only if your a moron so stupid you don't realize that free tv has to obey FCC regulations about what they can and can't broadcast.

People who understand that bound contraint realize there are differences that can't broadcast on free tv.


gest the question s are you a moron.

your complaining about a sense of entitlement when your the one trying to defend monopoly profits.

that rich


the senerio your trying to defend is nike being allowed to charge $500 because they have the exclusive right to sell running shoes, because you can run in army boots and that adequate competition.


there is no payless in your senerio.

Thor is rated PG13 so there is likely nothing in it that they can't show on TV. Sure, my example won't work for a movie that is rated R (well it would depend on what it was rated R for), but even if it were rated R there is no reason that a channel like FX or USA on cable might not buy it and show it unedited (so long as the reason for the rating was pretty light) and since I get that channel I can just timeshift the commercial free version of it from a torrent and enjoy it without paying a dime.

Essentially by making fair use what you want it to be and forcing companies to release their movie in every format on the day of its release you have made it so that PPV, premium cable like HBO and Showtime, DVD rentals and DVD sales now all have to compete against a free version of he movie without commercials so long as the movie is shown somewhere for free unedited. That doesn't sound like a very fair market to me. That sounds like you and your pirate buddies trying to figure out how to get something for free.

Actually that is not what he said at all. This is your problem. You read something and it goes through your bullshit filter so when you actually comprehend it you have no idea what is being said.

He said, and I quote: "If Nike charged $500 for their shoes, there would still be people that pay that amount. The ones that can't afford don't have the right to own them. There's always Payless shoes."

This means that if Nike charged $500 for their shoes, there would likely still be some people who would buy them. However, those who couldn't afford them would not have the right to own them and they would have to buy a different shoe from a store like Payless Shoes.

He says nothing about Nike being the only one who gets to sell running shoes. He simply said Nike as a brand deciding to charge $500 per pair, there would be other running shoes out there, they just wouldn't be Nike.

Oh, and for the record. Maybe someone who actually writes a sentence that says, "gest the question s are you a moron." Probably shouldn't be calling people morons. What does this sentence even say?

first of all fcc rules are so severe that you can't even say fuck, BSG had to create a word frack to get by those rules (form of self censorship)

seriously how stupid do you have to be to not see the solution in your own statement

in a world where mediums compete there would be no insentive to do that type of self censorship you no longer have to struggle to avoid the dreaded R rating because the difference would actually increase the demand for your dvd/pvr/movie sales.

nope were talking about killing a system that is designed to promote self censorship to avoid the dreaded R rating and replacing it with one that promotes full cultural expression.

only a world class morn to stupid to see the solution withing his own statement would think otherwise.

except he made that statement to backup your bullshit statment that CSI miami represeted true and valid cmpetition to THOR.

which was equal to nikeing being the sole supplier of running shoes and saying that they still have competition because you can run in army boots.

hell it more valid that your bullshit CSI = thor arguement because there are 100k of people in the army every single day doing that. CSI is a totally and completely different demographic.

what he is arguing for is exactly what i am talking about

the content being available on every medium and being sold based on true market driven competitive advantages.

you do realize that exactly the arguement the article is making right

that congress shouldn't blindly accept the copyright cartels recomendations (like chanign the laws to may you liablle based solely on IP address) because there personal interest is to protect there monopoly income.


btw you might want to look up the senate hearings against the VCR JV made the exact same arguement.

your so busy trying to defend the monopoly profits you can't even see the solutions to your made up problem already exist

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg

You like to argue that since torrents (or file sharing sites or whatever) may contain at least some non-infringing material that the service must be viewed as legal. Only if ALL of the content is infringing should the site be considered contributory to infringement.

How is it then that in your logic an action from a significant minority (basically a handful) of copyright holders becomes the de facto standard for all of this so-called "copyright industry."

There are FAR fewer copyright holders engaged in such practices as IP-hunting than those that are. There are FAR fewer copyright holders complaining about legitimate fair use rights than those that are (especially since appropriate commentary of a work almost always INCREASES sales -- copyright holders know this).

