economist says Copyright is a relic of the Middle Ages that has no place in the digital age

[gideongallery]

As every graduate of an introductory economics class knows, the market works best when items sell at their marginal cost. That means we maximize efficiency when recorded music, movies, video games and software are available to users at zero cost. The fees that the government allows copyright holders to impose create economic distortions in the same way that tariffs on imported cars or clothes lead to economic distortions.

The major difference is that the distortions from copyright protection are much larger. While tariffs on cars or clothes would rarely exceed 20-30 per cent, the additional cost imposed by copyright protection is the price of the product. Movies that would be free in a world without copyright protection can cost $20-$30. The same is true of video games, and the price of copyrighted software can run into the thousands of dollars.

In total, hundreds of billions of dollars a year flow from the rest of us to those with government-granted copyright monopolies, such as Disney, Time-Warner and Microsoft. This government-directed flow of money dwarfs the size of the items that gets tends to get Washington politicians hot under the collar, such as the Bush-era tax cuts to the wealthy.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...029381972.html

[HomeFry]

Stuuuuuupid

[L-Pink]

Idiot.

.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

The logic (or lack thereof, given the crappy metaphors) on this GG cut and paste job is worse than usual.



ADG

[Brujah]

Next paragraphs, not sure why you omitted them. They make more sense to me in context.

Of course we need to pay creative workers, but we should find more efficient mechanisms, where a higher percentage of the cost borne by the public ends up in the workers' pockets. Some alternatives already exist. There is much creative work in the United States and around the world that is supported directly by governments or private non-profits. For this work, writers, musicians, and other creative workers are paid for their work at the time they do it. There is no need for copyright protection.

It continues from there with some interesting ideas.

[papill0n]

christ i detest you

The fees that the government allows copyright holders to impose create economic distortions in the same way that tariffs on imported cars or clothes lead to economic distortions.

how about not taking other peoples work if you dont want to pay copyright fucking fees!!!!!

how about that fucking concept you smarmy little weasel

[papill0n]

Originally Posted by Brujah

Next paragraphs, not sure why you omitted them. They make more sense to me in context.



It continues from there with some interesting ideas.

yeah interesting is one way to put it lol.

sounds about as well though through as the time i took acid and jumped off the brooklyn bridge

[Due]

Originally Posted by Brujah

Next paragraphs, not sure why you omitted them. They make more sense to me in context.



It continues from there with some interesting ideas.

Excellent idea, so people should be paid a flat rate or per hour and receive no royalties, for the same reason no copyright laws need to exist !

I totally agree, I think this shouold be changed ASAP, it would eliminate piracy!

Now we just gotta figure out who should pay the artists and everyone.

At the same time we can eliminate crime by removing all the laws

[Brujah]

Due, that isn't what he is saying. Granted, anything posted by Gideon is going to get overwhelmingly trashed even if he says the sky is blue. Dean Baker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Baker) however seems to be a pretty bright guy and is offering a look at possibilities instead of just completely dismissing them outright.

[L-Pink]

OR! We respect the property of others. Pretty fucking simple.

[PiracyPitbull]

[NaughtyVisions]

Originally Posted by Due

At the same time we can eliminate crime by removing all the laws

JohhnyClips University Graduate?

[papill0n]

Originally Posted by Brujah

Due, that isn't what he is saying. Granted, anything posted by Gideon is going to get overwhelmingly trashed even if he says the sky is blue. Dean Baker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Baker) however seems to be a pretty bright guy and is offering a look at possibilities instead of just completely dismissing them outright.

he is going to get trashed by me because he clearly supports using other peoples pproperty with or without their consent. fuck him.

this dean guy doesnt seem too bright to me. he suggests that plenty of music/art comes from government funding ?????? and that paying people a wage would be comparable to the current situation i mean what a fucking joke. heard of communism ? you want the government controlling less shit not more.

try to remember this is all in response to people having the audacity to want to protect what is theirs. this gideon parasite wouldnt contribute a thimble of water to a burning nun , he thinks hes entitled to everything. once again - fuck him and every other self entitled prick. if you dont want to pay copyright fees fuck off and make your own content

