Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period

[gideongallery]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml

[porno jew]

come back tomorrow there is better drama today. sorry.

[bignasty]

Not sure that that is a valid argument. First of all, movies and cars(the writer's examples) are not homogeneous products. They are differentiated, and therefore not subject to the forces of a perfectly competitive market. Products that are subject to perfectly competitive markets are things such as wheat, milk, etc. Goods that you can't really tell apart. A good rule of thumb is if it's advertised, it's not in a perfectly competitive market. Perfectly competitive markets can produce short run profits, but break even in the long run. This is in terms of economic profit, not accounting profit. While it is true that all markets find optimal quantity at mc=mr, there is still a profit made. mc=mr just means that if you produce more then your total profit will decrease. You still have a profit on each unit before the optimal quantity. If that quantity is 10,000 you made marginal profit on each of the 9,999 that preceded that last unit. This is because of decreasing marginal returns. As you add inputs, the amount of production achieved per additional input added decreases, which raises the marginal cost. The writer says that car makers will try to differentiate to keep from getting marginal cost. The simple fact is that the car maker is trying to get to that point, as that point represents the highest profits he can realize. Whoever wrote that article needs to retake basic microeconomics.

Edit to add
It's not that the market pushes prices to marginal cost, it's that producers produce until the marginal cost equals the price of the good. His thinking is backwards. Producers produce until it cost that amount to produce one more. Not that price goes to mc.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by bignasty

Not sure that that is a valid argument. First of all, movies and cars(the writer's examples) are not homogeneous products. They are differentiated, and therefore not subject to the forces of a perfectly competitive market. Products that are subject to perfectly competitive markets are things such as wheat, milk, etc. Goods that you can't really tell apart. A good rule of thumb is if it's advertised, it's not in a perfectly competitive market. Perfectly competitive markets can produce short run profits, but break even in the long run. This is in terms of economic profit, not accounting profit. While it is true that all markets find optimal quantity at mc=mr, there is still a profit made. mc=mr just means that if you produce more then your total profit will decrease. You still have a profit on each unit before the optimal quantity. If that quantity is 10,000 you made marginal profit on each of the 9,999 that preceded that last unit. This is because of decreasing marginal returns. As you add inputs, the amount of production achieved per additional input added decreases, which raises the marginal cost. The writer says that car makers will try to differentiate to keep from getting marginal cost. The simple fact is that the car maker is trying to get to that point, as that point represents the highest profits he can realize. Whoever wrote that article needs to retake basic microeconomics.

Edit to add
It's not that the market pushes prices to marginal cost, it's that producers produce until the marginal cost equals the price of the good. His thinking is backwards. Producers produce until it cost that amount to produce one more. Not that price goes to mc.

Actually he right your ignoring the supply side shift, people getting into the market because the profit margins are so good.

That what drives the profits to zero.

The economic slide to zero is halted by differentiation, it true for any good including commodities ( ie premium gasoline)

[bignasty]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Actually he right your ignoring the supply side shift, people getting into the market because the profit margins are so good.

That what drives the profits to zero.

The economic slide to zero is halted by differentiation, it true for any good including commodities ( ie premium gasoline)

Sure in a competitive market that is the case, but every example he used is not a competitive market product. If you have differentiation between the products it is not a competitive market. If I make a movie I control the shift of the supply of that movie, no one else. Actually I think there is room for argument for your example of premium gasoline. In the eyes of most consumers gasoline is gasoline regardless of brand. Where and who they buy from is a matter of convenience in most cases. Gasoline is a bad example anyway, it is an oligopolic good-companies can't just jump into the gasoline refining business and shift supply.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by bignasty

Sure in a competitive market that is the case, but every example he used is not a competitive market product. If you have differentiation between the products it is not a competitive market. If I make a movie I control the shift of the supply of that movie, no one else. Actually I think there is room for argument for your example of premium gasoline. In the eyes of most consumers gasoline is gasoline regardless of brand. Where and who they buy from is a matter of convenience in most cases. Gasoline is a bad example anyway, it is an oligopolic good-companies can't just jump into the gasoline refining business and shift supply.

