The Brief Plagiarism Report by Charles Manson (secrets of sputnikmusic.com exposed!)

[Charlie Manson]

The (Brief) Plagiarism Report by Charles Manson


Introduction
Plagiarism in reviews
Plagiarism in band biographies
Attitudes toward plagiarism
Solution


I. Introduction

Recently it came to my attention that the website administrator, Jeremy Ferwerda, has received an e-mail in regard to a user spotting plagiarist reviews on the sputnikmusic.com website. I immediately launched an investigation into these claims. I quickly uncovered that the very respected user Txus had, infact, plagiarised every review he ever had submitted. A more thorough investigation revealed plagiarisers have infiltrated sputnikmusic, and it's not just the new members. The full extent may never be known, but there is d0cumented evidence now that demonstrates that both veteran and staff users practice plagiarism.

II. Plagerism in Reviews

This is, thankfully, not widespread. But as I mentioned earlier, it's recently been uncovered that all reviews by the respected user Txus were completely plagiarised from rival CD review sites. It was also uncovered that the user Pixiesfansyo (currently a staff member of Sputnik) has used plagiarised material from Yahoo in atleast one of his reviews. This is tottally unacceptable and they should be punished and the have the offending reviews deleted from the site.

Txus plagiarism: http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13922203&postcount=5
Pixies plagiarism: http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13933575&postcount=19

III. Plagerism in band biographies.

This is extremely widespread. I estimate that one in 4 band biographies are completely plagerised, usually from sites such as wikipedia. Thor, a news mod, has said that he is guilty of passing of wikipedia articles as his own writing, but is quick in pointing out he is not alone in this practice. More on this later. Here are just three of the many examples here of what I'm talking about.

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/band/Dinosaur+Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_Jr

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/band/Ulver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulver

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/band/Prussian+Blue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Blue_%28duo%29

Although I have reported these, and more, cases to the sputnik music staff no action appears to be being taken.

IV. Attitudes toward plagiarism throughout the community.

This part was the most startling and eye opening discovery. While most sputnik user's look unfavourably on plagiarising entire reviews, many do not see a problem with plagerising supplementary paragraphs from public domain sources such as wikipedia. To illustrate my point I will quote a post made by the moderator Thor:

“Well I'm sure tons of reviewers on the site have borrowed from wikipedia before (including myself)...at least for band bios. But we're not going to get permabanned for it or anything.” -Thor

I find this view is unacceptable. Plagiarising even a single paragraph should be a “permabanned” level offence, not to mention the offending material should be deleted. Many users, including vetran users, mistakingly do not release the difference between copyright infringement and plagiarism. This was illustrated when the user Jom attempted to undermine my report of a band biography completely copied and pasted from Wikipedia.

“Wikipedia falls under the GFDL, and information in the public domain can be used for whatever reason... ...any person can take that information and copy it, change it, or do whatever he or she pleases with it since that person waived his/her right to copyright the text.” -Jom

This is completely incorrect. The GFDL allows uses to reproduce the material, not pass it off as their own.

V.Solution

Jeremy Ferwerda should firstly take action against the offenders, regardless of whether they are staff or not. His inaction just further reiterates the message that “plagiarism is okay.” He then should delete every plagiarist paragraph from his site.Finally, he then needs to found a board that checks all new material submitted for plagiarisms.

Good day,
Charles Manson

[coheneran]

All creativity is a product of the world's impact on the individual, and can therefore belong to nobody, thus making plagiarism of anything impossible.

(C)opyleft.

[Give me Beer]

Although I would prefer people to mention their source and if they copy wikipedia to give credit where credit is due. This all seems a bit of an overreaction. It's not like this is a University or a company, users are doing this in their free time for their own enjoyment, not as employees or students. Thus their submitting this material does not have any positive consequences for them IRL, hence it would be ridicilous to punish them for it.

[John Paul Harrison]

I don't think the band bios can be considered plagiarism, seeing as how nobody has tried to claim any kind of authorship of them.

[semi]

it has consequences on the site irl though.
why were tabs taken down then?

