topgfsfurart3dcgdislitrpp2preq

/dis/ - Discussion

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

 No.7514[Last 50 Posts]

Creating this thread mostly so that people have a space to discuss this in that doesn't disrupt the other boards threads.

Share your thoughts and opinions on piracy of patreon and other paid works here.

 No.7515

Paywalling is for A holes and the internet is for the free exchange of ideas

 No.7518

>>7515

Except there's not much of an "exchange", is there? You want free pics, but you don't want to exchange anything for them, especially not money. So that makes you the leech in this equation.

 No.7519

>>7514
Its entirely up to the artist to decide whether or not to sell his artwork, but he/she should recognize that uploading it to the internet means that there's a not insignificant chance that their work will be copied/stolen/uploaded to other sites without proper credit.
>>7515
Get a job.

 No.7521

Would you say the same thing for those of us who also hate predatory microtransactionsand lootboxes in games

Hiding art behind paywalls is essentially the same damn thing especially if it gets randomly moved to a paywall (Destiny did it as did Ayaswan)

Or making us pay for slight variations (the moron devs who think saying "its cosmetic only" means anything and...again Aya)

So Aya is like Bungee or EA in this equation amd deserves the same treatment

 No.7522

I think patreon should exist only for comissions, you pay to see that...not for hiding art.Not to mention the scams some of the so called artists make by promising everything and delivering allmoust nothing! Also all guro should be free, the internet is free! Hail Satan!

 No.7524

I am very strongly against all kind of copyright
and there is a simple solution if you don't want your work being pirated do not bother producing them it is not like we will lose anything.

I am not going to pay for any work in principle ever so there is no difference if paid works exist or not. I only care about their existence as much as the chance of them getting pirated.

Artist can decide if he wants to release his work or not but once he gives it to someone he loses control over his product and person who got it get full right to release it as its own if original artist is not willing to do so. in that case pirate will get all fame and admiration from all public which got to enjoy this stuff. Furthermore, if you are sharing paid work you do not even need to give credit to the author.

An argument that authors will not create stuff if they will not get paid is totally idiotic because we already have more content than we can consume in multiple lives. If some author decides to go on strike this is not a big deal because now that niche gets open to someone else who will happily fill it.

Nowadays with all that absurd amount of content, we already have it only makes sense to focus on some very niche areas but those areas will not give you enough of an audience to make any decent money even if you manage to avoid piracy.

taking works of other people without crediting them is also not that bad as it may look like because if someone is sharing your work he is advertising you and it is just matter of time when the true author will be revealed and you will collect all his fanbase for yourself.

If your work gets modified by other people this is the highest sign of approval you can ever get.

 No.7527

>>7521

If you don't like microtransactions in games, the solution is to NOT PLAY THE FUCKING GAME, dude. And if you don't like the way someone sets up a paywall, then for sure don't buy their stuff. But you not liking that kind of transaction doesn't somehow grant you the right to just steal shit anyway. Do without! Or save up your money.

It's like saying "I think cars today are too expensive, it's mean of the companies to price them that way, so I'm just gonna jack one off the street." Buy used, or do without, or, if you ARE going to go ahead and steal it anyway (nobody here can stop you) don't try and pretend you're the righteous and noble one. You're just a freeloader.

 No.7528

>>7524

>and there is a simple solution if you don't want your work being pirated do not bother producing them it is not like we will lose anything.


More like, you'll never know what you're losing out on. You'll never know what's on my hard drive. But if you take this attitude, why bother stealing stuff from paywalls? You don't lose that if you don't have it.

As for the rest, well, legally, you aren't allowed to reproduce whatever you want without permission, unless you live in China or something.

>If your work gets modified by other people this is the highest sign of approval you can ever get.


The highest form of approval by the lowest class of person. Anarchy kindergarten rules, I guess.

 No.7529

>>7528
>>More like, you'll never know what you're losing out on. You'll never know what's on my hard drive. But if you take this attitude, why bother stealing stuff from paywalls? You don't lose that if you don't have it.

It does not work that way. You are not going to produce stuff and keep it on your HDD without letting anyone see it that will just make no sense

your only option is either not to create anything at all or create and share it for free. as long as you share it with anyone it will get into the public domain.

It is pretty much same as GPL license when you do not allow people to make money on something they do it for free because they cant just not do it if this is something they like doing

>>As for the rest, well, legally, you aren't allowed to reproduce whatever you want without permission, unless you live in China or something.

well in Iran you are not allowed to be gay in China you are not allowed to talk about Tiananmen Square events just because some fascists or capitalists try to restrict freedom of speech with their repressive laws this does not change moral issues
any kind of freaks can get in power and pass most idiotic or oppressive laws and so what? we all start believing that it is all right?
By the way, porn itself is illegal in the place where I live LOL and it is not like anyone cares about that.

Fortunately, there is very little anyone can do to suppress this kind of sharing so just give up already.

>>The highest form of approval by the lowest class of person. Anarchy kindergarten rules, I guess.

No this has nothing to do with anarchy is about freedom of speech and I totally do not care about your or anyone's ability to make money. and I do not acknowledge your ownership over your intellectual work you have no right to control any kind of information.

copyright laws were invented in times when this kind of content was scarce and they needed some incentive to make people create more now we are oversaturated with all possible content and this is no longer required.
Even if we think about original copyright laws intent is that all this work must become public domain when copyright time expires. I guess we could somewhat continue this logic even now and provide protection for let's say one year and then everything becomes free and public.
if this kind of system was implemented we would at least have more respect for content creators because it is no longer situation when you either get it pirated or never see it.

 No.7530

>>7528
and forgot this:
>>But if you take this attitude, why bother stealing stuff from paywalls? You don't lose that if you don't have it.

It makes no sense at all because I can't steal anything unless I somehow hack that paywall. all I can get is what people legally download and share.

Some time ago it was pretty common to find hacked passwords or even get some yourself but now paysites got out of fashion because everything is free anyway. only very niche content is still being sold.

 No.7531

I'm no huge fan of capitalism and I definitely believe in cooperation and freedom if ideas and sharing in general. However these things have to come voluntarily from each person, otherwise your just another authoritarian asshole coercing people to do what you want instead of what they want.

As long as people have to make money to survive (because we're too dumb to cooperate as a culture), then it is incredibly disrespectful to steal from people. Everything you take from them hurts their ability to survive, even if just in a tiny way. If they want to charge you a million dollars for a toothpick, as asshole-ish as that is, stealing their toothpick makes you the bigger asshole. Just walk away and accept your disappointment in not getting the toothpick.

Maybe someday people will realize that everything would be much easier if we just simple cooperated and shared with each other, but our culture is so unhealthy at the moment it's hard to see how to get from here to there. So as long this is what we have, we have to be nice and respectful to each others wishes and not take things from people who aren't giving them freely. You can always ask for charity if you really need it, just be honest with yourself about what it is. There is no harm in *asking* for something. Doesn't mean you'll get it, but you can always try.

If you steal or use force or coercion to take things or harm others, then you are simply that toxic part of the culture that makes trust and sharing so hard. It's the tragedy of the commons. Don't be the tragedy.

 No.7532

>>7529

>It does not work that way. You are not going to produce stuff and keep it on your HDD without letting anyone see it that will just make no sense


But I do! I'm an artist. I make art for my own enjoyment all the time, that I do not share with GuroChan or anywhere else. There's a few different reasons for that, but one of the bigger ones is that people like you seem to have no respect for artists and so I both don't see the worth in sharing with people who don't respect what I do and also don't see how it could be worth my while in a monetary sense to try and market to a community loaded with thieves and freeloaders. The negatives don't outweigh the positives, from my perspective. It makes more sense to just do it for myself and people like you won't ever know what you're missing.

Sure, you can't lose what you never had, and can't ever get. But also, you just won't know how many artists might feel like me. Ever wonder what happened to an artist who just seems to have stopped making new work? Maybe that's one of them.

 No.7533

>>7531
You are doing demagogy here because you cannot use words stealing here.
information is not under the concept of something that can be private.

you can own toothpick but you cant own idea or string of numbers.

Taking your dear toothpick from you will make you have one less of them but copying your work will not even make you notice.
and word stealing is precisely about depriving you of something.

Copyright is not about giving people ownership of their ideas and works but about compensating them for their work.
even legally it is still like that because copyright eventually expires and ownership of your toothpick will never expire you can pass it for many generations and it will sb still your private property.


Another moral problem with ownership, in general, is that whatever material you own it is made of mater which is not produced by your work. Thus if your toothpick is made of plastic or wood, You cannot own it because materials are not yours if you want my consent to use materials for the chopstick you kinda have to pay me as much as I ask and it will be not one time payment but rent which you pay until you are using it.
If you disagree to pay you are totally free to leave all those materials where they are on earth until someone less greedy will come. I do not ask you to produce that toothpick and I prefer you not to waste any of my materials.

So we do not need any charity at all because people who want to produce stuff will have to pay as much as other people demand them or they may not bother producing anything because we do not need anything anyway.

 No.7534

>>7532
>>But I do! I'm an artist. I make art for my own enjoyment all the time, that I do not share with GuroChan or anywhere else. There's a few different reasons for that, but one of the bigger ones is that people like you seem to have no respect for artists and so I both don't see the worth in sharing with people who don't respect what I do and also don't see how it could be worth my while in a monetary sense to try and market to a community loaded with thieves and freeloaders. The negatives don't outweigh the positives, from my perspective. It makes more sense to just do it for myself and people like you won't ever know what you're missing.

I don't get your point because if you have no desire to sell your art then what are those reasons why you do not post it?
You won't get paid for it either way so what are those negatives?
I think that not posting something that you made is plain idiocy because you are missing a lot on the comments that people will make about your work which is no less enjoyable than making it.

In fact, most pirates work for the same payment they buy and post all that work just to get those comments and see how other people enjoy their work.

Maybe you are complaining about sites who collect all that art and make money on it? but If your work is already available for free you can consider it just as an extra host because nobody will come there to get something that is free anyway. and if you see some other community which is sharing your work you can just come here and say "Hi, I made all that's stuff. " and it will become all yours.

>>Sure, you can't lose what you never had, and can't ever get. But also, you just won't know how many artists might feel like me.

There are plenty of artists who stop posting for various reasons and it is hard to know why. Pixiv is full of great artists who produced many pictures but then stopped posting them.
But in this situation, I see no relationship to piracy. If someone is posting behind a paywall I don't know anything about what they made, I do not even know the names unless their work leaks out.
So I can't wonder why they stopped posting neither I care what they post.

If artist posts for free and I have to access to their works I usually do not repost them elsewhere if they request so. but if artist stops posting new stuff I see that as the end of his carrier and transfer of all his work onto free public domain it is not like you can lose anything at that point and it would be a waste if all that stuff just disappears.

>>Ever wonder what happened to an artist who just seems to have stopped making new work? Maybe that's one of them.

I think this is a very tiny minority who feel like that and it is plain stupid anyway. Most guro artists I know not only do not object to their work being shared they do not even object if you take authorship of their work because they want to hide their identities.

 No.7535

>>7534

>I don't get your point because if you have no desire to sell your art then what are those reasons why you do not post it?


I already told you one: I don't feel like giving gifts to people who don't respect my rights or my work. Why should I give my work to people who think they can just do whatever they want with it? Why should I do any favors for people I think are doing bad things?

But also, I have friends and family that don't know about my tastes in guro, and maybe for some of them it wouldn't matter, but it would be awkward if others found out. So if I post something, and then pirates just spread it out all over the internet without my control, there's a chance it might come around and someone could recognize my style and give me a hard time about it.

That would be a risk, and it might be worth taking that risk if there was some other benefit to compensate me if something went wrong, but if pirates think I don't need or deserve to get paid for my work, then that benefit doesn't seem to count for much.

You're wrong to think that I don't want to sell my work; the problem is that for me, trying to sell my work comes with too many risks for not enough reward. I don't sell my work because there's too many people like you, and so I do that kind of art for my own enjoyment (and nobody else) because that's all that's left.

>I think that not posting something that you made is plain idiocy because you are missing a lot on the comments that people will make about your work which is no less enjoyable than making it.


Do you think I would enjoy comments from people who think they can just take my work and use it without permission?

 No.7537

>>7535
I already told you one: I don't feel like giving gifts to people who don't respect my rights or my work. Why should I give my work to people who think they can just do whatever they want with it? Why should I do any favors for people I think are doing bad things?

So because some people do not respect your "rights" you will not post your work that way punishing everyone mostly those you do respect your "rights"?
do you also use the same logic in "I will not buy a car because I don't want to reward those who may steal it from me" LOL

There will always be people who will do something bad to you in one way or another and you should have known that your pictures will be reposted before you posted them yourself. It is not a rocket science. You lose control over what you post on the internet.

I understand your concern about the danger of your work getting recognized and this is pretty same for most people here as well (which is one of the reasons why we do not even take authorship of our own work.)

But on the other hand, I think if it got recognized it would not be that bad because merely knowing about this implies that this person has same interests as we have. the style itself is not that significant evidence which makes accusation more awkward for accuser than for person being accused

But I can still understand your fears and the fact that this is not about piracy but about this issue instead.

>>You're wrong to think that I don't want to sell my work; the problem is that for me, trying to sell my work comes with too many risks for not enough reward. I don't sell my work because there's too many people like you, and so I do that kind of art for my own enjoyment (and nobody else) because that's all that's left.

You are making dumb excuses because selling your work would require you to disclose your information (nobody in their mind will pay to some anonymous scammer) and also do some decent advertisement to get more clients. That would be far more dangerous than some pirates posting few anonymous pictures somewhere and you will make more enemies who will dislike you for spamming and teasing them with content which they cant get.
It is even troublesome to find some host which will keep your stuff because it instantly gets banned everywhere and posting it on sites with advertising intent like this would be considered spamming.

Claiming risks as reasons why you don't want to sell your work does not change the fact that you don't want to sell it and piracy is totally irrelevant here. The real reason is your fear being exposed

I also don't understand what kind of compensation you expect anyway because you made it pretty clear trhat you can't sell it and even if you could, few extra bucks will not pay for your divorce expenses LOL your client base will be so tinny that it will be barely worth all the hassle and loss of anonymity.
you can still sell to your trusted friends if you like. I would not consider anyone you can find people with capitalist mentality who will see nothing wrong with selling food to their baby.

>>Do you think I would enjoy comments from people who think they can just take my work and use it without permission?
Dont worry those people are too busy uploading that stuff elsewhere than posting comments for you.

this kind of stuff is more like war because people who like you personally will do what you ask and try to do everything not to hurt you but people whom you make to hate yourself will try to do the exact opposite of what you say.