That the point of the article

The bullshit you can't compete against free argument is based on the assumption that there is no possible differentiation

That you can make changes to the marketing message, or original broadcast quality to differentiate your legit content from the pirate one.


I have repeatedly pointed out that the "piracy" issue with movie cams is red herring because we have had auto scopic 3d technology for almost 17 years

We have had 6 spectrum color for more then 20 years.

We still don't have personal recorders capable of capturing that level yet



Piracy is nothing more then commodity competition


you could differentiate based on brand

orange juice (florida orange juice)

quality

sugar (100% pure sugar)

methodology/source

salt (sea salt)

or re-purpose

corn (ethanol)

[19teenporn]

Says who?

[CaptainHowdy]

Enter Paul Markham ...

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by 19teenporn

Says who?

do you even understand the concept of copyright

it granting you monopoly control over the distribution of the content

by definition it the elimination of a potential competitor.

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

do you even understand the concept of copyright

it granting you monopoly control over the distribution of the content

by definition it the elimination of a potential competitor.

I don't know why you bother.

In the real world the right to copy is what makes productive authors be productive and keeps leeches and parasites from making $$ by theft. Its how the rest of the planet, except for you and some "anarchists" sees it. In the real world you get to spend real jail time for theft.

Your argument that "it is not an exact copy" or that "nothing was removed just digitally time shifted crap" will only make the judge angry and give you more time.

This will never ever change. Ever. Not even the slightest chance.

You know why? Because money talks and everything else sucks dick especially the "rights" of non productive parasites. Big corporations employ 1000s of people and they have billions of dollars and on the other hand EMO "file sharing" parasite hippies have: SHIT.

You are pissing against a hurricane that will never stop, if you are lucky you may run out of pee but the wind will never ever ever ever ever change. Your efforts are as futile as protesting against the sun coming up tomorrow.

Seriously, its the weakest argument of all time and the most futile cause I can imagine.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

I don't know why you bother.

In the real world the right to copy is what makes productive authors be productive and keeps leeches and parasites from making $$ by theft. Its how the rest of the planet, except for you and some "anarchists" sees it. In the real world you get to spend real jail time for theft.

yeah it impossible to make money without control over the distribution

It not like you can make a billion dollar company on copyleft stuff

oh wait

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...-at-1-billion/

Your argument that "it is not an exact copy" or that "nothing was removed just digitally time shifted crap" will only make the judge angry and give you more time.

This will never ever change. Ever. Not even the slightest chance.

You know why? Because money talks and everything else sucks dick especially the "rights" of non productive parasites. Big corporations employ 1000s of people and they have billions of dollars and on the other hand EMO "file sharing" parasite hippies have: SHIT.

You are pissing against a hurricane that will never stop, if you are lucky you may run out of pee but the wind will never ever ever ever ever change. Your efforts are as futile as protesting against the sun coming up tomorrow.

Seriously, its the weakest argument of all time and the most futile cause I can imagine.

you do realize that when you deduct the jobs created within the copyright industry because of fair uses like time shifting and format shifting

it 117:1 right.


Home viewing market exceeds the entire rest of the market combined
mp3 are growing while records are dying.



these were all things that the copyright monopoly called piracy when it came out

[L-Pink]

What a tool ...

.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

What a tool ...

.

seriously want to explain

the argument i need monopoly control because you can't compete against free

is based on a false premise that commodities can't compete.

Take away copyright and content becomes a commodity and you can compete using the same principles that have existed for commodities since the cave men first traded goods

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

yeah it impossible to make money without control over the distribution

It not like you can make a billion dollar company on copyleft stuff

oh wait

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentr...-at-1-billion/

Oh what a great example...Microsoft is worth 219billion$ and your example just barely hit 1 billion...

Seems like my copyright model is exactly 219 times better? seems like my example employs exactly 219 time more people, pays 219 times more taxes, has a research budget that is 219 times more productive...

