I'm sick of goddamned streaming services

"appreciation, reactions, and their own productions that build on mine"

I didn't know that stuff was currency. You can use that stuff to pay for all the other stuff that went into making the work?

Well problem solved.

No, it does not provide everything you need to produce creative work, but it provides one of those needs, an indispensable one, and one that cannot be replaced with money, although it makes it a LOT more likely that I can monetize elsewhere. So no, it isn't true that creators receive nothing in these exchanges.

All true. Plus there have been tons of struggling musicians who haven't found their big break yet but who got a whole lot of "appreciation" from female fans if you know what I mean.

Preventing all theft is as impossible as ever. Doesn't mean we should stop trying.

While it is true the marketplace is changing (along with mediums of exchange), that doesn't abrogate ownership and laws protecting property. Enforcement is largely up to the damaged party, and that's where you as the owner can decide whether you've received adequate compensation.

True story:
Once I created a website featuring a work I created. I was happy to share this freely and have others build on my ideas.

In creating the site, I lifted incidental artwork from the web for use as a background.

This bothered me. After several days I decided I liked the graphic enough to keep using it, but sent the artist a payment (he had an online marketplace) and emailed him telling him what I'd done and offering what I thought was fair payment. He agreed to this amount, and requested I give him credit for the piece on the site. I did.

Subsequently a friend was self-publishing a book and needed an artist to do the cover graphics. I put him in touch with the artist and they did several books (and covers) together. Of course my friend paid a fee.

In the world of freely distributed digital media, how would the artist continue to eat if people didn't pay him? Unlike him, I have a day job.

Did your friend decide he liked the artist's work because he saw it on your site, or because you had paid the artist?

Because he asked me if I knew anyone that could do a cover.

Anyone randomly viewing the site would have known how to contact the artist because I entered an agreement with him that gave him credit and contact information in the site's credit page.

Since then I abide by fair use when posting other's works, or use media in the public domain, or create my own.

I'm guilty of finding "alternative" means to frequently watch shows that I'm not sure about. But I also have about 2,000 Blu Ray discs and twice that many books, as well as a fully-paid-for iTunes library. If I like the product, I'll buy it. I'm not trying to rationalize or make excuses. Yes I download stuff. I also probably spend quite a bit more than the average consumer on media. I'm not sure where the middle ground is between the two dichotomies, but the first person or corporation to figure it out will make billions. The genie's out of the bottle in terms of pirated content and no amount of heavy-handedness is going to put it back.

Of course ownership derives from the act of creation. What copyright laws are you in favor of removing?

I think you're rationalizing bad behavior.

I'm fully aware of what I'm doing. I'm just saying the internet has fundamentally changed the way media is delivered and the studios are playing catch-up. I gave the Napster example earlier in this thread. Apple figured out a way and hopefully the Hollywood studios will, too. I have a lot of friends in the entertainment business (some of whom you would recognize) and they will be the first to say the entire distribution model is fundamentally broken. But that still doesn't excuse piracy in any way. All it does is demonstrate that, like water, consumers will find the path of least resistance.

Using your system, owners cannot sell their "ownership." This would limit the creators' revenue streams. This has broad impacts that I see stifling creativity.

How would this make pirating movies and subsequent streaming OK?

As do all thieves as well...

It's the system in most Western non-common law countries. I don't see it stifling creativity any more than the American version. But if your argument truly is about morals rather than convenience, shouldn't you support creators' rights regardless?

It won't directly, although it will make it much more likely that I can monetize elsewhere. But I am arguing against @Paladin's pointed claim that I receive nothing from this exchange. What I receive is as necessary for creation as money. It doesn't replace money, but money can't replace it either.

I see him supporting the rights of the creators far more than you.

Your argument seems to be if pirated media is available freely on the Internet that it's OK to pirate media.

If this is true, then the value of your opinions has lessened. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I may have confused your argument with WAB's.

How do you feel about identity theft?

Well, he's supporting the rights of the entertainment industry that buys from the creators. That can and does go either way for the actual creators.

No, that is not remotely what I said. My argument is that IP is a fiction, and you have to show that that fiction is useful in order to get people to support it. Just claiming it is obvious in some way doesn't help anyone, because it clearly isn't.

I don't think WAB agrees with your summary either, but he'll speak for himself.

A misnomer. It is something that is criminal because it is used to commit other crimes. If you empty my bank account by pretending to be me, your crime is emptying my bank account.

It's still the creator's choice what rights they sell. You would be limiting the value of what they sell.

No. That is a capitalist myth, both in general and very specifically under current US copyright law. In general, oligopolies and cartels severely limit a creator's choice in how to sell his creations. But in addition, the way that copyright is set up now means that a creator who has created a story about Superman can only sell it to 1 buyer; and that applies even if said creator also created the character of Superman in the first place!

Just claiming that intellectual property is a fiction, doesn't make it so. I tend to agree with native americans that land ownership is a fiction. Does this make it a fiction? The behavior of China and other countries that freely pirate media doesn't lend weight to your argument.

So the act of accessing private information and sharing it shouldn't be criminalized. ok...

This is one "myth" that protects the individual. That it also protects corporations and other partnerships may be unfortunate, but it also gives the individual a market to sell to.

How does corporate ownership limit the creator's choices in selling his own creations? The sales of an intellectual property aren't absolute. Licensures also exist that would allow intellectual property to be sold to many under any form of restriction agreed to by both parties.

Patent law is another subject. How do you feel about it? It seems you are arguing there should be no patents as well.