Speaking about myself I heavily oppose all that intellectual property thing but if the artist is my friend I respect their will. (even if I burn with desire to post this somewhere in public) not because I think it is right but because this was that person asks me to do and also provides me with the new content.

 No.7538

>>7537

>do you also use the same logic in "I will not buy a car because I don't want to reward those who may steal it from me" LOL


I can lock my car. And unlike art, if they catch you stealing my car you go to jail and all your arguments about property go out the window.

Maybe some nice people don't get to see my stuff because of the bad people. That's the way it is.

>You are making dumb excuses because selling your work would require you to disclose your information (nobody in their mind will pay to some anonymous scammer)


It would be some trouble, but there are ways to get around that, to make finding out my real name difficult enough that only a determined asshole could do it. But that's trouble I'm not going to go to unless there's a good enough reward to justify it.

>Claiming risks as reasons why you don't want to sell your work does not change the fact that you don't want to sell it and piracy is totally irrelevant here. The real reason is your fear being exposed


Being exposed is only part of it. You focus on that because it's an easy out for you, so you don't have to deal with the fact that there ARE artists who stay away from putting art on GuroChan directly because of piracy. (At least one.) To put it another way: I would be less worried about being exposed if there wasn't piracy. More piracy means more risk of being exposed, less piracy means less risk.

>I also don't understand what kind of compensation you expect anyway because you made it pretty clear trhat you can't sell it and even if you could, few extra bucks will not pay for your divorce expenses LOL


I think you're too interested in trying to make some dumb point that you don't realize that this is exactly what I'm saying. The compensation ISN'T enough for me to produce art for you - THAT'S WHY YOU AREN'T GETTING ANY. The community that you belong to does not offer enough good things to offset the bad things that might happen. Why should I take any risks to make art for you to enjoy when I'm not going to get enough in return? It might as well sit on my hard drive and be safe, where only I can see it.

 No.7539

This is not my argument
>>I can lock my car. And unlike art, if they catch you stealing my car you go to jail and all your arguments about property go out the window.


This is my argument, that you are using this kind of stupid logic.
>>Maybe some nice people don't get to see my stuff because of the bad people. That's the way it is.

>>Being exposed is only part of it. You focus on that because it's an easy out for you, so you don't have to deal with the fact that there ARE artists who stay away from putting art on GuroChan directly because of piracy. (At least one.) To put it another way: I would be less worried about being exposed if there wasn't piracy. More piracy means more risk of being exposed, less piracy means less risk.

well complaining about piracy is same as complaining about the weather. it is not like you or anyone can do about that even if you threatened with armagedon someone woud still do it

also, I do not see any pictures from gurochan getting anywhere else so your complaints are pretty baseless. None of the stuff posted here by any author got reposted anywhere else not even pirate sites have any kind of interest in this content.

>>Why should I take any risks to make art for you to enjoy when I'm not going to get enough in return?

Obviously, there is no reason because you will not get anything in return besides comments saying thank you and even that may be not happening as much as you desire

>>The community that you belong to does not offer enough good things to offset the bad things that might happen.

I don't think there is any other community which will provide you something more. Probably you can get more privacy on lolicit but don't expect your work to stay hidden there it will get reposted eventually.

 No.7541

>>7539

>This is not my argument


Don't give me some kind of silly car analogy and then tell me it's not your argument. YOU brought cars up.

>This is my argument, that you are using this kind of stupid logic.


There's nothing stupid about it.

The fact that piracy exists, and is a detriment to artists, and the fact that some people here don't respect the rights of artists, all contribute to my not feeling comfortable enough to post to GuroChan or try to sell commissions or release my guro art in other ways. You try to dismiss my reasons, but these facts don't stop being real. You seem to think I should value things differently than I do, but there's no reason for me to change my mind. I believe in intellectual property rights - you don't. I don't expect you to change because of some internet argument, I just want to make you aware that some artists, like me, see things like encouraging people to violate an artist's rights as a disrespect of artists in general, and that such attitudes may well keep artists from sharing their art - like me.

What you do with that knowledge is up to you. The result is the same. Some guro art exists that you will never see.

 No.7543

>>7541

>>What you do with that knowledge is up to you. The result is the same. Some guro art exists that you will never see.

You are acting like a child here.

Why do you think I am that much interested in your art in the first place if I never even seen it and have no clue what it is?
There is plenty of stuff which I or you will never see and so what?
I also have something very interesting on my HDD what you will never see and you can't even imagine how interesting it is but you will never see it because I won't show it to you.

I already explained my point to you that if you don't want to share your work for one or another reason it is your choice I think your reasons are stupid and I even doubt that you are even being serious but it is not like I can do anything about that.


To summarize all that I said, free content practically does not get pirated and if it is not free I do not care about it anyway.

And yes, your logic is stupid because you are threatening not to port FREE stuff because of piracy as if free stuff will be very interesting to pirates.

If your reason is that someone refuses to share your beliefs this is even more stupid.

 No.7544

>>7543

>And yes, your logic is stupid because you are threatening not to port FREE stuff because of piracy as if free stuff will be very interesting to pirates.


Okay, let's separate a few things:

I don't post to GuroChan, not so much because of piracy, but because of pirates. Included in "pirates" are the people who ask other people to break paywalls, and the people who break those paywalls. I don't want to give those people anything. (If this means denying my work to innocent people, that's too bad.) Also, if I were to post something on GuroChan and say, "hey, please don't spread this around", there's no way I could trust them. You say on one hand that you'd respect the wishes of a "friend", but on the other you say you'd take ownership of someone's art if it seemed like they went away. I could not rely on someone like you to respect anything.

I don't take commissions because of piracy, and the fact that at any point some asshole who decides they didn't like how I set up my Patreon could just decide to spam my work everywhere just out of spite. And if I can't make money from a Patreon, what's the point?

The work on my hard drive is neither free nor for sale. It just exists. No matter how I might send it out, it's not worth it to me, and it's because of elements like you in the community. If you don't care, that's fine.

>Why do you think I am that much interested in your art in the first place if I never even seen it and have no clue what it is?


It's not so much that I think you'd care - although you will never know - but some people may think their little ideologies don't bother anyone or have any effect. I'm saying that they do. In at least one case (mine), people's attitudes regarding copyright and piracy have resulted in an artist not posting work to GuroChan. Are there others who feel like me? Maybe, maybe not. But if you're content that you've got enough material to look at and you don't need more, then you don't have anything to argue about, do you?

 No.7545

>>7544
>>In at least one case (mine), people's attitudes regarding copyright and piracy have resulted in an artist not posting work to GuroChan.

Ok, fine so your point is that if there was no piracy at all and nobody ever copied anything without permission from the author or at least if everyone was a member of copyright church, you would disregard all risks and post those few pictures on gurochan for free?

Just from the practical perspective, do you think you and other artists like you, will post more free content than it gathered from behind those paywalls?

Even if this ideology prevents some artist from posting stuff, it also makes a lot of artists to post their stuff. Piracy makes selling unprofitable and not worth a hassle. This is why artists will disregard that option as nonviable and just post what they make for free.
If copyright was highly enforced this would make many more artists consider the option of sale instead of free distribution because if you can make extra money from your hobby with no effort why not?

My desire is to abolish all copyright entirely to make it clear that you will not be able to sell anything ever so you either post for free or do not post at all. yes, this will result in less work being made but it makes more work being posted for free so benefits highly outweigh drawbacks.

Also, the refusal of some artists to sell their work, forces their potential customers to focus on the free artists what motivates them to post even more.

GPL license works in a similar way. Many companies and people are forced to release their work for free or not to release it all but they can't make money of their own work or control it in any way.
The result is obvius, Linux ended with the huge amount of free content even people who potentially could sell their work give it for free simply because there is huge disrespect for capitalists and plain refusal to cooperate with people like that entirely.

Imagine the situation if copyright was respected in 100% but people would just tell you categorically that nobody will pay to you for your work and you can keep it behind your precious paywall without customers for all eternity. Would it make you happier ?

Linux community achieved something like that and it is a loss of prestige to pay for software there, if you buy something everyone will wonder and ridicule you why you paid if same can be obtained for free.

>>Also, if I were to post something on GuroChan and say, "hey, please don't spread this around", there's no way I could trust them.

Of course, you can always trust thousands of anonymous people. LOL
I guess Pamela Just forgot to tell her boyfriend not to spread their homemade porn on the internet.

>>But if you're content that you've got enough material to look at and you don't need more, then you don't have anything to argue about, do you?

I am not arguing about your decision itself I am arguing about your illogical reasoning which is comparable to the claim that "I will not share this work because some people here are not vegetarians and those who kill and eat animals do not deserve my work."

If you do not try to make money off your work you have full respect here including your desire not to repost your pictures if your goals are to sell your work you can just keep it and not bother because nobody cares about you or your work and your request to respect your rights. In fact, posting samples of commercial your work will be considered spamming and you will get as much love and respect as any spammer.

 No.7552

>>7545

>Ok, fine so your point is that if there was no piracy at all and nobody ever copied anything without permission from the author or at least if everyone was a member of copyright church, you would disregard all risks and post those few pictures on gurochan for free?


"Few." Sour grapes much?

No, my point is that since people like you don't respect the artists, and since GuroChan seems to have a fair number of that kind of person in its community, I don't think it's a decent enough group to share my art with. If you don't respect my rights, I don't view you as deserving of my charity, or worth taking risks for.

>Imagine the situation if copyright was respected in 100% but people would just tell you categorically that nobody will pay to you for your work and you can keep it behind your precious paywall without customers for all eternity. Would it make you happier ?


It would, because at least then they'd show they respected me.

I already have to get by without selling my work; if it turned out I couldn't sell my work because nobody wanted to buy it I wouldn't be worse off.

>Also, the refusal of some artists to sell their work, forces their potential customers to focus on the free artists what motivates them to post even more.


People who "focus on free artists" are usually not customers and never would be, and just want content for free. And if all an artist wants is praise for handing out free stuff, that's fine, as long as it's their own decision.

>I am not arguing about your decision itself I am arguing about your illogical reasoning


You already tried a really bad car analogy, now you want to try again with vegetarianism?

There's nothing illogical about my reasoning, you just don't like my logic. There are not enough benefits for me to outweigh the negatives in posting my work in any way to this community, and therefore I don't. That could not be more logical.

The non-logical thing about both of our arguments is what each of us values. Obviously, you value a copyright-free stance. But value judgements are usually not, in and of themselves, logical. A value is an emotional state. Logic applies only in a sense of either applying or attaining those values - that is to say "I value [x}, so I will take logical action to gain [x]", or "Because I believe in [x], I will act logically according to [x]".

We value different things, but that does not make my actions or reasoning illogical.

 No.7553

>>7552
>>I don't think it's a decent enough group to share my art with.

So eventually this is not practical put purely political decision because you hate this community you will not let anyone see your work.

same as in my example you believe that those people are not worthy of your work because they do not share your religion and that's all.


>>I already have to get by without selling my work; if it turned out I couldn't sell my work because nobody wanted to buy it I wouldn't be worse off.

No I mean not that people just do not buy your work because they are not interested I mean if they don't buy your work in principle because they hate artists who ask money for their work.
what I mean that you came to some community and offered your art for sale and everyone would say either you post it for free or fuck off and never come back with your spam.
and it would be the same attitude everywhere where you go.

this is the purely hypothetical question of course

>>People who "focus on free artists" are usually not customers and never would be, and just want content for free. And if all an artist wants is praise for handing out free stuff, that's fine, as long as it's their own decision.

This is not about the free decision it is about the inability to sell entirely your decision is either you share it or not. Sale is not one of the options. Either you get the praise of you get nothing.
Giving the option of the sale will tempt artists to try to sell their work.

>>There's nothing illogical about my reasoning, you just don't like my logic. There are not enough benefits for me to outweigh the negatives in posting my work in any way to this community, and therefore I don't. That could not be more logical.

There are no benefits for you in any case because you are not getting paid in any way regardless if copyright is respected or not. Your decision is purely ideological.
At most of your benefit is propaganda value because you are trying to use your work as a tool to influence other people beliefs. even if those beliefs have no direct relevance for your life

But in some way, I can understand that hate based reasoning because I also hate copyright and capitalism itself and will also do anything possible to hurt entire society who try to enforce it, not because of some practical reason but because of hate.

Fortunately for me, the situation is getting better because this capitalist society is collapsing, copyright is unenforceable and all this rotten crap is going to its end.

 No.7554

>>7553

>same as in my example you believe that those people are not worthy of your work because they do not share your religion and that's all.


It's not a religion, it's an evaluation of their respect for me, and to a broader extent, their respect for artists.

I do not believe someone like you values the work of artists. You like having their art presented to you well enough, but you do not want to respect their copyright and you don't want to compensate them in any material sense. So all you want to do is give some kind of lip-service in the form of praise, I guess. You're free to believe that, but I feel it to be an insult to the work an artist does. If I feel there are more people like you in a community than is tolerable, then why would I contribute? Or to put it another way: Do you think you deserve any kind of art, at all? Do you think you need art, do you think it is owed to you? You want it for free, but you want to exchange nothing for it.

>No I mean not that people just do not buy your work because they are not interested I mean if they don't buy your work in principle because they hate artists who ask money for their work.


One, it would be the same difference in a financial sense. Two, people who hate artists who ask for money are bad people. Them rejecting me is of no importance.

>because this capitalist society is collapsing,


Everybody has their own delusions that they adore.

 No.7556

Onix, I actually agree with a lot, though not all, of your sentiments. Capitalism, while it has produced many beneficial things, isn't the be all end all best possible system for human interaction in my opinion, it's just the been the one that has worked best so far. At it's core it is basically just an advanced form of feudalism, with dynastic wealth transfers through generations based on bloodlines and lineage rather then merit. It rewards bad behavior as often as it rewards productivity and good behavior.

However, hatred and disrespect is part of the reason we wound up here to begin with. The reason the number of laws various countries are passing only tends to increase, the reason authority has such a foothold, is because people treat each other like dishonest shitbags, don't listen or try and communicate, and end up hurting each other in the process, trying to get their slice of the pie. And then people try and pass laws to prevent that. But that's bandaging the symptom rather then addressing the root core of the problem.

The root core of the problem is that people need to make the INDIVIDUAL choice to start treating each other better and more compassionately. This cannot come from some authority. The reason communism has failed so hard in most cases is because authority cannot be a substitute for individuals simply making better choices and being better people to each other. There are no shortcuts to a better culture. There are no correct -isms.

It starts with you. If you don't like money and capitalism, great. But respect other people and their choices, even if they are different. If people can't do at least that, then of course there will be wars and laws and other unnecessary bullshit that gets in the way of us building a better world. It's simply an ill thought out attempt to mitigate the chaos.