[Akira]

Although I would prefer people to mention their source and if they copy wikipedia to give credit where credit is due. This all seems a bit of an overreaction. It's not like this is a University or a company, users are doing this in their free time for their own enjoyment, not as employees or students. Thus their submitting this material does not have any positive consequences for them IRL, hence it would be ridicilous to punish them for it.

I disagree. A lot of people care about this site. No it's not a company, but I know I still care if the reviews are morally sound. The fact that submissions don't have positive consequences actually disturbs me, in the sense that people are plagiarizing with no personal gain except possible increased status on a web forum. I don't want people like that on this site.

[semi]

um it is a company mx makes money from ad reviews.

[Give me Beer]

It's a website, take some emotional distance then.

MX makes money from ads, okay, but the individuals that are commiting the plagiarism are not employed by him, nor do they receive any financial gain from doing it. It doesn't go on their CV either.

I have no problem with these review being deleted, but perma-banning users for it seems like a gross-overreaction.

The Tabs were taken down because some twats forgot that music is not about making money.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

All creativity is a product of the world's impact on the individual, and can therefore belong to nobody, thus making plagiarism of anything impossible.

uh no

[semi]

he said he means under communism nhs. he wasnt srs.

[Akira]

It's a website, take some emotional distance then.

I have plenty of distance. Will I lose sleep over plagiarism on here? Of course not. But I still don't think it is acceptable. If nothing else, delete the current plagiarized examples, and ban users if it happens again. Which is what Jeremy is essentially doing, he is giving users a week to get rid of bad reviews.

[coheneran]

he said he means under communism nhs. he wasnt srs.

No I wasn't, and yes I was, respectively. Logic is logic, regardless of the current economic system.

[Akira]

No I wasn't, and yes I was, respectively. Logic is logic, regardless of the current economic system.

If that first post really was serious, I am not sure you understand plagiarism. Plagiarism has nothing to do with copying someone else's ideas, as you seem to state. Plagiarism is passing off a work of someone else's that is either unchanged or changed a small amount as your own work.

[coheneran]

If that first post really was serious, I am not sure you understand plagiarism. Plagiarism has nothing to do with copying someone else's ideas, as you seem to state. Plagiarism is passing off a work of someone else's that is either unchanged or changed a small amount as your own work.

So plagiarism isn't about who owns the information, it's about who created it?

If that's the case, what does it matter who puts their name on your work? You wrote it, isn't the satisfaction of knowing you've written it enough for you?

[lunchforthesky]

When reviewing i have looked at other peoples reviews, looked at wikipedia etc.. but ive never copied anything, for one thing i thought i'd get caught. I dont really see the point in pretending something is yours over the internet.

[PerpetualBurn]

So plagiarism isn't about who owns the information, it's about who created it?


It's about the person whose work it is getting credit for it.

It's why I have to hand in my own work at Uni rather than 300 students handing in the same essay.

[Scythe404]

Okay, can someone tell me the long, mysterious tale of the what-the-living-hell happened to Plexi since I stopped hanging around here regularly?

His deepening madness amuses me.

[PerpetualBurn]

Someone should write up the chronicles of Plexi.

It would make a good read of his infamous history.

[italic zero]

Just put some paranthetical notation on the band bios that are copied from wiki and I don't see the problem. Those copying reviews should be banned, yes.

[Apollyon]

IP laws only apply under the condition of the author holding either a patent or a copyright for the written document. You can't just claim copyright status and expect the legal benefits of actually holding a valid copyright to apply. Under the circumstances, IP laws don't apply to any review posted to Sputnikmusic.com, or any other website that lacks valid, authorized copyrights for their written material. Therefore, plagiarism in a legal sense is impossible to claim here.

From the other thread.

[coheneran]

It's about the person whose work it is getting credit for it.

It's why I have to hand in my own work at Uni rather than 300 students handing in the same essay.

I thought we weren't allowed to copy during education because the whole point is to show that we understand what we were taught. I think it's a different reason that copyright laws. Copyright laws are about money rather than education/information.

[Akira]

I thought we weren't allowed to copy during education because the whole point is to show that we understand what we were taught. I think it's a different reason that copyright laws. Copyright laws are about money rather than education/information.