When was the last time you saw all copyright holders complain about public libraries buying just a single copy of a book, then letting any just old slob read it for free? You've never seen that, because that's a ridiculous scenario, yet if one idiot publisher argues against libraries, you use it as a "proof" of illegal copyright cartels.

no i didn't i said based on how the technology works since no one is sharing a complete working copy at all, the actions of the seeder and the tracker are covered by fair use (cacheing/backup/recovery)

and that the actions of the downloader could be either fair use (timeshifting/backup/recovery/access shifting) or not

they are legal because the way the technology works their actions are already covered by existing fair use.


the decision to go after the infringing downloaders should not violate the privacy rights of the fair use downloaders.



because of baldface misrepresentations like the one you just did above.

If you can't even be trusted to accurately represent what i said , then you are part of the "minority" i am decrying

when you add all of those people it no longer a "minority".

you just did exactly what i am complaining about you.

by putting a bound contraint about "appropriate" commentary of work

you not supposed to decide what is appropriate commentary, you gave up that right when you claimed your exclusive right

all commentary weather is cost you sales or makes you sales is "appropriate".



so because your not arguing against an established fair use that would be insane to argue against i should allow you to censor a free speech in area just established by technlogical innovation.

the fact is if i were to invite people over to my house, play my taped copy of orquestra and tell my friends you have to check that out this is the coolest dance routine i have ever seen. that would be protected commentary

the only difference between doing that and posting the video on youtube is that i can now tell the world MY OPINION.

both actions are equally legitimate, and denying me the second means your denying me the technological advancement for self expression that the tubes provide.

That just wrong

torrent freak is to copyright what foxnews is to politics. lying sacks of shit pushing an agenda.

right and it not like MPAA isn't pushing their agenda

the point of balance is that you need to take the time to look at the other side

and when you have people like kane making the point of the analogy with there own analogy

and the trying to argue the analogy is wrong because they can't make any analogy.

your "side" doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The problem is that your "solution" actually causes the producer of the content to limit its access. I understand you can't say fuck on broadcast TV, but if Thor is PG13 (which it is) there will be no uses of the word fuck in it.

Here is the problem with your solution.

You are pissed because the theater is limiting access to their product but no releasing it in all formats. Your brilliant idea is to force them to release in all formats at the same time. However, to force competition you want them to "auction" off the rights to the highest bidder. So say ACT 3 theaters wins the rights to show Thor in the theater. Good for them. The problem is there is no ACT 3 theater within about 30 miles of where I live. There is a Regal Cinemas theater about 5 minutes away, but I will have to drive a long ways if I want to watch it in the theaters. This limits the availability in the theater and will cost the producers money.

So for me it isn't a big deal because I would rather watch it on PPV. The problem is Comcast won the PPV rights and I don't have Comcast. I don't even have the ability to get Comcast. Where I live I have cable through Wave Broadband. I also have the option of one of the dish companies or TV through DSL from the phone company which is just a licensed version of Direct TV. In the US there are lots of areas where cable companies have the sole right to operate in that area. That is the monopoly you should be pissed about. only about 20% of households in the US have Comcast. So again, your solution limits access to the product. The idea was that fair use would provide the product to all customers in the format they desired and clearly that isn't happening. Your soultion was that I switch to Comcast. Even if I could why would I? What happens next week when a movie I want to see on PPV is sold exclusively to Dish Network, do I then switch to that service?


So your suggestion is that movies that would have held back a little bit so that they were PG 13 will now push themselves to be Rated R so that they they can force broadcast networks to edit them and compete with the theaters?

That is idiocy at its finest. You do realize that most rated R movies don't do as well at the box office as PG 13? They make the movies PG 13 or below so that they can reach a wider audience. They aren't going to force themselves to limit access to an audience in the theater just so they can force an edit on TV. Believe it or not there are some artists who can tell a complete story without cursing, nudity, sex or violence. They shouldn't be forced to add those elements to their story just so they can be edited out by the networks.

Your argument is getting more and more delusional as you rant on.

I used CSI Miami as an example because it was what was in my head.

Here I will give you a better example. After your fair use solution keeps me from seeing Thor in the format I want or at a price I can justify for myself I will be stuck having to watch Spider-Man.

Happy now. They are comparable. Thor is a Marvel superhero, so is Spidey. Just like if I can't afford a Nike shoe I can go buy a different brand running shoe. You are the one that took the leap that Nike should be the only one allowed to sell running shoes. Not me.

you do realize that how it works now

two big chains famous players and cinimax odion control virtually all the theaters in the marketplace. Theaters for the most part belong to one of those two chains, sure there are a few "independent" theaters in small towns (so small they only have one theater)

but even tiny cities like london have both chains supported.

look at the paper some times the movie doesn't appear on both chains screens it one or the other.

