Now, there are some examples where I won’t/can’t actively seek out their work, and would never contribute to them by buying anything at all, ever.
Cosby falls into that category, just as an example.
But, I have a complete separation as far as the work itself being valid/good despite the origins. Using Cosby as the example again, if I’m somewhere and one of his performances is on, I’m not going to care enough to change a channel or leave, or even say anything.
That’s pretty much anyone and everyone. I just don’t have that thing where a given item, piece of work, whatever, is “tainted” just because the person that made it is a piece of shit. I don’t form an association like that. It’s that I choose to not seek out some things as a matter of principle.
But, as a general rule, if they’re dead, I don’t care at all. And, if the person in question is only one person involved in a group effort, that group effort is fine by me. Like, if the guitarist of a band is a piece of shit, but everyone else is not, why would their work be a bad thing?
Now, this isn’t to say that I ignore any bad acts when interacting with a given work. Take van Gogh as an example. His excesses and disturbing behaviors are part of his work to an extent. It’s a thing where knowing the person’s flaws informs the interaction with the work. Kinda like “gee, I wonder how much of this work stems from the same root as the bad acts did?”
But, I can enjoy the work of people I personally despise with no issues. I just don’t have whatever it is that other people have that makes a thing tainted based on the creator.
Part of that is knowing how shitty humans in general are, and how hard it is to find any artist that didn’t/doesn’t have massive flaws. In music and painting in particular, you run into a shit ton of artists that were abysmal people. If I did have that whatever it is that causes a connection between the art and the artist’s flaws, I wouldn’t be able to listen to much music at all.
I promise you that if the stuff I’ve written and published could be used by anyone, however they wanted, it would not have been published. I would have kept that shit to myself.
If anything, copyright laws encourage creativity because the person knows they can take their time to build things up. You don’t have to worry about fifteen sequels to your book being spammed by hacks trying to profit from your work
I dunno, if I build a house, I can leave it to my family for generations. Indeed, barring something interfering with that ownership, it will be passed along. Maybe they’ll sell it, or take out a loan against it and default, or a disaster could strike, or whatever.
Why would any other creation be less portable to my heirs?
Mind you, I’m definitely of the belief that artistic creations like books should eventually go public domain. I’m fine with any number of possible restrictions on that duration. But it is strange that one of the only things that automatically gets removed from a family are things like writing. Ideas, if you want to break it down. We treat them different than other things we create.
Again, I’m fine with there’s being limits on holding ideas restricted. That’s necessary to prevent loss of such things, that are harder to preserve than something like a piece of jewelry, or a statue, or a house. That’s why patents and copyrights need to expire, but I can’t agree that the limits as they exist are fucked up/bad/wrong.
Seriously, I’m a published author, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about such things.
Now, I would love to see the laws change so that any copyright held by a publicly traded company, or that has been sold/abandoned by the actual heirs of the author is shorter than when held by the heirs of the author.
And, any popular work is going to have the issue of who gets to decide what is and isn’t done to the works before or after public domain. You can end up with something wonderful being shat on by asshats. So it isn’t like copyrights expiring is without drawbacks. When what’s at stake is only keeping the works published and available, that’s a clear cut thing that benefits everyone.
But adaptations, expansions, “fanfic”? I would definitely prefer someone that at least has some chance of the author’s intent being known than some shitty company looking to milk the work for every possible dime.
Why shouldn’t authors be able to build generational wealth the way a business can? You’re talking about people profiting off a dead man, but that’s what investments and properties and such are. It’s future generations profiting off a dead person’s work. There’s billionaires out there that are sitting on wealth that was amassed not just decades ago, but sometimes centuries. Why do authors not have that possibility?
Amen. Though, tbh, I did shed a few tears during love and thunder, so it wasn’t a total failboat.
I like Gunn’s style, but any time you just hand the reins to a single director, the risk of them cackling like a mad scientist and creating an abomination is high.