Copyright infringement and plagiarism aren't the same. As was discuss in one of these threads, you can plagiarize something from the public domain.

[italic zero]

moreover you can get into trouble for copyright infringement without plagiarizing it, which I think you should be more concerned about

[coheneran]

Plagiarising for the purpose of information is, I'd say, still different to plagiarising for the purpose of getting a good grade.

[coheneran]

Besides which, nobody has any sort of right (determined by logic, of course) to own information, because all our ideas are products of reactions to things we experience.

[italic zero]

blank slate is bullshit

[Petros]

Besides which, nobody has any sort of right (determined by logic, of course) to own information, because all our ideas are products of reactions to things we experience.

1) All our ideas are products of reactions to things we experience
2) Therefore nobody has any sort of right to own information.

It doesn't follow logically. Why do people not have a right to own information?

[coheneran]

1) All our ideas are products of reactions to things we experience
2) Therefore nobody has any sort of right to own information.

It doesn't follow logically. Why do people not have a right to own information?

They have no right to own information because they can't claim originality to that information, all they can claim is that they were the first to put it down like they did. But that is still a product of experiences which belong to nobody. Full ownership in the capitalist sense is illogical, therefore, because nobody can own something 100%, nothing is fully original.

[pixiesfanyo]

lol.

[Petros]

They have no right to own information because they can't claim originality to that information, all they can claim is that they were the first to put it down like they did. But that is still a product of experiences which belong to nobody. Full ownership in the capitalist sense is illogical, therefore, because nobody can own something 100%, nothing is fully original.

You need to first establish how ideas and personal experiences are equivalent to information. Why can't they claim originality to their ideas? They were the first people to think of it. Do ideas exist in some realm outside of the natural realm of human experience, and we only observe them?

Why is full ownership in the capitalist sense illogical? I'm just curious so I can understand your position here.

[italic zero]

They have no right to own information because they can't claim originality to that information, all they can claim is that they were the first to put it down like they did. But that is still a product of experiences which belong to nobody. Full ownership in the capitalist sense is illogical, therefore, because nobody can own something 100%, nothing is fully original.
Only in the way that free will doesn't exist.

[coheneran]

You need to first establish how ideas and personal experiences are equivalent to information. Why can't they claim originality to their ideas? They were the first people to think of it. Do ideas exist in some realm outside of the natural realm of human experience, and we only observe them?

Why is full ownership in the capitalist sense illogical? I'm just curious so I can understand your position here.

In this context, my meaning of information is anything that isn't material, so, the contents of a book or newspaper, the contents of CDs, tapes, DVDs etc, ideas, anything.

You can't claim absolute originality for an idea (or text or piece of music) because something, usually many things, have inspired you in some way (inspiration in a broad sense, so it encompasses expansion on an idea, a brand new idea, an emotion that gave way to an artistic expression, etc) to create whatever it is you've created. An experience or a muse, if you like, doesn't belong to anyone, let alone any one person, but is an event that is created by a multitude of many many factors, more often directly involving other people.

In that way, one person cannot claim full credit for any information she "created", because so many unrecogniseable factors have been involved in bringing that information to life. So, while I have no problem with someone writing a book and then saying, "I wrote this book, but I got the idea from...", I have a serious problem with people making money from information that they allegedly "invented".

Only in the way that free will doesn't exist.

What do you mean?

[italic zero]

If we can't take credit for our ideas we can't be held accountable for our actions.

[Charlie Manson]

In this context, my meaning of information is anything that isn't material, so, the contents of a book or newspaper, the contents of CDs, tapes, DVDs etc, ideas, anything.

You can't claim absolute originality for an idea (or text or piece of music) because something, usually many things, have inspired you in some way (inspiration in a broad sense, so it encompasses expansion on an idea, a brand new idea, an emotion that gave way to an artistic expression, etc) to create whatever it is you've created. An experience or a muse, if you like, doesn't belong to anyone, let alone any one person, but is an event that is created by a multitude of many many factors, more often directly involving other people.