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by papill0n

he is going to get trashed by me because he clearly supports using other peoples pproperty with or without their consent. fuck him.

this dean guy doesnt seem too bright to me. he suggests that plenty of music/art comes from government funding ?????? and that paying people a wage would be comparable to the current situation i mean what a fucking joke. heard of communism ? you want the government controlling less shit not more.

try to remember this is all in response to people having the audacity to want to protect what is theirs. this gideon parasite wouldnt contribute a thimble of water to a burning nun , he thinks hes entitled to everything. once again - fuck him and every other self entitled prick. if you dont want to pay copyright fees fuck off and make your own content

I wouldn't change a word.

.

[raymor]

The very first sentence shows the author's moronism:

As every graduate of an introductory economics class knows, the market works best when items sell at their marginal cost. T

The best way to get parolee to invest in starting businesses is to guarantee that they lose their entire investment?!?!? I've seen stupid before, but that's way beyond stupid.

Then his "solution" is to have the government run publishing, programming, etc' because we all know the government does a great job running things. I know, we can put FEMA in charge of distributing the money. They always do a great job. You can go to the DPS office to get your music - only a three wait.

[mromro]

Copy Rights should only be 20 years max if that.

It stops progress. If you can't make a profit in that time give it to someone else to try.
It's just an idea that belongs to all human beings and the universe.

Jerks like Trump can copy right a phrase like "your fired" give me a brake.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by mromro

Copy Rights should only be 20 years max if that.

It stops progress.

Only people who've never created anything believe this.

[papill0n]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

I wouldn't change a word.

.

cheers mate

[garce]

Quoting Al Jazeera is always a good way to influence people and make friends.

If you make or create something - you fucking own it; unless you sell it to somebody else. Soon enough, this dipshit is going to be quoting Chinese law because he's got nowhere else to go.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by papill0n

he is going to get trashed by me because he clearly supports using other peoples pproperty with or without their consent. fuck him.

really want to tell me one other "property" where you can dictate how people use it after they have bought it.

Do car manufacturer get to tell you what streets your allowed to drive on

Do brick layers get to tell you who can enter the houses they build.

Copyright law takes away property rights you would normally have and replaces them with licence rights.

this dean guy doesnt seem too bright to me. he suggests that plenty of music/art comes from government funding ?????? and that paying people a wage would be comparable to the current situation i mean what a fucking joke. heard of communism ? you want the government controlling less shit not more.

Copyright is a government granted monopoly moron.

every time you claim that people would produce content if they didn't have copyright protection your saying that government is funding the creation of art.

try to remember this is all in response to people having the audacity to want to protect what is theirs. this gideon parasite wouldnt contribute a thimble of water to a burning nun , he thinks hes entitled to everything. once again - fuck him and every other self entitled prick. if you dont want to pay copyright fees fuck off and make your own content

[L-Pink]

I'd love to catch you or one of your freetard buddies trying to steal some content from me that is sitting on a hard drive in my house not on a website. Really, seriously, I'd post my address if there was even a slim chance.

.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by raymor

The very first sentence shows the author's moronism:


The best way to get parolee to invest in starting businesses is to guarantee that they lose their entire investment?!?!? I've seen stupid before, but that's way beyond stupid.

Then his "solution" is to have the government run publishing, programming, etc' because we all know the government does a great job running things. I know, we can put FEMA in charge of distributing the money. They always do a great job. You can go to the DPS office to get your music - only a three wait.

so your so stupid that you are misquoting a fundamental principle of economics.

You are actually arguing the exact opposite of what he is saying

copyright is a government granted monopoly

getting rid of copyright would BE getting the government out of the solution

and having the market define the solution.

market solution exist btw

sell stuff that is scarce

give away goods that are infinite, use them to build up the value of the scarce good so you can make as much money as possible.


http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...f=home_popular

look at the top rewards there all scarce resources the artist time.

[Paul Markham]

However, we would clearly need much more funding if the flow of money from copyright protection were to be lost. One possibility is an artistic freedom voucher. This is a refundable tax credit of around $100 that each person could use to support the creative worker(s) of their choice. It would be similar to the charitable tax deduction, except it would be a credit. The condition of getting the money is that a worker would not be allowed to get copyright protection for a period of time (eg: five years).

