No, you are discussing what is best for you. Society is composed of creative people who must sell their products to be a part of society. Just because a product is electronic, you imagine its author has no further right to sell it. Well, you are wrong. The law disagrees and society disagrees. People know that movies and books and music and other creative work will not exist if the authors cannot be paid. This tells you are lying. I'm a totally involved in the publishing industry and it is evolving, not dying. You are foolish enough to think that "publishing" means printing". Publishing involves much more than that. Even digital products have to be published. Someone has to organize and edit a book, account for copyrights, secure permissions, be liable for doing something illegal and distribution, even electronic distribution. Your ignorance is showing, publishers and printers are two different things. It's about what you would like. Sorry, baby can't have everything he wants. This isn't martinworld where nobody has to work for a living. I think you are trying to justify your thievery. Most of us have to work for a living. I realize you can't grok that concept. Then books, movies, music, and other creative work would cease to exist. Most people don't live an elitist urbane life on a trust fund. There exists a way that has always and will always be there. An author gets paid for his work through copyright protection from pirates like you. You are discussing your dreamland. Get real. And they buy one license and loan it out over and over. Absolutely no difference. This is how a child thinks. They have already changed it, but eliminating pay for the people that create it is a non-starter. You are too foolish to understand this. everybody else does. Bullchit. The time before publishers was the time before books. A self-serving justification for stealing from people who have actual talent.
Remind martin that what he proposes is collective ownership of books. That is to say . . . communism. We live in a capitalist country and a person is entitled to sell his work for a living and get rich by it, if he's good enough. You don't want that though, you want what's best for "society", you overt socialist. Why do you hate America, Komrade?
incorrect. there are some arbitrary talents that creative people can ake a profit off. a writer may make money. a ballerina probably wont, because the market only supports a few professional ballerinas. which creative professions happen to be profitable is pretty arbitrary. if you happen to be a gifted graffitti artist, you are probably out of luck and will have to work in the no-creative sector. and yet books like the bible and virtually infinite others were written before copyright and publishing houses existed. editing and marketing. and we can do without the marketing. yes, creative people hate to express themselves. things like youtube and cheap production have only discourage the production of content, right? not according to harpercollins and the big publishing houses. they want to limit how many times the books can be loaned. 26 times. this is like saying music didnt exist before records
clearly not true. you can be really good at tons of creative things and not make a living doing them. the market only supports certain things. like my example before. there what, 500 professional ballerinas in the world? most of us have probably never been to a professional ballet. and how many little girls are still dancing? they do it because it is fun and creative and they love it. the lack of financial opportunites doesnt dissuade artists. i know people who paint. they dont get paid, and maybe they are good, i have no idea. the market doesnt support but a few painters, which i think is determined somewhat arbitrarily. and yet people still paint and they are desperate to show you. thats the way creativity works. just being creative doesnt mean you will/should get paid. you will get paid if someone pays you. there are plenty of tasks you can perform that you will get paid for. if you have something to say, you are still welcome to say it.
alexander solzhenitsyn called. he wanted me to tell you that he wrote a day in the life of ivan denisovitch hoping he would get rich. he said without the profit motive he wouldnt bother expressing himself, because he doesnt want his voice heard, he just wants dolla billz.
Nonsense. We are talking about authors of books here. Any honest person knows that authors have to be paid for their work. I realize that honesty is a difficult concept for you. More nonsense. Gutenberg was a publisher, you know. No legitimate commerce can exist without marketing. It encourages amateur productions. If you are willing for for YouTube to replace Hollywood and blogs to replace literature, then go to martinworld. Nobody is going to follow you. The market will determine if this number is workable. Not you, Komrade. More nonsense. Even sheet music is copyrighted. But it is recordings that we are talking about here. Before recording existed there was no problem with people pirating recording was there.
You are a fool who apparently knows no creative professionals. You certainly are not one. You are describing amateurs, which is not the topic. Professional writers, ballerinas, and musicians must be paid for their work. It has always been this way. What we are talking about here are people who make a living from creative work. They are not going to work for free. You can't make them. All you can do is steal if you are too selfish to pay for what you use. Or declare all creative work to be collectively owned, Komrade.
how much was john kennedy toole paid for "a confederacy of dunces"? (every english professor has an unpublished novel they havent been paid for)
He died a pauper before he could get it published. His estate made good money on his creative talent. I gladly contributed $17.95 for my copy. You stole yours, I presume.