In that way, one person cannot claim full credit for any information she "created", because so many unrecogniseable factors have been involved in bringing that information to life. So, while I have no problem with someone writing a book and then saying, "I wrote this book, but I got the idea from...", I have a serious problem with people making money from information that they allegedly "invented".



What do you mean?
This applies more to copyright than plagiarism.


Plagiarism is more equivilient to lying and fraud. Surely you must agree it would be wrong if I changed the ID3 tags on a Andrea Bochelli mp3 and then submitted it to a radio station saying it was me singing?

[coheneran]

If we can't take credit for our ideas we can't be held accountable for our actions.

Like I said (possibly in the other thread, I'll get right on top of merging that =\), I have no problem with someone signing their name on a piece of "information", only with people profitting from information.

It's arguable that people aren't responsible for their own actions, and to an extent, I'd say that's true (society is partly responsible for people like Hitler etc). But only to the same extent that someone writing an insurrectionary pamphlet (am reading Common Sense right now) is to blame for that pamphlet; not fully to blame, following logic, but still partly.

I'd say both society and the dictator should be held accountable for the dictator's actions. We shouldn't have let it happen. We did, so we are partly to blame.

[Charlie Manson]

Why is it people like you have to start making comparisions to hitler all the time?

[coheneran]

Just the first evil dude I could think of. Charlie Manson's also partly to blame on society.

[Charlie Manson]

Are you intentionally ignoring post 34 in this thread?

[coheneran]

Oh, sorry, I missed that one.

Like I said earlier, I have no problem with someone signing their name on a piece of work, but only with people trying to make money out of art. Art (in this context, any "intellectual property") should not be created for money. Art is a sacrifice the artist makes for the betterment of society. I don't care if you sign your name on whatever crappy obscure-minimalist-guitarist-you-listen-to's work, as long as you don't try to make money out of it.

[Akira]

Why shouldn't an artist make money on a song? Along the same lines, should all software be shareware? It seems logical to extend your opinion to the point where you cannot sell a piece of software.

[Smokey D]

No I wasn't, and yes I was, respectively. Logic is logic, regardless of the current economic system.

It's a stupid system that denies human agency.

[Dave de Sylvia]

This is extremely widespread. I estimate that one in 4 band biographies are completely plagerised, usually from sites such as wikipedia.
Band bios can't be plagiarised because the contributors make no claim to authorship. I'm not sure what's inspired this latest display of mental flatulence, Plex, but it definitely amuses the amateur psychologist in me.

How he's gonna misspell "plagiarism" next? Nobody knows!

[Apollyon]

You need to first establish how ideas and personal experiences are equivalent to information. Why can't they claim originality to their ideas? They were the first people to think of it. Do ideas exist in some realm outside of the natural realm of human experience, and we only observe them?

Why is full ownership in the capitalist sense illogical? I'm just curious so I can understand your position here.

How can you prove they were the first ones to think of that idea without a copyright? Anyone who says IP plagiarism and copyright infringement don't fall hand in hand is just simply ignorant. You aren't committing a crime of any nature if there isn't evidence to justify the claim in defense.

[Petros]

How can you prove they were the first ones to think of that idea without a copyright?

You can't and it wasn't really what I was thinking of. I was curious how he considered ideas and experience = information.

[Apollyon]

You can't and it wasn't really what I was thinking of. I was curious how he considered ideas and experience = information.

Oh ok, fair enough.

[Charlie Manson]

How can you prove they were the first ones to think of that idea without a copyright? Anyone who says IP plagiarism and copyright infringement don't fall hand in hand is just simply ignorant. You aren't committing a crime of any nature if there isn't evidence to justify the claim in defense.
Plagerism does not refer to ideas. Plagerism refers to sentences and paragraphs of text.

I may write a poem and not copyright it. It's still plagiarism if someone copies my poem and passes it off as their own work.

[Charlie Manson]

You aren't committing a crime of any nature if there isn't evidence to justify the claim in defense.

So you aren't committing a crime if you murder someone but don't leave enough evidence to convict you?

[Apollyon]

Plagerism does not refer to ideas. Plagerism refers to sentences and paragraphs of text.