You win this battle by being the better person and changing peoples hearts and minds one at a time. Someday, many generations down the line, perhaps people will look back at this time and the times before it and laugh at how silly it was that everyone didn't simply work together. But we'll never reach that point if people don't make personal changes in their own behavior. You can't create paradise at the end of a sword.

 No.7558

>>7556

Again it does not work that way you cant have a mixed system where half of the people live under capitalism and another half under communism or something because that would be same as mixing boxing match with chess.

Everyone has to play by the same rules. We can argue about what kind of rules we desire but they must be same.

the reason why all those oppressive laws are being passed is that capitalism is failing. and governments are desperately trying to fix it somehow instead of just getting rid of it entirely.
but this is no longer possible to do because work and capital lost its value.
The fact is that nobody needs anything nobody need your art nobody needs your food nobody needs anything. market is oversaturated

some people are still trying to bitch about taxes, copyright, immigrants or lizardmen aliens but the real reason is that nothing has any value nowadays.

Considering my input in all that, I cant do anything much but I still can add my 2 cents to the collapse of capitalism maybe making it happen 2 days sooner LOL
This can be achieved by making more people face the reality that all their ambitions to make any money is futile every business they will start will fail and every job they do will be paid in pennies.
This is how capitalism will end. You will not need many generations it will happen very soon.

 No.7560

>>7556

I understand where you are coming from, but you can't use authority to solve the problem. Revolution doesn't work, because the people with gun just end up imposing their own short sighted version of justice and fairness on everyone else. People have to change on an individual level to solve the problem. I understand the odds are stacked against it but there is literally no other option, the moment you invoke authority it just becomes another form of bullshit and you become the bad guy.

Even if capitalism collapsed tomorrow, the system that replaced it would be just as bad. Because the system is itself an product of the culture that creates it. Like I said before, there are no shortcuts and we will never live to see the better society that exists downstream of all this, but we can edge it slowly along toward our desired destination.

I hate -isms, but if I had to pick one it would be anarchism, with a strong emphasis on cooperation and sharing. People may think it's impossible, and maybe it is, but there's no reason in my mind that we as individual people couldn't each make the choice to treat each other better. We wouldn't need government or money if people would simply treat honesty and charity as the defaults. Yes, sometimes someone will take advantage of us, yes sometimes we will encounter people who can't be reasoned with, but we can reach a critical mass of intellectual honesty and goodwill that can make those edge cases less of a problem. Something that doesn't require violence or law to solve, because those don't solve problems, they exacerbate them.

I see a lot of these thoughts in the words you have said, and so like I said I agree with much of your vision, but burning the world down will NOT fix the problem. If anything, it will make it worse, sending us back to the age of warlords and extreme authoritarianism. We may not be very far past that point now but peace is imperative if we are to be able to engage in rational discourse as individuals so we can navigate all of this madness. Revolution and war means the end of the conversation and the beginning of next cycle of oppression.

 No.7561

>>7558

>This is how capitalism will end. You will not need many generations it will happen very soon.


No it won't.

Even if society collapsed worldwide, capitalism would not end. In fact, if society as we know it collapsed, capitalism would be even stronger, for these reasons:

1) If society completely disintegrated and we all wound up in some apocalyptic return to medieval levels of tech, people would work out some sort of system of exchange of goods and services. Even if you're bartering a goat for a bushel of corn or something, that's capitalism.

2) If society only partially disintegrates, there would be a lot of power vacuums that would be filled, and they would be filled by people with great resources. That is to say, the capitalists would stock up on guns and ammo and then you'd have even worse capitalism.

3) Based on the past record of attempts at communism across this world, everyone who likes art better hope the hell that communism does NOT succeed, as that would mean that art production would drop next to nothing, and most of what remained would be all the stuff that promotes whatever totalitarian state is running the show. Back in the day Soviets would smuggle Western rock and jazz into the USSR and distribute it by cutting it onto used X-ray film, because all the interesting music was banned. I don't think we want to be doing roentgenizdat or its equivalent these days.

 No.7570

>>7560
You misunderstood something because we do not need any authority intervention or revolution to overthrow some government and replace it with something else. Governments will do that themselves if they want to stay alive.
As Marx explained, capitalism is the most efficient force for destroying itself far more efficient than any government or revolution
Soviets and Maoists attempted to bring communism by force and failed miserably while capitalists almost did it against their own will LOL

>>7561

This is not how it will collapse because if that will happen according to that kind of scenario it will be worse than Armageddon as it will result in mass deaths of unseen scale.

Today, only about 1% of people are working in the agriculture sector and they all rely on hi-tech systems. of all that will stop working there will be mass starvation if society will collapse in an uncontrollable way, entire nations will be wiped out. a stockpile of guns and ammo or even food, will not help you to survive decade-long famine unless you will try to rely on cannibalism. Even then you will end in the society resembling middle ages without any industry or medicine at all.

Neither elites neither simple people will allow that. The result of this collapse will be either a transformation into fascism, which we are observing today or into socialism. Both are somewhat similar totalitarian systems except that under socialism your target goal is communism and under fascism, you are just stuck with endless wars against immigrants or aliens or neighboring nations.

You can't avoid a totalitarian system of some form because the free market does not work anymore and you will need a totalitarian system to maintain all current technology if you don't want to die. This is an actually good thing because whatever system it will be it will be focusing on technological advancement and infrastructure. what is the straight road to communism.

Ideally, I suppose we can get back to the old Soviet model where you are forcefully working in some factory to do a fixed amount of job getting fixed amount of payment and then you are given lots of free time to do anything you like. There will be no way to earn any more than the certain government-approved sum of money and there will be an enormous amount of free time when you have nothing to do at all and you are dying out of boredom but you are not allowed to work for money.

 No.7578

>>7570

>and then you are given lots of free time to do anything you like.


(It's ridiculous how many people today idealize the USSR when we have living people who can tell you how absolutely shitty it actually was.)

Anything you like that isn't banned, you mean. If you think a Soviet-model system is going to just let people be creative in any way, and distribute it however they like, I suggest you think again. Something like GuroChan would probably be seen as a corrupter of morals and be wiped out of existence. Communism is NOT going to usher in any golden age of art where you can just reach out and have whatever you like for free. If anything, you will have less art, and it will be more expensive because you will have to bargain and trade and sneak it in through black markets. (Capitalism: still winning even when it has to go underground.)

The problem with your theory is that so far, no place that has "aimed for communism" has actually gotten there, and in the trying to get there, what they've wound up with is deprivation and shortage for lots of people, except for a small ruling elite. If I'm using all my free time standing around in bread lines I don't see how that would be an improvement.

 No.7579

>>7578
The only reason why the soviet union was shit is that it has no sex at all
Soviet people had everything but, no erotic stuff of any kind and practically no entertainment. I suspect that this was the reason for Soviet collapse as well.

this ideology had its reason at that time because the government wanted to make people work more to produce more stuff while today we have the totally opposite situation we need to make people work less to combat overproduction crisis.

Soviets got established a bit too early for communism. You cant have that when you have bred lines and empty store shelves. Communism happens when you start throwing bread away you have stores full of crap nobody buys and an endless army of jobless people living on welfare because there are no jobs for those people for the reason that you already have too much stuff.

In that situation, you just cannot find another solution.

If productivity reaches the level where 10 people can fully support 100 or even 1000 with every product possible capitalism becomes impossible.
Majority of people will be jobless because there is not enough consumption to provide jobs for everyone and working people will have very low wages as well because they have no paying customers regardless of their absurd productivity.

There is no escape from this situation.

Attempt to fight for high morals in the situation when half of your population is bored to death and when men can't even marry women because they are not well established is a recipe for disaster. Not even mentioning that it is very hard to do when you have internet.

 No.7582

>>7579

>The only reason why the soviet union was shit is that it has no sex at all


I don't think that's entirely true. One of the things they found when the Berlin wall came down was that the East Germans had been having a much more active and satisfying sex life compared to the West. That doesn't necessarily extend to the Soviets as well, but it might. After all, if they had "all this free time", that's something they could do.

>Not even mentioning that it is very hard to do when you have internet.


Who says communism will let you have Internet? Certainly any Internet you have will be filtered heavily. The only reason China has Internet of any kind is that they're trying to move away from hard-line communism, and even then there's things you can't do or say if you don't want your internet to go down. Any tricks or back doors the Chinese use now could be squashed if the Chinese wanted to get serious about it.

Hoping for communism to save the world is a fool's game.

 No.7583

>>7582

>>I don't think that's entirely true.
yes, in fact, that was true, in fact to the level where married people were clueless about how to make children.

But it was not that simple as that. when soviets came in power situation was very different and funny enough that part if Soviet history was well hidden
In the very beginning, they had true communism to the level where even marriage and ownership of the children were abolished absolute sexual freedom was proclaimed
prostitutes were even paid by the government for providing sex services to men.

During its existence, the soviet union changed a lot so it is pointless to argue about whether it was good or bad without referring to specific time.
and just because they had some nasty laws it does not mean everything has to be copied today.

>>Who says communism will let you have Internet?
there is no other choice it is impossible to block internet because it is vital for industry and communication.
and blocking it makes no sense

Unlike in the older times when we had different parallel systems now capitalism will disappear entirely on all earth. not because of some arbitrary decision but because it will become impossible
in that situation, it does not make any sense to bother with bans or restrictions nobody will prevent you from doing anything you like, it will be just impossible to sell your products because of the same reason why it is impossible to sell art today.

 No.7592

>>7583

> funny enough that part if Soviet history was well hidden


Which makes one wonder how it is you know about it.

>there is no other choice it is impossible to block internet because it is vital for industry and communication. and blocking it makes no sense


Tell that to China. There's already words you can't use there that will get accounts and posts removed by the authorities. If at any point the Internet becomes more of a trouble than a benefit to the authorities, it can be done away with. Who controls the networks that move data around in China? Even Google goes along with Chinese policies because China has the ability to shut them out nearly completely.

You need to stop saying things like "it makes no sense". Just because you don't see the sense doesn't mean there isn't any.

>now capitalism will disappear entirely on all earth.


I won't hold my breath.

 No.7593

>>7592
>>Which makes one wonder how it is you know about it.

It is not secret is it just never told in school or any widespread propaganda. and Soviets are not an exception here

US also hide a lot in its history
as for example the fact that Us also started as a communist nation more or less same as Soviet union
or the fact that its famous democracy was nothing but a scam ruled by the mafia, and even the fact the fact that slavery never ended and event today slavery is still legal in US

>>Tell that to China.
I already told you that it is not how this should happen authorities can't bring you communism it must come by itself
and the reason why we have this kind of situation in China and the soviet union is that they are growing economies communism happens when growth is no longer possible and capitalism dies by itself.

now the goal of the Chinese government is to boost the morale of its nation to make people work harder. but when they will hit the ceiling the goal will be reversed and they will try to make people work less and slack off more

it is just logically impossible to give work to everyone when there is no demand for all stuff you can produce.

>>You need to stop saying things like "it makes no sense". Just because you don't see the sense doesn't mean there isn't any.

do not forget that we are talking about future, not about past and situation will be very different and it already is very different.


>>I won't hold my breath.
timing is hard to predict but something is going to happen pretty soon, of course, it is still too early for communism but this does not delay the collapse of capitalism which is already easily observable.

the employment rate and wages in all states are falling like a rock how long do you think it can continue?

What do you think China government will do when it will be no longer possible to export their products? How are they going to pay wages?

 No.7597

>>7593

>US also hide a lot in its history


Yeah, and a lot of people have wild, weird theories about things that can't be backed up with evidence, either. There's a video that has a woman complaining about all the stuff that they put in the water and her evidence was that the mist from a sprinkler was showing a rainbow.

>I already told you that it is not how this should happen


What "should" happen is irrelevant to what is happening, and what is likely to happen in the future. You have some utopian ideal of how the world should work, but the problem is that if we judge by what has already happened in the world, your utopia can't possibly come into being because of all the things that prevented it from coming around the last several times people tried it. There's nothing in your theories that prevents the next communist uprising, if it happens, from turning right into another totalitarian regime that will never make the transition to "true" communism and will eventually fall apart and/or result in massive deprivation.

>but this does not delay the collapse of capitalism which is already easily observable.


Even if a nation's economy collapses, what replaces it will most likely be more capitalism, just at a different level of development. Communism does not arise naturally from people, it has to be imposed. Prepare your life for disappointment.

 No.7599

>>7597
>>Yeah, and a lot of people have wild, weird theories about things that can't be backed up with evidence, either.

not sure how relevant it is to this topic, because that history is not hidden and not secret it is all available. just not mentioned by media because it is inconvenient for the desired narrative.

There is lots of stuff which is not advertised as for example that fact that Tibet had slavery of most horrible form possible until it was occupied by China. You cant say that in the media because otherwise, you will contradict mainstream narrative that Tibet must be given freedom.

also, I find it interesting that nobody is talking about why slavery really ended.

>>What "should" happen is irrelevant to what is happening, and what is likely to happen in the future.

No, you cant rely on the past to predict future because conditions change.
and I never mentioned any utopia either.
what I mean is that there will be a change in the system where free market will disappear because it will become nonfunctional just like slavery became nonfunctional at some time.

attempt to introduce capitalism in the antiques Greece would be just as ridiculous as introducing communism 100 years ago

>>Even if a nation's economy collapses, what replaces it will most likely be more capitalism, just at a different level of development. Communism does not arise naturally from people, it has to be imposed. Prepare your life for disappointment.

this is possible but unlikely, because like I explained before if you try to revert it to the old-time technology of that period is unable to support modern population
so you need to exterminate 90% of all people

100 years ago the earth was only capable to support 1 billion population and now we have almost 8 billion
this is all possible just because of modern technology of unprecedented productivity. raw capitalism is incapable to support all that technology.

this is the main problem here so you have nowhere to go your choice is between death and socialism. Socialism leads to communism as there is nothing else left if capitalism is dead.

compare it with the situation in the art market, like I said earlier we are oversaturated with free content how are you going to sell something with any decent profit in that situation? doing art as the primary job is already unsustainable.
and I am not even arguing about copyright here I am talking about how are you going to live from that job if it pays so little


it is even funny to see that artists are already complaining about people doing it for free
www.cgtrader.com/forum/general-discussions/cheap-and-free-models-are-killing-cgtrader
it can't be funnier than that

"My sales are not bad now, but soon will be very bad if this continues ... thousands of free models, thousands of quality models undervalued ...what is happening? ... This is suicide! .... Marius do something ... you must fix this problem!

Cgtrader should respect the artists who have spent years selling our models online, and should not allow anyone to publish models below its real price.

"
this is is what I mean by proclaiming the death of capitalism.

 No.7601

>>7599

>not sure how relevant it is to this topic, because that history is not hidden and not secret it is all available.