So your arguement against is total bs

even if you were right

30 miles is a whole 30 minute drive, big fucking deal.

if the 30 minute drive was to much you have other medium to choose from
mediums your completely denied now.



again the current system would just change in time, it would be the ppv liciencing chains that would bid for the rights, and would sublicience

exactly the same type of eclusivity that currently exist

the only difference is that this medium would compete that it


do you even know how the rating system works.
A movie is complete and sent to the MPAA for rating.

movies are usually shot to a level above the PG 13 ratng and then go thru a pain in the ass editing process to get down to the PG 13 version

which is a hell of a lot worse for the independent film maker.



parallel rating release would be way better




really how much you want to bet that when thor comes out on DVD they will have a directors cut version of the movie.

the concept of having a directors cut version as a way to sell the movie again to people who already saw it in the theaters is now an established principle


that principle would simply move back in time with ppv and theaters carrying the "director cut version"

while tv would carry the PG-13 version.

This is what i am talking about your so desperate to defend the abuse you actually ignore the existing system that already in place which solves your made up problem.

I live in one of those small towns. As does a very large segment of the population.

It wasn't that long ago you were arguing that your dad was too sick to even get to the theater and now you are telling me a 30 minute drive is nothing. What if I don't have a car? My local theater is a few blocks away, 30 miles is a long way.

All I am doing here is exactly what you do. Someone makes a point with you and your reply is IF this happened and IF this were the case. It is always IF IF IF IF until you find a loophole.

I'm just doing what the pirates do which is pick every little thing apart until you find some little loophole that lets you get it for free.





But in the meantime you are going to force movie producers to potentially deny large chunks of their potential audience their product. Movie studios are so anal about making every dollar they can that they stress out over a few theaters somewhere having a power outage that costs them some ticket sales. How will they react when you and your fair use solution forces them sell their PPV movie to one provider thus denying it to 70% of the country?




For starters not every movie is shot to a rating that is above PG 13 then edited back. Many of them shoot towards PG 13 and may have to make some tweaks. I won't deny that the ratings system is fucked. It is different for everyone. When the South Park guys make a movie they are treated differently by the ratings board than someone like Spielberg is.

You can be sure that Toy Story 3 was not shot towards an R and edited down. Because of this there would be no reason for a broadcast network to edit it unless it was for time. If they don't edit for time, I download a commercial free version and have the exact same product others are charging for.






First off a "directors cut" or "unrated" version doesn't mean it is rated R when the original was PG 13. In the case of unrated it simply means they made a change to it and didn't resubmit to the ratings board. They then market it as if it it somehow dirtier or something more intense then the original. Same with the directors cut, he might change some stuff, but it doesn't mean it is now an R rated movie. Charlies Angels: Full Throttle the theatrical release was rated PG 13 and was 105 minutes long. The unrated version was 106 minutes long. So they added 1 minute of footage, it could be anything, and then they don't submit it for rating. it doesn't mean the unrated version is now rated R.

Sure they can then go back and market it again on PPV, but are you not against this? Don't you want it to be out at the same time? This is just the movie studio denying access to the content in an effort to stretch out their monopoly and control distribution. They should be forced to also release any future planned editions including directors cuts or unrated versions all on the same day that the movie is released. They should not be allowed to see if the movie performs well at the box office and then decide if it is worth the effort and money to release an unrated or directors cut version.

idiot you just made my point for me

under your system the 30 minute drive means you have no ability to see the movie at all

under mine you could use any of the other mediums that would be allowed to compete

no matter how much you want to twist it my solution solves the problem your complaining aobut more than yours.


my solution doesn't have to be perfect it just have to better than yours at providing full access.



you created a city of butt fuck no where where there was only one theater, one video store with no copies one tv station, one cable company no ability to recieve any packages from the outside world and no stores selling dvd

but full internet access to the thepiratebay


your so desperate to justify charging $3-4 more by limiting choice that you actually fake a town that can't exist in the real world to justify your "lets you get it for free" bullshit.




i just googled your system is exactly like the candian, roger and bell are the cable providers and the PPV channels are licienced based on the station carrier (HBO, SHOWCASE, etc)

the ondemand version are actualy carried by the channel

So the exclusivity currently exist now



Nothing would change no one who has access now would be denied access in fact as you pointed people who would normally be denied access because of theater only system could use another medium