A program such as this should generate a vast amount of material that would be freely available to the whole world. The powers of the government would no longer be used to bottle up the internet, and we would see the end of legislative disasters, such as the Stop Online Piracy Act, which sought to make everyone into a copyright cop.

We would also need new mechanisms to support the development of software. Here, also, there is a vast amount of software developed each year that does not depend on copyright protection. Much of it is custom software for specific companies. Other software is explicitly developed to be freely available to the public.

Developing the best mechanisms for supporting creative work will take much thought and debate. But it is long past time that this process got started and time we move beyond a hopelessly antiquated copyright system.

The Pirate Party has made an enormously important contribution to this process. While it is unlikely that it will ever become a dominant party in Germany or elsewhere in Europe, it may help to reshape the political agenda in the same way that the German Green Party did more than three decades ago.

The problem with these theories is how do you graduate the payments. Do you pay a "Bob Dylan" level composer the same as me. Or him the same as me for creating porn?

Does a company who created the latest computer game, get as much as someone who creates something on the level a 5 year old can play or the tennis game?

And if there is such a system created, who does it, who pays for it and how does it work?

Ultimately piracy isn't about freedom. It's about getting something for nothing.

I have the solution. Just came to me. All B/W used is charged at around $0.10 a mega bite and the proceeds goes to fund the creators of copyright material.

Problem solved.

As every graduate of an introductory economics class knows, the market works best when items sell at their marginal cost. That means we maximize efficiency when recorded music, movies, video games and software are available to users at zero cost. The fees that the government allows copyright holders to impose create economic distortions in the same way that tariffs on imported cars or clothes lead to economic distortions.

Here he assumes that the cost of the product is going to be sliced by doing away with the copyright element. So lets follow his route and assume everything is for free.

Who pays the programmers to write the program for the game. The people who made the box design, packaging, duplication, delivery and selling of the item?

This can be adjusted to all the copyright material out there. These people need paying, so who pays them and how is it worked out?

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

really want to tell me one other "property" where you can dictate how people use it after they have bought it.

Do car manufacturer get to tell you what streets your allowed to drive on

Do brick layers get to tell you who can enter the houses they build.

Copyright law takes away property rights you would normally have and replaces them with licence rights.



Copyright is a government granted monopoly moron.

So...you're perfectly fine with the notion that after someone spends tens of thousands of dollars and years gaining education/experience/know-how in photography, renting/buying studio space, purchasing wardrobe, camera/lighting/computer gear, hiring models, make-up artist, registering their business...then spending countless hours shooting those models, editing the pics, creating a website (with all its associated costs and labour) - and then someone comes along, purchases copies of the pics (or outright steals them without paying a dime) - tosses them up on a shitty little website and generates revenue from them.

If you agree with the logic(sic) of Dean Baker - you're just as fucked in the head as he is. No surprise that crap like this is sought-out and diseminated by Al-Jazeera.

Nonsense like this is usually written by those who produce or create nothing original themselves.

[HushMoney]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

really want to tell me one other "property" where you can dictate how people use it after they have bought it.

Do car manufacturer get to tell you what streets your allowed to drive on

Do brick layers get to tell you who can enter the houses they build.

Copyright law takes away property rights you would normally have and replaces them with licence rights.



Copyright is a government granted monopoly moron.

every time you claim that people would produce content if they didn't have copyright protection your saying that government is funding the creation of art.

Good lord, I don't know how, but your stupidity grows with each sunrise!

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The problem with these theories is how do you graduate the payments. Do you pay a "Bob Dylan" level composer the same as me. Or him the same as me for creating porn?

Does a company who created the latest computer game, get as much as someone who creates something on the level a 5 year old can play or the tennis game?

did you even read the proposal

each citizen would be given 100 tax credit allowance

a bob dylan level composer would have a lot more fans then someone of you skill level

so the solution would be market driven

1 million fans would attribute 1 dollar of that tax deductible = 1 million a year

your crappy ass content

50 fans would attribute 1 dollar of that tax deductible = 50 /year

And if there is such a system created, who does it, who pays for it and how does it work?

simplest solution extend the charitable tax deduction to any purchase of creative common share and share alike content.

add a 100% tax rate to all non CC-SA content to make up the short fall.

let the market competition define which is the better solution.

