chronig

fucking clown.... some of the opinions on this forum ...

sortie

Yeah, because I can give you an EXCLUSIVE license to distribute my content for free
on your domain. You may pay me $500k for this license and now some torrent is
giving out for free what you paid $500k to give away for free to attract surfers.

If I buy exclusive content for my free site that doesn't mean someone can
download it from my site and then build another free site with it.
They need to pay the content producer for that right and since the content is
exclusive the content provider will not give a new license and thus protects my
web site exclusivity and the value of his/her content.

__________________

TheDoc

Both Industries were making money with Napster around and newsgroups and irc were 1000x larger than Napster at the time. As well, piracy today is far larger than it was when Napster was around.

Napster which controlled the access to the files, logged it, etc... wasn't removing them on notice and was profiting from it too, without sharing the profits through the distro method. It was a direct copyright violation. Because Napster set the 'what not to do standard' everyone today, knows what not to do.

With Tubes... if you send them a notice, and they don't take it down you can sue them. Re: Topbucks - But if the tube takes them down, it's NOT a Copyright violation and you can't sue them, for that.

They wouldn't be supporting the porn industry, they would be fighting it from being so easily viewable from children, no support needed at all.

They can't do that because 1) You have the same Copyright laws that the Music/Movie Industry has and uses. 2) Freedom of speech wins.

Radio head is a great example... give it away for free, it's pirated for them increasing exposure, allowing them to get more fans, sell more songs and make more money than ever before.

Correct, if someone downloaded your site and made a new one, that would be Copyright infringement. That's not what tubes are doing though... 1) they don't have your entire site 2) they aren't downloading it from you. 3) surfers are allowed to download the content, and they can legally upload it too. You're not selling multi use lic to the members, they can download, burn, upload it to any place they like. Just like music and movies...

Unless your content is restricted, it is illegal to hack or bypass DRM, it's criminal. If anyone put 500k of content online and didn't protect it, then they're stupid.. why not build a mega house in the ghetto and leave the doors open?

__________________

gideongallery

how did you come to the conclusion it was "illegally" download when radiohead explictly said it was ok to share.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

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.

gideongallery

that a bullshit arguement, because unless the content is filmed in that new format it will never get traction

as long as copyright holders are allowed to extend monopoly thru medium selection they can make the same amount of profit without investing in the new technology.

think about it logically would you spend an extra 100k on equipment which films content in 6 spectrum color if no theaters were capable of showing in 6 spectrum color

hell no.

would a theater spend the pennies they have left upgrading the theaters to to support 6 spectrum color if they know people are going to be forced to choose between not watching it at all or watching it in their medium only

hell no

that stifling only exists because the copyright monopoly was extended.

except it still smaller then the number of jobs created for hard good technological advance
people don't repair 10 dvd
but they do repair 999 vcr (original price of the vcr)

you can't seperate the two, the consequence of letting the artist control the medium and not just the distribution has the automatic effect of stopping the technology.

your right to monopolistically control the DISTRIBUTION was only given to you because you agreed to respect fair use.

this bullshit i should have a right to sell it as i wish is an attempt to go back on that agreement

if you wish the monopolisitic control then you ahve to agree to the fair use period

you have no right to take the benefit and refuse to accept the responsiblity.

the two go hand in hand.

respecting access shifting is selling it as you wish because you traded away that respect for the monopolistic control of distribution.


what do you think using the pirate bay to access shift the movie is
the the protest within the context of the medium

i don't want the laws changed you do
i think they are fine the way they are
i want the courts to rule under the current laws
the courts not the government would establish access shifting
they would do so based on the logical arguement i have made, that distribution income is still 100% protected even if right to sue people who extend the distribution to unsupported mediums was eliminated.

the market driven "forcing" them to support all mediums fairly and equally would NOT hurt the copyright monopoly protected profits

it would simply eliminate the profits generated by ABUSING the monopoly.


if that were true they would be no need to sue any of the torrent sites or downloaders
problem solved leave them alone.
because their such a tiny small minority they are not going to matter

the problem you have is that the numbers are there
they are revolting against the abuse, and rather then recognize it and adapt to it
the copyright holders are suing to stop it.


you know this statement is total bullshit.

every technological advancement goes thru three cycles early adopters/ market leaders / mass consumer

the problem is the price point of the early adopters
if the early adopters come in at 100k mark then their adoption drops the price quickly to something that the market leaders will accept
in every case the technology perculated down quickly if you could get a high price point early adopters

compare the difference between how quickly dolby surround sound entered the home market
vs 3d entering the home market and you can see the adverse effect of cutting out the high point early adopters out of the technological cycle.