My point is, the person who thinks rainbows are a sign of secret water tampering is a thing that is not hidden or secret, either, it's just demonstrably not true. The fact that she believes it wholeheartedly still doesn't make it true. The fact that mainstream media doesn't report it doesn't make it some kind of secret revelation, either.

In other words, some of these claims are hard to take seriously without any evidence to back them up.

>raw capitalism is incapable to support all that technology.


Speaking of things not making sense, there's a good one. Because not only does it not makes sense to think of technology as having to be supported by capitalism, there's actually a very easy fix if that becomes a problem.

Years ago, the US gasoline companies saw their profits fall, because there was too much product on the market. In response, they shut down many of their refineries. Doing so mean their product was produced less, resulting in scarcity and increasing prices. Sucked for the people working at those plants, but they had to go find other jobs, and the gas companies increased profits.

I don't think this was a good event for society, necessarily, but capitalism adjusts in this way all the time. What you see as oncoming collapse might simply be that kind of adjustment. And this is why I don't take seriously the idea that capitalism worldwide is on the brink of collapse, or will deteriorate to any kind of extent that communism can just walk in and pick up the pieces (and then ruin them, as they historically have done).

>and I never mentioned any utopia either.


Half of your posts describe some kind of future where communism rules and you can sit back and wallow in all the free art in an unfiltered Internet that communism lets you have, without anything more than wishful thinking to demonstrate how that might happen. That's about the exact definition of a utopia.

 No.7602

>>7601
>Years ago, the US gasoline companies saw their profits fall, because there was too much product on the market. In response, they shut down many of their refineries. Doing so mean their product was produced less, resulting in scarcity and increasing prices. Sucked for the people working at those plants, but they had to go find other jobs, and the gas companies increased profits.


And why do you stop here?

They closed refineries because productivity was so high that there was no work left for those refineries but what happened to the people who got fired?
like I said what required 1000 people with old technology now requires 10 people so where you put the rest of 990 who lost their job?

you may suggest that they will get be employed elsewhere but productivity is increasing in all areas so people are being fired from all jobs not hired.

now, for example, self-driving cars and planes are coming which will destroy tens of thousands of jobs in the US only where do you think all those people will get employed? even shos are replacing cashiers with robots. and all experts unanimously predist that even more jobs will be lost in future.

so what capitalism can do about that? how is it supposed to adjust to this situation?

It is not that big problem when just one market sector is collapsing, but what do you to when it happens to everything?
What capitalism will do when people everywhere are losing jobs and income so they cant buy any products even when they need them?


I do not say that this collapse will bring communism by itself, it will bring socialism because the government will be required to step in and take care of everything. If not it will be the end of the world with death toll which will dwarf all previous wars taken together and nobody will want that.

we already had similar event known as great depression which forced the government to intervene, but the population was very small at that time and it was not that bad as it is today because lots of people were working in the agriculture sector and they were not that dependent on Hi-tech stuff as today.
Even during the great depression, several million people died because of starvation in the US only now this death toll will be counted in billions if nothing will be done.

>Half of your posts describe some kind of future where communism rules and you can sit back and wallow in all the free art in an unfiltered Internet that communism lets you have, without anything more than wishful thinking to demonstrate how that might happen. That's about the exact definition of a utopia.




No, it is not what I describe. I told you that it will be same as soviet style system instead of private business, you will be working in the government job of some kind because all private business will be dead no big difference than today it will just change of the name that instead of some private investors who focus on profit everything will belong to government which will ignore profit motive entirely and operate everything just to have job done.

This is not communism yet, but you can extrapolate where this can go.
I wonder if you have any other ideas on how this can be solved unless of course, we roll back everything population shrinks to less than a billion all technology is lots and we face new middle ages
in that situation, we should be more worried about the existence of internet than about its censorship.

 No.7607

>>7602

>They closed refineries because productivity was so high that there was no work left for those refineries


No, no - they closed the refineries to create a false scarcity. They could have, if they wished, kept refining oil into gasoline in great amounts. Prices at the pump could have plummeted. In order to keep their prices up, they shut down the refineries, thereby reducing the amount of gas getting produced, and keeping gas prices elevated. The work didn't go away, they shut it down deliberately for the sake of profits.

>but what happened to the people who got fired? like I said what required 1000 people with old technology now requires 10 people so where you put the rest of 990 who lost their job? you may suggest that they will get be employed elsewhere but productivity is increasing in all areas so people are being fired from all jobs not hired.


It's the "buggy whip" question. People who made buggy whips lost their jobs when the automobile replaced horse-drawn carriages. Well, we didn't hear about all the oil refinery employees marching on congress or dying in the streets, so they must have gotten other jobs. In this world, you must adapt as times change.

You may be right, for example, that artists will become unable to sell their art. If that happens, people will have to adapt. I think it would be a shame, and I think it will not create some kind of wonderland of free art if it happens that selling art is impossible. But people will have to adapt and find other ways to make a living. These kind of adjustments may be difficult but they are not impossible, and they are not so insurmountable a hill to get over that capitalism is imminently doomed.

 No.7617

>>7607
>Well, we didn't hear about all the oil refinery employees marching on congress or dying in the streets, so they must have gotten other jobs. In this world, you must adapt as times change.


yes you do not hear about those things that much probably you also never heard about 10million Hindus who die when the UK flooded Indian market with cheap fabric
also, Irish genocide performed by UK is no different
www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/earthrx-the-irish-potato-famine-was-caused-by-capi.html
that time death toll was counted in millions, but now you can expect something greater in the several orders order of magnitude.


even if we disregard all those human lives as a necessary sacrifice for the god of capitalism, it will not bring anything good to the survivors.

because all this productivity is based on the economy of scale and if the scale will shrink in several orders of magnitude productivity will shrink as well

As if for example there will be not enough people to pay for internet access that region may lose it entirely since it will not be worth it to maintain optical lines and distribution systems.

>These kind of adjustments may be difficult but they are not impossible, and they are not so insurmountable a hill to get over that capitalism is imminently doomed.


Unfortunately, those problems are fatal to capitalism. Great minds are trying to find any possible solutions but so far nobody succeeded and they will not succeed. You also did not even bothered to provide any hints of solutions besides that it will somehow resolve on its own.
One of the temporary proposals is UBI, which can save capitalism for few more years but this is practically communism already because you no longer need to work officially.
If we will get UBI there will be nothing else to do than create art and other similar content then give it for free or else you will be bored to death.
There will be no need to worry about survival because you will be paid enough to survive.

However, UBI is not going to work in the long term because it motivates people not to work and torturing freeloaders with poverty is not going to work either because you will lose the majority of customers.

So no matter what you do capitalism is doomed it is a question of what will happen next but the fact that capitalism ended is obvious and undeniable.

 No.7621

>>7617

>that time death toll was counted in millions, but now you can expect something greater in the several orders order of magnitude.


And if communism tries to establish itself, we may be able to expect Stalin-like levels of death and starvation, too.

>You also did not even bothered to provide any hints of solutions besides that it will somehow resolve on its own.


I don't pretend to know what will solve the world's problems or exactly how people will manage to adjust. For one thing, there's a remarkably bad success record when it comes to that kind of prediction. But what I do know is that people adapt to these things, or they die. Some people fled the potato famine and wound up in America, and sought their fortune here. Those people adapted. Others did not do so well.

But frankly, I don't think you have any room to lament the misfortune of Indians or the Irish in past centuries, considering how low you prioritize the potential survival and careers of artists versus your own desire for free art.

>Unfortunately, those problems are fatal to capitalism.

>but the fact that capitalism ended is obvious and undeniable.


You keep saying things like that but there's not much to back it up. It's not "obvious and undeniable" to ME, and I don't think your theories and assertions are correct. People have been predicting the end of capitalism for ages but it hasn't happened yet, and I don't find your arguments for the idea particularly convincing (obviously).

Capitalism has its problems, to be sure, but communism and all its variations have their own set of problems, and even if capitalism did go under (it won't) I really can't believe the alternatives are somehow going to do a better job of it THIS time.

 No.7622

>>7621
And if communism tries to establish itself, we may be able to expect Stalin-like levels of death and starvation, too.

a big chunk of that history about those deaths is a lie and same deaths happened all over the world including US and Europe.
but this is irrelevant because the soviet union was not the communist state, because labeling soviet union comiu8nist just because it was ruled by communist party is same as changing name of US every 4 years because it gets ruled by the republicans or democrats.


>I don't pretend to know what will solve the world's problems or exactly how people will manage to adjust.

if you don't know anything at all why do you claim that everything will be fine?
I cannot see any of your arguments besides that it worked for 200 years thus it will work forever
slavery survived much longer than capitalism and yet it still ended because it turned out unsustainable

eventually, it is all about motivation because the goal of society is to find away individual people to work and provide something useful in some way

capitalism relies on the most basic step of motivation by Maslow priority of needs as it says either you work or you will die.

But when that need is satisfied it loses importance, you cannot motivate people with more money if they have enough to pay the bills. so you need to move to the next step
society of the starving homeless individuals who work for food and shelter is not very effective.

communism relies on the latest step of motivation as you are given everything you need but you work for self-expression. where your satisfaction comes not from that fact that you survived one more day without starving to death but because your product is valued by the hundreds or thousands of people.
in that situation role of consumer and producer is reversed because now producer is paying consumer with his effort to make consumer use his product.


>Capitalism has its problems, to be sure, but communism and all its variations have their own set of problems, and even if capitalism did go under (it won't) I really can't believe the alternatives are somehow going to do a better job of it THIS time.


slavery and feudalism went under so why capitalism is eternal?

communism is still a long way to go, an alternative to communism is socialism or fascism
under socialism, you live in the prey same way as under capitalism except that all capital belongs to the democratic state.
the state becomes one megacorporation and all citizens become shareholders of that megacorporation.

In fact, we already have this situation, because every business entity is heavily indebted so everything belongs to the state already

when private companies will start going bankrupt they will officially become state property and private capital will be eliminated as unsustainable.

this is how it all will transform into socialism

it already happened at the high degree because pretty much everything belongs to the central bank already. They just try to maintain the illusion of capitalism which is already practically dead and just exist as the zombie.

 No.7624

>>7622

>a big chunk of that history about those deaths is a lie


I think you'll have to back that up before I believe it.

>but this is irrelevant because the soviet union was not the communist state, because labeling soviet union comiu8nist just because it was ruled by communist party


You're splitting hairs - sure, you could say that they had not achieved true communism, but by that metric nobody has, and nobody will. The totalitarianism that is imposed to bring communism into being is that theory's own "fatal problem" in that nobody running the totalitarian state will ever come around to the point where they hand the power over to the people like they're supposed to.

>slavery and feudalism went under so why capitalism is eternal?


For one thing, slavery and feudalism are not even the same kind of concepts as capitalism.

I wouldn't say capitalism is eternal, but there has to be a lot more in place before it disappears. Capitalism exists wherever two or more people exchange their work or their property for other forms of work and property (or currency as symbols of the same). Until you convince everyone on earth that nobody actually has a right to own or trade anything, that nobody can claim an exclusive right to some object, then some form of capitalism will exist, even if it's underground to elude the clutches of an authoritarian state.

>communism relies on the latest step of motivation as you are given everything you need but you work for self-expression. where your satisfaction comes not from that fact that you survived one more day without starving to death but because your product is valued by the hundreds or thousands of people.


And this is the ironic thing, that you talk about how one's work is "valued" when this whole thread has come about because people like you do NOT value the work of artists, in any meaningful sense...

 No.7628

>I think you'll have to back that up before I believe it.

I don't think it will be appropriate to start a debate about historical events but , my point was precisely same as yours, none of those claims about deaths caused by Stalin or any other communists has any proof. So do not use it as the argument.
the fact is that capitalists hate communists and it is obvious that they will invent any lies necessary to discredit it just like if you hate something at the level where your entire existence depends on that nobody with any amount of sanity will believe a single word that you say about what you hate.

>>The totalitarianism that is imposed to bring communism into being is that theory's own "fatal problem" in that nobody running the totalitarian state will ever come around to the point where they hand the power over to the people like they're supposed to.

you are talking nonsense because communism has no state by itself if there is a state it is not communism but socialism.
the name of communist just implies that this person hates state and seeks to abolish it. while socialist desires to keep the state and believes that state is a good thing.

it is the undeniable reality that you will not be able to exist without totalitarian state and all state with no exception are totalitarian because of that is the purpose of the state. it is necessary evil which forces everyone to obey rules.

You complain about a totalitarian communist state, but all states are totalitarian.

The idea of communism is that at some point state will become meaningless because there will be no laws left to enforce.

capitalism requires state because who else will track all that private property? you need some register which will track what belongs to what who is whose wife and child, who made a contract with whom. and it needs to have violent repression system to enforce all those property rights and contracts.

communism solves it all simply by abolishing all private property and contracts, so the state is no longer needed because it has nothing to do anymore there is nothing left to track or protect.

at most, we can still keep state for controlling another crime like vandalism, murder or violence, but there will be no way to complain about theft or breach of contract.

So as you see no totalitarianism is required for communism

it is precisely same as with this situation with art, you make something I take it if you complain nobody cares and just tells you that you are free just not to do anything because your property rights will not be respected.

we can extend it to the all aspect of the life like I can just come to your house and live there without asking you if you try to complain and kick me out I will fight to protect my right to live wherever I desire and you have the same right as well. I can use all your fruits of labor without asking or giving anything back.

Your only solution is not to work at all. just like with this art and nobody will give a damn about that but if you finally get bored to death and produce something everyone will grab it and use it if this is useful.

Of course, you still can trade but you can only trade work not some products we still can agree to cooperate like I make bread you make butter and then we combine that into sandwiches. but when we make them everyone around will come and start grabbing them as well so you will be forced to produce enough to satisfy everyone or else you will stay hungry.

>Until you convince everyone on earth that nobody actually has a right to own or trade anything, that nobody can claim an exclusive right to some object, then some form of capitalism will exist, even if it's underground to elude the clutches of an authoritarian state.


there is no need to convince anyone of anything like that the moment when the state will stop enforcing property rights with police violence property right will stop existing.

Again copyright is a perfect example when nobody gives a shit about your imaginary rights or your claim because there is no police which will come and put us in jail.

I can claim sun as my property with exact same success and demand you all to pay me for the light it produces. If I do that you just declare that I lost few screws in my head. I do same if you declare that something you made is yours.
How will you run that underground capitalism in that situation? how will you prove that something belongs to you and prevent people from using it?

Only if we have totalitarian state it can make us obey some arbitrary rules and pay for sunlight because some guy registered sun as his property.


>And this is the ironic thing, that you talk about how one's work is "valued" when this whole thread has come about because people like you do NOT value the work of artists, in any meaningful sense...


