painter underpriced Vs software program bought then upgraded and sold on

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by RainbowSingularity, Nov 16, 2018.

  1. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    why is the law bent to smash the little guy ?
    while handing all the authoratarian profit benefits to the big corporates ?

    surely this is not equality in the eyes of the law ?

    the software program, lets say windows operating program
    is sold, you buy it
    you then upgrade it so its worth more, you then sell it for 100 million dollars.
    thats tough luck for the designer ? microsoft ?
    no !
    it makes you a hardened violent criminal where governments will spend poor working class health care dollars to extradite you from foriegn lands.

    i must say this is such a good example of the rotten poisonous hearted morality of such folk.

    soo getting down to the nuts & bolts of the legal "who gets the money" bit...
    the corporates claim you only purchase a right to use, not a right to own.
    thus you have something that belongs to them and your not allowed to give it to anyone else.
    even though its yours. and you bought it.
    software DVD's etc...
    you own the DVD but you dont own the content.
    soo doesnt this make you a legal agent by virtue of being licensed to carry someone elses content ?

    ... and the woah-is-me litigious corporate cannabals start pretense of political discoarse...

    mean while... where is the painter ?
    the painters content is licensed ? or owned outright ?

    what rule best protects creativity ?(& jobs & industry[join the chorus])
    is it plausible to have open and honest discussions around copywright protection when the moral foundation is actually soo broken it is in complete meltdown ?
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Unfortunately you accept their terms which clearly says its not yours.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    14 year old purchasing over the shop counter
    accepts the small print terms and conditions prior to the sale ?

    = no !

    informed consent adults in an art auction who should know better ...

    should the 14 year old in the shop know better ?

    is there a moral parity here where the expectation has been altered in the eyes of the public to support a disparity of justice for the creator of the art which ....
    why is a painting not licensed automatically ?
    yet software is ?

    proprietory rights etc....

    its like they are sipping tea discussing the pretty flames of the poor artists burning down while they sell water by the cup full to the fire brigade.

    is the moral position "we dont care about others" ?
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    What are you going on about? The painter, artist, photographer and copyright their work as well. They can sell prints or the originals. They can stipulate exactly what the rights are.
  8. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    My point simply is the contract says what it says.
    But I understand your frustration.
  9. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    soo staying on topic RE the nature of the transaction & rights of the seller & buyer...
    does the 14 year old agree to the contract prior to purchase ?

    you see the difference ?
    an implied social code forcing a post sale contract of terms.

    why would this apply to a corporate but not to an individual artist ?

    if an artist put up a new piece of work and sold it as a license(say their existing work is valued at an average of $500,000.00 per item)
    would the law respect and protect the verbal license definition ?
    would corporate interest force the law to change the way it protects the artists work by dictating that no such license exists post sale ?

    Banksies' recent shredding of balloon girl is a great example

    the current trade war and free trade global media machines are pumping out moral hypocrisy and attempting to get other countrys to agree to it.
    i think they need to fix the basic bottom floor of the sky scraper before they load thousands of (people)jobs and other (economys)businessess into it and hope it doesnt catch fire or fall down.
  10. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Banksie isn't an artist, it is a group of graffiti appliers, the person "Banksie" is the front man and 'his'/their work is Dada, which is - by definition - "anti - art". The buyer has too much money and not enough education.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Hope she enjoys her.....investment. :barf:

    Here in Detroit, any verbal contract is legally binding if it is for $3000 US or less. Above that, it must be in writing to be legally binding and enforceable in a court of law.

    Corels' "Painter" (Paint Shop Pro 2019), while expensive, is very cost - effective when compared to Adobes' Photoshop subscription. I switched when PS went subscription.