Pray tell, what is the advantage of your "model"??? Even a retard can see the difference between 219 and 1...and lets not forget that your puny tiny little insignificant "1" is the absolute best example you could find? FOR FUCKS SAKE THEY GIVE IT AWAY FOR FREE and they still cant make anywhere near 219 LOL with your "model" HAHAHAHAHA

do I have to draw it out for you? ok look: a car is better than a bicycle get it now?

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you do realize that when you deduct the jobs created within the copyright industry because of fair uses like time shifting and format shifting

it 117:1 right.

no its 139:4...no wait its 948:1 in my favor...son either post some actual proof or don't try to impress with figures that you pull out of your ass...

My argument: The multi billion $$$$ copyright holders create infinitely more jobs than the thieves and pirates

Your argument: broke EMO hippy no job thieves create jobs

you have to be in touch with reality just a little bit...just a tiny bit lol...

ALSO I DARE YOU to copy some of my material and say in court "time shift" and "format shift" LOOOL you will get so much jail for holding the court in contempt that it will be ridiculous...you will need a time machine to get out of jail LOL

(Reality ---- this is what you need to be more in touch with)

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Home viewing market exceeds the entire rest of the market combined
mp3 are growing while records are dying.

sounds like your "file sharing" hippies just created a lot of jobs? (this is irony of course)

Originally Posted by gideongallery

these were all things that the copyright monopoly called piracy when it came out

we CAN compete against free...NO PROBLEM...but we don't want to and there aint SHIT that hippies can do about it...your "cause" is fundamentally flawed because the intelligent, rich and successful get to call the shots and not EMO hippies...

hippies and "file sharing" companies can create "pressure" but money will create laws like SOPA and ACTA or ever worse...you are pissing against a hurricane son...its not about right or wrong...its about REALITY...in reality hippies get to suck a dick and the rich get what they want...want to change stuff? "time shift" back to the good old USSR or go back to commie china LOL...things will NEVER change your way...just get over it...

[epitome]

Your content is your content.

Just like walmart can't raid your shelves to stock their store, others cannot steal your content.

Only lowlife thieving scum cannot understand this fact.

Buy your content, just like you do your toilet paper.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

seriously want to explain

The justifications you freetard asswipes use for appropriating the property of others gets nauseating after a while. As does your insistence that property owners should give away their labors. So yea, fuck off tool.

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

do you even understand the concept of copyright

it granting you monopoly control over the distribution of the content

by definition it the elimination of a potential competitor.

Wrong. it does not eliminate a potential competitor. It creates competition.

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

it granting you monopoly control over the distribution of the content

by definition it the elimination of a potential competitor.

wrong...

your competitor is free to create his own product...you seem to have a hard time understanding the word monopoly...nike makes shoes but so does adidas...nike is free to make as many shoes as it wishes as long as they are not "adidas"...no monopoly there...

FACTUAL REALITY: copyright in no way prevents somebody else from creating
want to make a film about WW2? no problem there are 100-s of them
want to write a book about zombies? no problem there are 100-s of them
want to write a song about love? no problem there are 100-s of them...

don't troll just for the sake of trolling try to actually have a point...and your point should actually coincide with reality and the truth...

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

Oh what a great example...Microsoft is worth 219billion$ and your example just barely hit 1 billion...

Seems like my copyright model is exactly 219 times better? seems like my example employs exactly 219 time more people, pays 219 times more taxes, has a research budget that is 219 times more productive...

red hat original release May 13, 1995

microsoft United States (April 4, 1975)

that almost 20 years of compounded growth your talking about there buddy boy.


and they did so while giving their buyers all the property rights that people have with any other real world good (car, house, chair ...)

So pointing to a success artificially inflated by government granted control is really doing a good job at discrediting the statement "saying you can't compete with free is saying you can't compete period"

Pray tell, what is the advantage of your "model"??? Even a retard can see the difference between 219 and 1...and lets not forget that your puny tiny little insignificant "1" is the absolute best example you could find? FOR FUCKS SAKE THEY GIVE IT AWAY FOR FREE and they still cant make anywhere near 219 LOL with your "model" HAHAHAHAHA

do I have to draw it out for you? ok look: a car is better than a bicycle get it now?

free market competition is always going to worth less then monopoly control to company who is selling the good.

