The Current Events Thread

Ersatz · **Joined:** Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:52 pm **Posts:** 2278

AquaBat wrote:

Are you even reading what I post?

Are you? You keep contradicting your previous posts.

AquaBat wrote:

Anyway, what independent artists are affected by things like reposts on the Internet? Internet meme creators? That's really the only thing that I can think of [...] Meanwhile people who make real art like paintings and shit aren't usually discovered by any big companies or social media reposters.

AquaBat wrote:

How am I choosing what deserves legal attention?

Here you introduce a dichotomy between what is "real art" according to you and what isn't and dismiss the latter as just a bunch of stupid memes undeserving of legal protection. You're saying small, "unimportant" artists don't need to legally own their output because it's unlikely to be stolen (which really isn't the case) and sucks anyways, and that established, "real" artists can afford to pay to enforce their copyright (which isn't true either). I'm not the one who brought up "real" vs "fake" (???) art, you did. How would you uphold a law that only applies to "real" art? Where is the line? Intellectual property is intellectual property.

AquaBat wrote:

As long as they can manage to deal with that one asshole without any problems, or never encounter an asshole like that at all, they're fine. Then they can set aside some cheddar for registration and then they'll be totally protected.

How exactly? Do you think artists can seriously sue every art thief or just politely ask them to take their stolen artwork down?

AquaBat wrote:

Syobon wrote:

It's a really backwards idea to charge people for something that should be a basic right.

Gun licenses work the exact same way, and the right to bear arms forms the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

No it doesn't. Having to pay a license to own a gun doesn't take away your right to own one. The right is still there. That bill would remove the right to claim ownership of content you created by virtue of being its creator. It would actively take that right from everyone. It's not a matter of whether or not artists can work it out, it's about the fundamental right to own your creations. It would be like saying you don't own whatever you buy in a store and bring into your house until you file some form and pay a fee, and that people should be allowed to steal from you if you're not around.

Shad · **Joined:** Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:43 pm **Posts:** 15289

that's all great and all but the orphan works copyright act is a hoax/ a very exaggerated interpretation of actual things happening
http://graphicpolicy.com/2015/07/20/don ... -congress/

TheStranger · **Posted:** Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:03 pm

Am I the only one who's getting tired of being told I have to freak out about some new copyright or censorship bullshit every other week? "The Goverment is taking our Internet! DeviantArt is the Anti-Christ! The record companies are coming to sodomize you!!"

I'm starting to get numb to the whole carousel

AquaBat · **Joined:** Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:26 pm **Posts:** 2373

Obnosim wrote:

AquaBat wrote:

Are you even reading what I post?

Are you? You keep contradicting your previous posts.

Where?

Quote:

Here you introduce a dichotomy between what is "real art" according to you and what isn't and dismiss the latter as just a bunch of stupid memes undeserving of legal protection. You're saying small, "unimportant" artists don't need to legally own their output because it's unlikely to be stolen (which really isn't the case) and sucks anyways, and that established, "real" artists can afford to pay to enforce their copyright (which isn't true either). I'm not the one who brought up "real" vs "fake" (???) art, you did. How would you uphold a law that only applies to "real" art? Where is the line? Intellectual property is intellectual property.

Point to me where I said "this does not deserve legal protection". "YEAH BUT I SAY YOU WERE THINKING IT!" doesn't cut it.

Quote:

How exactly? Do you think artists can seriously sue every art thief or just politely ask them to take their stolen artwork down?

Do you think that less popular artists have thousands of people copying their art daily like popular artists do? No. They don't.

Quote:

It would be like saying you don't own whatever you buy in a store and bring into your house until you file some form and pay a fee, and that people should be allowed to steal from you if you're not around.

This comparison is completely off base. You have already paid for an item you buy at the store. You have exchanged legal tender for the ownership of the goods. You have the human right to food and water, no? Then I suppose you believe that all food should be free, according to this comparison.

Riku · **Posted:** Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:19 pm

Ooooookay, so, given that Great Handsome Oppressor has been kind enough to find an article about why this whole argument is now pointless, I'm going to say everyone needs to chill out.

Syobon · **Joined:** Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:34 am **Posts:** 15027

Le Great Handsome Oppressor wrote:

that's all great and all but the orphan works copyright act is a hoax/ a very exaggerated interpretation of actual things happening
http://graphicpolicy.com/2015/07/20/don ... -congress/

That's good.

TheStranger wrote:

Am I the only one who's getting tired of being told I have to freak out about some new copyright or censorship bullshit every other week? "The Goverment is taking our Internet! DeviantArt is the Anti-Christ! The record companies are coming to sodomize you!!"

I'm starting to get numb to the whole carousel

That is precisely why they keep trying to pass that sort of legislation, they know most people will stop caring after a while (ignoring the fact that this particular one wasn't that).

TheStranger · **Posted:** Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:13 pm

Syobon wrote:

Le Great Handsome Oppressor wrote:

that's all great and all but the orphan works copyright act is a hoax/ a very exaggerated interpretation of actual things happening
http://graphicpolicy.com/2015/07/20/don ... -congress/

That's good.

TheStranger wrote:

Am I the only one who's getting tired of being told I have to freak out about some new copyright or censorship bullshit every other week? "The Goverment is taking our Internet! DeviantArt is the Anti-Christ! The record companies are coming to sodomize you!!"

I'm starting to get numb to the whole carousel

That is precisely why they keep trying to pass that sort of legislation, they know most people will stop caring after a while (ignoring the fact that this particular one wasn't that).

Yeah well its working, so unless someone has a more permanent solution in mind, its kind of inevitable

Ersatz · **Joined:** Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:52 pm **Posts:** 2278

AquaBat wrote:

Point to me where I said "this does not deserve legal protection".

I give up. You've got to be a freaking troll to be this dense and hypocritical about everything all the time with everybody about issues you don't care about just to make sure no one else has the last word about anything ever.

As Riku suggested, I am now dropping out of this conversation.

AquaBat · **Joined:** Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:26 pm **Posts:** 2373

If you were dropping out of the conversation, you didn't need to make a post saying "I give up" and proceeding to insult my points of view just because I don't agree with you.

Riku · **Posted:** Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:28 pm

>:C

You can't see it, but I am frowning SUPER hard right now.

[Citation Needed] · **Posted:** Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:02 am

I was so sure that was your giant nose. :awesomeface:

>:C)

Blitz Walrus · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2015 3:32 am

???

!!!

Syobon · **Joined:** Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:34 am **Posts:** 15027

My bet is this is just a storyline of some sort.

AquaBat · **Joined:** Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:26 pm **Posts:** 2373

Dammit, Hulk Hogan was supposed to save us from Gawker's shitty journalism

Misterme7 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:13 am

Dear god why

AWKWARD ZOMBIE

The Current Events Thread

Who is online