File Downloaders

[iamrob]

The RIAA shouldn't be able to go after the peopel who 'download' the illegal mp3s. Since the material is not in it's orginal state and has been modifed isn't the file downloader downloading something that has no copy right?

[rainbowdemon]

It does not work that way. This issue has been adressed before. I realize you are a new member, but search before posting. There is a lot of information here.

http://zeropaid.com/bbs/index.php?s= btw Welcome to ZP!!

[CaptainMorgan]

iamrob,

I have very slow thread on a mathmatically logical argument of this same point.

I invite you to comment there if you think appropriate.
Digital Copyright an Oxymoron? (http://zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=14277)

Welcome to the zeropaid.
CaptainMorgan

[jonnymnemonic]

But reading back over it, I saw this comment from someone: "An artist chooses to be an artist because she or he loves his art form, not because of the money."

Man, where did that come from? Do people really believe that? Where have they been? Michelangelo was paid a LOT for David and especially for the Sistine Chapel. That doesn't mean he wasn't an artist and that what he created wasn't art - obviously it was *supreme* art, almost otherworldly. He just figured that he had lots of people who wanted his art, so he picked out the projects that intrigued him the most and that, yes, paid him the best. I don't think he wanted to be a starving artist and simply found it preferable to be a rich artist. But had he not been paid well for the Sistine Chapel, he would definitely have done something else, and that loss would have been more OUR loss than his.

The same is true of Rembrandt and many other great artists. They didn't work 9 to 5 at the local McBeef then go home and paint masterpieces because of their love for painting. They worked *entirely* on their painting, and acquired as much wealth as possible while they did it.

Remove compensation from the arts across history and our cultural heritage would be damn bare. Not empty, mind you (some rich people who never needed money were talented artists), but the cultural cupboard would nevertheless be quite lacking compared to its state today without financial incentive providing the impetus for many of the great works.

[aqlo]

They worked *entirely* on their painting, and acquired as much wealth as possible But they also went through hard times man.

Da Vinci worked as an apprentice for many years and people are constantly debating whether this or that thing might have been partly painted by him that he got no credit for and his pay was mostly room-and-board-and-education.

Michelangelo was a sculptor, he loved to sculpt, he would have rather sculpt all day than eat. Have you seen the Sistine chapel? Looks great to us but for him it was a house-painting job to make ends meet.

[fernandez]

Don't forget Van Gogh jonnymnemonic, he lived in poverty and sold exactly one painting during his life. He also relinquished all of his former jobs in favor of art.

[jonnymnemonic]

I will admit I purposely left out Van Gogh, because even though he tried to make a living off his work, he never did, and it wasn't until he was dead that people really appreciated him.

Still, I believe my point is valid. There ARE exceptions, to be sure, I will admit that. But in any case, is that what we would wish on our artists of today - a life like Van Gogh's, where we'll be glad to show our appreciation for the artists, but only after they're dead? ;)