

Copyright is more than just making money.  It's protecting an investment.  An investment of energy and creativity.  It took me two days to write and record that stupid song I uploaded yesterday.  Now, I have no intentions of ever becoming a professional recording artist, I don't have the committment or talent to make it.  However, for the sake of argument, let's say I am.  I can't tell you how pissed I'd be if after spending two days putting effort into that song, that not only are some schmucks downloading it illegally, prohibiting me from making some money, but some royal tard recorded the song, called it their own, and then made money off of MY creativity.  Intellectual property should be allowed the same protections as physical property. 

[Triple Zero]

(disclaimer: i'm not trying to argue that "violating Intellectual Property" is okay, here)

Intellectual property should be allowed the same protections as physical property.

sorry but this is impossible. i tried to point it out in similar copyright discussions we've had before.

feelings of ethics and morals and whether artists are going to be starving or not aside,

physical objects have inherently different properties compared to information.

one result of this is the sort of laws they are subject to. and i mean both the "lawbook" laws and the laws of physics/reality/information theory.

one example why intellectual property inherently cannot be granted the same protection as physical property is that no matter what the law says, you can protect your physical property simply by holding onto it.
this is why people lock their doors, even though it would be illegal for a thief to take their physical belongings if the door was open.

you cannot protect information in a similar manner. this is easily shown by the long list of failures of big corporations trying to implement DRM. DRM is pretty much nothing more than trying to turn that "etheric" substance known as "information" into something that sort-of abides by the same laws as physical objects.

you shouldn't want to protect information like that -- In My Opinion, at least. I love information, I love it exactly for those weird properties it has compared to physical objects. therefore I think it is wrong to try to take that away.

Now, don't get me wrong here. That doesn't make it right to "violate someone's Intellectual Property" (whatever that exactly means). myself, i share music illegally. but the stuff I just said above, isn't an argument trying to convince anyone that that is right.

all i'm saying is that due to the fundamental different properties of information, you can't just treat it the same way as physical property. information like this hasn't been widely available since a couple of centuries (at least in the sense that anyone cared if someone took it or not), and has only been possible to share on a massive scale since a decade or two. i don't have any proper solution either, but i do know that trying to treat information like it is a physical object, or even trying to force it to behave like a physical object is the wrong way to go about it.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Triple Zero wins 100 Internets for posting what I was thinking.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It gets even more interesting when you move the intellectual property debate into the arena of visual arts. "Copying" is a huge issue in the world of glass art (remember the Chihuly lawsuit last year?) and not only is it impossible to protect a design, a style, or a technique, it's ridiculous to even try. You can copyright photographs of your work, but not the work itself.

This upsets the shit out of some people. Personally, I feel like the only way to deal with it is to always move forward. If you're technically and creatively superior to your copiers, they won't be able to compete in your market.

[AFK]

one example why intellectual property inherently cannot be granted the same protection as physical property is that no matter what the law says, you can protect your physical property simply by holding onto it.
this is why people lock their doors, even though it would be illegal for a thief to take their physical belongings if the door was open.

A thief can still intrude to take your physical property.  (i.e. knock the door down).  Just as there is an intrusion when music, movies, etc. are illegally procured and then distributed.  It's the same idea as someone breaking and entering, and then putting the loot in the black market.  I don't buy that because one is solid and one is not that means that which is not solid cannot be protected.  It can be, it may be harder, but sometimes the hard things are worth doing.  This is a case where I believe it is worth doing. 

you shouldn't want to protect information like that -- In My Opinion, at least. I love information, I love it exactly for those weird properties it has compared to physical objects. therefore I think it is wrong to try to take that away.

I completely disagree.  Again, I personally have no problem sharing my creative pursuits free of charge, because to me it's just a hobby.  But I understand how someone who actually does it for a living wants to protect their investment of time and energy.  It may be information, but it is still a product of labor.  That you can't hold it in your hand, imo, makes no difference. 

[Requia ☣]

The difference is that with physical, if one person breaks in, then only that person can steal it, when you lock the door the next day, you are secure until somebody else who can pick locks or knock doors off their hinges shows up.

With IP, when one person unlocks it, everybody on the planet suddenly who has enough brainpower to install a program can now get past your locks.

[AFK]

Huh?  They don't need to break in again because the bozo's already downloaded your tunes and is broadcasting them across the internet.  They don't need to come to you to steal your IP, it'll be freely available.  Which is why I believe if it can be protected it should be protected.  The theft of Intellectual Property can be much more damaging to the holder because of the ease of replication.  Someone steals your ming vase, it's only one vase and you can go buy another if you want.  But, someone steals your next hit record, copies it, makes it freely available, now you are eating into someone's livelihood.  Once that toothpaste is out of the tube, you can't get it back in. 

[Requia ☣]

I mean more in terms that once one guy figures out how to break a type of lock.  (AACS for example), he can then create a program that will break every lock of that type, not just the single one he ripped.

[Cain]

The theft isn't of the object itself, its the potential earnings.