read up a bit on real 3d
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereoscopic
instead of the crappy you got to wear glass bullshit we are currently experiencing

Lenticular lens was invented in the 1980
and we still don't have movies filmed in this medium
we still don't have theaters with projection equipement capable of show this stuff.

if the rate of adoption was as fast as surround sound (one that had the theaters acting as the early adopters)

we would already have this in our homes.




if the adoption rate of technology was as fast as surround sound
if the price drop from the theater level cost to the home cost
we should have autostereoscopy tv in our homes NOW

we don't

actually mostly likely is the movie industry will try and change the laws to make it illegal even if it would have been ruled to be fair use under the current laws.

That the point i am making i don't want the laws changes. I want access shifting to have a fair fighting chance to exist.

let the courts decide don't bribe politicians to change the laws to corrupt the free market system, it fine the way it is.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

btw if this was the burden need to establish a new fair use right
riots in the streets are the only way to justify repealing the abuse that fair use address none of the fair use we currently enjoy would exist
and none of the billion of dollar of new income would be enjoyed by the copyright holders today either

no one rioted in the streets because tv stations demanded that people schedule their lives around the airing of the tv show and it re runs (timeshifting and the vcr)

no one rioted in the streets because the record companies said you had to lugg around dozens of your favorite cd and swap them to hear your favorite songs (formating shifting and the diamond rio mp3 player)

both of those actions were an abuse, an artifical extension of the content distribution monopoly to the medium selection.

all the money, choice and new technology that was born out of that removal of that abuse is the historical proof that if this medium selection abuse is also removed (access shifting) the same thing will happen again.

in fact if you take the new technologies that indirectly spawned from format shifting , because of a commodization of pricing for solid state disks, there are potentially billions if not trillions of dollars of new technology that we can't even think of (ie from the commodization of camera components like lens and optical sensors)

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

I have said before and will say it again. I don't want them to stop the development of new technology. They can develop all the technology they want. That shouldn't mean that I am forced to distribute my product via that technology if I don't want to. Whether a movie is released in all mediums the day of its theatrical release or not has no bearing on the development of technology.

The way I feel is simple. If I make a movie. I paid for it. It is mine and I own it. I should be allowed to distribute it as I see fit. If I don't want to release it in a certain medium, I should be allowed that luxury. If I don't want a particular country or group of people to have access to it, I should be allowed to restrict access to them. If someone tries to take it without my permission, I should have the right to pursue them legally for that. I see it just like owning a car. I paid for the car. It is my car. I get to decide who drives the car and under what terms that car is driven. Just because I let one person drive the car doesn't mean I have to let everyone.

If you think this violates your fair use rights, I don't care. If this upsets you, I don't care. It is my movie. If I don't want you to watch it, that is just too bad for you.

I see movies and music as art as well as a commodity and those who create that art should be allowed to distribute it as they see fit, not as you see fit.

Serge Litehead

gideon, do you have a problem with copyright monopoly or medium monopoly? which one is more problematic in your view?

i personally demand full blown win7 on ipad, they have no fricking right to have medium monopoly on OS running on their product. those bastards lol

__________________

gideongallery

neither
monopolies are not bad it when you attempt to use them create or extend that monopoly power to another market.

you have a right to the copyright monopoly, it when you abuse it to try and create a secondary monopoly (ie medium) that i have a problem with

your example is only part way there, apple shouldn't be forced to install windows on ipad

however if modified a micro kernal version of linux (or microsoft did with windows) and they flashed the eprom of an ipad with that new os. trying to stop that from happening would be a problem in my mind.

apple got paid for the hardware, they got paid for the software, if i want to "break" my ipad as long as i am willing to live with the consequences ( ie no support) i dam well should have the right.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Serge Litehead

companies are able to create their own markets, so when does one looses right to monopoly on that market? and should they loose market monopoly at all?

