The Economics Of Abundance Is Not A Moral Issue
 

Scarcity and the physical medium never had anything to do with pricing of artistic works. That was just the reality of a pre-internet world. It's really all about capitalism and the ability of artists and companies trying to earn money from their artistic creations or media that they produced. With the digitization and instant copyability of digital media nowdays, the new generation growing up just doesn't *have to* pay anymore except in some limited cases. As a matter of fact many young people take it a step further and will ridicule those who do pay for any digital media by calling them names like fool or sucker.

It's no longer fashionable to say this but you sound like a dirty communist with all your nonsense rhetoric. You're like a Jesus or God believer who already has his mind made up about the existence of a deity looking for evidence to support his erroneous conclusion rather than like a smart scientist who lets the evidence determine the conclusion he infers based on that evidence. So you'll copy any pithy quote or half assed "study" or commentary by people who make a point you think is clever and post it.

While I certainly believe that the internet still has potential for artists to make money there can be no debate that it's also essentially a free for all where even normally law abiding citizens can simply become scofflaws, shrug their shoulders and say fuck it, I'm never going to waste my hard earned money on music, tv, movies, software ever again.

"Economics of abundance"? Get the fuck out of here...

so color printers and scanners will make money not scarce because you can easily print it? or has this issue more to do with laws not being enforced? :2 cents: wait for the pirate sites to get their "easy off" switch and all their years and years of hard work to go down the drain...you will have 2 options:

1) legal tubes and their stale content

2) pay 30$ for fresh 3D HD shit...

gideongallery is behind the times already.

Stealing is the "old way" of the last few years. And now people are going to jail for it.

What's old is new again...PAYING for stuff is the "new way"

And oh yeah I almost forgot:
gideongallery = clown

Content should be priced by the copyright holder at his desired price point. NOT by the ass-wipe that steals it.

.

gideongallery
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.

With all the shit stains on GFY there are only 2 people on my ignore list. That tells you how big a numb nuts you have to be to get on it.

so the guy who arguing for government granted control over distribution is calling me a communist.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

free market says that all products should compete without any government controls.

The dictates of social responsibility dictate the government involvement to protect the PUBLIC good.

In a true free market copyright would not be allowed to exist, in a socially responsible free market copyright would only allowed to exist as long as it does not infringe on things like free speech

Including such "insane" concepts of "this is the best dance routine i have every scene"



statements by the copyright holder that i am to stupid to figure out how to make money in a world where people could use my content in that concept would not be valid justifications for voiding the free speech.




:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Really want to tell my how many times I have said "that won't work in porn" when someone presented an example of a solution to the problem.


130 million dollars was raised by crowd funding this year by kickstarter alone.


let me guess "that won't work in porn"

Yeah the free market should NOT dictate prices, government granted control should

I comrade how very fair of you

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

What are you babbling about now freeboy?

...ill pass

copyright is supreme court declared government granted monopoly

your right to dictate the price by excluding the "pirates" only exist because of that monopoly.

copyright by definition is a communist ideal (government assigned control of distribution for the common good) , not a free market one (totally open competition with the winner surviving).

psssst there is no such thing as free speech

go to a police station and start talking hate against any race and you will see...

go to a police man and tell him he is a stupid piece of shit and you will see...

go to a court room and commit perjury and you will see....

go to a playground and tell a minor he has a nice ass (stupid example don't really do this)


speech is not free...you are held accountable for what you say...there is no such thing as free speech like there is no such thing as hot ice....the only "rights" that you have is to pay tax and obey the law...

So according to your "non communist" ideas there is no copyright on money either? "Free market" "free speech" "ramble ramble" so according to you one can copy money then also right?

and how do any of those thing represent copyright.


reread the statement


copyright is a control for the economic benefit of a private citizen, not the public good. The public good benefit of the granted control is that the public get free use of that incentivised content for fair use purposes

In essence fair use not the copyright exclusive rights are the socially responsible part of the bill, maximizing that is in the best interest of true free market

Minimizing it is communist ideal.

"Since anarcho-capitalists oppose the existence of even a minimal state,"

Sorry had to stop reading right after the first sentence....too stupid...


Also in the post above YOU mentioned free speech... a non existing thing....just thought I would point that out to you.....

Oh, I see. You aren't just a communist, but an anarchist too! You do realize that the government has a significant place in a democracy, a Republic and a capitalist country?

The idea of a completely free market not controlled by any law whatsoever is ridiculous and unworkable. Why not just close up the Federal, state and local governments, repeal all the laws and let people fight it out for survival like the classic Mel Gibson movie "The Road Warrior" under your premise?

There is a public good in having laws that protect creative people and companies funding creative works and having them make money and a return on their investment just like any other business people.

There are no infringements on free speech by having people pay for what they use or consume.

Total non-sequiter, and in any case no one's free speech is being violated if they were not to have access to every piece of digital media for free.

I have no issue with porn companies giving away their own content voluntarilly or surfers accessing free porn content with a valid license or porn studios trying crowd funding or any other alternative distribution methods that they want.