Ultimately piracy isn't about freedom. It's about getting something for nothing.

I have the solution. Just came to me. All B/W used is charged at around $0.10 a mega bite and the proceeds goes to fund the creators of copyright material.

Problem solved.

so your solution to a broken government granted monopoly is propping up that monopoly with a government tax.


you don't understand the problem do you.

Here he assumes that the cost of the product is going to be sliced by doing away with the copyright element. So lets follow his route and assume everything is for free.

Who pays the programmers to write the program for the game. The people who made the box design, packaging, duplication, delivery and selling of the item?

This can be adjusted to all the copyright material out there. These people need paying, so who pays them and how is it worked out?

do you not understand the concept of open source

who pays for all this stuff in the Linux world

same principle applies

this is a straw man argument to try and defend a monopoly that is not need

if the monopoly disappears every company can take that work extend it

sell scarce components with it (access to the guys who wrote the code, in support contracts -- ala red hat)

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

So...you're perfectly fine with the notion that after someone spends tens of thousands of dollars and years gaining education/experience/know-how in photography, renting/buying studio space, purchasing wardrobe, camera/lighting/computer gear, hiring models, make-up artist, registering their business...then spending countless hours shooting those models, editing the pics, creating a website (with all its associated costs and labour) - and then someone comes along, purchases copies of the pics (or outright steals them without paying a dime) - tosses them up on a shitty little website and generates revenue from them.

If you agree with the logic(sic) of Dean Baker - you're just as fucked in the head as he is. No surprise that crap like this is sought-out and diseminated by Al-Jazeera.

Nonsense like this is usually written by those who produce or create nothing original themselves.

and yet car manufacturers spend billions of dollars developing the technology that goes into a car

and yet people can buy a fleet of cars and rent them out

in fact their are entire business based on that model

Why do you believe you should have a right to stop people from doing the same thing with your content.


look if you truly believe that right is legitimate then give it to every single property producer

make using a house made by a bricklayer without their licence the same penalty of using content without a licence

do the same with the car you drive etc..

[slapass]

gideongallery just does not see the issue with stealing. He knows that if he were to hang out with some artists and tell them all "how much he loves their music since he downloaded it for free from such and such site," that he would feel like the ass he is but he is able to hide that in his day to day trolling.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by mromro

Copy Rights should only be 20 years max if that.

It stops progress. If you can't make a profit in that time give it to someone else to try.
It's just an idea that belongs to all human beings and the universe.

Jerks like Trump can copy right a phrase like "your fired" give me a brake.

1. Why does it stop progress?
2. If I write or create something it is no longer just an idea.
3. What about people that are still making a profit 20 years later; then copyright would still apply? Is that the bar? Whether or not the creator is making money on it or not? Then just presume they are.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

and yet car manufacturers spend billions of dollars developing the technology that goes into a car

and yet people can buy a fleet of cars and rent them out

in fact their are entire business based on that model

Why do you believe you should have a right to stop people from doing the same thing with your content.


look if you truly believe that right is legitimate then give it to every single property producer

make using a house made by a bricklayer without their licence the same penalty of using content without a licence

do the same with the car you drive etc..

Your logic is twisted . . . but we all knew that.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by baddog

1. Why does it stop progress?

It doesn't.

People complaining about it just do not want to have to pay licensing fees.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

It doesn't.

People complaining about it just do not want to have to pay licensing fees.

I was hoping for his explanation.

[CamTata]

There is no doubt that online piracy is a problem. Many, including gideon, now have an entitlement mentality to the stolen property of others. Property rights need to be defended.
If someone breaks into my house, I can sue them, I can also call the cops to kick them out and in some states I can shoot their ass. Online piracy is THEFT, pure and simple, and the federal government has a legitimate role in preventing it. Hell, protecting property rights is a core function of government.