I don't see any problems in that the fact that your work is valued does not mean that you have to be compensated for that in any way. remember that you made it for yourself, not for us, and the fact that we like it is just coincidence, we did not request you to make anything. The work you produced is same as sunlight produced by the sun it is just there regardless if it is used or not.

 No.7629

So this went from paid works vs piracy to eceonomic debates.

My thoughts are simpler than if communism is real or whatever.

I'm in favor of switching regulations around, nobody should be able to patent art or life saving machines.
There should be a variety of public and private land.
And everyone should get food and shelter for free at a minimum. They'll work for more if there's work to be done.
And then artists are free to share and hide their art wherever and not need to leverage it to just fucking eat. Not need to choose between doing what you love but hating your life, and slaving away at a call center, bugging people, just to have a roof.

 No.7630

>>7629
In the essence, you are an example of socialist because you believe that government should manage everything.

however, if we think about some greater goals we should not think just how to fight evil but how to eliminate even possibility of evil

like instead of achieving the totalitarian state where every murderer is prosecuted and every crime is prevented we could achieve immortality and make it impossible.

this way we do not say that murder is somehow evil by itself the real evil, which has to be eliminated, lurks in the seeming innocent fact that people die when you shoot them.

And same is with capitalism as communists we should not try to satisfy everyone's needs without our own effort, we should work to create the environment where those needs are automatically satisfied by the absolute certainty and this question is no longer on the table at all.

 No.7631

>>7628

>my point was precisely same as yours, none of those claims about deaths caused by Stalin or any other communists has any proof.


Of course they do.

I quickly looked up something that called common estimates "overblown" and even while saying that Stalin didn't kill nearly as many people as they say he did, the person says that

>Stalin more or less deliberately caused the deaths of about 8–9 million people: 5 million in the collectivization famines of the early 1930s (thereof 3.3 million in Ukraine), 1 million people executed (thereof 681,692 in the 1937/38 purge) and 2–3 million deaths in labor camps and exile colonies.


So that's even from someone kind of defending Stalin.

If you're saying these events that are part of the public record didn't happen, you're straying into the kind of thinking of Holocaust deniers...

>there is no need to convince anyone of anything like that the moment when the state will stop enforcing property rights with police violence property right will stop existing. Again copyright is a perfect example when nobody gives a shit about your imaginary rights or your claim because there is no police which will come and put us in jail.


So you're imagining a world where people can just be assholes, walk into your house and take things, kick you out of your own house if they're stronger, where anyone can do whatever they feel like, because nobody will ever be punished for breaking a law because there's nobody to enforce any rules.

I guess you're right, then. Artists won't care about getting paid for art because they'll be too busy trying to keep violent sociopaths from stealing their stuff to even make art.


>I don't see any problems in that the fact that your work is valued does not mean that you have to be compensated for that in any way.


That's a pretty weak form of "value", is what I'm saying. You like something, but you don't want to have to go to any effort or sacrifice to get it. So if you weren't able to get it without giving anything in exchange, you would just do without. That doesn't sound like you like the art THAT much. It also in no way acknowledges the time, effort and practice an artist goes to in order to produce interesting art. I simply don't get any sense that you really feel much value in artists or their work.

 No.7632

>>7631
>If you're saying these events that are part of the public record didn't happen, you're straying into the kind of thinking of Holocaust deniers...


no, what I am saying is that it is not possible to tell that easily what was the cause of those deaths
same as in the island where capitalism killed plenty of people to holocaust itself which also possibly result of capitalism.

or alternatively, it all may be the natural reason like who do you blame collectivization if this can be some other reason as well.
finally, even if we blame Stalin for some deaths people who died are those who opposed state policy and it is totally natural that is you do not obey the law you kinda get killed by the government.

In that way, everyone who is ever put in jail is just as same as those who ended in gulags.

>So you're imagining a world where people can just be assholes, walk into your house and take things, kick you out of your own house if they're stronger, where anyone can do whatever they feel like, because nobody will ever be punished for breaking a law because there's nobody to enforce any rules.


you got it wrong because you are looking from the capitalist perspective where someone invading your house is an infringement on your rights.

but from the communist perspective, your attempt to claim ownership if that house and prevent other people from using it if infringement on their rights to use whatever they want

in fact, this is all totally fair because you also can enter any house and use it anytime you like
and you will not be breaking any law or even moral rules by doing that.
obviously, there must be some laws to prevent vandalism or abuse because while you can enter any house and use it for free if you burn it or trash it you will be punished.

in that words, you should not even think about owning anything ever, just like you do not think about owning sun today. when you work you work not because you need to work but because you want it and because working is fun.

if you like gardening you do gardening if you like doing art you do art if you like doing nothing at all you can lay down all day and do nothing but snort cocaine until you die.
however, you can't own anything you cant force anyone to do anything that is not fun.

Just do not start accusing me of being unrealistic, because this all depends on productivity and even while productivity is very high it is still not enough for communism to happen today, we need to increase it a bit more.

Communism is just target where we are moving naturally with increasing productivity, not what you achieve by force.

Communism is also far more efficient than capitalism because you do not need that many products if they are not owned.

>That's a pretty weak form of "value", is what I'm saying. You like something, but you don't want to have to go to any effort or sacrifice to get it. So if you weren't able to get it without giving anything in exchange, you would just do without. That doesn't sound like you like the art THAT much. It also in no way acknowledges the time, effort and practice an artist goes to in order to produce interesting art. I simply don't get any sense that you really feel much value in artists or their work.


like I already said you made this art for yourself, not for me. I never asked you to make it neither I really care, then why I have to compensate you for a that? wouldn't you like to ask compensation for you farts as well? you kinda made some effort to produce that too.

All that effort which came into producing your art was for your own pleasure and your own needs we as other people just come by to take leftovers. We want to you to produce more put paying for your work would change out relationships because now you are not working for your own pleasure but because you are my wage slave who is producing what I desire not what you desire.
In that situation all those skills you acquired are no longer yours but belong to your customers you are not human but just tool for producing stuff.

You can ask for money however if you do that you should do it in form of donation where people give you money not because they pay for your work but because they want to please you as the artist without expecting anything in return except that you will be in the better mood and produce more stuff. the money you get it totally unrelated to the art you produce you use your art to make people like you and people give money to you because they like you not because they like your art

Under capitalism, donations also can exist but in that situation, their goal is to provide you with extra income so that you do not need to spend time on some crap job but can focus on your hobby.
this is like local communism where other people provide you with the environment where you ideally do not need to care about other stuff but focus on doing what you like without any contracts or obligations.
you cant tell anyone how much you want to be paid but nobody also can tell you what they want you to do or how outside of suggestions.

This environment is proven to be most productive for creative professions.
because when you work for fun your productivity is far greater than slave labor.

 No.7633

but artist doesn't have to eat?

 No.7634

>>7633
If you are concerned about the food you will be better by working in Walmart than creating art because artist are paid very little for their work
if we speak about the 2d artwork you will be paid less than minimum wage.

If we talk about 3d it is so insanely easy to make that you will need to look for really extreme fools to pay you for that. unless we talk about something like paying 1$ for a picture

Also, we are practically living under communism already if you are in Europe you typically get welfare payments enough to even have a vacation once a year in Turkey or even keep a car.
many people still live with their parents and their main problem is boredom.
same is valid for Japan as well.
I guess US people are in the worse position but I heard that many live on welfare as well.

In any case, if you do not have family and children you have plenty of free time and money not to care about it that much.

 No.7635

>>7632

>Just do not start accusing me of being unrealistic, because this all depends on productivity and even while productivity is very high it is still not enough for communism to happen today, we need to increase it a bit more.


Not just "a bit". That kind of productivity is itself unrealistic by modern standards. The Star Trek TV and movie shows depicted that kind of society, where nobody had to work at anything they didn't want to do and all necessities were taken care of, and nobody used money. They also had access to fictional technology that gave them a near-infinite source of energy and the ability to transform some of that energy into matter. We're nowhere near a point where that will become viable.

>you got it wrong because you are looking from the capitalist perspective where someone invading your house is an infringement on your rights.


Yes, at the very least my right to privacy. Or the right to watch a TV show without someone bigger and stronger walking in and changing the channel. Removal of property rights is inherently a reduction in personal security.

>but from the communist perspective, your attempt to claim ownership if that house and prevent other people from using it if infringement on their rights to use whatever they want.


In practical terms this simply means whoever can overpower someone else can claim any item and dominate its use. Do you want to use your neighbor's ladder? Too bad, he's been working out and if he doesn't want you to take the ladder he can stop you.

Is that against the rules? Too bad, no cops to enforce them.

>in fact, this is all totally fair because you also can enter any house and use it anytime you like and you will not be breaking any law or even moral rules by doing that. obviously, there must be some laws to prevent vandalism or abuse because while you can enter any house and use it for free if you burn it or trash it you will be punished.


Punished by who? No cops are left in your world. Do you just gather a mob to make people behave? Now you're talking anarchy.

>like I already said you made this art for yourself, not for me. I never asked you to make it neither I really care, then why I have to compensate you for a that? wouldn't you like to ask compensation for you farts as well? you kinda made some effort to produce that too.


Well, you've just proved my point by comparing artistic output to farts. I see what you think of art now.

But to put it this way, if I made the art just for me, then there's not much reason for me to share it with the rest of the world, is there? Especially not if the rest of the world thinks of it as farts. And that just comes back to our earlier arguments where you simply can't understand why I wouldn't just throw all my art out there and get all that gravy in the form of appreciation from the person who thinks of it as just a different kind of fart.

 No.7640

>>7635
>We're nowhere near a point where that will become viable.


I totally agree but what matters is not where we are but in which direction we are moving. because you can either work towards that star trek future with abundance or you can go in the opposite direction and try to create artificial scarcity to preserve market as they did in the middle ages.

if you think like communist you will try to move as many stuff from the marker into infrastructure
as for example, there is no difference how many people use roads or water supply or internet so it makes little sense to take a fee for using it
you can just fund it all by some tax and provide it to everyone for free.

>Yes, at the very least my right to privacy. Or the right to watch a TV show without someone bigger and stronger walking in and changing the channel. Removal of property rights is inherently a reduction in personal security.


well sure there is some common sense but it depends on the situation as well I believe someday in the future it will not be uncommon when someone will break into your room rape your wife chop you into pieces and burn your house, and then you just bitch about being interrupted regenerate everything and continue like nothing happened

in fact, I even believe that at some time criminals will be pretty respectable people because by murdering or torturing you they will provide entertainment for you and other people as well so being attacked by someone will be just as desirable as being approached nicely today.

worse will eventually turn into something resembling a movie so villains will be just as necessary as heroes.

>In practical terms this simply means whoever can overpower someone else can claim any item and dominate its use. Do you want to use your neighbor's ladder? Too bad, he's been working out and if he doesn't want you to take the ladder he can stop you. Is that against the rules? Too bad, no cops to enforce them.


no this not against the rules but being friendly is still preferable and while you can run around doing nasty things this sill end by being hated
in fact, you can even keep your private property if you want because who cares or never let anyone in some house but they will be seen as some retarded asshole.

the main idea of communism is that you as limited humans have limited ability to use things, you cant live in more than one house and you can't drive more than one car at once also you do not drive the car all day long

if we abolish ownership and just let everyone to use everything we end with the huge improvement in efficiency and resource allocation

It is something similar to sharing economy.
the main concern in communism is how to prevent vandalism and abuse because it will be bad if someone takes a free bulldozer and starts demolishing an entire city someone has to stop that retard.

Besides, that there are no fundamental problems.

>Punished by who? No cops are left in your world. Do you just gather a mob to make people behave? Now you're talking anarchy.


we can both agree that full communism is a pretty distant goal, and until that we will need to keep cops and forced labor of some form.
this is what we know as socialism when we have everything same as under capitalism but just a bit of communism in some areas.
sure you will need comps and not only comps but lots of other workers but instead of paying them wages you probably do it as community work when government distributes jobs to everyone while nobody gets paid anything since this work is like a form of tax for living in that community.

More or less like your mom demands you to wash dishes or mow the lawn and you are not paid for anything that. you probably will get some perks for doing some jobs.
it is not like that work will take too much time to make you too unhappy. I guess you probably could dedicate one or 2 days a week for doing some public service if you get everything for free.

>But to put it this way, if I made the art just for me, then there's not much reason for me to share it with the rest of the world, is there? Especially not if the rest of the world thinks of it as farts.


I already said that yes there is no reason for you to share your art and I have no desire to force you to do that either even by paying you money.

If you do not feel pleasure from the fact that other people like it if you do not imagine what other people do when they look at it and how they feel and it that does not make you aroused then there is no reason for you to share anything but you are missing a lot of fun.

I myself noticed that doing something for other people for free is a pretty pleasant thing for many reasons if those people respond well.

appreciation is just one of the rewards what matters more is not even appreciation of your work but the fact that other people share same values as you and lots of other stuff.

if nothing of that interests you I suppose you would be suffering along under true communism where nobody will pay anything to you for anything you do and you will be even required to compete for customers who actually want something from you.

One of the problems is that we do not need or want that much so there is just nothing to do with yourself. if you serve other people and you have empathy you can get lots of pleasure from stuff which you would not care about. Also, it works in same way as game quests work.


>And that just comes back to our earlier arguments where you simply can't understand why I wouldn't just throw all my art out there and get all that gravy in the form of appreciation from the person who thinks of it as just a different kind of fart.


You do that because it feels good this is the only reason.

it is the exact same reason why women spend an hour on putting makeup just to go somewhere in public.

there was even experiment done where lawyers were asked to help someone for some 10$ payment (while normally it costs 100$) or help for free and they refused to help for money but agree to pay for free.

same even worked on the referendum in swiss people refused to allow building nuclear waste storage in their village when they got paid but agreed to do it for free.

So do not underestimate the harm of money it makes your life pretty unpleasant. if we manage to get rid of money it would add lots of happiness.

 No.7641

>>7640

>the main idea of communism is that you as limited humans have limited ability to use things, you cant live in more than one house and you can't drive more than one car at once also you do not drive the car all day long


Maybe not, but if I'm not using my car and someone comes along and takes it for a drive, then if I need it for some reason, like an emergency, then I don't have access to it until it's brought back, or I have to go hunt someone else's car down to use it. (And who knows if THOSE cars will be in use by others or not, or be within walking distance.)

The amazing thing to me is that you don't address this by saying "oh, in the wonderful communist future everyone will have their own cars and houses and nobody will ever NEED to take other people's stuff", no, you have to invent a state of mind where nobody will CARE about keeping their stuff, and nobody will even care about being hurt or killed because they just magically get better.

Maybe that's fine for a sci-fi utopia, but until we stop living in the real world, people are going to need certain rights. Frankly, I think you're fooling yourself if you think people can be totally convinced to give up the idea of owning things. I think your outlook is blind to reality and wildly improbable.