The economic impact to all the companies who USE that product increase the more competition drives down the price.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

no its 139:4...no wait its 948:1 in my favor...son either post some actual proof or don't try to impress with figures that you pull out of your ass...

My argument: The multi billion $$$$ copyright holders create infinitely more jobs than the thieves and pirates

except that an over whelming majority of those jobs exist because "pirates" successfully validated fair use for the world.

117:1 number comes from a simple comparision

Deduct all the movies sales from the home viewing market (53% of all copyrighted content) and add that to the fair use side

Deduct all the tv stations that used the home viewing market as a justification for their subscription model (HBO, Showcase ...) and them to the fair use side

Deduct all the hours of tv syndication that used the record viewing as proof that the market was valid (speciality channels, day time syndication .... ) and add them to the fair use side

If anything this number is under estimated because many of the over 9000 channels didn't directly point to recording/home viewing market.

As a result they are mistakenly counted on the non fair use side.

If you allocated on aggressive basis

it 3 TV stations airing primarily 4 hours a day vs 9000 stations airing 24 hours a day.

even when you factor cost based on licencing fees (first run vs non first run) it still over 7372:1

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by epitome

Your content is your content.

Just like walmart can't raid your shelves to stock their store, others cannot steal your content.

Only lowlife thieving scum cannot understand this fact.

Buy your content, just like you do your toilet paper.

Sure want to give me all the same rights that i would have with those physical products.

I don't have to get permission any permission at all if i want to build something from that "product"

see toilet paper art

below

[grumpy]

depends how you sell "free". I get a free phone if i subscribe to at&t

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

red hat original release May 13, 1995

microsoft United States (April 4, 1975)

that almost 20 years of compounded growth your talking about there buddy boy.

double bullshit...

1) Unix was developed in 1969...red hat is just a distro...

2) During the pre-PC days mirosoft was not worth shit...they went public in 86 and only then did they create 4 billionaires and 12.000 millionaires and now they employ 90.000 people...

what do EMO hippies create? other than poop?

Originally Posted by gideongallery

and they did so while giving their buyers all the property rights that people have with any other real world good (car, house, chair ...)

WRONG...you can sell your original copy of windows no problem...don't lie all the time LOL

Originally Posted by gideongallery

So pointing to a success artificially inflated by government granted control is really doing a good job at discrediting the statement "saying you can't compete with free is saying you can't compete period"

government control? HINT: FREE UNIX precedes WINDOWS

ok stop and think...

think some more.....

get it now? FREE UNIX existed before PAID FOR WINDOWS

try to be right just one time LOL

Originally Posted by gideongallery

free market competition is always going to worth less then monopoly control to company who is selling the good.

do not use words that you obviously do not understand like monopoly....you are free to CREATE but not STEAL...monopoly means: only nike can create running shoes and not addidas or anybody else...get a clue about what monopoly really means

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

except that an over whelming majority of those jobs exist because "pirates" successfully validated fair use for the world.

117:1 number comes from a simple comparision

Deduct all the movies sales from the home viewing market (53% of all copyrighted content) and add that to the fair use side

Deduct all the tv stations that used the home viewing market as a justification for their subscription model (HBO, Showcase ...) and them to the fair use side

Deduct all the hours of tv syndication that used the record viewing as proof that the market was valid (speciality channels, day time syndication .... ) and add them to the fair use side

If anything this number is under estimated because many of the over 9000 channels didn't directly point to recording/home viewing market.

As a result they are mistakenly counted on the non fair use side.