Man, I’ll download stuff just because I don’t want to dig through all the DVDs lol.
But, yah, I actually have done that a few times. I even did it twice with goonies. I keep forgetting that I got it as a gift on DVD years ago, get a hankering to watch it, and I’ve got so many files that it’s easy for my dyslexic ass to miss one while scrolling.
Did it with several of those older nostalgia movies here and there because of the same reason. But I still never get around to dyslexia proofing my file naming lol.
Hopes? None. Warner Bros. has no fucking clue how to use DC characters and ideas in theaters. They may get lucky with specific movies being decent, but the best movies are not even as good as the worst of the animated movies and series. They keep throwing money and names at live action, instead of focusing on telling good stories that stay true to the essence of the characters.
I don’t see Gunn doing any better tbh. For one, he’s going to be hamstrung by whatever Warner decides is the goal. For another, he’s going to end up limited by whatever flawed view executives have of the servers characters. And then he still may not have a grasp of what either comics fans or non comic fans need from a movie featuring DC characters.
He’s known for a different meme, but he’s used in this one and manages to look like he’s posing at gunpoint after being told “look casual and not afraid. Now, smile.”
I’m not asking asking this as a put-down, but is English not your first language? Allow me to try and say it all differently.
What you’re saying is that the people perform the necessary tasks without expecting did be paid for their labor, but some ask contributions for it.
What OP was asking is what those people (the ones running a site to maken the fruit of their labor available to others) have to pay in order to make it available.
We’re well aware that the labor is possibly free.
But it still costs someone money to host a site with a domain name and the ability for other people to download anything. That’s what OP was asking about, those costs to the person providing the files that get pirated by others.
Now, I’m not talking about exactly the same thing here. And I don’t actually run any sites at this point in my life.
That being said, I considered setting up a site to host my stuff. Mostly writing, some art, just a kind of vanity project that would let me distribute files to friends and family with an easy link instead of having to send them files when requested.
So, I could have used any hosting service since it’s all legal files. I own all the copy rights, and that means the price starts out pretty low. I never looked into what the less stringent services would cost.
But, it worked out that it would cost me about 300 a year between domain name, file hosting, and ssl certificate, etc at the cheapest rates I could find.
Which is why I didn’t do it, lol. It’s way cheaper to just deal with the hassles of sending files via telegram or whatever. That only costs time.
I’ve a friend that runs a site for their business though. He’s shelling out about a grand a year, and doesn’t host any files for download. That’s with some fancy templates, and some kind of security thing that I’ve never asked about the specifics of. He was a bit surprised how much it cost.
So I suspect that if someone wanted to actually host a large amount of files like movies, games, and music would need, they’d be looking at that range as a minimum cost. The storage space is fairly expensive once you’re into terabytes, or so I was told.
But I don’t think the repack folks do it that way. They use torrents, which means things are cheaper. So the costs of that are probably closer to the bottom end of the scale where I would have been
Again, this is not the same thing, and I’m guesstimating off of research I did years ago, so don’t take it as some kind of expert talking.
And here’s the realistic explanation for why and why now:
"…Orin Kerr, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote on X on Wednesday that “from a public policy standpoint, that seems like a bummer.”
“Geofencing has solved a bunch of really major cases that were otherwise totally cold,” he wrote.
“And there are lots of ways of doing the legal process (including Google’s warrant policy, although that’s just one way) that are a lot more privacy protective than ordinary warrants. But I can see why this might be in Google’s business interest. If there isn’t a lot of economic value to Google in keeping the data, and having it means you need to get embroiled in privacy debates over what you do with it, better for Google to drop it.”
It’s a good thing! It never should have been allowed in the first place. But, Google didn’t give a fuck until it caused them enough hassle. Doing this is just a way to avoid something more expensive later, it isn’t a strong principled stand. And I’d bet small amounts that they’ll still have a way to use the data anyway. It won’t be some magic wand that means Google can’t make money off of it.