back to article 'Freetard ? more like advert programmed PAYTARDS!'

Readers aren't taking our use of the "Freetard" jibe lying down. The term was coined by Dan Lyons - (aka, Fake Steve Jobs - as a catch-all for F/OSS users. But it seems so much more apt for free content militants, who nobly refuse to pay creators for music, TV and film - as a point of principle. They're fighting back with an …


This topic is closed for new posts.


  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Leo Maxwell

    "My daughter is a painter, the same applies, she sells her paintings, some people have started collecting her work , because they think that they are good investments. If one of her paintings or sculptures fetches large sums of money in 20 years, she will not benefit."

    Similarly if I resell an original first-pressing copy of the Beatles' White Album, the band and their estates make no more money.

    But if anyone wants to make another copy of your daughter's paintings (say for a book on 21st century art, or perhaps for use in a newspaper advert) it is your daughter who gets paid: the buyer owns the physical copy, not the copyright. Just like a CD.

    As to your comparison of carpentry and music.

    Are all your chairs of completely different designs? How long does it take you to plan a new chair design? What are your set up costs for a new design (new jigs and templates, setting up your tools etc)? Your reasoning on CD/DVD costs would, if applied to carpentry, suggest that the setup costs (design time, jig construction etc) should be added as a cost to the first chair of that design that you sell. I'd bet good money that you *don't* do this: you spread the cost over all the chairs and assume that you'll sell enough to cover it.

    The major differences between carpentry and music:

    * in music, costs are heavily loaded towards setup, with minimal physical unit costs.

    * the setup costs of carpentry will be incurred by anyone attempting to copy the product (even though the design phase will now be a matter of measuring rather than planning), whereas someone copying a CD does not involve any further studio work. Counterfeit chairs have only a small cost advantage, where counterfeit CDs have a huge cost advantage to originals.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh, look...

    >>"Anything else I may have ever `obtained` from the internet I would absolutely catagorically never ever have paid money for anyway. I have not deprived anyone of anything." <<

    ... a flying pig!

    Your nose just grew an inch, too.

    >> It seems that if you download it from iTunes or whatever, the artist gets nothing. <<

    It seems that you're deluding yourself, just so you can ask the question:

    >> So who are you stealing from if you get it off Bittorrent? <<


    So either people insist that they never, EVER download P2P. Or they say they download but it's morally justified, and no harm is caused.

    I'm not surprised the "freetard" jibe has stuck - it fits idiots so well.

  3. Shakje

    Re: @Leo Maxwell (by AC)

    "the setup costs of carpentry will be incurred by anyone attempting to copy the product (even though the design phase will now be a matter of measuring rather than planning), whereas someone copying a CD does not involve any further studio work."

    The cost of producing it is still there but much reduced, ie, power supply for your PC, cost of a disc if you're burning it and selling it, cost of net if you're not.

    Someone could take a fine redwood chair design, make it out of balsa and paint it red. It's the same relative cost difference if not a far greater difference, so the chair analogy works.

    The reason that your own argument about the painting falls over is because the only reason for a person to pay royalties for a copy of a picture is if they are using it for commercial gain. While some galleries stop people from taking pictures, you don't see anyone throwing a hissy fit over someone photographing paintings do you?

    Say if I walk into someone's house and take a photo of a painting above the piano, is the painter going to sue me for stealing copyright? No, unless the painter is the RIAA.

  4. Steve

    If only...

    If only the 'paytards' could understand the difference between depriving and merely copying.....but then again they are only paytards :c)

    My coat is the replica

  5. Anonymous Coward

    Freetard and Proud

    I'm listening to Cliffy (I love wimin) Richards out of copyright stuff now and loving every minute :)

    Something is worth what some idiot is prepared to pay for it.

  6. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  7. DR


    well for what it's worth to chip in...

    I think the beer anaology is as such

    *paytard* beer is a lovely glass of premium quality bitter, pumped from the taps of your local, you gives yer money ans you sit down and enjoy.

    *freetard* beer is more like homebrew. You have to have a slight startup cost, (buying the brewing kit, or getting a computer).

    you wait a while (for it to brew/download) then you get to drink your pint. somewhere you feel the sense of achievement because you brewed it yourself/ripped of a corrupt industry. but after th initial sense of achievement wears off ou realise, it's just not as good dammit, and I want the real thing.

    @poster above

    However as the productors are quite willing to loose money on 3 films out of 5 we have to pay for their backing of the wrong horse.

    and that's the big problem here, that's one reason why the freetards exist.

    I *don't want* to pay for someone else's mistake.

    _IF_ record execs choose a lemon, then they should get a better team.

