Nuggets Mahoney Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 The Renegade Economist Youtube user ID has just posted this comment under the vid... This is an illegal upload - remove it. We will be taking further action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fully Detached Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 "Dedicating oneself to a great cause, taking responsibility and gaining self knowledge is the essence of being human. A predatory capitalists truest enemy and humanities greatest ally is the self educated individual who has read, understood, delays their gratification.....and walks around with their eyes wide open." Fantastic sentiment. Beautiful, almost. This is an illegal upload - remove it. We will be taking further action. Erm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Sutton Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Excellent. Still up there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipbuilder Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Wasn't Renegade Economist Fred Harrison's website? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) They are trying to get the film demanded in cinema's. http://eventful.com/...001-000258041-1 So I guess they are not too pleased that its been uploaded to Youtube (though arguably they will probably get more views). Official site http://buy.fourhorsemenfilm.com/ Edited January 21, 2013 by Secure Tenant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Sutton Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 They are trying to get the film demanded in cinema's. http://eventful.com/...001-000258041-1 So I guess they are not too pleased that its been uploaded to Youtube (though arguably they will probably get more views). Official site http://buy.fourhorsemenfilm.com/ Rather ironic as one of the themes of the films is how wonderful the internet is in disseminating information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Rather ironic as one of the themes of the films is how wonderful the internet is in disseminating information. Sadly it costs money to make films and disseminate them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 It's good to have even just a basic idea of how things seem to work. For example what's the point of buying a newspaper once you know most of the stuff in them is just plain misleading. Over the years save £thousands by not buying them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) RenegadeEconomist 8 hours ago Jaejoejah, Thanks for your comment. Out of interest when was the last time you worked for free? We could have sold out and taken the corporate buck but at what cost? Fox News is free but if you want independent filmmaking that addresses issues that the FIRE would rather keep quiet you have to pay for it. We are not a public broadcaster or a charity so to maintain our editorial autonomy we need to re-coup costs. It's really that simple. Have you ever walked out of a shop without paying? Will D 2 hours ago How strange, Renegade Economist, that you extol the virtues of freedom through knowledge and understanding, then seek to make that knowledge inaccessible to anyone who hasn't paid £10.99 for it via your website.Shame, I would have bought some of your merchandise if you hadn't proven yourselves to be full of ****. Will D 2 hours ago fwiw btw, this is one of the best videos I have ever seen. But it would be far more useful if people actually got to see it. The people who need to understand this stuff are not going to accidentally land on your site and pay £10.99 for it. The people who need to see this film need to stumble across it on Youtube, Facebook, etc, wonder what the hell it's all about, watch it, discuss it, learn from it.Please, think about it... Edited January 21, 2013 by Nuggets Mahoney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
200p Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Perhaps it can be made free after a period of time, however, that film did probably cost a load of money to produce, so it is not unreasonable for them to recoup the costs. It's not like they are saying there is a meteor crashing into Earth in 2014 - although tinfoil hat wearers would claim so. Or alternatively release the film free as a MP3 only soundtrack, and still make the DVD available to purchase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EUBanana Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Someone else advocating a debt jubilee... I'd prefer the clean slate to be bankruptcy myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmarks Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) Ladies and gentleman, the Four Horsemen now face a rival outfit: The Fourth Estate, Usurers, Rentiers and Dissemblers (TURD). Edited January 22, 2013 by nmarks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedude Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I think it does need to be seen by a lot more than the 1000 or so views it has at the moment, educating the sheep is the key. I reckon donations is probably a better way than a fixed 11 quid. This video of the directors speech is also very good and worth a watch: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 RenegadeEconomist 8 hours ago Will D 2 hours ago Will D 2 hours ago It's ironic that they see the monopolising of locations as bad, but see the monopolising of ideas as good. If they can't find a way to keep their ideas closed in a private box, I would