__________________

gideongallery

it not dead stop vs full speed ahead problem

it like if you turned the parking break on in a car, you could still gun the engine and go forward.

you would just move very very slowly

your trying to argue that just because you can move forward the parking break being on doesn't have any effect whatsoever

That bull shit. and you know it.


your mixing property rights with copyright

if you want property rights then so do i

i have no problem with that

buying a video from you would be the same as buying a car

i could build a business renting out that property (avis)
i could tear it apart and sell the pieces (body shops)
if i wanted to tear it apart, duplicate all the parts put it back together and produce a new version (reverse engineering/ competitive intelligence) and build and sell my own version of your video.

and you would have no right to stop me

if that what you want great let get rid of copyright al together have the content covered by standard property right laws

if you sell me a car you don't have a right to tell me what i can do with that car after i bought you got paid

if i want to rent it out i can
if i want to ship it to a foreign country i can
if i want to give it away i can

if you want your movie to be treated like a commodity that actually an arguement to get rid of copyright.

the problem it your trying to argue you should have property right for control copyright give you.

a control that was explictly given to you under the condition you respect my fair use rights.

you want the benefit without meeting your responsiblity of the agreement

why the fuck do you believe that is fair.


btw it not me but the independent court that would have to determine if it fair use or not.

just because you would not win that arguement since you are basically making claims that if applied to established fair uses would have made them illegal too (see your they are not rioting in the streets so it must be ok arguement above)

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

copyright is not a market create monopoly it is a government granted one

you own the exclusive right to the commercial distribution of the content (while the fair use distribution must be free market)


you have a right to maximize your profits within that monopoly, it only bad when you try and extend it to another market (ie medium)

being a monopoly is not a crime, there are dozens of good monopolies (petro canada for example)


in this example, if the mediums (tv/theater/dvd/payperview/etc) competed all the liciencing fees would still go back to the copyright holder (content monopoly)

all the money would be theirs.
You are not costing them their monoply
it still exists

the only thing that disappears is the extra money that comes from destroying the free market competition between the mediums.

That what kane is complaining about losing. I am just pointing out that it has nothing to do with content monopoly revenue that the copyright holder is entitled too.

It outside the scope of that exclusive right, and therefore should be outside the scope to sue for when attempting to stop.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

if you truely saw it like owning a car you would agree with me.
the copyright holder is not the buyer of the car they are the creator of the car

they are ford the movie viewers are the car owners.

your trying to argue that ford should have a right to force you to drive the car only on their roads

the right to force you to never share, it or give people rides in your car

ford doesn't have that right just because they created the car

why the fuck do you believe you should have that right because the work is content instead of something physical.

oh wait the goverment gave you that special right in exchange for you agreeing to respect fair use

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

If I want to put the parking break on my car and drive is slowly down the road that should be up to me to do. You are free to do with your car as you wish. I'm not stopping you. I'm not telling you what to do, I just want the right to do what I feel is best for me and not be forced to do things I might not want to do.



I never said anything about selling you a car and telling you what you could do with it. If I sell you a car I don't care if you fuck it in the muffler. But my car is mine and I should be allowed to dictate how it is used.

Fair use, as you see it, means that if I decide not to release my movie in every possible format in every possible market then you should be allowed to download it and view it without paying since I didn't provide you with a way to conveniently view it. I disagree with that. I think fair use does as it says and it allows some people to use small parts of it for news, study, parody etc, but it doesn't mean that I should be forced to provide everyone with a my product when they want it in whatever format they want it or risk losing money to them just taking it.

kane

It is no different than if you made a movie then sold the rights to that movie to me. That happens all the time. People make a movie and pay for it out of their pocket, they then sell it to a bigger studio or distributor and it is now theirs to do with as they please.

Ford makes a car. They then sell it to me. Once I pay for it is mine to do with as I please.

gideongallery

so by your logic i should have a right to do whatever i want with the dvd i bought

if i want to rip it and post it on the torrent i should be allowed to do that since i paid for it mine i should be able to do with it as i please.


you don't buy the right to drive a car, you buy the car

if you want property rights to dictate the transaction there are no such thing as licience rights to consider.

if you want licience rights to be the bases of the transaction, then you have a problem because your control over liciencing right are given to you by the government in exchange for your agreement to respect fair use.

pick one

you can't have your cake and eat it too

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Serge Litehead

when you buy a dvd you agree use it for your personal use and not to copy for distribution by the same respect of fair use

__________________

gideongallery

but that my arguement

i never said the copyright holder had be be forced to deliver it on every medium
i said they shouldn't have the right to prevent anyone who want to deliver on a medium they don't want to support





sure you are

we are talking about STOPPING people from putting it on the torrents.

fair use doesn't force you do anything with your content
fair use simply takes away your right to stop people from doing what they want with the content they bought.

copyright allows you to make the sale for the content in every medium
if you decide not to make the sale in a medium then there is no sale to be lost

so yes that is correct


your not forced to provide it in all formats

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

Ok. Forget the car as an example.