    I frankly don't give a crap about shite music, I won't buy it, and don't want to subsidise it in my legal paytard persuits of good music.

    I do buy CD's but it annoys me to now that the money I paid for a good record, (lets say of a now dead artist) is not going to the artist, (s/he's dead), it's not even going to the estate of the artist in a lot of cases, it's going to subsidise the elevation of the next big thing that never works out. or it's going to payout the rest of the development contract that the next latest greatest shite massivly marketable, yet equally unskilled artist.

    somewhere in the middle seems to me to be the best idea...

    i.e. if artists really want to be artists, then they should strive for public acceptance first, by releasig thier stuff for free for download.

    then if there is public interests then by all means a record company can come in and see what they can do to further elevate/profit from said artist.

    but surely you get annoyed knowing that the money you paid for your SonyBMG released CD is going to be used to prop up the second CD sales of last years (now forgotten about) [popidol/americal idol/reality TV show] winner, rather than the profits of it going to the artist.

    @Leo Maxwell

    And when you listen somebody pays, the radio station, the bar, the supermarket, but the money very rarely gets back to the artist.

    ummm... wrong. go look at if a radiostation/tv are playing music by artists they have to be registerd here, they note what they play and the artists are given royalties, there are even fixed percentages, for guest performers on records, recording artists, session musicians etc...

    in short you're wrong. the money does get back to the artists.

    @Magilla -EPIC fail (ha, ha, actualy your response was the epic fail)

    Firstly, ever heard of a cover band? If not, they are bands who play other peoples songs, often get paid for it, but don't pay royalties. In effect, there are your cheap MFIkea knock-offs.

    most cover bands play in pubs and clubs, certainly in the UK there is a PRS fee for playing live or recorded music. so yes, the artists do get a percentage. even if that percentage is paid to them before they've done any work when the recording company are laying out money so they can record their first album.

    (e.g. a pub might loop a single song each day, but the band won't get paid for everytime that song is played, however the recording companys will get a fixed fee for allowing their music to be played in places signed up with the sceme, this money (or a percentage of it) will end up back with the artist

    @poster above


    Q, I pay for the music i like, but down load shit music to play at parties -why should I pay

    A, because you and your friends are still getting enjoyment out of it. if you don't like it, don't get it. tell your guests to bring CD's of music that they like.

    I love that whole, I steal because I support the artists crap, because it is just crap.

    the recording company pay the artist and like any other business

    no money in = no money out.

    if you seal from the recording company you are not suporting the artist, even if you think that by going to a show you've shown more support you've still chosen not to pay them.

    that said, I do support the try before you buy theory of downloading.

  8. Mike VandeVelde


    Well, I don't feel bad at all about p2p downloading. Like people rightly say, its actually copyright infringement, nothing to do with stealing. Beyond that though, the whole idea of copyright was just a temporary compromise made necessary by the scarcity of physical media for transmitting intellectual property. That compromise is now in its "last throes", to borrow a phrase. Not fading quietly into that goodnight, but definitely not forcing a rout any time soon. It will mean an end to the golden age of ridiculously expensive production, but in trade off a return to the ridiculous variety of real culture we used to have. Talentless hacks will be free to make their attempts, but there will be no mountain of money to prop them up and make them seem popular. They will have to make a living or not based on their performance.

    While I don't feel bad at all about p2p downloading, I almost never do. I have a subscription to emusic, and have pruchased from blip in the past. DRM free digital files. I see this as the only hope for "labels" in the future. I don't consider it paying for the "product". I think artists belittle themselves by pointing at a shiny disc and trying to say that's where the value is. The value is in the artist, not a recording of a performance by the artist. I consider it paying for the service of having music that I might enjoy nicely organized with standardized quality, something sorely lacking with p2p. I pay for the service of not having to mess around.

    I also go to shows as much as I can. That's the only way I believe an artist really earns money, is by performing. If they don't get the money they need at the original performance, then they won't get any sympathy from me when they come begging at any point after the fact.

    Plus I still buy CDs. I'm a collector. How about this analogy. Would a stamp collector be proud to show you his collection of photocopies of stamps? That's about what a collection of mp3s amounts to. People will still want CDs. And they won't steal them out of stores. And the people who would be happy with cheap knockoffs are the ones who will be happy with mp3s from p2p - the real pirates probably lose more money from this than the official labels do.

    That's by 2 bits. Call me a freetard if you want, I won't feel offended by it. Even though I don't take everything for free, and I don't think I'm retarded, I still don't see any real problem with digital copyright infringement and so would rather be categorized as a freetard than whatever you might label yourself. We're in different camps. My money is on your camp going the way of the dinosaur / buggy whip manufacturers. There's only one real way to find out, so let it roll...


This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019