You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Chainflix killed by Hollywood for uploading movies to DTube?
As an opponent of Copyright and IP, I would have liked to see chainflix succeed.
As an opponent of Copyright and IP, I would have liked to see chainflix succeed.
I agree. Chainflix has no contract with the movie creator and owns his/her own property and used his/her own property to upload the video and anyone watching the video is using his/her own property and is inline with a property rights view of this situation. Any other view is a violation of the user, Chainflix's, property rights and of the people watching.
nice one, bringing it inline with classic libertarian and voluntarism.
Copyright debates actually date back to the time that printing machines were purchable for common folks and small businesses around 18th Century. The only way the establishment one this fight was through centralisation, at least in Germany.
Excellent, the second opinion just rolled in. Thank you!
hehe, I am open for any discussion on the subject.
Maybe to elaborate shortly where I am coming from: Ideas are a remix, sometimes a very complex remix of thousands of ideas and experiences but a remix none the less.
Also Ideas can not be owned. If someone "steals" an idea from me I would feel honored, well unless he is butchering it ofc, but then it is up to the people to decide if they want my version or the butchered one.
Ideas are free. They don't come for free, but they are free to use.
I want that everyone can see new and old movies for free because it is information. To be able to discuss thoughts stimulated by these movies, one needs free access to it. Either basic income or the destruction of capitalism. I like what chainflix is doing but I am scared that even this statement might be illegal.
If I see a movie and others cannot afford to see it... is terrible
I feel you, but I come from a different angle. To me an artist is someone who puts his art out there to have it admired and cherished. Movies (and other art) that just caters to the audience are boring, people want to be inspired by art .
It is rare that something becomes good just because the artist got drowned in money. In fact you could argue that artists become worse the more their ass are filled with money (there are exceptions ofc).
I hope this makes sense but I feel it is the same for art everywhere, even on Steem, you got a ton of overvalued art and a ton of undervalued art and I feel copyright and IP ain't doing a damn thing to prevent that, maybe they even solidify it.
I was talking about good quality movies
??? me too and look I am all for basic income, but I don't believe everybody has the right to watch good quality movies. I believe a good artist should not make his art for money and should not care about how the art is used/monetized as long as he gets recognized as the original artist and even that is arguable imo.
That's so boring to talk to you.
it is not my fault that you have no arguments :P