If you allocated on aggressive basis

it 3 TV stations airing primarily 4 hours a day vs 9000 stations airing 24 hours a day.

even when you factor cost based on licencing fees (first run vs non first run) it still over 7372:1

WRONG...AGAIN...kid are you 12? copy right owners GRANT PERMISSION FOR MONEY to the stations to air their shit...it is not the "pirates" who "create" the jobs its the COPYRIGHT OWNERS...you see the pirates did not create shit...the copyright owners created it...any $$$$ that results from their work is not to be credited to the "pirates" in any way shape of form LOL...HBO is SHIT without hollywood dont you get it? LOL hollywood created the jobs at HBO get it??


even piratebay.org all the money they made by theft are to be directly credited to the copyright owners...without the hard work and talent of the copy right owners the pirates would be toilet cleaners or something else that is adequate for stupid lazy non creative people...

learn the difference between CREATE and STEAL...

your pirate heros exist only because creative people create something...your heros "piratebay.org" would be SHIT without creative people like copyright holders...you EMO hippie non productive toilet cleaners would not have anything to "share" if it was not for better people than you, who create jobs and push this world forward....

being a pseudo intellectual blood sucking maggot is probably the easiest way to go through life...i understand you but you don't understand me....

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

WRONG...AGAIN...kid are you 12? copy right owners GRANT PERMISSION FOR MONEY to the stations to air their shit...it is not the "pirates" who "create" the jobs its the COPYRIGHT OWNERS...you see the pirates did not create shit...the copyright owners created it...any $$$$ that results from their work is not to be credited to the "pirates" in any way shape of form LOL...HBO is SHIT without hollywood dont you get it? LOL hollywood created the jobs at HBO get it??

Did you not notice the quotes moron The "pirates" i am talking about in this case was SONY corporation for creating the VCR.

They won the right of timeshift for all of the public.

Re read what i said. If mpaa had there way the VCR would have been outlawed because it was a tool of piracy.

Yet it quickly became the greatest money maker

for the industry

Most of the jobs that are supposedly being lost to piracy, wouldn't have existed at all if it hadn't been for sony "piracy".

[gideongallery]

WRONG...you can sell your original copy of windows no problem...don't lie all the time LOL

right but i can't rent it out, like i can a car, i can't break it apart and sell the pieces like a car ..

Get the point

until i can go EVERYTHING i can do with a physical product

They are NOT EQUAL.

government control? HINT: FREE UNIX precedes WINDOWS

ok stop and think...

think some more.....

get it now? FREE UNIX existed before PAID FOR WINDOWS

try to be right just one time LOL

MORON I Said Government Granted Control

not government control

bell labs invented UNIX, they were a government granted telco monopoly

so even your precious example proves you wrong

do not use words that you obviously do not understand like monopoly....you are free to CREATE but not STEAL...monopoly means: only nike can create running shoes and not addidas or anybody else...get a clue about what monopoly really means

So now the supreme court is wrong, ok the LAW itself defines it as a monopoly but i am wrong for simply quoting that definition.



maybe you should read beta max case once to understand the law your talking about BEFORE you accusing someone of not understanding what a monopoly means.

[pimpmaster9000]

Notice I put "pirates" in quotation marks I know what you were referring to...

Ok all wrong again....

The copyright holders created the jobs for SONY and the industry not other other way around. You see if it was not for the copyright holders SONY would not have a reason to produce the VCR being that there would not be anything to record. Saying that SONY created jobs for the movie industry is LOL get your time line of events str8...

wrong wrong wrong...

ever been to a video club? you can rent out copy righted material...windows is not rented out because its an operating system it needs to be present all the time...you can take your original windows and break it down with a hammer in to little parts if you wish and if you can find a buyer for your little parts then you can sell it...also in the real world there are PLENTY of restrictions on what you can and can not do with physical goods...you can not rent out a car without permission from the government...you can not buy a house without permission from the neighbors...you can not sell a house if your neighbors do not agree with the new drug king pin would be owner...you can not duplicate your BMW in any shape way or form and call it a BMW...


yes government GRANTED control whats the problem? I did not imply that the government made people buy Windows and not get your UNIX for free. I implied, and you so conveniently ignored, that Windows created 4 billionaires 12.000 millionaires employs 90.000 people and is exactly 219x a better business model...basic math 219>1

your model sucks balls and its gonna take a helluva argument to make anybody see 1 as being better than 219 LOL

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

Notice I put "pirates" in quotation marks I know what you were referring to...


