Who do you trust?

I understand you completely. The point is.
What do you want to get in return? Money? Or what?
I already answered for myself. "Information must be free."
Anyone, who wishes to take it, just go ahead, i dont mind.
Know what? I write songs too, but im not afraid to send it to my friends, or share it.
If anyone could have a use of it, i would be glad, and i dont want money for that.
Also, ive made a few websites, and i even was offered money for that, but i rejected it. "Im altruist" i said. And even didnt leave any messages in those sites, like "designed by super-puper-mega Urn" at the bottom of the page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geohound

you do know who I'm talking about don't you? CENSORED_87
I had to censor the first part

Clue: He started one very horrible thread

---

Whos' this 'censored' guy?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lagwagon_87

Whos' this 'censored' guy?!

---

Someone I love...... :stud: :cool:

Copyrights suck.

How can you patent an idea? It's a horrible thing to actually put a price tag to someone's creativity and make it exclusive. Tomorrow you'll have someone telling you they discovered water, so it's theirs.

Bloody capitalism.

I know this is too random and nonsensical. I will explain in due time if people care.

Patents are made pretty much just for ideas.

And yes...they suck.

You can't make intellect a property. That's just sad. You can, and it is being done. But it's just sad that it is being done, b/c making them exclusive is not for credit but for money. Greedy pigs. But just not sharing something that is meant to be shared=sad.

Just imagine, if Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Grig were worried about copyrights.
Then, they would not created their musical masterpieces, or even if they would, wed pay a lots of money to get sheets with notes, or hear it. Noncence, isnt it? Art is free!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urn

Just imagine, if Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Grig were worried about copyrights.
Then, they would not created their musical masterpieces, or even if they would, wed pay a lots of money to get sheets with notes, or hear it. Noncence, isnt it? Art is free!

---

It's a different thing if you're making a living out of selling your art and creativity, but making it exclusive is just denying growth of art and creativity.

Quote:

---

It's a different thing if you're making a living out of selling your art and creativity

---

Thats disgustin.

Elaborate Urn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urn

Thats disgustin.

---

You don't think somebody should be able to make a living off of art?

Sure, it's easy enough to see that the reason any artist creates is not because of money. However an artist still did work, and deserves not to be robbed of that. Otherwise an artist would spend much time laboring at something else, and not even have time to create (or as much).

If an artist wants to give away his or her work, or at least some of it, more power to him/her. However we don't have some right to the art that artists create, that's just silly.

I have to disagree with you Xaenn. Or atleast confirm what you're trying to say before I chose to disagree with you:P

Quote:

---

If an artist wants to give away his or her work, or at least some of it, more power to him/her. However we don't have some right to the art that artists create, that's just silly.

---

I'm assuming 'give away' means to sell, so you say it's the artist's choice to sell, eh? I agree with that. However, we do have a right to what the artist creates. (This is Marx's creative production btw), we have the right to view this artist's work, which doesn't imply we break into his/her house and steal it to see it, but besides that, we should also have the right to replicate his work, with his permission, if in a way they feel convinced they can make it better or make it different, why deny someone the pleasure of viewing it. Personally, my problem with copyrights is that it makes things the exclusive property of peopl, property is fine, and being the architect/parent of something is fine, but making it exclusive is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dingy

I'm assuming 'give away' means to sell, so you say it's the artist's choice to sell, eh? I agree with that. However, we do have a right to what the artist creates. (This is Marx's creative production btw), we have the right to view this artist's work, which doesn't imply we break into his/her house and steal it to see it, but besides that, we should also have the right to replicate his work, with his permission, if in a way they feel convinced they can make it better or make it different, why deny someone the pleasure of viewing it. Personally, my problem with copyrights is that it makes things the exclusive property of peopl, property is fine, and being the architect/parent of something is fine, but making it exclusive is not.

---

When I said give away, I meant give away. As in an artist who writes five songs has the choice whether or not they want to give them away for free. But if the artist doesn't wish to, we are not suddenly entitled to those songs.

I personally don't think that copyrights are a problem. I think keeping things open is good, but not necessary.

However I think patents are digusting.

Agreed.
BTW, threadstarter, you think dloading roms and emulators is legal? So stop bothering with such questions %))

the only person i really trust in the whole world is Kofi Annan. Or Brad Pitt.