Bottom line. If I own the rights to a movie I should get to decide how it is distributed. That is it. That is all I am saying. If my movie isn't playing near you and you want to see it, tough. Just because it isn't available right then doesn't mean it won't be latter and you are not entitled to see it just because it is playing somewhere on some screen.

If you want to use that logic then when a movie gets a limited start release and in only playing in one theater in LA and NY for a few weeks before rolling out to the rest of the nation/world you should be able to download it because it is playing in a theater, you want to see it and it isn't near you. That isn't how it works. That isn't how it should work. Again, it is my movie, I should get to to decide how it is distributed and if I decide that you don't get access to it and you want to take it I should have the ability to come after you legally for trying to take what is yours.

You can spin all the bullshit in the world and site all the bullshit numbers about technology and economies and fair use, I don't care. This is how I feel. If you make a movie and want to distribute it a different way, so be it, but I shouldn't be forced into anything I don't want to do just because you the viewer has decided you are entitled to it.

kane

Yes you are. You are saying if I don't release it in all formats that those who prefer to see it in that format can now just take it for free because it isn't a "lost sale." I want to be allowed to distribute it at my leisure and if that means it will be a couple of years before I release a theatrical movie on DVD, so be it. Just because your taking it without paying doesn't damage me to day doesn't mean it won't down the road.







Fair use does not allow you to distribute someone else work. I know, you will argue that you are backing it up to the cloud, that is horseshit and you know it. You are distributing it to other people and you don't have that right.



See my answer above. Just because I choose not to sell it in a particular format today, doesn't mean I won't a few years from now.

gideongallery

actually it when it pressed

the copyright holder get to define the rights when they release the content


your not buying the content, your buying the licience to use the content.

it a special type of sales transaction created by the exclusive right monopoly of the copyright act. an exclusive right which is supposed to only be limited to the revenue generated from the distribution of the content.

An exclusive right that is granted to you in exchange for recognizing whatever the court determine to be fair use. The purpose of fair use is to prevent copyright holder from abusing that monopoly to take money that is beyond the scope of the distribution of the content.


if you want to sell your content as property go ahead, but that means there are no liciencing restrictions once they buy it they can do anything they want with it.

physical ownership gives you all rights.

you want to define the transaction by the liciencing rights, something that does not exist in property sales, that only exists because of an agreement that defines and demands a respect for fair use. Then you have to honor fair use.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Serge Litehead

i agree with kane, exclusive copyright holder should determine when and how his content be distributed and if he doesn't want it on some mediums at present moment then his content should not be available for free in those mediums.

__________________

gideongallery

you just declared a choice in that statement

your not being forced
you must distribute it on all format for you to have a copyright rights
all your content must be public domain unless you distribute it in all formats

that would be an example of being forced to distribute it in all formats

all we are talking about is not giving you the right to stop fair market competition for mediums you have abandoned.

if you don't then someone else can step in.

they even have to obey special rules that prevent them from directly profiting from the support of that medium.

that more than enough competitive advantage for the mediums you want to support because for most mediums the cost would make it infeasible to support for free.


so deliver re runs 3 months from now rather then let people tape the show and watch it when they want

guess what that fair use damaged the tv stations they lost the revenue from that second running of ads.

you may want that right, but you gave that up when you agreed to the special "licieincing" business model granted by the copyright act.





not under the current law, the supreme court said so






again see my above point.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

but if you were right
that control would have prevented the vcr since the copyright holder would have a right to reject the medium of the tape cassette

and the mp3 because music companies would have had the right to reject the medium of solid state disk.


what you want and what you agreed to under the law are two different things.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

fatfoo

Movie theft sucks.

__________________
Send me an email: [email protected]

Serge Litehead

mp3 does not equal specific film or music

__________________

gideongallery

but solid state disk is a different medium then cd
and if copyright law allowed you to dictate the valid medium as you argued

that right would have invalidated format shifting too.


the point is your arguement is wrong, no matter how much you want it to be right

those old cases prove it.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Serge Litehead

i don't see how your examples of fair use of mediums relate to fair use of intellectual property. above mentioned examples of owning and using a car can relate to tangible mediums such as vcr and ssd. but since all above agreed that car is a bad example in comparing with copyright monopoly, i don't get why are you comparing real tangible property use in argument about exclusive copyrights of intellectual property

__________________

kane

This just isn't correct. Just because a movie company doesn't want their movie sold on VHS tapes doesn't mean others cannot choose to sell it that way. They are rejecting the option of having their media available on that medium, they are not rejecting the medium.