The copyright holders created the jobs for SONY and the industry not other other way around.

How Exactly were people going to play movies on VCR tape cassettes without a VCR.

If universal had won that case, the VCR would have been illegal

IF the mpaa had successfully lobbied the congress to change the laws the vcr would have been made illegal.

Both circumstances would have killed the VCR as a product

So again i ask


How Exactly were people going to play movies on VCR tape cassettes without a VCR.

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

How Exactly were people going to play movies on VCR tape cassettes without a VCR.

If universal had won that case, the VCR would have been illegal

IF the mpaa had successfully lobbied the congress to change the laws the vcr would have been made illegal.

Both circumstances would have killed the VCR as a product

So again i ask


How Exactly were people going to play movies on VCR tape cassettes without a VCR.

The VCR tape and the VCR would not exist if it was not for the great work that copyright holders produce...Without copyright holders work there would be nothing to "VCR" GET IT?

Without the great work of copyright holders there would be no TV let alone VCR. Hollywood creates jobs. Like it or not. Pirates just create poop.

You are decorating your "pro pirate" propaganda with the feathers of the copyright holders. Nothing new for pirates to steal other peoples work or even accomplishments and then present it as your own.

BOTTOM LINE: the world would suck without the work of our creative and intelligent copy right holders BUT the world would be a better place without blood sucking parasites.

[Just Alex]

WTF ? Where is Paul Markham?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

The VCR tape and the VCR would not exist if it was not for the great work that copyright holders produce...Without copyright holders work there would be nothing to "VCR" GET IT?

yes the tiny fraction of content existed on tv created a market for the vcr (and the fair use of timeshift)

but the fact that people watched tv shows outside of prime time created a market for a vast majority of the content you see today (something that could not have happened if the vcr hadn't validated the fact that people wanted to watch shows outside of prime time)

The the point 1% of content created the market for the vcr

The copyright holders of that 1% tried to kill the vcr calling it piracy

After wards that created a market for NEW content, new shows, new movies that would not have existed (what is now 99% of the market place)

BOTTOM LINE: the world would suck without the work of our creative and intelligent copy right holders BUT the world would be a better place without blood sucking parasites.

notice you skipped over the question

How Exactly were people going to play movies on VCR tape cassettes without a VCR.

That piracy device created the marketplace for 99% of the content your bragging about

[pimpmaster9000]

I like how you pull the %1 figure right out of your ass. Just like the 127:1 and all the other figures. Don't let a silly little thing like reality ruin your EMO trans.

Kid VCR did not create shit. Content CREATORS (notice how I accented the word creators) actually CREATE (here it is again)

VCR just DUPLICATES (notice this is not the same as create)

You will argue that if you change just one pixel of somebody elses work, of course without their permission , that this is "new content" but this is just the troll in you boring the shit out of me.

Learn what the words:
Monopoly
Create
Duplicate

mean and you will understand why the VCR did not create anything because you will know what the word create actually means

To answer your question: how were the people gonna play VCR without VCR tapes

They would not have VCR tapes without any content to VCR...content made VCR possible.

Its like saying "The double cassette deck made music possible" LOL no it did not. Musicians were making music LOOONG before the double cassette deck was made to COPY (learn the meaning of this word) other peoples work without their permission.

And NO you can not copy other goods in the real world, you can not copy your nikes, your IPOD your MACBOOK your BMW your stradivarius violin YOU CANT COPY SHIT in the real world without going to jail for it.

(monopoly,copy and create go look this up)

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

To answer your question: how were the people gonna play VCR without VCR tapes

They would not have VCR tapes without any content to VCR...content made VCR possible.

not the question i asked

How Exactly were people going to play movies on VCR tape cassettes without a VCR.

want to try and answer the question that asked instead of making up questions that don't exist.