HBOonDemand bought the exclusive PPV rights to THOR every cable carrier that sublicienced HBO would grant access, you simply would have to call up and add the channel to your monthly bill.




very few movies are shot perfectly with no editing whatsoever

your arguement is based on an impossible situation where the only thing that will be a bases of editing is rating.

you know that senerio is just as unlikely as butt fuck nowhere existing in the real world

so i am dealing with that insanely impossible situation with my point.




even toy story 3 had an extended version

we were talking about rating because you prequalifed no editing for time consideration

we are talking about the impossible unlikely situation where the only reason for editing was rating.

no your switching back to non rating editing

guess what the current situation is the solution again, instead of differentiating on rating they differentiate on time

the commercial free (HBO version) would be the extended version because of time based editing (not having to fill an X 1/2 hour slots)

again your making up a problem to justify ripping off the customer.




MORON it doesn't have to be R rated

it just has to be different enough that people will want to buy it even if they can timeshift comercial free version.

but here the point if the difference isn't enough to legitimately convice people to buy (your charlies angel example)

your actually trying to justify setting up a system that will deliberately screw people over by selling this crappy "unrated" version at a later time.

the system that allows competition to prevent that type of screw job is better for consumers.

this is the bullshit premise to justify your position

braodcast networks will air every single movie unedited so that there will be no need to buy a ppv or dvd because you will be able to download the exact same thing for free from the torrents

supposedly after access shifting comes into existance all the movie studio execs who realized they could sell dvd to people who already saw the movie in the theater by releasing an extended version will forget this fact and decide not to release such an extended version on dvd or ppv

even though broadcast tv has to fit into X 1/2 blocks while Premium channels/PPV can have any beginning and end times they will always cut their movies to fit in X 1/2 hour blocks.

my god are you still at it ........

Would you believe my generation of Family invented the Wheel?

You do realize that your perfect little solution here is socialism right? You are so hellbent on breaking up the monopoly that the movie theaters have that you are now want to force an entire industry to do things how you see fit and damn the consequences. Of course you don't care about their potential lost earnings, because it isn't your money.

BTW, I didn't create the little town I have used as an example, I live in it. The town I live in has 1 movie theater and we just got that about a year ago. Before that there were ZERO movie theaters in town. We used to have both Blockbuster and Hollywood video, but about a year ago Hollywood Video went out of business so now there is just blockbuster. If I want want cable TV I can get it through Wave Broadband which is owned by Charter Communications. I can also get TV from my local phone company via DSL, but it is just branded Direct TV or I can get the satellite providers. Not all of these offer the same on demand services.

If the movie was made available at every theater, not just the theaters that win your little auction I would only have to travel about 8 blocks to see it, not 30 miles.

Here is the funny thing. The town that is next to mine is smaller and has zero movie theaters. The only TV options are Wave or satellite and they don't have any video stores. There are large segments of the population in this country that live in places exactly like this.

Mostly I am fucking with you because I am fascinated by your mind. You have gone to extreme lengths coming up with ideas that are crazy and that you clearly will never implement and likely only use as ways to justify your downloading of other people's content.

But I ask you this: Where does it stop? HBO and Showtime make original series. I should not be forced to buy that service to see those shows. They are doing exactly as the movie theaters are and they are limiting access to the shows in order to force me to pay for their service. I demand that the also licenses those shows to all mediums on the day that they air. The same with other shows like Breaking Bad on FX. I shouldn't have to buy an extended cable package to get that channel in order to see that show. They are limiting access to their content and trying to strong-arm me into buying more cable service than I want in order to see their show. They should be forced to also broadcast those shows in all mediums. The same must be done with movies that are made and go directly to DVD. I should not be forced to buy or rent a movie on DVD to see it. That is forcing me into a medium I am nor comfortable with. I want all of those movies released in all formats as well.

Worst of all offenders are sports teams. Many pro sports teams have a blackout policy that says if a certain number of tickets are not sold to the game they will not air the game on TV. That is dead wrong! they should not be allowed force me to pay to watch the game, they should release the game on free TV no matter what because otherwise they are limiting access to their content and using that limited access to force me to buy the ticket. The same can be said with band playing live. they are holding a monopoly over thier live shows and forcing me to buy a ticket to it. That is wrong, the show should be available in all formats live as it happens.

