ive been dragged into @cartoontv as I was one of the first people to resteem and support them, is this an example of a spam bot? i think its just a real old person sharing cartoons on the only platform they know. and personally i do not agree with copyright laws at all they dont not benefit anyone so i will continue to support them, what's your opinion on it all?
Also i saw someone post these ealier , i liked the ideas ,.
( Nina Paley)
I expressed my views in the posts as well as in my followup posts (here). In summary: I'm not against sharing copyright material, but for sure a reference the owner of the content always needs to be made. The issues is this: digital artists can always be copied when the sell there content through the Internet, allowing everybody to copy without the artists being paid, means these artists will have to stop selling their content on the internet, and will have to start giving their result in a none-digital way to their customer. Otherwise in the most extreme case, these artist will not make any money. On the other hand, artists are publishing their copyright content on the Internet for marketing purposes, like I mentioned about the music artist in the electronic dance music segment (not all, but quite a few). For that type of content, I think you will help these artists when sharing their work. Then there is the question of: Sharing material of others for profit or non-profit: in Steemit terms: with payout or without payout. Also here you can argue that for some copyright material it is ok to get (some) money for it, however for other material it is not. In the end, it is all about fairness, and what the initial intention of the artists was when having their content on the Internet. Therefore this becomes a very difficult topic to handle with a single rule IMHO.
I agree, I just resteemed the stuff and sent the dude like 5 steem and all of a sudden im dragged into this place where in reality its no ones say what this fella wants to do, I do know that dtube doesnt offer a demonetize upload option however, so its a sticky situation for everyone involved.
ill read your post and probably reply in a bit to it, but the other thing i wanna say is you can go to youtube and get 100 differnt versions of every one of these cartoons the only difference is youtube is getting ALL the proceeds, I think this @cartoontv guy was smart but got scared off by people like @skeptic and the rest of the naieve community, its all art, share it all in my opinion, maybe the people supressing the actual open market of the internet are google activists and freedom supressors lol dont be afraid of the authorities @cartoontv bring us more bugs bunny!!!
I'm not sure about the details, but in general platform hosting copyright material uploaded by others are more or less save, but I also know that Hollywood can demand to remove content. When this is not possible, we may have an issue. Read this post here and my comment to that post here.
hmm maybe humanity will be at a turning point, no one trusts mainstream media , and can access and promote whatever art we want, god knows everything we pay to watch is absolute mind trash,
How in your view will digital artist be able to make their money, when by default everything is allowed to by copied? I'm very much open for discussions here. Music producers generally perform, so you can argue they shall perform and make their money like that. Movies, they can earn their money with cinema and TV (as ling as that exists, since when no copyright laws, netflix and the likes dont have to pay anymore and will copy as well without the owner of the movie to be paid). But what about the artists who make digital paintings and sell them online? We must find solutions, since when artists do not get paid anymore, they will stopmaking art, most of them since everybody needs to earn money to pay for housing and food at least.
have you met many artists, we don't get paid, very very few do, because we make music and art for the idea of spreading culture, its not about making money. we all have what we have and make do with what we have, if it is something truly worthy to be called art, then then money isnt insentive, tbh, if someone took a tune of mine and coverd it busking to make enough money to buy a bag of grass so be it, i'm not a centralized idea owning person, this is a giant sandbox playground, enjoy it, or dont. haha :)
I agree with you and I don't :) I know artists who make pretty good music in their spare time, but it is damn hard to be great when having all sort of distractions, like a job to earn money to pay the bills; I also know artists who make such wonderful music, they would never be able to create that when they would have some other job to attend to. I actually think, to be great in art, you must dedicate yourself to it completely. Like for instance Van Gogh! or Rembrandt! I like to see artists being able to dedicate their complete time to their art, even those who are lower in the revenue / popularity pyramid, even those who are at the bottom of that pyramid. The internet provides those lower in this pyramid a way to monetise their work, something that was not really possible before the internet due to how the system works. If we would simple copy their work, and the artist is not able anymore to monetise their work, all those at lower levels in the pyramid as mentioned, will have to do all their work for free again. Seems a step back to what we had before the Internet.