Maybe it will, maybe I'll give it a try. Whether workable or not, it's still not a justification for any random person out there in the world to be able to access any content they like for free while the artists, creators and/or money men behind the work get nothing.

But just adding a line "this is the best dance routine i have every scene" is not fair use commentary.

Spelling and grammar issues aside, you aren't actually providing commentary. You are giving an opinion, but no explanation or commentary as to why that opinion has merit. You are also not using this clip to enhance some greater point you are trying to make. If you used this clip along with 10 other clips of dance routines that are not as good as this one and your analysis of why that is would be valid commentary.

Of course you know this already because you likely tried this and got your ass busted for it by Youtube. You uploaded what appears to be the entire Daily Show bit on SOPA and probably tried to add a line like "this is the best SOPA explanation I have ever seen" and you instantly got it taken taken down.

If all you had to do was add this little line and everything suddenly was fair use I could upload the full movie Unforgiven and just say, "This is the best western movie I have ever seen." With that all would be good, but that is not how it works.

maybe you should watch the video so you know what your talking about.

the video was not removed only blocked to the US. It still up in canada.

login thru a canadian proxy and you can see it fine.

really i paid for john stewart when i paid my cable bill

yet i was blocked from posting it on my youtube channel.


There was no way i could buy the right to publish it because they didn't sell that right.

your the one arguing for government assigned control of distribution not me.


I addressed that when i talked about the public good, that level of anarchy is not in the best interest of the public




Even my "crazy" interpretation of fair use give you more control than any other business is entitled to their creations. GM does get the right to tell you how you can USE their product once you buy it.


Extending fair use to the extreme i have argued for, still puts you in a superior position to every other business in america (at least in terms of government granted control).

I don't even believe that you actually pay a cable tv bill- most pirates take a perverse pride in "cutting the cord" and sticking it to "the Man" by specifically not paying for tv under the theory that "tv sucks anyway" or the theory that the cable companies are ripping you off supposedly by not allowing you to purchase channels a la carte. In any case, assuming for sake of argument that you did pay, then you only paid to watch various tv channels that include among them John Stewart's show when you paid your cable tv bill. You didn't purchase an ownership interest in the John Stewart show, nor did you become John Stewart's business partner.

And you should be blocked from posting John Stewart on Youtube. Let John Stewart himself or whoever owns his tv show post it on *their* Youtube channel or their web site or their tv station partner or their own podcast or whatever they see fit to do and then reap the sales or advertising or other monetary and non-monetary rewards.

When you pay your cable bill you are paying for the right to watch the content, not publish it.

Did you call up the legal department at comedy central and explain to them that you want to buy the rights to broadcast some of their content?

so you want to completely block the commentary i made.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7148/6...3900b04b41.jpg
john stewart2 by aaronjacques, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7019/6...419d1bfc99.jpg
john stewart by aaronjacques, on Flickr


That by definition is censorship.

you do realize that is censorship

a video that was re purposed to document the double standard of Viacom (fair use acquired content) was blocked for documented the exact start and end times of every fair use within the video.

if what i was doing was not fair use, neither was every use they made.

and they broadcast that to millions of people.

Yeah, very substantive commentary there, lol. If any trivial bit of text that takes a person two seconds to create qualifies as "commentary" and "Fair Use" then what you are essentially saying is that no piece of content or creative work should enjoy any copyright or ownership protection at all. If that's all it takes, then all it requires is one person out of the four billion or so in the world to type "That's funny, ha ha" under or over an old or new song, movie, app, piece of software or whatever to strip it of any protection under the law and make it free for all to use forever without anyone ever paying for it. That's as preposterous as you suggesting you are being censored in any way.

well, I am not going to comment any more on what is in your video. I can't view it because it is blocked. I'm not going to mess around with trying to find a proxy and figure out how to use it just so i can view it.

Here is what I can say: The Daily Show uses fair use in the way it was meant to be used. That means they take small clips/pics and build original content around it. For example they might have a 7 minute long bit during which they use 45 seconds of other people's content and the other 6:45 is their own stuff that they added to it. In short, they are adding 6:45 of commentary. Just saying, "this is the best dance routine I have ever seen," and posting the full clip is a far cry from what they do.

i also tagged every single second of fair use within that video moron

6:43 seconds out of the 9:15 bit was fair use authorized content

my fair use commentary matched second for second their fair use commentary.

so if what i did wasn't fair use neither was what they did.

and they broadcast it to millions of people.

did you even watch the bit in question

do you know how many minutes of fair use content was used in that bit.

number of seconds of commentary is not one of the four conditions of fair use.
so any declaration that the amount of commentary makes all the difference between what is and what is not fair use is bullshit

The difference must violate one of those four conditions only then does it stop being fair use.

I just did. To me it looks like the total bit is around 7:10 long and they use around 3:00 or there abouts of fair use content. That particular episode isn't their norm, as they were using large amounts of content in order to prove a point. Last night's episodes the first bit was 8:25 long and they used about 1:00 of fair use content which is a lot more typical of what they do.