For MP3 you can play them on many other mediums than a solid state disk. Again, you can choose to not sell you music on MP3, that doesn't mean you are telling people to not make a solid state disk.

gideongallery

but your going back to rights again
liciencing and rights only exist because of the copyright act
there are two parts to that act the exclusive right that give you that control

and the fair use right you traded away (your payment) for those exclusive rights

what you want is to get the benefit without paying the cost (sort of funny since your actually trying given your theft stance)



stop saying forced , no one is forcing you to support a medium, fair use allows someone else to support that medium if you don't want to.

fair use is the barter you pay to get the exclusive rights.

lots of people would like to get the benefits of an agreement without paying the cost

doesn't mean they should have a right to do that.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

Do you not see that by saying this you are defacto forcing me to distribute in all mediums? You are simply saying that if I don't put my movie out in the medium of your choice you will simply take it or that someone else will distribute it on the medium of your choice. That is kind of like saying to someone, you can give me the $5 I want, or I will just take it from you.

Maybe this is my plan. I release a movie into the theater. 1 year later I sell it on DVD. 1 year after that I sell it to pay cable. 1 year after that I sell it to free TV.

But since I didn't release it on DVD at the same time I put it in the theater you are saying that you should have the right to then download it because you can't get to the theater and since it isn't for sale in your area you aren't damaging me. But you don't know that I will be selling it on DVD, it is just going to take time.

So unless I release it how you want it and when you want it you will just take it. Growing up we called that a shakedown.



I have always said that when something has aired on TV I have no problem with people recording it or downloading it.







So the supreme court has said that if you buy my DVD you have the right to distribute it? Please show me that ruling.

gideongallery

but if the tv stations got to decide weather their show could exist on tape cassettes then the vcr would have been illegal until they found a way to block it from recording the unauthorized broadcast.

The whole point of timeshifting is that it COVERED unauthorized broadcasts

that was the section of the ruling.

your arguement it total bullshit,
your trying to say that access shifting should not exist for reasons that timeshifting already ruled was invalid.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

Dude, debating with you is like trying swat a hornets nest. You can't stay on topic and just fire bullshit until you wear the person out.

I have said time and again that people should be allowed to record TV shows and that I don't care if they download them.

TV is a different thing from movies. TV is broadcast for free to anyone with an antenna. You can't do something like that and still control what people do with it. A movie is a different thing. When I put a movie into the theater I can control how it is viewed, by whom it is viewed, where and when it is viewed and even how much people pay to view it.

If I then choose to not release the movie on a VHS tape that should not give someone else the rights to sell my movie on a VHS tape and it should not give someone the right to just take my movie for free.

gideongallery

there is only one reason you would stagger the release
and that to make more money
if you made exactly the same money you would not do that, because your profits would be lower, you would have to advertise 4 times.

all that extra profit comes from granting a monopoly to the medium

you don't have a right to grant new monopolies
in fact using one monopoly to create another is suppose to be sherman anti trust violation

that the point
that all i am trying to prevent


funny

you want monopoly profits from extending distribution monopoly to medium and your arguing the attempt to stop that sherman anti trust abuse is a shakedown




but it the same exact law that makes it legal

you can't have it both ways
if the copyright holder has a right to control the medium then both should be illegal

if the copyright holder doesn't have the right to control the medium that both should be legal

that the point.






you said i was wrong and that transmission thru the cloud was distribution

your exact words

timeshifting in a cloud said public transmission was not public distribution.
it doesn't have to say it have a right to distribute (and i never said it did)
it says it not distribution.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

again

but it the same exact law that makes it legal

you can't have it both ways
if the copyright holder has a right to control the medium then both should be illegal

if the copyright holder doesn't have the right to control the medium that both should be legal

that the point.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

Let's just agree to disagree and put this to an end.

Yes, I feel that I should be allowed a monopoly on content I create and own outright. If I want 10 monopolies so that I can stagger distribution over 10 years and make a bunch of money with my content, I should have them. It is my content, I should be allowed to do with it as I please and if you try to take it for free against my wishes or distribute it against my wishes I should be allowed to pursue legal action against.