 No.7642

>>like instead of achieving the totalitarian state where every murderer is prosecuted and every crime is prevented we could achieve immortality and make it impossible.

this is why I say you're still so cool.

 No.7643

Onix must really poor,he can't pay $5-10 for worth month of arts.though it's cheap than one pizza box.

 No.7647

>>7641
>Maybe not, but if I'm not using my car and someone comes along and takes it for a drive,


you are splitting hairs here because this situation is not going to happen often, neither it is unsolvable.

>The amazing thing to me is that you don't address this by saying "oh, in the wonderful communist future everyone will have their own cars and houses and nobody will ever NEED to take other people's stuff", no, you have to invent a state of mind where nobody will CARE about keeping their stuff, and nobody will even care about being hurt or killed because they just magically get better.



this is because you are thinking about fake communism invented by Chruschew. ant this is one of the reasons why soviet union failed.

as they started to with real communism under Stalin where the main focus was on the changing people minds and getting rid of the idea of ownership. it was impossible to buy lots of stuff, but you were able to rent it for the pretty low price and it was pretty good quality.

Later Chruscew proclaimed new idea that they will just give everything to everyone and ramped up production of various low-quality trash but nothing was ever enough.


Funny enough capitalists achieved what Stalin was trying to do as now practically nobody owns anything everything is bought on the credit so everything belongs to the state including even your iPhone.

You are living under the illusion of capitalism only because people with small exceptions do not own anything already. There is practically no property left which does not belong to the state.

 No.7648

>>7643
Well, I could pay that much but I will not pay in principle because I don't need to. It is much more pleasant to get it for free. And I refuse to pay for any such stuff even in principle. I agree to provide any other services to the artist but not paying money.

Also, 10$ is pretty decent money where I live since my country has no printing press it can't just print money for its citizens like US or UK and give it for free. We need to actually earn it.

Price of the pizza box is $1-3 here.
Since money is so unavailable here we prefer to use barter when possible instead of money. Also, it is much less stress when you do not need to think how much you should take for certain work and I always have that problem when I just have no clue how much I shoud take for some work which costs nothing to me. If I take too much that client may be upset it I take too little I will look stupid or waste oportunity to earn more.

 No.7649

>>7648
then you need to get a decent job instead of buthurt and make wall of crying wall of text about the right of piracy here.

hell i live in third world SEA and made a ton of money,where do you live? iraq?

 No.7650

>>7647

>you are splitting hairs here because this situation is not going to happen often, neither it is unsolvable.


If you own your own car, and your right to it is protected, the situation doesn't have to happen at all.

You're insisting on treating artists based on a philosophy or system that is not universally accepted (perhaps not even accepted by any but a very small group), that to work properly has to have a series of conditions that don't exist, and in many cases are very unlikely to exist. It's idealistic and utopian.

But it seems to be the religion under which you operate, so I can see that pointing out these problems will be brushed off.

 No.7651

If it once worked, it might be.
It it did work, it would be.
But as it isn't, it ain't.
That's communism.

 No.7652

>>7649
why should I bother with better job mine is fine as it is now I don't want to spend much of time doing something I hate to buy something I don't need and don't really care that much.

also, I am not butthurt one here I am pretty satisfied with all this situation
piracy is hurting you not me I love it.

>>7650

>You're insisting on treating artists based on a philosophy or system that is not universally accepted (perhaps not even accepted by any but a very small group), that to work properly has to have a series of conditions that don't exist, and in many cases are very unlikely to exist. It's idealistic and utopian.


no, I am insisting on making art unprofitable in a way that artists finally acknowledge that any attempt to make money from that job is totally futile and should not even be bothered.
the only reason why anyone should do any art is self-expression.

ideally, that should happen with all jobs in existence (and it definitely will happen) but you have to start somewhere.

>But it seems to be the religion under which you operate, so I can see that pointing out these problems will be brushed off.


well, I somehow agree because capitalism is also nothing else than religion and pretty recent one. I cant prove which is better.
If you want to live in a religion which promotes suffering as the main virtue I can let you suffer as much as you like. I just will not participate in that crap.

 No.7654

>>7652

>If you want to live in a religion which promotes suffering as the main virtue I can let you suffer as much as you like. I just will not participate in that crap.


No, you'll just aim for a system that has historically encouraged other suffering. And I won't participate in YOUR crap, and I won't give you free art.

 No.7655

>>7654
Feel free to do anything you like but in any case, your religion lost.

and please stop wasting time on deceitful propaganda because you don't have any choice no matter if communism is good or bad you have no alternatives.

 No.7656

>>7655

>and please stop wasting time on deceitful propaganda because you don't have any choice


Well, you stop with your deceitful propaganda and then I'll think about stopping mine.

Also, I like how you went to "please don't do this but you'll be forced to conform anyway". Why bother saying "please"? Why bother asking me to stop if your way is inevitable?

If I see any other examples of people disrespecting the works of artists so that people can leech free art, I reserve the right to comment.

 No.7658

>>7656
>Also, I like how you went to "please don't do this but you'll be forced to conform anyway". Why bother saying "please"? Why bother asking me to stop if your way is inevitable?


It is not what I meant.
My point was that regardless of how many lies you will tell about the horrors of communism you will not change the fact that capitalism is dying.
Scaring tactic will not stop it. Because it is not up to you to anyone to decide it is an inevitable natural process.

also, I may even ignore your incorrect facts about death counts but you did not suggest any better alternatives than that. We should compare how many deaths would happen if Soviets did not come in power at that time and if they did not kill all those people.

Also, I am not demanding you or anyone to become communist or obey me or anyone else. I am merely explaining to you the reality and it is up to you to decide how to react to that.

I already said that I love this situation and you seem to hate it. fortunately for me (and unfortunately for you), it will get better (worse).

You can try to reconsider your beliefs or you can observe death and decay of the old world.

 No.7659

>>7652
*Not butthurt and don't really care*
*Build wall of text about why piracy should stay*

LMAO,go get job and stop begging money from your parent dude.

 No.7660

>>7659
I kinda miss your point. Is this supposed to be some insult or you are trying to say something?

I think I will inform you just for fun that I am not begging for any money from anyone and I have quite some savings as well.

Unlike other people who sometimes discuss that stuff I do not complain about prices or whether I am too poor or too rich, I am not going to pay for that stuff in principle regardless of how much money I make, even if I had the fortune of bill gates I would not pay for any work of art or any software but use pirated or cracked version or use some free stuff.
I don't mind to barter with people but the option of using money using money is off the table.

 No.7662

>>7658

>My point was that regardless of how many lies you will tell about the horrors of communism you will not change the fact that capitalism is dying.


It is not a lie that so far, every attempt to establish communism has resulted in eventual failure, if not disaster. Did the Soviet Union not collapse? Is Cuba not mostly in poverty? Has not China become more capitalist (but not less repressive)? Venezuela, anyone?

So far, you have not really offered any convincing case that either capitalism will collapse or that the true, best communism will somehow arise from the ashes. And so it seems more likely that whatever next attempt at communism occurs, it will either crash and burn or at the very least fail to turn into the communist paradise you predict.

All you have presented is a vague theory about overproduction to go on as "evidence" that capitalism will fail - it may seem obvious and inevitable to you, but you haven't even come close to being convincing to anyone who doesn't share your infatuation with that ideology. I'm not going to just take your word that capitalism is "inevitably" going to fail. (It's as if you think capitalism is like the chocolate factory scene in the I Love Lucy TV show and it's just going to go faster and faster until it buries everyone with consumer goods, and somehow nobody can ever turn it down, or even off.)

So maybe I can't "change the fact" that capitalism is going to fail, but I don't think you've done enough to establish that it IS a fact, and not just your hopeful fantasy.

 No.7664

>>7662
None of those countries even claimed to be communist
they all claim to be socialist states and that is a big difference.

And I also never said that collapse will bring instant communism I just identified communism as end goal, not as something that will happen overnight because some law will be passed

so you what you say is a plain lie and strawman demagogy where you try to use associative manipulation merely putting words together to sound scary even if nothing of that has any relevance to anything I said.

Why do you constantly speak about supposed communist China or soviet union if I already explained that neither of them was communist?

Even ideology of Soviet Union was not communist but capitalist while modern "capitalist" ideology is far more communistic that in the soviet union.

Are you going to compare people who propose UBI as genocidal communists as well, whose goal is to kill every living thing in proximity?

Are you going to compare people who propose sharing economy to Stalin?

>I'm not going to just take your word that capitalism is "inevitably" going to fail.


It already failed all that discussion started because you complained that people do not respect your self-proclaimed copyright.

And the situation is same in all areas of the economy. It is practically impossible to get any profit from doing anything nowadays.
the only reason why companies and people make money is that they are taking loans.
Wages are stagnating for 50 years already while prices of most important stuff are going up.

Just some time ago working man was easily able to support his entire family and even afford to hire a maid as in those old TV series.

And how many families have maids today? Both parents are working full time and they cant even buy their own home.

Everyone around is talking about this fact that capitalism failed only nobody dares to say it straight.

 No.7666

>>7664

>None of those countries even claimed to be communist

they all claim to be socialist states and that is a big difference.

If that's true, then that makes your claim of an end goal of communism to be even more of a fairytale, because there is then nothing in the real world to even approximate it. It's a fantasy based on wishes and dreams.

Sure, it might be quite nice if nobody had to work for a living and we could all sit around living off our basic income for our entire lives, but that isn't happening now and is not likely to. You offer no real demonstration of a mechanism for how it could work, only some vague philosophical generalities.

>It already failed


Only you believe that, and you're not a credible source.

 No.7669

>>7666
>If that's true, then that makes your claim of an end goal of communism to be even more of a fairytale, because there is then nothing in the real world to even approximate it. It's a fantasy based on wishes and dreams.


It is here already,
Even heard about GPL? linux/android system on your phone is based on communist principles. google makes it for free and gives to everyone who wants it.

the same art we were talking about before is generally available for free

All youtube is full of free information and educational videos or other content.


and even UBI is already available in practically all European states(they call it welfare), for example in the UK you will get up to 1000 pounds per month for nothing that is a horribly huge sum of money which is like twice more than even average wage in eastern Europe.
I even know some people myself who claim to work only for fun but not for money because by not working they would be receiving more income.

Why else do you think all those immigrants are invading Europe?
Even immigrants who come to the US, rarely work but live on the welfare.

by the way, UBI was available even in the Victorian times because aristocracy was scared to death by what happened in France when lack of welfare caused revolution and all aristocracy was exterminated at the level that put your anticommunist propaganda to shame. Executors were collapsing from exhaustion as they needed to decapitate hundreds of people in a day.

>Sure, it might be quite nice if nobody had to work for a living and we could all sit around living off our basic income for our entire lives, but that isn't happening now and is not likely to. You offer no real demonstration of a mechanism for how it could work, only some vague philosophical generalities.


yes, I totally agree on that UBI and welfare is the unsustainable system because it discourages people from working for the similar reason like you refuse to share your works.
It does not make sense to work when most of your money being taken away and given to some slackers you better just joining those slackers
But you already do not need to work for a living.

Currently, the government uses poverty as a way to encourage people to work. You are not required to work but you will be poor.
However, this system is breaking apart because getting employed will not provide you more income than the welfare system. Only an idiot will go to work today if you get more by not working.

Replacing current welfare with UBI may fix this situation because now, if you get a job you lose welfare and even pay half of what you get as a tax. If it gets changed into UBI getting employed will not reduce your income.


>Only you believe that, and you're not a credible source.

I am not a source for that, just look around and you will see yourself.
Everybody is talking about that.
Only think about the meaning of negative interest rates. What kind of sense that makes under capitalism?

 No.7670

"Intellectual property" is a concept that feels like its right out of kindergarden. Like two three year olds fighting over who had an idea first, instead of sharing the idea and both benefiting from it.

Except that instead of 3 year olds, bawling and pulling each others hairs, its adults, paying lawyers and trying to fine each other and ruin each others existence because they dared to copy something.

They go as far and say "copying is stealing".

But that is and always has been a lie. The process of copying is not taking anything away, on the contrary, it creates new value by duplicating a work of value.

The only place where someone looses value from copying is in a capitalist system under monopoly conditions, aka, when there is only one source and whoever sits on the source is keeping supply artificially below demand to achieve high prices.

This is what "copyright" is. A monopoly granted by law.

As anyone knows who knows the first thing about capitalism, monopolies are always bad. For everyone. As the rules of free market do not apply.

This is why creative commons and free software are so successful. The freedom of copying benefits everyone, the whole society. If that wasn't the case no more free software would be created.

Granted, "pirating" works that are paywalled violates copyright law, but that does not make it morally wrong, just legally wrong. The moral justification for copyright is one of greed.

Instead of getting paid for work (commissions) like any other worker or businessman in any other industry who creates something, the artist in question who paywalls his work wants to be paid for the same work he once did, over and over and over and over again by monopolising himself as the only legal source.

The same with music. The same with patented technology. And yes, I know, the original intent of introducing patents was to do good, but the way they are used these days is inherently evil.

I do strongly believe artist deserve credit.

If you post a work by someone else, by all means post a link to the artist, make them known, advertise for them, just as their work should be their best advertisement.

Claiming someone else's work as your own is immoral. Its simply a lie.

But IMHO copying is OK. We are privileged to live in a world where works can be copied by the click of a button instead of having to do it by hand, stroke by stroke or letter by letter. And with perfect digital copies, instead of imperfect hand made attempts.

In the middle ages the work of a copyist was hard manual labor. Nowadays its so easy it feels almost wrong.

But it isn't. It's a blessing. And whoever insists on paywalling his creations simply hasn't understood that. Because they are still on the mental level of a 3 year old, fighting over who thought of it first.

 No.7671

>>7670

It's kind of sad and amazing that people don't have a basic understanding of the reasoning behind copyright.

The idea of intellectual property is one of incentive.

It used to be that most great works of art were paid for by the rich, who would hire artists to paint portraits or make sculptures or whatever. The poor didn't get to hear symphonies, they sat around with their fiddles and shared their art freely, such as it was.

Someone like Vincent Van Gogh, who painted without patronage, could be doing art for the sheer love of art - but he lived and died in poverty and it's only by chance that anyone now recognizes his work for its greatness.

The idea of copyright is to give financial incentive for someone to create new work. If you write a book, and the moment you release it anyone can just make their own copy for free, then why would you put in the work to make your next book? This is what would happen before copyright - wealthy people who owned publishing companies would copy and print and sell books, and not give the actual authors a dime.

Copyright is designed to give creative people a means by which to create, and profit from their creations so they can support themselves from their creative efforts instead of having to work on the farm or in the factory, giving them the time and incentive to create more work to enrich society.