If we are going to go socialist and force companies to do what you want, lets' go all the way and get the job done right the first time.

I'm assuming you mean broadcast networks WON'T air every single movie unedited. This is another prime case of the guy who can't actually form a sentence calling other people morons.

This, again, makes no sense. Suddenly studio execs are just going to stop trying to sell extended versions of DVDs? Wrong. Likely they will continue as they are which is that they sell the normal version, then 6 months later they sell the unrated version and 6 months after that the sell the directors cut.

Or they could simply air the movie unedited and add in the exact number of commercials needed to reach the next 1/2 block.

so denying a monopoly abuse as bad as demanding that you want reruns at the time of broadcasting

or as bad as demanding that you demanding you buy 7 songs you don't want just to get the 3 you do

is socialism

i notice you still haven't explained why studios are $3-4 of extra profits is legitimate when the $3 extra (in tv case ) or the $7 (in CD case) wasn't enough to justify denying the fair use.

You might want to lookup the word socialism breaking down a monopoly is by definition a capatilist ideal.


except in the case of butt fuck nowhere you added some other impossible conditions

you skipped right by netflix mailing you the movie

and you skipped right by buying the movie on dvd from amazon

to jump straight to getting it for free from the pirate bay.


all so you could fabricate the claim my arguement is just an attempt to justify taking the content for free.

there is no way to getting the right to download it legally for free in the real world because even backwater town isn't so tiny it cut off from the US postal service.

That the point

you have to make up an impossible situation to get the content for free legally

what exactly about the statement

do you not understand

do you think marvel studio sends reps to every single hick town to negotiate their movies showing one theater at a time

Hell NO

they assign the right EXCLUSIVELY to a middle man like lion's gate

lions gate (this would be the exclusive buyer i am talking about)
goes to the theater chains (famous players) and sell them first run rights exclusively
your backwater theater would get the movie rights to broadcast by going to the chain that has the exclusive first run rights and agreeing to pay the fee (usually 100% of ticket sales for the first week, 75% second week and 50% for all remaiing weeks).

the only difference between what happening now and what i am talking about is that

first run won't be for all mediums , just theaters.
the parallel distribution channels like DVD/PPV/Broadcast TV would be "allowed" to compete for the viewers.







since i am not talking about changing the current liciencing in any way but time delay between releases

if this was accurate your actually arguing for a complete ban against such towns.

while i am arguing for enough choice that there is at least a potential to see the content.

i get that your arguements are insanely stupid, your ignoring the US postal services existance to jump right by netflix and amazon to claim a free download which doesn't exist will exist.


No one is that stupid.


except your not forcing them to do anything

your just talking away the special control granted by one act for any medium they CHOOSE delberately exclude from competition.

That a consequence of an abuse

that no different that saying you will go to jail if you kill someone

no one is forcing you to stop killing, if you want to kill someone you just choose to accept the consequence if you do.

no you moron for your statement to be true broadcast networks will have to air every single movie unedited.

If even one movie is aired edited your bullshit there is no reason to by the dvd or PPV arguement completely falls apart.


exactly your bullshit arguement about no one needing to buy DVD or PPV because they can get commercial free timeshifted copy would never happen

because the execs who are currently selling extended versions of DVD will simply sell those versions in simultaniously

The PPV version will be the unedited directors cut version too

So there WILL be a reason to buy the DVD or PPV if those difference justify the extra cost.



so to justify your bullshit arguement the current FCC laws that govern the ratio between commercials and content would suddenly disappear.


or are you claiming that the FCC will suddenly become stupid about inforcing those laws.

Again it is pointless for this to go on. Clearly I feel the movie companies distributing movies the way they do now is not a monopoly and even if it were it is only for a limited time because within about 3-4 months of a movies release it starts to roll out into different formats and at different price levels. I see competition for these movies in theater between other movies and even other theaters. The theater in my little butt fuck nowhere town charges $8 for a ticket, while another theater that is about 15 miles away and is a little bigger, has nicer chairs and bigger screens charges $11 per ticket. Right there is competition.