I may write a poem and not copyright it. It's still plagiarism if someone copies my poem and passes it off as their own work.

Yes but you can throw around the word plagiarism all you want, it isn't illegal to copy and paste something from one source to another. I'm not saying it's right to pass it off as your own work, but where exactly is your case and or point in this whole ordeal? What are you trying to accomplish? What do you expect to see as the end result of this? No one is committing a crime. If you wanted to talk about an offense, then we can talk about IP laws and their relation to copyright infringement. I just don't see what you're trying to prove.

So you aren't committing a crime if you murder someone but don't leave enough evidence to convict you?

You've committed a moral misdeed, but to call it a crime would imply the application of due process of law, and to verify a crime you have to have evidence. You don't have evidence of real, illegal plagiarism without a copyright to refer to.

[PerpetualBurn]

but to call it a crime would imply the application of due process of law,

No it wouldn't.

The only thing that requires due process is when we want to punish them for the crime. Murder is a crime even if we can't convict.

[Perhaps Crickets]

For those bitching about copyright law and such, check this out: Passing a piece of writing that is NOT yours as your own is fraud.

[bradc1988]

How hard is it to reference?

[coheneran]

Why shouldn't an artist make money on a song? Along the same lines, should all software be shareware? It seems logical to extend your opinion to the point where you cannot sell a piece of software.

All software should undoubtedly be shareware. It's information, it should be shared. Every human being has an undeniable right to the information, culture and technology of the world, for the same reasons mentioned earlier.

As for making money from art: Like I said before, art is a personal sacrifice made by the artist, but unfortunately our current society and economic system forces artists to either abandon full-time creation, or sell their art. I view making art for a living as a form of prostitution. Art is something deeply personal to the artist, and it's a hard step to take in making one's art public. I think if you ask any artist about it, she'd tell you she'd prefer to be able to make her art free for everyone.

Communities should support their artists, though. That's how it used to be done, a very long time ago.

It's a stupid system that denies human agency.

What do you mean?



This is a very basic outline of what the Global Commons are, but it doesn't seem to cover what I'm talking about: http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/local/sustain1.htm

[Dave de Sylvia]

What do you mean?
If you claim thought is merely a product of experience, you've denied human agency.

[PerpetualBurn]

As for making money from art: Like I said before, art is a personal sacrifice made by the artist, but unfortunately our current society and economic system forces artists to either abandon full-time creation, or sell their art. I view making art for a living as a form of prostitution. Art is something deeply personal to the artist, and it's a hard step to take in making one's art public. I think if you ask any artist about it, she'd tell you she'd prefer to be able to make her art free for everyone.

Communities support artists by buying it. I'm not going to let people freeload just because they claim to be artists, it has to be somewhat marketable. And I know not all good art is marketable in its time (Van Gogh) but it's better than just letting anybody with a brush live for free.

And really, I think pretty much every artist in the world wants to make money from what they do.

[coheneran]

I'm not arguing whether or not we have free will to make choices separately from our personality (ie. our collected experiences and reactions as individuals). I'll try to put it down in algebraic form:

X = Einstein's human agency, his ability to make choices as an individual
Y = Einstein's experiences of the world, everything he's ever seen/learned

X * Y = XY (let's say Theory of Relativity)

Now, XY obviously cannot be only a product of X, for without Y how could Einstein ever know what the sun was? Or what a square root is? Y is everything ever taught to Einstein, and every living creature at the time, human or otherwise, every particle, had some sort of immeasurable (not in the sense of "large", but in the sense of "we can't measure it") effect on Einstein to bring him to that point in time when X combined with Y and he became (you could say) a conduit for the world's collective experiences. We can attribute X to Einstein, but not Y. Y can only be attributed to everything but Einstein.

Does that make it any clearer?

[coheneran]

Communities support artists by buying it. I'm not going to let people freeload just because they claim to be artists, it has to be somewhat marketable. And I know not all good art is marketable in its time (Van Gogh) but it's better than just letting anybody with a brush live for free.

And really, I think pretty much every artist in the world wants to make money from what they do.