[Robbie]

One thing is for sure...if anybody on GFY knows something about NOT competing...it's that idiot gideongallery.

He doesn't own ANYTHING or make any money at all. Lives with his parents and steals t.v. shows off the internet because he can't afford cable (which now comes with FREE video on demand so you can see any show you missed...his biggest excuse)

[MaDalton]

he who types in the largest font is the most right - old internet rule

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

not the question i asked

How Exactly were people going to play movies on VCR tape cassettes without a VCR.

Content has value without VCR...VCR has absolutely no value without Content...whats your "point"? (notice I put point in quotations because you don't really have a legit point)

Originally Posted by gideongallery

want to try and answer the question that asked instead of making up questions that don't exist.

I did not ask you anything LOL and even if I did ask you then the questions would "Exist" also your question is in bad English (not to mention its pretentious and is fundamentally flawed)

[gideongallery]

I did not ask you anything LOL and even if I did ask you then the questions would "Exist" also your question is in bad English (not to mention its pretentious and is fundamentally flawed)

Yet when you pretending to answer my question you completely rewrote to something else

noticed you dodged the question once again

How Exactly were people going to play movies on VCR tape cassettes without a VCR.

Originally Posted by crucifissio

Content has value without VCR...VCR has absolutely no value without Content...whats your "point"? (notice I put point in quotations because you don't really have a legit point)

bullshit

content has no value if you can't play it.

without the VCR to play the videos, no one would have bought the full length movies on Video Cassettes


and that what we are talking about allocating the revenue made from content to the sources which give it value.

Home viewing to VCR(and it technological children)

everything else to their respective sources.

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Yet when you pretending to answer my question you completely rewrote to something else

noticed you dodged the question once again

How Exactly were people going to play movies on VCR tape cassettes without a VCR.





bullshit

content has no value if you can't play it.

Sure you can. You can go to the cinema, then you can watch it on some prime TV pay-per view ...

Originally Posted by gideongallery

without the VCR to play the videos, no one would have bought the full length movies on Video Cassettes


and that what we are talking about allocating the revenue made from content to the sources which give it value.

Home viewing to VCR(and it technological children)

everything else to their respective sources.

Again you are wrong because content exists without VCR but VCR without content is just a blank tape.

It's like saying money has no value without paper, well it does....money can be gold and silver and bronze and plastic and virtual....

VCR is just the shell, it exists in many alternate forms but its father is CONTENT

What you are doing is taking a blank piece of paper and arguing that its money....its not LOL

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

Sure you can. You can go to the cinema, then you can watch it on some prime TV pay-per view ...

Which i counted on your side already.

I am only excluding the SEGMENT of the marketplace that was created by the VCR.

Again you are wrong because content exists without VCR but VCR without content is just a blank tape.

It's like saying money has no value without paper, well it does....money can be gold and silver and bronze and plastic and virtual....

VCR is just the shell, it exists in many alternate forms but its father is CONTENT

What you are doing is taking a blank piece of paper and arguing that its money....its not LOL

That not what i am saying

I said the VCR created the home viewing marketplace

That if the VCR had been made illegal by the copyright holders at the time with their bogus piracy claim

all the money that the copyright holders are currently making from that SEGMENT of the market would be gone.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete With Thief

[Jel]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

Oh what a great example...Microsoft is worth 219billion$ and your example just barely hit 1 billion...

Seems like my copyright model is exactly 219 times better? seems like my example employs exactly 219 time more people, pays 219 times more taxes, has a research budget that is 219 times more productive...

Pray tell, what is the advantage of your "model"??? Even a retard can see the difference between 219 and 1...and lets not forget that your puny tiny little insignificant "1" is the absolute best example you could find? FOR FUCKS SAKE THEY GIVE IT AWAY FOR FREE and they still cant make anywhere near 219 LOL with your "model" HAHAHAHAHA

do I have to draw it out for you? ok look: a car is better than a bicycle get it now?




no its 139:4...no wait its 948:1 in my favor...son either post some actual proof or don't try to impress with figures that you pull out of your ass...