You, on the other hand, want to force companies to do things your way. You want to dictate to them how they sell their product regardless of the potential financial loss or burden it puts on them. Regardless of whether a movie only being in theaters is or is not a monopoly, a government telling an industry how it will operate and controlling how it will sell its product is socialism. It is the definition of socialism. Your idea is so far fetched and so far out there that it isn't possible to pull of on a logistical scale. The bottom like is that you are a just another member of what I call Generation Me. You want it your way on your terms and if you don't get it you want people to be forced to give it to you that way. It is sad really.

and you just proved the point of the article

fair use is the bound contraint on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder

and you want copyright holder to define those bound contraints

imagine if any other monopoly was allowed to dictate Weather they were or were not a monopoly

Do you think microsoft would ever say we are a monopoly of course not

if you have any doubts look up bill gates testimony to congress.

bullshit i do care about the potential loss, my arguement is based on balance and previous precedent

copyright holders said the VCR was infringing because it would cost them the revenue they would have gotten from people watching reruns.

copyright holders said the diamond rio was infringing because it would cost them the revenue they got from selling people 7 songs they didn't want to get the 3 on the album they did want.


both of those "lost revenue" streams were income generated by using copyright exclusive right to prevent alternative MEDIUMS from competing (beta max tapes vs re runs & mp3 vs CD)

which is exactly what i pointed the extra $3-4, your defending, is coming from (theaters VS DVD VS Broadcast TV VS PPV VS Streaming VS Torrents)

i have asked you over 53 times now to explain what is so different about the revenue that justifies handicapping of competitive mediums this time when it was never accepted in those previous cases

you keep dodging the question.

It is very simple. If the VCR was never allowed to exist there would NEVER be movies on tape. If the MP3 was never allowed to exist there would NEVER be digital music. With a movie it will be out in all kinds of different formats. You aren't denied it forever you just have to wait for it.

-When a drug company invents a new drug they get the sole rights to be the distributor for that drug for a number of years. The idea is that since they took all the risks to develop it, they can use that time to recoup their cost.

-Sports teams limit access to their product all the time. With the NFL if the game isn't sold out they black it out in the local market to force people to buy a ticket. MMA and Boxing have PPV events all the time where the only two ways to see the event is to buy a ticket and see it live or pay $50 to watch the broadcast on PPV

-The music industry does a version of this when they release a single or two and use it to build up interest in an album then release the full album.

-Netflix is doing a version of this right now. Netflix doesn't get many new releases for around 30-90 days after they are released. they cut a deal with the movie studios that they would wait to get the new releases in exchange for getting more of their library available on streaming.

- Many clothing companies do this. They have exclusive deals with certain retail stores that force you to shop at certain stores in order to buy that particular brand of clothes.

- Premium cable does this. HBO and Showtime develop their own shows like Dexter and True Blood. The only place you can see them (at first) is on those channels so they force you to buy those channels in order to watch them. Later they make them available on DVD.

-Going back to the music industry we are seeing more and more exclusive deals with stores. When Taylor Swift put out her last album she made a deluxe version that had a couple of extra songs, but it was only available at Target. AC/DC struck a deal that Walmart would be the only store that carried their latest album.

What I am getting at is that that there is a difference between EXCLUSIVE and MONOPOLY. The movie companies are simply releasing their material in a manner that makes it exclusive at first so that they have the best possible chance to recoup their investment. They are not denying anyone it, they are just telling them that if they don't want to pay the exclusive price, they will have to wait a few months.

If that doesn't answer this question you have supposedly asked me 53, times then I need you to calm down and actually write sentences that look something like the English language and explain to me what it is that you want want me to tell you.

except those revenue streams didn't come out until years after the copyright holders lost the rights to the revenue streams i am talking about.


it took 14 years of fighting with the technology for the movie industry to realize that they could put their shit on the cassettes and sell it to people.

It took more than 20 years for thr music industry to create the digital music industry.


You can't use the fact that the copyright industry was totally and utterly wrong about potential revenue generating capacity of the fair use to justify DENYING the next fair use.

and



http://supreme.justia.com/us/464/417/case.html

you might want to actually READ the betamax case before claiming that their is a difference between

ok i will starting your answer for you so it just complete the sentance then

in 1984 the supreme court rejected "fear that time-shifting will reduce audiences for telecast reruns" (and the appropriate revenue generating from liciencing those reruns) in part because "strict enforcement of this monopoly would inhibit the very "Progress of Science and useful Arts" " and copyright exclusive rights were never designed to allow the copyright holder to select one technology over another.


The same arguement basic arguement was upheld again this time denying the selection of one Format over another.


