Quote:
Originally Posted by SykkBoy
You are a walking clusterfuck of stupid.
If I create something and don't want to monetize it, it does NOT give someone else the right to monetize what I've created. Telling you that you can't profit from MY content or product is not censorship. It is controlling something that I've created...while you sat home jerking off to your illegally pirated copy of "Cool As Ice"
|
you realize that by that logic vcr should be illegal because universal never gave permission to have their shows taped, and sony was monetizing that content by selling the vcr for 1k each
the same is true for mp3, backup and every other fair use we currently enjoy
you want a government granted monopoly to be absolute even though the government itself recognizes that such absolute monopolies must be broken up (sherman anti trust law)
want to sell your content as property were i have the right to do what every i want with once i got (like a car), rent it out, lend it out, sell it when i am done with it then you can make that type of arguement, but when your income generating capacity is because the government gives you the sole right to monetize it. Gives you a monopoly on monetizing it choosing not to monetize it IS abandoning that monopoly.
oh and btw smart guy, how the fuck can i comment about the current episode of heroes on a public forum, if the show doesn't air in my country, i cant
that censorship of the free speach and fair use principle of commentary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Finally you actually answered a question and as per usual your answer contradicts previous statements made by you. You have said that you don't think thing should just be free, but that fair use rights should be in place, but your answer to my question runs just the opposite of that.
|
universal and tv show producers lost all the income they got from re run commercial fees with the vcr.
Record companies lost the income they got from forcing people to buy 7 songs they didn't want for 3 that they did with mp3.
both those incomes came not from liciencing the content but extending the monopoly to the medium
That the point, the copyright act only protects the income from LICIENCING the content
if a content producer licienced the content to every country and every medium at the same time they would still get 100% of the LICIENCING.
all the extra income you are complaining about losing is same as the income that record companies lost because they could no longer force people to buy the 7 songs you didn't want for the 3 singles you did.
Quote:
|
If Country A has never had the show Heroes air on TV are in it and it is not available for sale in that country you feel that those people should have the right to access shift and download it for free.
|
no i want them to licience it to all countries at the same time , so no one is denied the content
i want copyright holders to lose the right to stop people from downloading it for free when they attempt to abuse the copyright monopoly to extend it to the medium (only country b audience)
just like format shifting ultimately forced record companies to sell mp3 and singles instead of forcing feeding album sales to people who only wanted 3 good songs.
Quote:
|
So you do want people to have it for free! And never mind that the producers may choose to sell it in some form in that country at a later time, you feel that since it isn't available now, they should be able to go out and get it. So really, you do think people should be able to take whatever they want if it isn't conveniently available to them regardless of what the copyright owners actual marketing plans may include.
|
let me make it really simple for you
make money from liciencing your content = good
make money from extending monopoly to the medium = bad
if you make x by liciencing your content to every country at the same time (100% liciencing)
and you could make x+y by extending the monopoly to medium (liciencing it to one country and forcing foreigners to buy the content from itunes)
it is only the second abuse that i am complaining about
just like the revenue from the 7 songs people didn't want to buy but were forced to because that the medium the record companies choose, copyright holders are not entitled to that medium extending money.
fair use has always recognized the difference.
Quote:
|
You have also claimed you are the ultimate free marketer. How can that be? In the free market a product sinks or swims on its own merit. If an artist puts out something people love they will pay for it. Yet you, the ultimate free marketer, love the idea of a piracy tax. So you want to tax your paying customers to help subsidize losses from those who choose not to pay. That is not really a free market ideal now is it?
|
you mean like a government granted monopoly that denies you all the normal property rights that exist for every other purchase you can make
that says that even though i can sell or rent out a car i bought, i should have the same right with a movie or a bunch of pictures i bought.
please
that the kettle call the pot black.
if a piracy tax exists then you are moron if you don't claim your allocated share.
if you can change your operations in some key ways to qualify for a share then you are a moron for not doing it.