suggest that they find an alternative way to fund the ongoing creation of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I think it does need to be seen by a lot more than the 1000 or so views it has at the moment, educating the sheep is the key. I reckon donations is probably a better way than a fixed 11 quid. This video of the directors speech is also very good and worth a watch: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashedOutAndBurned Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I love this film. It's almost like it's been made by the various voice on the HPC-forum, be they left, right, liberal or conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 It's ironic that they see the monopolising of locations as bad, but see the monopolising of ideas as good. If they can't find a way to keep their ideas closed in a private box, I would suggest that they find an alternative way to fund the ongoing creation of them. It's ironic that you think a film is an idea and that neither of us know what 'ironic' means... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 It's ironic that you think a film is an idea and that neither of us know what 'ironic' means... What else are they, if not a rendering of ideas and thoughts? More importantly, why is copying them - by rendering the same ideas and thoughts again - a crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 What else are they, if not a rendering of ideas and thoughts? More importantly, why is copying them - by rendering the same ideas and thoughts again - a crime? So it's now a 'rendering'... it's also a few hundred man hours of work and associated costs. What, out of curiosity, do you produce and give away for free? Please tell me you have a blog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) "About 40 minutes on - ".....but today lobbying has put paid to that and reduced the american political system to a mere clearing house for the concerns of the rich............". Edited January 22, 2013 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 "About 40 minutes on - ".....but today lobbying has put paid to that and reduced the american political system to a mere clearing house for the concerns of the rich............". The Romans had the same problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 So it's now a 'rendering'... it's also a few hundred man hours of work and associated costs. What, out of curiosity, do you produce and give away for free? Please tell me you have a blog. That's justification for copyright, based on utilitarian reasoning. It doesn't explain why it is a crime. If you said to me that you wouldn't write books if copyright wasn't enforced by law, I would accept that may be the case. I may suggest that there are other ways to earn income from books, rather than levying copyright, but that is beside the point (see Against Intellectual Monopoly in my sig if you're interested). However, the state makes it a crime to copy someone's thoughts. If I write a poem - a collection of words I have thought of - why should I (or someone on my behalf) get to threaten you, if you repeat them on the radio without my permission? Copyrighting a poem is simply monopolising the order of words, themselves a reflection of ideas. It isn't 'property' (a book can be, but not the order of words) and it isn't 'theft' either (you can both have a list of the words, no problem). While a video may not be a poem, it doesn't change the basic point. Sure, you may take longer, you may involve more people, but that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolise the content and threaten people if they repeat it to others. P.S. I'm a software engineer and copyright plays a role in my job too. However, it doesn't change the facts above. Open source software has proven very successful, paying many a software developer for their services, rather than for their 'property'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 That's justification for copyright, based on utilitarian reasoning. It doesn't explain why it is a crime. Because society has judged that the justification is reasonable. If you said to me that you wouldn't write books if copyright wasn't enforced by law, I would accept that may be the case. I may suggest that there are other ways to earn income from books, rather than levying copyright, but that is beside the point (see Against Intellectual Monopoly in my sig if you're interested). Can we have some of these suggestions? You know - the ones explaining how a writer can make money from writing or a film maker can make money from making films without actually making any money? A few coders contributing to an open source project as a kind of extended CV is not really a model that can necessarily be applied to all creative efforts. Hmm, perhaps writers should give away their work in the hope that they might be employed as screenwriters or in PR. Actually, scrap the screen writing, since presumably no ones getting paid for that either... However, the state makes it a crime to copy someone's thoughts. If I write a poem - a collection of words I have thought of - why should I (or someone on my behalf) get to threaten you, if you repeat them on the radio without my permission? Thoughts are not subject to copyright - the distinct expression of them is. Copyrighting a poem is simply monopolising the order of words, themselves a reflection of ideas. It isn't 'property' (a book can be, but not the order of words) and