Copyright has, admittedly, been expanded far beyond its original bounds. It was once a period of 20 years, 40 if you filed an extension. Enough to give someone time to earn money from their work, but not so much that someone could just sit around and live off one single work. Now in the US it's the life of the author plus 70 years, and that's because of pressure on Congress by large corporate interests. But corporate abuse of copyright doesn't make the concept of copyright less moral.

The real "kindergardeners" are the ones who see all art as something they're entitled to, to just reach out and grab with their sticky hands, who throw angry tantrums at artists who dare to suggest that they be rewarded for creating art with something other than empty praise.

I believe what we are headed for, if this trend continues, is not an era where everyone makes art and gives it out for free just because nobody allows them to turn a profit from it, no, this communist fairytale is not going to happen. Sure, there will be some people who continue to make art for free, just for the sake of making art. But that will be the equivalent of fiddle music. It won't be the BEST art. It will be average, rough and sketchy.

The ones who take pride in their skill and talent will move to whatever venues reward that skill and talent. We'll go back to a time where only the very rich will be able to afford art like that, where the rich will hire the best artists to make art only for them, and they will hold it on private servers or in vaults and otherwise hoard it and keep it for themselves.

I know from experience that some of this is already happening on a small scale.

 No.7674

>>7671

>I believe what we are headed for, if this trend continues, is not an era where everyone makes art and gives it out for free just because nobody allows them to turn a profit from it, no, this communist fairytale is not going to happen. Sure, there will be some people who continue to make art for free, just for the sake of making art. But that will be the equivalent of fiddle music. It won't be the BEST art. It will be average, rough and sketchy.


How about you go to pixiv.net or DeviantArt.com and check it yourself how communist fairytale is happening right on your screen, instead of talking nonsense?

>The ones who take pride in their skill and talent will move to whatever venues reward that skill and talent. We'll go back to a time where only the very rich will be able to afford art like that, where the rich will hire the best artists to make art only for them, and they will hold it on private servers or in vaults and otherwise hoard it and keep it for themselves.


and how do you think those super rich people will find out if they are hiring the best artist or if there is some noob who holds a pencil in his hand for the first time in his life?
If you wish to be hired by some super rich guy you will be required to provide a decent portfolio of your work for free to prove that you are best of the best.
And also when you make art for that rich guy he will most likely share it with everyone anyway as that is the main point of ordering art in the first place. and in that situation, he will be an owner of your work, not you.

 No.7675

>>7674

>How about you go to pixiv.net or DeviantArt.com and check it yourself how communist fairytale is happening right on your screen, instead of talking nonsense?


Sure, there's lots of art that you can have for free at no cost to you, but that does not mean there is no cost involved. Many of those works are subsidized, that is, they're commissions, or professional work, that have been paid for directly by others, at some going business rate. Other works are works done for the artists' own enjoyment, that they can afford to give for free because they're working elsewhere professionally. Some are given for free, as you say, as a portfolio, intending to attract publicity, not that the artist really cares about providing free art for the good of others, but as promotion and advertising.

Well, if you have your way and nobody can sell art anymore, then all the professionally-related work goes away, since there's no point to it. Less art, not more, and what remains will most likely be amateur quality.

>If you wish to be hired by some super rich guy you will be required to provide a decent portfolio of your work for free to prove that you are best of the best.


Sure, but they're provided for free directly to potential clients. People trying to get professional artist work send things to the people doing the hiring, not just leave it lying around online hoping someone will just drift by one day and discover them and hire them. And it will be a market in favor of the rich guy, meaning that there will be less decent jobs, and less openings, and while the "best of the best" get hired, the rest have to toil away or give up. You seem to think that all these people will then decide to just make art for free for the rest of the world just because there's nothing better to do. I tend to think that will not be enough incentive, and that many artists will go do something else, or work at art as a hobby for themselves only, and the rest of the world won't even know about them. Less art, not more.

 No.7676

>>7675
>Many of those works are subsidized, that is, they're commissions, or professional work, that have been paid for directly by others, at some going business rate.


Nonsense. You probably never even used those sites if you say such things. Just go there and observe all that unbelievable amout of stuff. You probably will not be able to see all those pictures even if you do nothing more than browse them because they are being produced faster than you can watch them.
It almost all free and has nothing to do with any commission.
There are very few artists who do commissions but most are just doing it for free.
art quality also has no relationship to the fact if it is paid or free
For example, dofantasy sells art which is pretty primitive and sketchy while you can find free works that are far superior to that.

>Sure, but they're provided for free directly to potential clients.


And how do you do that? how do you find those potential clients and make the waste their very valuable time on your worthless crap? how do you even prove that this is your work and you did not just download it somewhere?

Nobody will even look at your work and nobody will hire you because nobody has any clue what you can do. As we already know, there are hundreds of thousands of works already. So good look convincing someone to look at your pictures even if you give them for free.

The only way how you can attract a rich guy is by building the good name of yourself and that can be done only by posting lots of free pictures and getting lots of publicity and lots of likes.

When you become famous, sometimes some clients come to you and offer you some job.

without posting hundreds of free picture you will not even manage to build any skills to market because you have no clue how to make good art.

Sure you probably can practice for a few years in the basement never share anything and then try to spam people with your offers but I can bet it will not work as good as just posting hundreds fo your works for free and waiting.

But nothing of that makes any economic sense if you consider commision prices. Are you planning to work for 10-20$ a day before tax? there is no less paid job than being an artist competition is just too high and demand too low.

I would not worry about an artist working for themselves because that is the most stupid thing one can imagine even
if you put something on some medium this because you want to show it to someone. if you do it for yourself you have your fantasy no need to waste hours of work on painting something you already have in your head.

 No.7678

>>7671

>The idea of copyright is to give financial incentive for someone to create new work


No its not. Its a pretense to "sell" that bullshit to the general public and justify it. Copyright is NOT giving any incentive to create NEW work, because by monopolising who can copy it, you can sell the same OLD work over and over and keep making profit from it.

I agree with you that the latest abscess of this is the extension of music copyright so global corporations that bought the rights can keep making profits even decades after the artists who made it have died. But even the original 20 years span was 20 years of wrongness.

There is always demand for new creative work, there is no need to monopolize monetarisation of existing old work. Especially in these days.

In Van Gogh's time, in order to present an art piece to a wider public, you needed to either travel a lot, or get your work exhibited in a place that was regularly frequented by a wider public (Or at least the rhich and mighty)
If you were not known, that was barely possible, as such the entry hurdle to become a successful artist was very high.

Nowadays everyone can present their works to the whole world on sites like DeviantArt and the like. New digital artists don't need museums and exhibitions. The result is an explosion of works.
Also these platforms allow artists to find commissioners around the world. Its a healthy environment. Lots of works, lots of competition, lots of exposure.

These platforms have become possible not because of copyright, but despite of copyright, thanks to liberal, open licenses that allow everyone to view (which means download screen resolution digital copies) of all these arts.

Copyright only has a benefit once an artist is already famous and sought after. Once he is known, because then he can paywall all his crap and get filthy rich by charging everyone who wants to see it without the need to actually make anything substantially new.

This is a perversion of "give financial incentive for someone to create new work". Its the exact opposite. No matter how often this lie gets reiterated, its still a lie!

You know what works? Artists who say "you like what you see? Join my patreon, and everytime I get $X together, I make another piece, but everyone gets to see it."

This is the one model that makes everyone happy, including the artist. And to work, it needs no fucking copyright at all.

 No.7688

>>7678

>No its not. Its a pretense to "sell" that bullshit to the general public and justify it.


Actually, I would say that your argument is a pretense to justify treating artists like shit because they don't want to hand free work over to people like you, but whatever.

>There is always demand for new creative work, there is no need to monopolize monetarisation of existing old work. Especially in these days.


Yeah, there's always demand for new work, that's why Hot Topic is constantly ripping off people's art and putting it on T-shirts and selling it to trendy kids for lots of money, of which they give exactly none to the artists that actually created the images they use. There's no need for any protection from this kind of corporate dickery, how dare an artist think they can hold a monopoly on the products of their own thought and labor. Fuck them for thinking that, right?




>>7676

>Nonsense. You probably never even used those sites if you say such things.


I have accounts at both dA and pixiv, with (non-guro) art of my own posted on dA. So shove your condescension.

Of course, there will always be exceptions to any rule, but in my experience, the more skilled artists tend to be essentially reposting things they did in exchange for money, like commissions, or published work, or even "art trades", art done in exchange for another artists' work. Things done for donations on livestreams, also. Some of it's pretty obvious, when the description of the picture actually says "Commission for [User Name]". Some of it is less obvious, such as when an artist is employed by a publisher or game company or something, and they post production work. But such an employee, even when they post personal work for free, has that luxury because they are making money from their art at their job.

Then we have the hopefuls who post whatever work they can, anywhere, in an effort to get noticed. You get free work from them now, but as soon as they see an opportunity to make a living (or even extra grocery money) from their art, they will concentrate on that and the free stuff will slow to a trickle, if not dry up completely.

And yes, some people will just post art for the love of making and sharing art. Good for them! But honestly, the majority of them are amateur level. Some are indeed excellent! Most are average.

Even pixiv is starting some kind of "Fanbox" service which seems to be some kind of Patreon-like operation, and a large number of the artists I follow on Pixiv are jumping on that. Plus a lot of those Japanese artists have long been monetizing their work by printing doujinshi and selling them through various sites and outlets.

I suspect you're not as aware of that kind of thing because you don't want to be; you just look at the art and wallow in it and don't pay attention to the artist or what they say about the art, if it doesn't line up with your ideology.

>And how do you do that? how do you find those potential clients and make the waste their very valuable time on your worthless crap? how do you even prove that this is your work and you did not just download it somewhere?


It's like you don't understand how publishing works.

 No.7692

>>7688
>I have accounts at both dA and pixiv, with (non-guro) art of my own posted on dA.


LOL our capitalist guy who promised to take his works to the grave posting them on DA for free to prove that communism does not work.
It just can't get funnier

If you make such brave claims that all those artists are making money off their work why you do not join them but complain about piracy?
most of their commercial work is also freely available.

Regardless of why those artworks were produced they still end freely available and get posted by the artist. even if they were commissioned by someone else or paid by some company it does not matter because they are still free.
if you live in Europe even government can pay for your art in form of welfare because you will get more than enough money to survive without getting a job.

if you do commisions you usually post all those commisions for free use as well.

and considering patreon style stuff most content producers give everything to everyone for free anyway. In fact, patreon sometimes makes it worse, because artists who used to post for free now sometimes decide that since I can make money why not.

>It's like you don't understand how publishing works.


How is publishing related to the private work for some rich guy who ordered you to make few pictures at the market price?

 No.7693

Mass debating politics makes you go blind to the issues.

 No.7694

>>7692

>LOL our capitalist guy who promised to take his works to the grave posting them on DA for free to prove that communism does not work.


Well, if you weren't so dense, you'd remember that I don't post guro art because I don't trust people like you not to spread them around. Non-guro art comes with a different set of conditions, and I don't worry about it in the same way.

And for sure, whether or not I post this art for free has nothing to do with communism working or not. Communism is currently giving me nothing and doing nothing for me, and I am not putting art on dA out of any communist ideal. At best it could be called altruism, at worst it's self-interested promotion.

>Regardless of why those artworks were produced they still end freely available and get posted by the artist. even if they were commissioned by someone else or paid by some company it does not matter because they are still free.


My point is that whether or not they're free for someone like you to see, they didn't get created for you, and they didn't get created in any kind of idealistic spirit of communism. Without capitalistic motivations, a lot of that art would not have been made, and if your communist system were to take everything over, it's my contention that a lot of artists would lose any reason for posting art, and the end result would be less art, overall, for you to look at.

>How is publishing related to the private work for some rich guy who ordered you to make few pictures at the market price?


Because it would likely result in the same kind of submission process. Publishers who are known to be looking for artists have editors and offices that take in and judge the work of hopeful applicants; if things get to that point, the wealthy would likely have people sending their portfolios and submissions directly to them, or their representatives. It'd be the same kind of process whether someone was trying to be hired by a corporation, or by some rich dude.

This is part of the reason why your attitude of getting art for free and trying to discourage artists from selling their work is so toxic: You're not going to wipe out the large corporations doing any of this, your actions affect mostly independent artists working for themselves. If you make it impossible for artists to sell work themselves, then the logical next step is for those artists to go to big businesses or wealthy individuals to generate an income. And this goes not just for illustration art, but for music and videos and any other creative medium - it's the indie folks that take the biggest hit while the large companies have the resources to last far longer.

 No.7695

>>7694

I think we can end the discussion

You are basically admitting yourself that only large megacorporation have the might to enforce protectionist copyright laws that they lobbied for in the first place, while small artists, who copyright was supposedly made to protect, don't benefit from it in the digital age.

Copyright is an arbitrary, unnatural right with no valid justification, except to create major content monopolists and to protect them.

You do not need copyright to "sell your work" as an artist. You only need copyright if you wanna make a work once, and then sell it twice. Or three times. Or three million times (if its that popular) and get paid every time again and again.

If I am a baker, I can't make a bun, and then sell it twice to two different customers. Attempting to do so would be fraud, since there is only one. Is a bakers or carpenters or masons work worth less than that of a digital content creator, because he can sell his work only once unless he builds a machine for mass production?

If you want your work to stay as unique, then paint on canvas and auction of the original. But don't argue for automatically owning every possible digital copy ever made, just because you made the first one. There's simply no justification for that.

Making the first one is hard, copying them is easy. Therefore its fair enough to charge a client or the community as a whole (patreon, etc...) for new work. But once its made, its paid. And if it isn't, you are free to either keep it secret to yourself until you got something from someone, or you just set it free anyway as an investment/advertisement. I see nothing wrong with that business model, since its simply how everyone else on the planet works.

There is simply no reason to privilege some creative workers over everyone else. Especially not if the privilege in question doesn't even work and ends up serving only large companies, who fuck over the artist just as much as everyone else.

 No.7698

>>7694

>Well, if you weren't so dense, you'd remember that I don't post guro art because I don't trust people like you not to spread them around. Non-guro art comes with a different set of conditions, and I don't worry about it in the same way.


No nonguro art comes with exactly same conditions.
you are giving it for free without getting paid and people have an exactly same attitude on DA as they have here.

the fact that you are paranoid about posting guro art is totally irrelevant to the discussion about copyright and rewarding artists for their work

even if we speak about rewarding you for your work that reward would be paid not for your work on making that art but as compensation for your paranoia. since if that art was not guro you would have posted it for free.


