Opinion

Timcast IRL - Censor Proof FreedomPhone Sparks Establishment PANIC w/Erik Finman


Sign Up For Exclusive Episodes At https://timcast.com/ Guest: Erik Finman @ERIKFINMAN (Twitter) http://www.FreedomPhone.com Merch …

*For corrections please email corrections@timcast.com*

9 responses to “Timcast IRL – Censor Proof FreedomPhone Sparks Establishment PANIC w/Erik Finman”

  1. Bootcrash says:

    I need to comment regarding Ian’s argument on his take on artists and piracy. If you want some examples, you can look at $5 crowd-sourced logos and see how many companies use them.

    Given me being a designer whose value in the industry is diminishing due to crowd-sourcing of work. Years of refining the craft, with years of schooling and buying the the equipment and software, only for people asking for hours of work for pennies. How do you compete when people don’t look for quality work but cheap work?

  2. neilinda says:

    Enjoyed the podcast, didn’t enjoy the argument… and thought it got in the way of the guest for the evening and the topic being discussed.
    But about the SUBJECT of the argument, I thought a lot more could be said -In debate style- and by informed participates who are gifted at debate.
    They could even discuss the changes in ethics and morality the internet has made.
    While there may be a value in Ian’s POV, his passion on the subject overwhelms his ‘gift’ for communicating and he can not effectively make his own points. On the other hand, Tim is so sure he is right, he does not make his points well either… and of course he is not taking the time to understand Ian’s process… just develop his own rebuttal.
    Thinking having two artists -who produce different types of art- and who have different temperaments on to discuss this subject might be interesting.
    Just FYI, in response to the discussion… The sad reality is that there are plenty of people who can justify selling corn from a farmer… I see them do it all the time.

  3. SlayerP3 says:

    I rarely comment on Tim’s videos but I feel compelled considering I actually agree with Ian for once…

    If you have ever used an emulator and ROMS, download mp3s from a filesharing site, watched anime from a free streaming platform or took part in any other form of “piracy”, by definition of Intellectual Property Law, you’ve stolen this content.

    By nature of how interconnected everyone is on the internet, it’s practically impossible to prevent people online from pirating content. Aside from the logistical issues of enforcing copyright and Intellectual Property, it’s hard to make the argument that your actually even OWN an idea.

    It’s so culturally ingrained to think that ideas or intellectual works belong to whoever thought the idea first but ideas are not unique, and even if they were, the moment you choose to share ideas other minds can take those ideas and run with it.

    The common sentiment in the comments seems to be pro Open-Source and if you agree with it’s tenets than why can’t we try to apply this ideology to all types of media content or even patents?

    Uniquenameosaurus made a compelling argument for abolishing intellectual property and I recommend everyone watch it and to at least entertain this idea of an alternate way of creating and sharing content on the internet.
    https://youtu.be/mnnYCJNhw7w

  4. HerrDoktor says:

    Amazed you guys are still on about it — Tim, by your logic I could demand that you pay me for each post I make here.

  5. HerrDoktor says:

    Regarding the idea that copying something is the same as stealing it — Tim, what is your threshold for this concept? If you thought up the number four and I use the number four, have I stolen that from you? What about larger numbers? What about very large numbers?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

  6. Mini_Swaggz says:

    “Encourage them to take Psilocybin” is the answer to all the world’s problems lmaooo

  7. ItsD says:

    Usually I am staunchly against a lot of the things Ian says, despite actually appreciating his willingness to challenge the status quo.

    On this issue, I started out as against Ian’s view point of piracy….but then something did occur to me. He is actually 10000% correct. The art itself is not what should be creating the money;it is proof of the artist possessing unique talent. Hiring, or commissioning the artist is what should be making the money. What is consumed is the time of artist, which is paid for in commission.

    So, using painting as my example for now, the time spent in making the colors, getting the right canvas, choosing the paints and brushes, that all is voluntary to the artist. Every painter must do these things if they wish to paint, but not every painter can or will expect income..right?
    It is also true that an artist can choose to do these things for free as well, and so it is in fact not a career in of itself.

    The career can be made from art, yes, but that career is in sales and marketing, not art itself. So, that artist might sell their paintings, but might use PICTURES of the painting as business cards they hand out for free…in order to market the product. The product at this point in time, is not and never will be consumable- it is a hard asset which should be intended to last and retain it’s own value somehow. . .because it is an asset, not a consumable.

    I can pay an artist 200k to do a masterful painting on the ceiling in my kitchen. I cannot require people pay me, or the artist, to take pictures of my ceiling. I paid 200k to consume that person’s time, and that time spent on the home raises the value of the home…or should if the artist is worth the metal. People taking pictures of the ceiling will not result in money for the artist, but will result in notoriety and popularity…thus more commissions should the artist choose to accept them.

    So applied to a musician. I can commission you to sing for me 12 beautiful songs. I will say, I make CDs, make album covers, CD cases, CD players, radios, and all the works. My job is to sell these products, which are valuable with or without music on them….but more valuable with.

    So I spend 600k on you, bring you the singer and band to my studio. You record my 12 songs, I pay your money… if someone “pirates” that CD, yes I am at a loss..but that is because of MY business model. The artist can still be proven, promoted, and comissioned again, even if perhaps not by me personally.

    So, like you said, the solution became creating streaming services…a better business model, affordable, and provided immediate access to massive libraries of artist content..this ateady revenue allows for stream providers to commission artists as they see fit, and the solution provides for itself. And, thus even proving, it was never pirating that was the issue, it was bad business modeling.
    Pirating is perhaps equally as responsible for the popularity and fame of the artists as is those who spent the money buying the CD, IF not more. Pirating still established a high demand, that business models of the age could not provide for. So ironical as it is, I think Ian is actually correct. Stealing the blueprint is NOT the same as copying it….because the blueprint is proof of the architect’s unique skills, and you can’t steal/copy that(quite as easily).

  8. Mini_Swaggz says:

    So glad you had this man on. Dude is truly a patriot from what I’ve seen from him so far