Quote:
Originally Posted by Konakaga
Thank you, crack for reminding me that we have english sites that are just as hilariously crazy as sankakucomplex   . |
With regards to property, I believe Azunyan is MY WAIFU and you need my permission to use her in your sig.
Seriously though, Crack is more technically correct than sankaku since it does take into account technicalities. Sankaku usually speaks about political and social issues, which can never be technically correct since humans, by nature, are driven by their emotions and more random than deterministic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic
That guy is a loon. He thinks that intellectual property isn't real and isn't worth anything. I don't know what fucked up planet he comes from, but just because something is intangible doesn't make it worthless. In fact, in this world of global communication, the right information can be the most valuable commodity of all. After all, what's worth more--a finished product, or the plans and schematics with which to construct a finished product? It's the "give a man a fish/teach a man to fish" argument brought into the 21st century.
In any case, a writer, an artist, a computer programmer doesn't sell what that guy calls "nothing." They sell their effort. They sell their time, their knowledge and their skill.
When you buy a book, a CD or a computer application, only a very small part of the money spent is actually spent on the physical object. The rest goes to make sure the writer, the singer or the application developer can keep churning out prose, music or code--or at least it should.
Where the bulk of the money actually goes is to the publisher, and that is what needs to change. It's already happening; a paradigm shift that the content gatekeepers are desperate to stop (hence the looming threat of draconian, First Amendment-threatening laws such as COICA and ACTA).
|
I would generally agree with your argument as it has some merit, however, from another perspective, there are some times, no matter how creative, have little or zero value.
Take for example the dotcom burst in 1999. Most of the companies simply added a prefix to their URLs and gain market value - the value of e-commerce. It is an oversimplified insinuation of a company's liquidity at that time, and companies able to conduct business over the net at that time has an image of being "successful".
A company's image is required to draw investors and help gain credit easily from banks through their namesake, however most of them are just flunkies with not even a concrete business plan. So when the bubble burst, taxpayers ended up picking up the pieces.
The bottomline is that it is difficult to give a value, monetary or otherwise, to an idea just by itself. The disgusting part is that value is only given to the idea when it sells rather than it works, it furthers dilute creativity throughout the world when people are more interested in "what sells" than "what works."