it isn't 'theft' either (you can both have a list of the words, no problem). Hardly a monopoly - the words are still available for use. However, the distinct order is an act of creation and effort that the creator has the right to monetise IMHO. While a video may not be a poem, it doesn't change the basic point. Sure, you may take longer, you may involve more people, but that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolise the content and threaten people if they repeat it to others. Why not? That said, there are an increasing number of organisations that agree with you. Unfortunately, a lot of them are big business and just want free content that they can monetise without the creator getting anything. I don't get what you want - artists, whose work may be valued, getting nothing for it and having to work evenings stacking shelves? Or maybe you think that book readings at bookshops and libraries offers suitable reward for their time and effort? This is not a defence of some of the absurdities of patent and copyright law (and DRM can eff-off and die), and I myself am currently in dispute with a relative about an undeserved copyright we have acquired by accident. Nevertheless, for a creator to have some expectation of a reasonable return on their efforts according to the popularity of their work does not strike me as excessive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Because society has judged that the justification is reasonable. Who is society here? How do you know they agree? I certainly haven't been asked and I don't agree. On what basis is it a crime? Where is the theft? Where is the property? Where is the evidence? Can we have some of these suggestions? You know - the ones explaining how a writer can make money from writing or a film maker can make money from making films without actually making any money? A few coders contributing to an open source project as a kind of extended CV is not really a model that can necessarily be applied to all creative efforts. Hmm, perhaps writers should give away their work in the hope that they might be employed as screenwriters or in PR. Actually, scrap the screen writing, since presumably no ones getting paid for that either... That link is jammed full of them, on everything from books to medicine. However, it is a utilitarian argument and that's not where I'm coming from here. Thoughts are not subject to copyright - the distinct expression of them is. Whether they are rendered or expressed, it still doesn't make thoughts 'property'. Hardly a monopoly - the words are still available for use. However, the distinct order is an act of creation and effort that the creator has the right to monetise IMHO. Hardly a monopoly? What would you call it then? Why should you be able to monopolise an order of words? Do you own the words? How so? Why not? That said, there are an increasing number of organisations that agree with you. Unfortunately, a lot of them are big business and just want free content that they can monetise without the creator getting anything. I don't get what you want - artists, whose work may be valued, getting nothing for it and having to work evenings stacking shelves? Or maybe you think that book readings at bookshops and libraries offers suitable reward for their time and effort? This is not a defence of some of the absurdities of patent and copyright law (and DRM can eff-off and die), and I myself am currently in dispute with a relative about an undeserved copyright we have acquired by accident. Nevertheless, for a creator to have some expectation of a reasonable return on their efforts according to the popularity of their work does not strike me as excessive. I'm not suggesting that people should do anything with their time, that they do not wish to do. I object to the redefining of 'thoughts' as 'property', and 'copying' as 'theft', resulting in 'thought copying' becoming a crime. Monopolising ideas is a violent/legal gag on the freedom to speak and write freely. It isn't required for creativity and there are many who argue it discourages it. FWIW, I have no beef with DRM either. If you're not using violence to enforce your monopoly, I have no problem with it. It may put off readers/watchers/listeners if you use it though, which could be counter productive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) Traktion, your talk of monopolising thought is absurd. This isn't about a thought, it's about copying a specific work and depriving the creator of revenue. Would these 'thoughts' exist without the efforts of the artist? Are similar 'thoughts' constrained unduly by them? No artist is trying to prevent you thinking something, expressing it or disseminating it. They are trying to prevent you copying a complex construct that they created. Do you want creators to create or do you want them to mess around trying to extract enough value from extra-curricular activities to support creating stuff for, apparently, free? There is no monopoly on thought because thought is abstract. There is copyright on things created by the application of thought, since we value artists enough to recognise that their work needs protection if they are to be viable. You can get on your high horse, but in the end you are claiming the right to someone else's effort without compensating them. As for DRM, if you really don't have a problem with it, then I despair. Edited January 22, 2013 by tomandlu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.