    As a professional, I sell the painting and I sell the prints. I own the copyright on both. I have sold the original without selling the copyright and I have sold the copyright while retaining the original.
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    soo... a 14 year old buying a computer game(with nothing said between the shop service person & the 14 year old customer with no contract sighted or physically handed to the 14 year old customer to accept prior or during purchase)....
    , then upgrading the game by adding things to it. then selling it for $1000.00 would still be illegal.

    or making a copy of the game so a friend can play network with them...
    or a video and allowing your knitting club to watch it with you.

    the bloodied screaming animal clawing at the customer is not the artist.
    the artist does not get the lions share of what the screaming animal claws off the customer
    the artist is likely to get nothing regardles of what the screaming(corporate) animal claws off the 14 year old customer.

    moraly equal to someone tricking an artist to sell one of their works for say... 1000.00 dollars when its real market value is 100,000.00

    the coporate arguement of greed, is that the item sold has no license to use in its sale so the item is wholey owned outright for re-sale by the buyer.

    yet that is clearly at a moral impass when it comes to corporate copywright infringement issues around things like proprietory software rights etc and company branding etc.

    calling china a dirty rotten proprietory cheat while socially bullying and manipulating your own 14 year old child to comply with a contract they have been neither offered or given the option to read hardly moral equity.
    if the busines model of protection is sound then the 14 year old deserves equal intellectual proprietory protection as does the nature of a natioanlised corporate busines entity.

    is it buyer beware or seller beware ?

    as an artist you can not sell a license to use a peice of art work where you own the rights to others access to appriciate it.
    "yes you may buy it(i can take it back at any time or destroy it as i see fit), but no one else is allowed to look at it or i can sue you for 1 million dollars and you will face jail time"

    a license to use is issued and legalised to enforce the control of profitting from that item.
    why should an escalating item of art be any different ?

    is the difference between the 2 a nature of corporate facism vs individualist anarchy ?
  12. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    The profit motive fuels the marketplace which benefits us all. Sometimes it is just not fair, for sure.

    While I have not (to my knowledge) had someone buy something from me cheap and then sell it dear, I am aware that there are folks who do that or who have had that done to them. I get a fair price at the time I sell something. If the entity I sold to can turn around and make an obscene profit from the transaction, it would behoove them to return and buy another something from me to repeat their profit. Eventually I would get curious and find out what was going on. At that point, I would try to negotiate a mutually profitable venture with said individual.

    Been there, done that. They balked so I lost that customer to a cheaper competitor. A year later they went under as the new artist didn't perform as well as I. (They had me repair/rebuild 4 of his projects in that time frame so they ended up paying twice for those.)

    IMHO, it is "buyer, seller and any other involved parties should be aware."
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Still not sure what the problem is.

    You do not buy software, you are granted a license to use it.
  14. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    I'm with you. Rainbow seems to be losing it over laws that actually seem pretty reasonable.
    exchemist likes this.
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    (And I only responded out of morbid curiosity, since this is the first time in months I've seen RS write like a person instead of like a book worm eating a random path through a science dictionary.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    exchemist likes this.
  16. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    lol and i removed you from my ignore list about 2 weeks ago.

    most people have absolutely no clue about property protection around creative content.
    they may say they have but they dont on the whole.
    there is a massive disparity between the laws that protect businessess proprietory creative and ownership rights around etherial content like logos and software rights that is not shared on the public side wit laws and punishments for theft of personal information and such like items.
    using somenes image and other type of things.

    it seems there is no one clued up to be able to pull the debate from my posts.

    look at the musical artists who have had their songs stolen by the republican party and played at their rallys, against the expres wishes and without consent.

    why have they not been declared pirates and had their computers seized like someone pirating a corporate software program ?
    being fined tens of thousands in the court and having to pay the real market value of a few million to the artst for which the real price to use their song would be ?

    that is my point

    it is clearly un fair law
    the scales are not equal.
    lawyers should make a point. but it seems there is one law for corporate elitists and all the true artists get shafted.
    cant be bothered correcting my typos

    meanwhile a child not of legal age to sign a legally binding contract is held to account of a legal license for not being allowed to make a copy of the game they just bought and can be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars... and have their computers seized...

    willfull intent to steal a song by the large corporate the republican party
    ... child making a back-up copy or letting too many of their friends watch a dvd.

    the scales of justice are not equal
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2018
  17. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Wow, that doesn't seem fair! How many children have been fined hundreds of thousands of dollars and had their computers seized. I hope it is not too many!
  18. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    As long as the Republican party is paying ASCAP fees, they have the right to use the songs that are licensed by ASCAP.

Share This Page