Property rights are also absolutely key to the functioning of any market, and most level-headed individuals know they need to be protected. In dealing with intangible intellectual property rights, in an economy increasingly driven by intangible intellectual value, it becomes even more important to protect those rights. To paraphrase Mark Twain (as staunch defender of intellectual rights), Whenever a copyright law is violated, then the idiots assemble to get it for free.

[uniquemkt]

The fun thing about copyright is that it is a protection allowed to a creator for a limited time, then becoming part of the public domain. It is a mechanism designed to enrich the public domain, not to keep things out of it. Expiration of copyright is not the mean government taking things away from you, your exclusivity rights are a temporary gift. Copyright allows you to sell something to someone without giving them true rights of ownership for a period of time. Sadly, "producers" have managed to warp that period of time (in the US) to something exceeding the lifespan of the purchaser, such that you can buy something made today for your brand new baby also born today, and she will never have full rights to it.

You can pick on people stealing content easily enough, but that has nothing do do with copyright terms, its a totally different topic.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by CamTata

To paraphrase Mark Twain (as staunch defender of intellectual rights), Whenever a copyright law is violated, then the idiots assemble to get it for free.

you might want to look into history a bit mark twain most of the staunch defending of copyright was in fact satire

from his letter to hellen keller (after she was accused of plagiarism and therefore copyright infringement)

Oh, dear me, how unspeakably funny and owlishly idiotic and grotesque was that "plagiarism" farce! As if there was much of anything in any human utterance, oral or written, except plagiarism! The kernel, the soul?let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances?is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily use by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. When a great orator makes a great speech you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men?but we call it his speech, and really some exceedingly small portion of it is his. But not enough to signify. It is merely a Waterloo. It is Wellington's battle, in some degree, and we call it his; but there are others that contributed. It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a telephone or any other important thing?and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite?that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that.

Then why don't we unwittingly reproduce the phrasing of a story, as well as the story itself? It can hardly happen?to the extent of fifty words except in the case of a child; its memory-tablet is not lumbered with impressions, and the actual language can have graving-room there, and preserve the language a year or two, but a grown person's memory-tablet is a palimpsest, with hardly a bare space upon which to engrave a phrase. It must be a very rare thing that a whole page gets so sharply printed on a man's mind, by a single reading, that it will stay long enough to turn up some time or other to be mistaken by him for his own. No doubt we are constantly littering our literature with disconnected sentences borrowed from books at some unremembered time and now imagined to be our own, but that is about the most we can do. In 1866 I read Dr. Holmes's poems, in the Sandwich Islands. A year and a half later I stole his dedication, without knowing it, and used it to dedicate my "Innocents Abroad" with. Then years afterward I was talking with Dr. Holmes about it. He was not an ignorant ass?no, not he; he was not a collection of decayed human turnips, like your "Plagiarism Court;" and so when I said, "I know now where I stole it, but whom did you steal it from," he said, "I don't remember; I only know I stole it from somebody, because I have never originated anything altogether myself, nor met anyone who had."

To think of those solemn donkeys breaking a little child's heart with their ignorant rubbish about plagiarism! I couldn't sleep for blaspheming about it last night. Why, their whole lives, their whole histories, all their learning, all their thoughts, all their opinions were one solid rock of plagiarism, and they didn't know it and never suspected it. A gang of dull and hoary pirates piously setting themselves the task of disciplining and purifying a kitten that they think they've caught filching a chop! Oh, dam?

in fact when the defended the 50 year extension of copyright most scholars believe it was satire

But I like the fifty years' extension, because that benefits my two daughter, who are not as competent to earn a living as I am, because I have carefully raised them as young ladies, who don't know anything and can't do anything. So I hope Congress will extend to them that charity which they have failed to get from me.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

It doesn't.

People complaining about it just do not want to have to pay licensing fees.

seriously

The fee that mega upload paid to individual musicians per download was greater then the fee that labels paid the artist for their music when they sell it.