That is how I feel. All the double talk, legal loopholes and mumbo-jumbo speak/changing of the topic isn't going to change my mind.

gideongallery

just as long as you are willing to suffer when someone turns the issue against you

if i licience the solution to you at 73 times the cost as everyone else because you have to pay the fee for every medium.

you should thankfully pay that fee without complaint at all.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Serge Litehead

gideon, if i release a movie on dvd which says - license: you cannot back it up on other mediums, you cannot copy it to other mediums, you cannot share it, you cannot transmit it over air, sea, land and internet. you are only permitted to watch it once. you read this licence before deciding whether you want to buy it or not. question, is my license against the law?

__________________

kane

Fair enough.

gideongallery

there is no law against just making a bogus licience so not against the law

invalid -yes.

your trying to term of service away fair use

you only have the exclusive right because you agree to honor fair use, you can't turn around and use those exclusive rights to take away the bartered payment.

there wouldn't be any point in having fair use defined at all if the copyright holders rights allowed them to be TOS away.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

cool what company do you work for
i need to know who get charged 73 times as much unless they fire you

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

What? Who gets charged 73 times as much for what? Your sentence doesn't make any sense.

gideongallery

if you work for a company
if they choose to employee
if they choose to buy from you

they must pay 73 times as much as for my instructions as everyone else

they can either pay that cost or fire you/cut their business deals with you.

I am just asking for that company name.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

Well, I work for myself.

Since I'm not buying your product it really makes no difference how much you charge for it.

I won't be firing myself any time soon.

If you decide to charge 73 times as much for your product as everyone else you will be out of business pretty quickly.

gideongallery

your arguement was

even though the country has laws against using one monopoly to create another

that even though ford doesn't have a right to create monopolies forcing you to use their highways, their gas

you should have a right to make as many monopolies as you want, to maximize your profit no matter how much those extra profits damage someone else.

and i said as long as that level of abuse was ok with you.

the point of that type of abuse is that i should have a right to make ever liciencee choose between dealing with you (a monopoly right around you) and paying 73 times as much and not dealing with you and paying a fair and normal price.

so if your an affiliate, before they pay you a dime the must collect 73 times the value of the contract and give it to me from your traffic.

And of course you will pay it without complaining at all.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

the point is fair use would prevent me from making such a licience

to specifically create a licience that excluded demanded they take the money they would have paid you for your legitimate services and tell them to just give it to me would violate every principle of fairness (unless you explictly gave me permisson)

you are argueing that movie creator should have a right to take all the money that a torrent site has made from building up the traffic, selling the advertising etc and just take it (fair use be dammed) just because their movie was on the site.

i am basically saying give me the permission to do the same thing to you, for all the people who licience my stuff.

in your mind that perfectly ok, since i should have a right to create as many monopolies (even one that surround only you) to maximize my profit.

i just recognize that copyright doesn't grant me that right, so i have to get you to agree to suffer that abuse volentarily.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

As per normal you have constructed sentences here that make no sense so I have no idea what you are talking about.

No, I am arguing that I should be able to sue for damage and force them to remove my movie from their site. They don't have the right to distribute it and that is what they are doing.

Because the reality of the world and market doesn't create these violent spikes in the price that you imagine so you need to make them up in order to make a point. Fair use exists and many people/companies use it in the way it was intended to be used. Companies like local news and shows like The Daily Shoe used fair use in a fair and accurate way. Companies that want to take my entire movie and allow people to download it in torrent from their website are not.

Below I will answer your questions once again responding to each one exactly as you have asked them.

Here, again, are the answers to your questions:
if you work for a company
- I work for myself.

if they choose to employee
- I assume you mean if they choose to employ me, which, of course I do choose to employ myself.

if they choose to buy from you
- Well, I don't really sell anything to myself.

they must pay 73 times as much as for my instructions as everyone else
-I don't need your instructions so I wouldn't be buying them. If, for some reason, I did I would buy them from someone else. You say yourself that you are going to charge 73 times as much as everyone else does. That means everyone else but you is cheaper. I would go with everyone else.

they can either pay that cost or fire you/cut their business deals with you.
-Again, I can't really fire myself.

gideongallery

ok how do you make your money if you don't sell anything to anyone.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

Like many of the people in this business I make money as an affiliate. I send visitors to sponsors sites. If those visitors sign up for said site, I get a commission. Pretty simple really.

I also make money writing for various people. Be it blog posts, articles, fiction or whatever.