Re: 1/6 Hot Toys - TDKR - Batman Spotlight w/ Robin and Gordon (Various Sets)
Let me rephrase that: I would be willing to bet that you have never actually created anything of value.
Again, that's a bet that you would lose.
Now, I don't say that as an insult, but instead because I can promise it would affect your line of thinking on this subject.
The difference is, I don't feel that my work entitles me to everyone else's money by default, just because
some people are convinced of its value. If I can't sell you on on the idea that my work has value, then I don't deserve your money - and I can't claim to have
lost the money that I didn't make off of you.
You are right that success - and wealth - often change's ones line of thinking. But often is not always, and such changes are not always for the better.
Your fundamental argument is that Intellectual Property infringement doesn't rise to the same level of damage as literal physical theft.
Yes, and nothing in your reply argues against that. In fact, the majority of your reply seems to argue for the benefit of IP laws - but that's not necessarily something I ever argued against, so I'm not sure what the reason for your straw man argument is.
I create things for a living and couldn't disagree more. I am an artist and rely on IP laws for my livelihood. If someone were to copy a design I made or print posters of an illustration I created, this both weakens the brands I produce and derives me of real world earnings.
It deprives you of
potential earnings.
And again, is that worse than if someone broke into your house, took the posters you printed, and sold those?
Marvel/Disney and DC/Warner Bros have created IPs that the public has deemed to have significant value. The demand creates that value. Hot Toys creates incredibly well done collectibles that we, their audience, have declared to have value.
Excellent examples. So do the existence of bootleg DVDrips reduce the IP value of Marvel movies?
Do the existence of recasts reduce the IP value of Hot Toys figures?
Of course not - because the value is in having the genuine article!
Not only is this logical, it's backed by every reasonable study on the subject. For instance, studies have found that IP infringement and piracy often
increase the overall sales for movies - and at worst, their negative effect is negligible.
Corporate America does plenty of incredibly ****y things on a daily basis, but IP protection is not one of them.
I disagree - it has been abused by corporate America, against the interests of Americans. How ****** would the world be if Shakespeare wasn't in the public domain? You'd probably almost never hear of the guy or his works! What a shameful loss to the culture that would be.
This isn't some limited natural resource that they have cornered and are keeping from us.
Again, I disagree - the output of our culture is finite and is being kept away from us. If the law dictated that Shakespeare was now protected by IP laws, you'd probably be upset (maybe I'm wrong about that?). If so, are you equally upset that the law dictates that an old movie like "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" is not in the public domain (over 70 years old!).
Great cultural works - which by now should belong to us as a people - have been kept out of our hands, due to abuse of IP laws by Corporate America. And we are worse off for it.
Plenty of hardworking and well paid artists are responsible for these works. And I can guarantee they are well paid. And I can guarantee that they know what they are doing when they sign their contracts. When a talented artist makes something good they are rewarded. Nobody is being taken advantage of.
How can you guarantee that? How can you possibly suggest that every single artist is well paid, well-informed when signing contracts, and never taken advantage of?
How can you possibly believe that? It may have never happened to you, but I can't believe your imagination is so limited as to believe that it couldn't happen to anybody else either.
The only artists who get "hoodwinked" out of their art are young ones who are desperate for any opportunity, and who, more often than not, are not the caliber of artists capable of creating something so amazing that it would inspire others to rip them off.
Ah, so if someone gets hoodwinked, it was their fault anyway? They had it coming and deserved it? How patronizing - and convenient! That's some nice victim-blaming. It must be that your success is due ONLY to your talent and not to any combination of both talent and fortunate circumstances - and that must be true for everyone!
Your argument seems to be one of justifying IP theft, and maybe you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, but I can promise you, IP infringement hurts artist more than anyone else.
I don't think you've really read my argument. Would be happy to see you quote anything in my previous posts arguing that IP infringement is "justified."
In fact, earlier in your post, you stated "Your fundamental argument is that Intellectual Property infringement doesn't rise to the same level of damage as literal physical theft." How is this the same as "your argument seems to be one of justifying IP theft?"
How can you not see that those are two very different arguments? Do you not see the contradiction in your own words?
Who thinks my initial terse reply was unwarranted? I think I might see only one hand up.
Nip it in the bud is always the best move in situations like this one.
Silencing a minority is never the best - or right - move. If you're scared of a subject, there's probably a good reason - and it's likely all the more reason for the need for an open, frank discussion.
You might understand the next time you have an opinion that, at least appears, to be unpopular.