And yet the studios were upset because they didn't get their 95%.
When the liciensing fees include profits of the competing methodology that hinder progress

because the new process doesn't just have to be superior to the old process

it has to keep the old process fully funded as well

Imagine if every car had a tax to cover the lost income of the buggy manufacturers /horse sellers/buggy whip manufacturers fully profitable.

That what the current system is doing to innovation

The home viewing marketplace was delayed by 14 years by copyright lawsuits

The mp3 market was delayed by 12 years by copyright lawsuits

[CamTata]

Enrich the public domain my eye. The only way to get copyright into law in 1790 was to claim a public benefit as the power to promote progress was one of very few powers to regulate commerce initially granted to Congress.

Creators concur with intellectual giants like James Madison who explained in the Federalist Papers that copyright was a natural right. Madison advocated that common law copyright is derived from natural law and the Constitution and Copyright Act (and various amendments thereto) merely give it written form.

It is simple fair dealing, copying anyone?s work without payment constitutes an infringement; it is theft. You can use it and they will never know but when you begin to share the work of creators with others they will become aware of your theft and hoisting a creator?s work up the flagpole of your pirate ship will result in cannons will sinking you.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by slapass

gideongallery just does not see the issue with stealing.

because copyright infringement is not stealing.

the supreme court explicitly said so.

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1054411

[CamTata]

Dear dear Gideon it is you that might need to brush up on history. According to a 1906 New York Times article: query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9400E1D7173EE733A25751C1A9649D94 6797D6CF.

Twain was a vigilant defender of his and others rights. He (representing authors) even testified before Congress along with John Philip Sousa (representing musicians) in 1906 in support of the bill To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright. His testimony appears on thecapital.net: thecapitol.net/Publications/testifyingbeforecongress_Twain.html.

[CamTata]

Forget history, forget legalistic and forget pontification from those that have never produced squat; if you steal our shit we will move mountains to get your ass by any means necessary.

[Half man, Half Amazing]

http://takedownpiracy.com/2012/03/wh...out-copyright/

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

I'd love to catch you or one of your freetard buddies trying to steal some content from me that is sitting on a hard drive in my house not on a website. Really, seriously, I'd post my address if there was even a slim chance.

.

If it's on my desk at home you wouldn't have the balls or a valid excuse to take my content. But if it's on my privately owned website it's ok to do with it what you will? HUH?

.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by CamTata

Dear dear Gideon it is you that might need to brush up on history. According to a 1906 New York Times article: query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9400E1D7173EE733A25751C1A9649D94 6797D6CF.

Twain was a vigilant defender of his and others rights. He (representing authors) even testified before Congress along with John Philip Sousa (representing musicians) in 1906 in support of the bill To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright. His testimony appears on thecapital.net: thecapitol.net/Publications/testifyingbeforecongress_Twain.html.

idiot the quote i referenced was from his 1906 speech to congress

My copyrights produce to me annually a good deal more money than I have any use for. But those children of mine have use for that. I can take care of myself as long as I live. I know half a dozen trades, and I can invent a half a dozen more. I can get along. But I like the fifty years' extension, because that benefits my two daughter, who are not as competent to earn a living as I am, because I have carefully raised them as young ladies, who don't know anything and can't do anything. So I hope Congress will extend to them that charity which they have failed to get from me.

buy it and read it yourself.

The testimony was an attempt by the book publishers to convince congress that the 50 year extension was something that benefited the authors and not themselves.

Mark Twain was one of the authors who were brought forward to make that point

which he did convincingly until he made his closing statement when he made it clear that this 50 year extension was the charity from congress that he himself would not give to his useless daughter.


This was a man who even though he declared bankruptcy, and therefore had no legal obligation to pay back his creditors worked hard to pay back everyone he owned.

Twain embarked on a year-long, around-the-world lecture tour in July 1895 to pay off his creditors in full, although he was no longer under any legal obligation to do so

and yet your trying to argue that he seriously wanted copyright extended to 50 years after his death so that his useless children could keep earning money from his work
even though he wouldn't be willing to put a side any of the surplus money he is currently earning for those useless children.

My god how stupid do you have to be to not realize that satire.