Good, so then I can post all my favorite movies online on my website and all I have to do is say, "this is the best western movie ever." or "this is the coolest sci fi movie I have ever seen." or "this comedy made me laugh hard." and I am covered?

If it was so easy why isn't every torrent and filelocker site in the world doing just that?

The reason is because you are wrong. One of the four conditions of fair us is: 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;

The price has absolutely nothing to do with physical media like CDS. The author is completely missing the fundamental reason that entertainment, including sports, costs what it does.

In my city of 250,000 there are dozens of bands you can see live for free. There's a minor league baseball team and a college team nobody watches, though tickets are just a couple bucks. Thousands of bands post their music on myspace and youtube, but nobody listens to the free music they post. There's no scarcity of entertainers.

So why are people paying thousands of dollars for a ticket to Sunday's game when they coulda watch another team for free? People pay for or steal Nicki Minaj rather than listening to Leannasuraus Rex's free music for a reason.

The reason is that consumers get value from having the record company scout for the best talent, hook them up with the best producers in the world, record them in a multi-million dollar studio, and then spend millions letting the consumer know about the new talent.

If the record company wasn't doing something the consumer finds valuable, they could very easily skip the record company and download tons of free music. Instead, they want the record company to do the work, but don't want to pay for those services.

did you even read the article

copyright law has always been about artificially increasing scarcity, the difference is you didn't have infinite elasticity of supply because the medium was always a bound constraint (cd,dvd).

the internet changes that.

care to explain how timeshifting became a fair use then.

it copies 100% of the copyrighted work.

If a 100% was always the wrong answer then that shouldn't have happened.

Sure. when you record 100% of a work onto your DVR you are making a copy for your personal use. When you upload 100% of a work you have recorded onto youtube you are then publishing and/distributing that work which you don't have the right to do.

that a circular proof and you know it, your right to do it is dependent on if the fair use is valid or not, you can't say it not fair use because you don't have the right to publish/distribute. Because if it is fair use then it is completely outside the scope of exclusive rights of the copyright holder and NONE of the restrictions exist



what to point me to the section that says anything about personal use vs public use.

By definition commentaries are public. if you made a commentary that only you could hear it would be a commentary, it would be talking to yourself.

you said

being 100% was your justification for arguing it was not fair use, time shifting proves that not a valid justification

now your going back to a justification that doesn't exist in the list (like your bullshit number of seconds).

most criminals try and justify their crime.

and copyright holders keep arguing that fair use isn't fair use

This is very simple.

Timeshifting allows you to record a show you paid for to watch whenever you want. It doesn't give you the right to distribute/publish it.

Fair use allows you to use part of someone else's content in specific ways and allows you to publish/distribute it. One of those ways is if you are making commentary on said content. It doesn't, however, give you express permission to use 100% of the content for this purpose. You have to take it on a case by case basis. If the whole of the content you are commenting on is a 4 second long video clip then using 100% of the content and posting a short 1 sentence long piece of commentary could easily be seen as reasonable. However, it would be very hard to say that posting a full 60 minute video and saying, "this is my favorite movie" as your commentary is legit fair use.

bullshit timeshifting doesn't give you a right record a show you paid for to watch whenever you want. It gives you the right watch a show you paid for whenever you want.



fair use is a blanket immunity, none of the exclusive rights apply to fair use

timeshift allowed distribution namely the act of borrowing a friends tape to timeshift knight rider episode i missed because the power went out.

Why because PAID for the content thru my cable bill.

If you gave it to someone who didn't buy the cable, then your talking about infringement (on the part of the reciever, not the giver)

it the 4th condition not the third that important.

Personal use is smoke screen because the latter while being personal use is still infringement.

distribution is irrelevent because both examples constitute distribution.


re read the law

it a blanket immunity declaration

if it is fair use, it not copyright infringement period

there is no graduated response (not based on quantity, not based on personal vs non personal, not based on distribution vs non distribution)

a 4 second clip could be infringement if the context of the use was not fair use

likewise a full 60 minute video could be fair use if the context met the conditions.

Gideon, you should have been a lawyer.

I don't hire divorce lawyers to do my copyright work (john steele) i hire actual copyright lawyers.

My expertise is black box analysis, so i make a lot more money than a lawyer would.

The thread title reminds me of this song



As a content creator, I beg to disagree!

I think she got you beat in the content creator catagory

unless of course you have won 30 international awards for your creations.

Comrades , Fellow artists, workers, and freeloading criminal pirate scum.

Communist believe the people who create work should be paid for it.

They believe that the creative workers created by workers belong to them and they have the right to sell it and protect it from illegal copying.

They believe in a Communist society, all will work for the satisfaction work gives and receive goods according to their desires. There will be no money. Then there will be no copyright.

BUT under a Capitalist society Communists and Trade Unions defend creative artists against criminals, and defend their rights to be able to exploit their work.

People who take something for nothing, without giving anything back are criminals just as if they robbed you in the street.