I think every artist in the world wants to survive and do their art, not make a living out of it. But anyway, this is just speculation because neither of us can speak for every artist in the world.

Trading art in a marketplace may, sometimes, support the artist in the same way as the community clothing and feeding her so she can keep making art. But, like capitalism is wont to do, it creates a competition for the artists, and they have to make their work more and more "fashionably appealing" to keep selling it and keep surviving. And that is why most music nowadays sucks major balls.

As for freeloading artists, I just happen to have slightly more faith in humanity. Also, if a community doesn't like an artist's work, it can easily choose not to support the artist financially in her full-time ventures. As long as an atmosphere of competition isn't created, the artist won't whore herself out by changing her artform to suit a community.

[jaredong]

maybe it might not be illegal or morally wrong. But i still think it cheapens the site somewhat. I thought what made the site special compared to some other sites is that the own users write reviews and contribute. If the reviews were simply a wikipedia/yahoo/amazon copy paste, it kinda makes the site... ionno, less credible has a legit review site.

Its like having a copy of the mona lisa in your house. Sure, its cool to look at it and appreciate it... but it wont be original and the "real" thing (whatever that is).

its like a cover band playing covers... except they say "we wrote this". Course, riffs and chord changes cant be copyrighted. But what would you think of the band? They might be good but they arent really special arent they.

[PerpetualBurn]

I think every artist in the world wants to survive and do their art, not make a living out of it. But anyway, this is just speculation because neither of us can speak for every artist in the world.

I think we can generalise enough to say that since most major artists are exceedingly wealthy, and base it on the number of people in small bands that just want to "make it big" that people would like to profit from their art.

Why do you think they don't/wouldn't? Who the hell in this world wants to work for free?

As for freeloading artists, I just happen to have slightly more faith in humanity.

If I could make a living from playing music, I would.

Also, if a community doesn't like an artist's work, it can easily choose not to support the artist financially in her full-time ventures.

So only the popular ones profit. That's the same as now.

[Charlie Manson]

So only the popular ones profit. That's the same as now.
yes, i saw this as well.

[Akira]

All software should undoubtedly be shareware. It's information, it should be shared. Every human being has an undeniable right to the information, culture and technology of the world, for the same reasons mentioned earlier.

As for making money from art: Like I said before, art is a personal sacrifice made by the artist, but unfortunately our current society and economic system forces artists to either abandon full-time creation, or sell their art. I view making art for a living as a form of prostitution. Art is something deeply personal to the artist, and it's a hard step to take in making one's art public. I think if you ask any artist about it, she'd tell you she'd prefer to be able to make her art free for everyone.

Communities should support their artists, though. That's how it used to be done, a very long time ago.



What do you mean?



This is a very basic outline of what the Global Commons are, but it doesn't seem to cover what I'm talking about: http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/local/sustain1.htm

That is ridiculous. Computer programing is a job, just like anything else. I see know reason why a job creating information that the average person could not make alone should not merit payment.

And to call selling art prostitution is really insulting.

[Danger Bird]

Recently it came to my attention that the website administrator, Jeremy Ferwerda, has received an e-mail in regard to a user spotting plagiarist reviews on the sputnikmusic.com website. I immediately launched an investigation into these claims.

You have quite a lot of time on your hands, don't you?

[Akira]

You have quite a lot of time on your hands, don't you?

As opposed to all the other people on MX who waste time on the internet?

[coheneran]

maybe it might not be illegal or morally wrong. But i still think it cheapens the site somewhat. I thought what made the site special compared to some other sites is that the own users write reviews and contribute. If the reviews were simply a wikipedia/yahoo/amazon copy paste, it kinda makes the site... ionno, less credible has a legit review site.

Its like having a copy of the mona lisa in your house. Sure, its cool to look at it and appreciate it... but it wont be original and the "real" thing (whatever that is).

its like a cover band playing covers... except they say "we wrote this". Course, riffs and chord changes cant be copyrighted. But what would you think of the band? They might be good but they arent really special arent they.

For sure man, people shouldn't copypaste reviews into MX, that's just silly.

I think we can generalise enough to say that since most major artists are exceedingly wealthy, and base it on the number of people in small bands that just want to "make it big" that people would like to profit from their art.