[CamTata]

I have all the contemporaneous articles and testimony before Congress. You dear sir are twisting his words and thoughts of others at that time. Just as you have morphed "Fair Use" into "Free Use". Fair use originally was the idea that there were some uses which were truly in the public interest, parody and reviews for example.

If 1000s of books were stolen from libraries across America in a single day, library officials would immediately put heavy-duty security systems into place. Department store owners, similarly, wouldn't be idle if people were taking entire racks of clothing.

But some seem to think there's nothing wrong with doing what is essentially the same thing when it comes to intellectual property. As if stealing isn't stealing if you can do it with a computer in the comfort of your home or office.

The truth is, there is no difference between shoplifting a DVD from a store and illegally downloading a copyrighted version of Gideon's Great Adventure (lol). Stealing intellectual property is just as wrong as the theft of "real" property.

The vast % of the estimated 800million files being "shared" at any given time are owned by someone else. Theft of copyrighted works is THE predominant use for file sharing. The Registrar of Copyrights wrote that making a copyrighted work available on the internet, "constitutes an infringement of the exclusive distribution right as well as the reproduction right."

Your "Fair Use" piracy costs real people real money. Piracy profiteers offer interesting if self-serving theories, claiming that illegal downloading is either neutral or even beneficial to rights owners. However, the dilemma of creators is too real to just theorize away.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that, "An owner of property who seeks to take it from one who is unlawfully in possession has long been recognized to have greater leeway than he would have but for his right to possession. The claim of ownership will even justify a trespass and warrant steps otherwise unlawful." Copyright owners should have the same right as other tangible property owners to stop the brazen theft of their property.

Instead of stopping piracy, Baker and his ilk propose that copyright owners simply hand over their property rights and let the government set the fee for downloads of their works. Not only is this suggestion antithetical to the notion of property rights, it is absurdly unrealistic. You want technological advancement? Let government do it and ineptitude unfolds. Look no farther than the FCC they have been stifling technological advancement for 70 years.

Many pirates want to blame creators for piracy. Claiming they have caused the problem by failing to embrace technology and change their business models. They pose that copyright owners allow free distribution and downloading of their works and then generate revenue by selling advertising or offering enhanced services.

Pirates also intimate creators are too stupid to recognize that illegal downloads demonstrate great untapped consumer demand for their works on-line. They believe that people who have invested real money in the creations don't want to capture new sources of revenue from that investment. Hogwash.

James Madison once said, "government is instituted to protect property of every sort." I guess Madison be damned too.

Stealing is stealing no matter the devices or conduits used.

[sandman!]

lolololololol

[Half man, Half Amazing]

Cue Gideon to make the tired argument how it's not theft. He'll then spew the same repeated garbage about how theft can only occur when you deprive the owner of the original.

And then when you show monkeys like him things like...oh I dunno...THEFT OF SERVICES...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services

Their little groupthink mind melts because their entire world has come collapsing down.

Plus you show them how that whole state-sponsored creative industries has NEVER WORKED and how the USSR is a perfect example of copyright being essentially abolished and how it resulted in NO INCENTIVE for anyone to create anything.

But don't worry Gideon...once you're done sucking off idiots like Lawrence Lessig and taking your talking points right from your Google overlords maybe you can actually create something instead of being an armchair pundit who no actual skin in the game.

[Robbie]

has gideongallery EVER posted even ONE thing on GFY that wasn't pro-piracy?

Has he ever posted a business thread or ANYTHING at all to do with the legitimate act of creating porn in the adult business?

I don't think so. Every post he has ever made is a lame reference to stuff he reads on torrent forums.

