Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
did i ever say that no
all i am talking about is removing the monopoly level pricing from medium selection
if the medium has rules that dictate version changes then that is legitimate
downloading a movie as you are justifying would still be a copyright infringement because that would represent a violation of that first sale principle.
it would not be covered by fair use of access shifting.
access shifting is just designed to stop the abuse of medium selection period
stop trying to artificially extending to make a straw man arguement to argue against.
i didn't say hard drive i said solid state disk.
your talking about the commidization of hard ware as the supply increases. The problem with that is solid state disk was used exclusively in very high end server to speed up the delivery of information. Solid state disk was never used in every day computers
which means it would never been commodinized by volume increase
instead of seeing the price drops that they saw (because of commercialization in a consumer device) they would have seen price drop that another technology which was limited to high end equipment (fiber optic network cards)
assuming those price drop level you would still be paying $4 /mb today (maybe if your luck $3)
that means an ipod would cost $640,000 (480,000)
but that because the perculation effect hasn't replaced the forced medium selection effect in that case
that the point of what i am saying.
will some movies fail under that senerio yes
should i care no
using a monopoly to prop up an inferior offering should never be considered valid in a free market enterprise system.
but you missed the point again
it doesn't matter how many jobs are created
because physical goods would be replacing digital goods
and physical goods have LOCAL job creation potential
And physiical goods require more people to support
such a shift will always create more jobs
eliminate monopoly abuses that are holding back technological advancements will alway result in a net benefit period.
so your proof is a number that deliberately ignore all the movies released under the new medium
2009 had 315 movies release thru the internet (bit torrent etc)
add those back in and movies increased.
i find it funny that you acknowledge the medium competition in your very next statement that you deliberately ignored to make your bogus point.
already did when i posted the transcript to the congressional hearing where jack v claimed that the vcr was the boston strangler
google it
and some how you believe that new dvd is magically created without someone putting it together
delivering it
stocking the shelf
but wasn't this the whole point of the copyright monopoly to protect the insentive to create media.
the whole point of fair use was to prevent that monopoly from being abused to cause more harm then benefit.
There is absolute no point in having fair use at all if you don't care about the economic impact of the abuse of that monopoly.
btw i never said they should be forced to provide to every medium
i have said they should have a right to prevent it from any medium
if you don't want to support a medium then someone else should have a right to step up under very specific limitations (no DIRECT income generation)
it a sad day when your entire arguement for a free market is to have politicans deliberately break the free market
promote an inferior offering over a superior one because they have been bought by companies.
your talking about a fundamental perversion of capitalism.
i find it funny that a supposedly pro business person is trying to argue that position.
|
Here is my final word on this.
First, There is no damage being done to people or industries if a person has to wait a few months to see a movie on DVD or pay-per-view. This does not stifle technology. You can still build all the high end A/V gear you want because there is a ton of existing content out there and more growing every day. I would even argue that there is more money made by having to wait. If a movie does well at the boxoffice it will sell more copies of the DVD and the more copies of the DVD that get sold the more money is spent on shipping, packaging, manufacturing, buying it at your local store etc.
I have never said that they should stop technology. I have always said that I think the artists those who create their own content should have control over how it is distributed. If I make a movie it is mine. I own it. I paid to create it and I should have the right to sell it as I wish.
If gas companies decided to do as you say only sell premium during the first week of the month, people would be out in the streets protesting and it wouldn't take long before the companies caved to their demands and started selling all the different grades of gas again. But here is the difference. Gas is something that most people need to get by in their day to day life. Movies are not. One is something that is vital to the average person being able to provide for themselves. The other is not. One is simply art. One is entertainment. If people protested in the streets demanding that movies be released in all formats the day they are released you might actually see some studios cave in and do that. But people don't riot in the streets because most of them don't care. Most of them understand that if they don't want to pay to see it in the theater they can wait a few months and rent it on DVD or pay-per-view. They don't see it as some life or death struggle like you do.
The movie industry isn't using a monopoly to prop up and sell an inferior product. They are simply marketing their product in a way that they think will allow them to best maximize their profits and you - a guy who goes off about the free market - want the government to step in and force them to do it your way. If the market really demanded access shifting and every movie available in every format the day it was released, they would have it. But most people don't care. Most people have better things to do than sit around and figure out how to get something for free off the internet and use loopholes in age old laws to justify it.
Access shifting is not effecting technological development. We have 3D TV's now, we are starting to see the RGBY TV's now. Companies can create all the A/V gear they want and sell it like made and create this 60 trillion/year industry you have swimming in your head right now. Nobody is stopping them. The fact that a movie comes out this weekend at the theater, but not for another 3 months on DVD is not holding them back. Like everything else these advances are consumer driven. Until the price becomes reasonable not a whole lot of people will buy it. As the price drops it will become more and more commonplace, but the fact that you have to wait for a movie on DVD is not restricting the development of this technology.
The only way forced access shifting as you envision it will ever happen in the US is if our lawmakers create a law forcing these companies to do this or, if someone gets in trouble for downloading and challenges the law and wins their case then that case survives all the appeals and sets a legal precedent. Neither of those is going to be happening any time soon.
More likely is that the movie companies will slowly start to release more product online test these markets out to see if they can make as much money as the traditional system. If they try it and it works, you might see more of it voluntarily, but it isn't going to happen any time soon.