My argument: The multi billion $$$$ copyright holders create infinitely more jobs than the thieves and pirates

Your argument: broke EMO hippy no job thieves create jobs

you have to be in touch with reality just a little bit...just a tiny bit lol...

ALSO I DARE YOU to copy some of my material and say in court "time shift" and "format shift" LOOOL you will get so much jail for holding the court in contempt that it will be ridiculous...you will need a time machine to get out of jail LOL

(Reality ---- this is what you need to be more in touch with)




sounds like your "file sharing" hippies just created a lot of jobs? (this is irony of course)



we CAN compete against free...NO PROBLEM...but we don't want to and there aint SHIT that hippies can do about it...your "cause" is fundamentally flawed because the intelligent, rich and successful get to call the shots and not EMO hippies...

hippies and "file sharing" companies can create "pressure" but money will create laws like SOPA and ACTA or ever worse...you are pissing against a hurricane son...its not about right or wrong...its about REALITY...in reality hippies get to suck a dick and the rich get what they want...want to change stuff? "time shift" back to the good old USSR or go back to commie china LOL...things will NEVER change your way...just get over it...

Holy fuck, been a long while since I read a post like this - fucking awesome

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete With Thief

you really need to read a basic logic book

timeshifting is free

format shifting is free

and neither has anything to do with any interpetation of "stealing"

yet new content is still being produced

dispite the sky is falling predictions of the mpaa.

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

timeshifting is free

format shifting is free

and neither has anything to do with any interpetation of "stealing"
.

jail is also free, you will want to "time shift" your asshole back to a time before it got "format shifted" by some hung black dude....

[Joshua G]

crucifissio - arguing with gideongallery is the same as letting a black hole suck the life out of you. total waste of time. He has his own reality, a pseudo communist worldview where there is no property ownership. only various distortions to justify the public using a creators IP for their own purposes.

[potter]

The article actually has a very good point, which would have had great appeal to discuss on this forum as it's a huge problem in this industry specifically.

However that ship has sailed, gideon ruined it by bringing his copyright debate up and sidetracking the debate into nonsensical bullshit.

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by joshgirls

crucifissio - arguing with gideongallery is the same as letting a black hole suck the life out of you. total waste of time. He has his own reality, a pseudo communist worldview where there is no property ownership. only various distortions to justify the public using a creators IP for their own purposes.

the funny thing is I come from such a country...everything he talks about happened in my ex-communist country and it all led to absolute corruption and monopoly LOL...its a model that rewards only the rich and those close to the government because without IP rights you are basically favoring the ones who can afford to give it out for free and that is the rich LOL....his model is like fighting cancer with tobacco LOL

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by potter

The article actually has a very good point, which would have had great appeal to discuss on this forum as it's a huge problem in this industry specifically.

However that ship has sailed, gideon ruined it by bringing his copyright debate up and sidetracking the debate into nonsensical bullshit.

you might want to go back over the history of this thread

I posted the title and the link to the article

and then corrected an economic theory mistake of bignasty (ignoring the supply side shift to higher profit margin business)

if fact i never mentioned any of my previous positions until someone else brought it up.

I don't know why you bother.

In the real world the right to copy is what makes productive authors be productive and keeps leeches and parasites from making $$ by theft. Its how the rest of the planet, except for you and some "anarchists" sees it. In the real world you get to spend real jail time for theft.

Your argument that "it is not an exact copy" or that "nothing was removed just digitally time shifted crap" will only make the judge angry and give you more time.

This will never ever change. Ever. Not even the slightest chance.

You know why? Because money talks and everything else sucks dick especially the "rights" of non productive parasites. Big corporations employ 1000s of people and they have billions of dollars and on the other hand EMO "file sharing" parasite hippies have: SHIT.

You are pissing against a hurricane that will never stop, if you are lucky you may run out of pee but the wind will never ever ever ever ever change. Your efforts are as futile as protesting against the sun coming up tomorrow.

Seriously, its the weakest argument of all time and the most futile cause I can imagine.

[L-Pink]

Go away.