He doesn't belong on GFY as he is NOT in our business and contributes nothing to our business or to a discussion of our business. Hell, I don't think he's ever even made a humorous "shooting the shit" kind of post. It's ALWAYS a pro-piracy, anti-hard working creativity post. Every time.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by CamTata

I have all the contemporaneous articles and testimony before Congress. You dear sir are twisting his words and thoughts of others at that time. Just as you have morphed "Fair Use" into "Free Use".

so i am twisting his words by quoting the entire paragraph of what he said

While your being true to it by quoting a third party interpretation of the context of what he said

Fair use originally was the idea that there were some uses which were truly in the public interest, parody and reviews for example.

and if congress had wanted fair use to be a static thing they would have explictly codified the fair use in the act instead of establishing a legal test for determining what was fair use

Thank god they did, because if they hadn't the home viewing market (a market which exceeds all other movie revenue combined, 5 years after hollywood finally embraced it) would never have existed.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that, "An owner of property who seeks to take it from one who is unlawfully in possession has long been recognized to have greater leeway than he would have but for his right to possession. The claim of ownership will even justify a trespass and warrant steps otherwise unlawful." Copyright owners should have the same right as other tangible property owners to stop the brazen theft of their property.

to bad the very supreme court has explicitly ruled that copyright infringement is not theft

as i have already proven to you before

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1054...urt+s tealing

i find it funny that you would quote the supreme court to make an argument that the supreme court invalidate

Your "Fair Use" piracy costs real people real money. Piracy profiteers offer interesting if self-serving theories, claiming that illegal downloading is either neutral or even beneficial to rights owners. However, the dilemma of creators is too real to just theorize away.

if the benefits or neutrality of "illegal downloading" is just a theory, then by definition so would all the damage your complaining about. If you can accurately count the positive effects of sharing, they you have no idea if the result is a net loss or net gain.

[
Many pirates want to blame creators for piracy. Claiming they have caused the problem by failing to embrace technology and change their business models. They pose that copyright owners allow free distribution and downloading of their works and then generate revenue by selling advertising or offering enhanced services.

Pirates also intimate creators are too stupid to recognize that illegal downloads demonstrate great untapped consumer demand for their works on-line. They believe that people who have invested real money in the creations don't want to capture new sources of revenue from that investment. Hogwash.

5 years after they embraced the VCR as medium the home viewing market was bigger then all other content revenue combine.

Rather then reducing the amount of syndication revenue, syndication revenue jumped as tv stations expanded syndication of shows into daytime time slots.


if the content creators are so good at realizing and capturing new sources of revenue

why did the spend 14 years fighting against the VCR (including going to congress and comparing the vcr to the boston strangler)

instead of embracing it immediately.

History not pirates tells me copyright holders are clueless about understanding the untapped demand that piracy validates.

For every dollar you think your losing now to piracy there is 37 dollars available if you embraced the technology.

Instead of stopping piracy, Baker and his ilk propose that copyright owners simply hand over their property rights and let the government set the fee for downloads of their works. Not only is this suggestion antithetical to the notion of property rights, it is absurdly unrealistic. You want technological advancement? Let government do it and ineptitude unfolds. Look no farther than the FCC they have been stifling technological advancement for 70 years.

seriously moron read the article

he is talking about one form of subsidization (monopoly control) with another more market driven subsidization (assignable tax credit).

the current system grants the "bob Dylan" of our era the same protection as the paul markham's of the era.

His solution would reward quality and punish crap.

Pre paying and guaranteeing income to the artist that produce work that is in demand, rather then creating a fake scarcity to drive up prices.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

And then when you show monkeys like him things like...oh I dunno...THEFT OF SERVICES...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services

except as i have pointed out

1. that still meets the condition of taking away the resource (if i hop on your wifi then your services are slower, can transmit less data). Unlike copying where your original copy is still intact and functions at the same speed/availability

2. it still doesn't over come the explicit declaration by the supreme court that copyright infringement is not theft.


only a world class moron would keep trying to use that as proof that copyright infringement is theft.

[Half man, Half Amazing]

I think when, during the course of a debate, someone states that piracy is theft, they aren't always talking about how it would be tried in a court of law. If anyone here were to take one of your freeloader parasite friends to court they wouldn't take them to court for "theft" they would take them to court for copyright infringement.

Much like if Matt Kemp "steals" second base, he didn't really 'steal' it. Though if only we could get a Gideongallery/Vin Scully team you could spew your idiotic rambling about how Matt Kemp didn't actually deprive anyone of the use of second base until Vin Scully bitch slapped you.

But only a world class parasite freeloader would defend taking something for free without the creators consent as a fair use and something to build an economy on.