>And for sure, whether or not I post this art for free has nothing to do with communism working or not. Communism is currently giving me nothing and doing nothing for me, and I am not putting art on dA out of any communist ideal. At best it could be called altruism, at worst it's self-interested promotion.


It obviously has to do a lot with communism because you are proving my point with your own actions. because regardless of your excuses you are acting like communist and give your work for free to people who do not even care about you.
And no, it is not altruism just like it is not charity to donate $10 to bill gates. and since you are most likely not a professional artist, it is not self-promotion as well.

>My point is that whether or not they're free for someone like you to see, they didn't get created for you, and they didn't get created in any kind of idealistic spirit of communism. Without capitalistic motivations, a lot of that art would not have been made, and if your communist system were to take everything over, it's my contention that a lot of artists would lose any reason for posting art, and the end result would be less art, overall, for you to look at.


So why you created and posted that nonguro art on DA?
Expecting to get employed by Bill Gates ?
What realistic capitalist motivations you have?


> if things get to that point, the wealthy would likely have people sending their portfolios and submissions directly to them, or their representatives. It'd be the same kind of process whether someone was trying to be hired by a corporation, or by some rich dude.


Things already got to that point. how many time did you contact Bill Gates offering him your guro artwork? just $1000 per picture LOL
In case you didn't know that kind of behavior on the internet is known as spamming. Contacting other people with proposals for some services or goods is even punishable by law.

And you can get hired by corporation anytime you like. They have plenty of job offerings they just pay so little that you are going to starve on that wage and work like slave.

Also, your work will still end in free domain eventually if you work as animator or artist for some corporation, because all stuff they make will eventualy get uploaded on internet.

 No.7699

>>7695

I think if we end the conversation, it'll be because you have a fundamental inability to understand what words mean.

This gibberish about selling physical things versus intellectual properties is just smoke and mirrors. The function of copyright is built into the name - the right to copy - which inherently takes into account the difference between IP and physical goods. It's like you've never seen a row of all the same paperback book or CD before.

Granted, it should not be that Hot Topic has the power to rip off artists and then resist their complaints with the power of high-priced attorneys and legal fees. But that's not a failure of copyright law so much as a problem with corporations and a huge imbalance in available funds.

And my earlier point still stands - by not respecting copyright, people like you are working towards a scenario where people either drop out of art, because there's nothing left in it for them, or they will seek shelter where the money is.

ALL RIGHTS ARE ARBITRARY AND UNNATURAL. There is no right you have that cannot be taken away if someone with enough power decides he doesn't have to respect it. Society only exists inasmuch as people agree that we should have certain rights in common, and agree to abide by and enforce them.

Sadly, the ease of digital copying has created a generation of leeches that started out not knowing any better, and have subsequently grown into justifying and rationalizing their copying with a lot of weird idealism and entitlement.

 No.7700

>>7698

>Contacting other people with proposals for some services or goods is even punishable by law.


Not if they're soliciting for submissions, like publishers and other businesses do. How can you be this clueless? Nobody's going to just cold-call up some rando rich guy and offer their art. If society heads down this path, it'll develop a system for direct patronage just like it used to be centuries ago. Or even just a greater amount of corporate ownership and employment.

And it won't be a good outcome, just a consequence of leechers making a mid-range art economy too difficult to maintain. I don't WANT this to happen, but I think it will so long as people like you perpetuate the notion that artists should not profit from their own art.

>No nonguro art comes with exactly same conditions.


Things don't become true just because you say them.

 No.7701

>Not if they're soliciting for submissions, like publishers and other businesses do. How can you be this clueless? Nobody's going to just cold-call up some random rich guy and offer their art.


I can already imagine Bill Gates posting add " looking to an artist to draw a series of pictures of lolis being raped by clowns.
Applicants, please send your portfolios for review to this address"

How you can be so clueless yourself to say such ridiculous proposals that are never going to work
if the rich guy wants to be amused he can just open his browser and find whatever he desires on the internet without bothering with all that extensive process.

the only reason why you still may want to do something yourself or hire someone is that you want to realize some of your own fantasies
otherwise you just download it.

>If society heads down this path, it'll develop a system for direct patronage just like it used to be centuries ago.


and if that will happen art will be still shared by those patrons and artists for free just like it was from the very beginning. the purpose to hire an artist was to show his art to everyone not to hide it in your basement


>Things don't become true just because you say them.


Same is valid for you and your claims on that aspect are plain ridiculous.
we were talking not about your personal fear but about sharing artwork in general and you proved yourself wrong because you do share your work regardless of the fact that you are not being paid.
other people do same and result is billions of free works available

 No.7703

>>7701

>and if that will happen art will be still shared by those patrons and artists for free just like it was from the very beginning. the purpose to hire an artist was to show his art to everyone not to hide it in your basement


Show art, yes, in the comfort and privacy of your own home, to selected guests. Plenty of wealthy people right now have art collections that only they and a very few people get to see in person. And that was so back then, and only after a person died would art be placed in public galleries or museums. The alternate was municipal art, paid and contracted for by governments.

>I can already imagine Bill Gates posting add " looking to an artist to draw a series of pictures of lolis being raped by clowns. Applicants, please send your portfolios for review to this address"


Well, that's just it: Gates wouldn't. (Or if that's what he wanted, he'd have the resources to have it made and then keep it very private.) People buy and contract art all the time today, and they get it made to their own tastes. If we move to a system where patronage becomes more viable, then either artists would have to change their art to suit their clients, or the only ones to be hired would be the ones who made art in line with what the rich people liked. There'd be less guro work, because there wouldn't be enough money to support its production.

Making it impossible for an independent artist to make a living will just make more artists not independent. They won't be making what they want, they'll be making what Donald Trump wants, or what big business wants. Some artists will release art for free, but I think there will be less of that kind of artist if you get your way.

>you proved yourself wrong because you do share your work regardless of the fact that you are not being paid.


I did not prove myself wrong. You just can't read properly. You assume things about me just because you do not like what I say, and you can't be bothered to keep the facts straight.

 No.7705

>>7703
>Show art, yes, in the comfort and privacy of your own home, to selected guests. Plenty of wealthy people right now have art collections that only they and a very few people get to see in person. And that was so back then, and only after a person died would art be placed in public galleries or museums. The alternate was municipal art, paid and contracted for by governments.


How can you not understand how ridiculous it sounds?

DA or pixiv already has enough art to keep anyone busy for months of nonstop browsing

even I estimate that I have like hundreds of thousands of pictures on my HDD and I cannot even manage to see them even if I dedicate 1-3 seconds to one picture same goes for various movies and series I even stopped downloading them because they keep piling faster than I can ever see. (and I kinda need to leave some time for work and sleep as well)

and you proclaim that some super rich person will hire some artist to make even more of random stuff as if all that is not enough?

if you commision someone to make something for you, you do it because you want something specific for your tastes what you can't find online.
if you patron someone you do it because that person is making specific stuff you like, not because that artist has some super skills.


>There'd be less guro work, because there wouldn't be enough money to support its production.

why do you speak in the future tense?
do you think the situation can change and it is possible to make it even less profitable than today?
you already cant get even nearly enough money to support production


>Making it impossible for an independent artist to make a living will just make more artists not independent. They won't be making what they want, they'll be making what Donald Trump wants, or what big business wants. Some artists will release art for free, but I think there will be less of that kind of artist if you get your way.


Again why do you think future will be different than today?
Do not forget that all works are just piling up so even if 10 years later no new content will be created we will have more than you can consume in several lives. (and it is not going to stop being made, the production rate is growing rapidly)

>I did not prove myself wrong. You just can't read properly. You assume things about me just because you do not like what I say, and you can't be bothered to keep the facts straight.


no, it is you who messed up with your claims because it is your claim that artist will not be posting anything because they will not be paid and you yourself proved yourself wrong by posting free nonguro art

it does not matter that it is not guro content because we are talking about all content and other people are not so paranoid about that so they will post guro content just like you post nonguro

You are making claims that people will stop posting art if they won't be paid and you post it yourself without being paid.
cant you even see how ridiculous is your logic?

 No.7706

>>7705

>no, it is you who messed up with your claims because it is your claim that artist will not be posting anything because they will not be paid and you yourself proved yourself wrong by posting free nonguro art


But that isn't what I said. Go back and re-read it.

 No.8291

For me, this really depends on who we're talking about.

Is this an independent artist who is struggling to get by and producing art themselves? Then stealing from them makes you a douchebag.

Is it a corporation that fucks over small independent artists that you're boycotting on principle, but you want to still use their shit and hope that if they lose enough money they'll either die or change their ways? Then you're lying to yourself to get rid of cognitive dissonance because you know goddamn well that a boycott exists exclusively to show a company that you can get by WITHOUT them- and also you are me.

Sharing is caring.
Yo ho, yo ho, why is Sai never on piratebay?
Yo ho, yo ho, post your brushes away.
Yo ho, yo ho, Photoshop takes ten minutes to load
Yo ho yo ho, I ain't got $600 in gold-
Avast me hearties yo ho
A subscription to keep shit you already bought
Is totally bullshit & know it well we all ought
Avast me hearties yo ho
I'm making this shit right up as I go,
Yo ho yo ho
And I'm running out of words that will flow-

My point is: I am a pirate. I'm wrong to do it but, you know, here we are. Let those without sin throw the first stone- and aim for the occipital lobe because for some reason I don't go down easy. Shockingly resilient.

 No.8298

It upsets me. always.

you see, one of these artist.

they put paywall. you must subscribe.

This usually happened for something improved version like:

"Nude version on Patreon"

it means I must subscribe. that kind of behaviour, we are not cool with it.

Insta ban permanent!

 No.8303

ujhk

 No.8304

hhhhhhhh

 No.8305

How to hack a bank

 No.8991

Under a capitalist system, aka most of the world, people's labor is worth money. That means creators are allowed to sell their stuff. An alternative economic model would have the government subsidize artists to produce free art or literature for the public, but a) fat chance of that happening in America in the near future and b) fat chance of that happening anywhere, ever, with porn. So in the meantime, no one owes you porn unless you paid them for it. Be glad there's anything available for free.

Yeah, of course if you upload stuff anywhere, it might get stolen. You just have to hope it won't. A lot of artists do have freebies, like a public pixiv/AO3 account or Patreon posts that unlock a month after posting to patrons, or commissions where everyone gets to see the finished work, but it's only created in the first place because someone gave the creator money. But just remember, people who only do this for fun can afford to just give you stuff. People who do this as a job have to try to monetize it.

So, don't blame the creators, blame the system.

 No.8997

>>8991
This is is a bit different issue than with usual capitalism, because if I buy something I own that product. thus anyone who paid for any work is totally free to share it with everyone.

in principle, we could even start a service where we collect some money to buy one work from the artist then distribute it among ourselves at that tiny fraction of the sale price.

It is not theft just like if I buy a picture from artist and hang it on the wall where anyone can see it It is all fine same with other works where I am totally allowed to put them anywhere for other people to enjoy.

The system where the creator is allowed to control how their works are used is not capitalism that's some kind of tyranny. where you are paying not for the product but for the status and privileges. You pay to become a special person who has exclusive rights for doing something that other people are not allowed to do.

 No.8999

I guess there are some people who just treat guro like an interchangeable commodity.

But there really aren't THAT many creators at any given time making new works for our specific kinks. (Maybe I'm just picky?) And the quality of free art by amateur fetishists can't compare to that of pro/semi-pro artists who are creating art hours every day.

For the artists whose work we look forward to, let's respect their wishes and support them financially.

 No.9001

>>8999
Nothing of that matters, because all that stuff is only relevant on how much of those works are leaking through the paywalls into public domain.

In essence, even copyright laws (same as patent laws) were made with the intent, that people who want to use it right now pay and those who don't want to pay see it 20 years later when it all become public domain and author loses all rights to his work.

I think at the modern time 20 years could be reduced to 1 year.

Otherwise there is just no difference if someone is creating something or not. For people who are not paying, all that work does not exist and if you are willing to support artist then do you need all that coercion?
Artists who hide their stuff behind paywalls steal donations from artists who woud rather rely on donation model.
Because if they stopped working people who are willing to give money woud start paying to those who give everything for free anyway.

In terms of macro economy rules, what maters is how much money people are willing to spend on something so it does not matter who will get it. If you are willing to spend 20$ a month on artwork you will give it to some artists regardless of who they are and what they produce. once your 20$ quota is spent on few artists you are supporting the rest will get nothing. Most likely you will spend it on those who do not let you see their work for free while you will just enjoy free content without donating anything.

 No.9002

>>9001
20 years…? Copyright is longer than that in most countries, right? It's 70+ years. (Although that's too long, I think 20 years would be better.)

And I didn't say anything about law, just the artist's wishes. If an artist posts something on Patreon and says not to share it, if I respect that artist, I won't share it.

Personally I don't agree with "if you are willing to spend $20 for art, you'll give it to anyone…" In 2017 I spent almost nothing on art, but recently I found artists I want to support so I spent about $600 on art since the last few months. Because I went to the art exhibits and started talking to the artist, I began to feel bad that even published manga artists work so hard and make so little money. I want more high quality gore and violence art! If you don't care, there's nothing wrong with pirating, but if you do care, you should really pay. And buying something in order to distribute it to free feels good on the "community" level but it's cruel to the artist.

 No.9005

>>9002
As I know it started with 20 years but later corporations lobbied to extend that to 70 and more.

I also do not share works that the artist told me not to share, but also I do not pay to those works. However, if I was forced to pay to get something I would definitely share everything as compensation and revenge for coercing me to pay.

You confirm what I say in another paragraph because you claim that you pay to support artists not to gain access to their work And that is great.
But the issue which I present is different, as an artist is coercing you to pay him (almost at the gunpoint) which changes relationship type. So it is no longer cruel or immoral to distribute what you obtained.

Also considering how you spent your money, how much of it you spent on artists who hide their stuff behind paywalls and how much you spent on those who give it for free? if those who work for free got more money they probably also could be able to create more and better quality works. But unfortunately, those who decide to share their work get only a fraction of income than those who use paywalls even if those with paywalls have only handful of people who see their work while those who give it for free have hundreds or thousands of fans.

also, the fact that you only recently started paying does not change economic principles. You still will spend a fixed amount of money which you have available and that money will be somehow distributed between different artists you support.


by the way I am also thinking about how it could be possible to get some money because it would be nice if that could become my main job, but hiding stuff behind paywalls is a bad idea for me.
So I consider partial paywall where anyone who wants to get it for free can get it if they just ask individually, or if they don't want to ask they can pay. This is because most people who pay, seem to be totally unwilling to interact with the artist in any way they do not even leave any comments they just want quick consumption.
So for me, it will be that either you pay for access or you write an email and say that you don't want to pay and want it for free and you will get it.



[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
topgfsfurart3dcgdislitrpp2preq