The whole "making it big" culture is a product of the competitive attitude people foster under capitalism. What happens is that bands go from playing their own music to playing what people want to hear, which is added to by fashion and the political climate a multitude of other things. It's crap, it's emo.

Why do you think they don't/wouldn't? Who the hell in this world wants to work for free?

I'm sure a lot of people would be happy to spend their days creating things, without having to worry about food and shelter. But how many people end up having to sacrifice what they really wanted to create so they could eat?

If I could make a living from playing music, I would.

So only the popular ones profit. That's the same as now.

Way to go on totally ignoring the rest of that paragraph.

That is ridiculous. Computer programing is a job, just like anything else. I see know reason why a job creating information that the average person could not make alone should not merit payment.

Sure people should get sustained, payed, whatever, for their work, but software should be free.

And to call selling art prostitution is really insulting.

No, I didn't call selling art prostitution, I called "creating art you don't want to because you need to keep the cash coming in" prostitution. Like what Bill Hicks kept going on about.

[PerpetualBurn]

The whole "making it big" culture is a product of the competitive attitude people foster under capitalism. What happens is that bands go from playing their own music to playing what people want to hear, which is added to by fashion and the political climate a multitude of other things. It's crap, it's emo.

I've never understood why you think people aren't naturally ambitious. You make these claims that the system forces people's selfishness without acknowledging that people are responsible for the system, and most people like the system when confronted with your "alternatives".

Plus, in your ideological world, people are still forced to play what people want to hear.

I'm sure a lot of people would be happy to spend their days creating things, without having to worry about food and shelter. But how many people end up having to sacrifice what they really wanted to create so they could eat?

Well a lot of brilliant artists are also very very wealthy. And you haven't removed the problem in your ideology.

Way to go on totally ignoring the rest of that paragraph.

Erm...I haven't ignored anything relevant. I cut out the crap. If anything I was being charitable. You're arguing that the community only supports artists that it likes, which is no different to how things are now.

Sure people should get sustained, payed, whatever, for their work, but software should be free.


What a ridiculous attempt at a distinction.

Someone makes something, and you say "Well we get it for free, but we also pay them". That's just selling a product but maybe with a slightly different form of passing the money. You aren't getting the software for free at all, you're just buying it indirectly.

[Akira]

No, I didn't call selling art prostitution, I called "creating art you don't want to because you need to keep the cash coming in" prostitution. Like what Bill Hicks kept going on about.

I view making art for a living as a form of prostitution. A

...

[Efrim]

Sure people should get sustained, payed, whatever, for their work, but software should be free.



According to this, the creator is still getting rewarded for his work, no different from the current system. Also, he, solely, is receiving compensation for the products of his labour, so he must "own" it or be "responsible" for it to a certain degree.

[Smokey D]

What do you mean?


You say that I have no input in the creation of an idea. Even if the world has confronted me with a certain set of circumstances likely to produce a result, it is my thinking and my abilities which take the final step, and to claim otherwise is ridiculous.

[coheneran]

You say that I have no input in the creation of an idea. Even if the world has confronted me with a certain set of circumstances likely to produce a result, it is my thinking and my abilities which take the final step, and to claim otherwise is ridiculous.

That's not what I meant. X and Y, not just one of them. I've gone through it as clearly as I can, and it's a very very VERY simple concept, so I'm through explaining it.

I'm also through with this thread. It's full of strawmen, some partly due to semantics, and I can't be arsed anymore. I've made all the points I can.

PS: There's a difference between work (creating something) and making a living (doing something for money).

[Smokey D]

That's not what I meant. X and Y, not just one of them. I've gone through it as clearly as I can, and it's a very very VERY simple concept, so I'm through explaining it.

It is a simple concept. That's why it's so easy to tear holes through. Your ideology denies me the ability to profit from my labour. I don't like that, and I don't like that other people are profiting from work they didn't do.

I don't know if you're going to respond any more, but I would like to point out the problem with strawmen and semantics arises when you try to create your own definitions that people aren't familiar with. It happens in discussions with Siva as well.