The extra $3-4 dollars of revenue generated from selecting one LOCATION over another should however be considered legitimate because

......

You just made my point for me.

First, I won't argue fair use with you. We clearly have two different opinions on what that is so that is a moot point.

As you posted: "The granting of such exclusive rights, under the proper terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly."

I can make the argument that by granting the movie industry a temporary monopoly (which BTW I still don't believe it is) it is actually benefiting the public. How? Simple. Many movies will play the festival circuit before getting a wide release. During this time many people have a chance to see it and write about it. It builds a word of mouth and puts more information about the movie out there for the general public. So when the movie is finally released wide people have enough information about it that they can make an educated decision as to whether or not they want to see it. Secondly, If the movie is a hit at the theater it will get a bigger DVD release so the chances are the DVD will be on sale the first week of its release and save people money. Add in that the video stores like blockbuster will buy more copies of it so the odds of you being able to rent it are greater.

Sure, these are small benefits, but they are benefits. If the producers was forced to release the movie in all formats at the same time they may choose to charge twice as much for the DVD upon release. Blockbuster may have no idea that a particular movie is going to be a hit and under order so renting it could be difficult. Not to mention the reality that some movies rely on the festival circuit to build an audience because they are low budget independent movies. Without being able to take advantage of that marketing tool the movie would hit its release as a complete unknown and likely fail.

We aren't talking about monopolies that last 5 years, 10years, forever. We are talking about 16 weeks. 16 weeks is about the average time it takes for a movie to shift from the theater to DVD. Your life isn't going to be destroyed if you have to wait a few months to get your DVD.

And as I posted above once you have brought the socialist hand of justice down on the movie industry and forced them to distribute to your model are you then going to clean up those other industries I mentioned?

The extra $3-4 dollars of revenue generated from selecting one LOCATION over another should however be considered legitimate because the two have nothing to do with each other. Is a location the same as technology or format? No. The movie industry is not saying that you cannot have a DVD or a download or PPV or a free broadcast of the movie. They are just saying you need to wait for it to trickle down to that. The above case with timeshifting the studios wanted to fully deny people that ability. That isn't the case here. They just want some time to have exclusive rights to their distribute the movie to premium customers first so that they have the best possible chance of making their money back.

Think of it like boarding a plane. The airline lets the first class customers on and off the plane first. Why? Because they paid for that privilege. You aren't being denied the plane ride, but since you chose to spend a lot less on a cheaper seat, you have to wait a few minutes to get on and off the plane. The same goes for a movie. If you want to pay $3-$4 instead of $8-$12 you have to wait for a little while. at the bakery you don't get to pay the fresh bread at the same price as the day old.

really then why the fuck did the movie industry say

if you want to timeshift (wait 14 weeks) and watch the reruns

it was all about selecting one TECHNOLOGY for timeshifting over another
in that case reruns over Betama


so forcing people to wait 14 weeks is wrong but making them wait 16 is right

how stupid do you have to be to believe that bullshit.

the highest court in the land explictly says that it a monopoly and you don't believe

and you wonder why people argue against you having input into re writing the laws.

it however does share one unique characteristic with both techology and format
all three are NOT content.

copyright grants exclusive right to control the distribution of content
the courts recognized that the act does not give them the right to use that exclusive right to grant someone else/themselves an exclusive right to something other than content (technology/format/location).

if the fact that location is not technology was enough to justify your position then the fact that format was not technology would have won in the diamond rio case.

Kane,

Stop feeding this troll please. It's useless.

Peace,
BV

Format is technology. A hard drive that spins is a technology. A solid state hard drive is a different technology. Me standing in my house is a location. Me standing in my neighbor's house is a location. I didn't need to develop anything new in order to stand in my neighbor's house. I simply had to walk over there. They are the same thing, just in two different places.

Look, clearly we are two different mindsets so there is no use in going on with this so I will just submit. You win, you are right. Strip all copyright holders of all their rights. Force them to release on your schedule how you see fit any way you want it to happen. Shut down and destroy the film festival circuit. Force independent filmmakers to compete on the same level as the the major studios and see them get crushed.

The old saying is be careful what you wish for you just may get it.

If you get your way and independent film gets crushed and every movie and TV show is so full of blatant product placements that they become impossible to watch or songs become keyword stuffed or most movies made a simply junk to appease the masses of sheep that will eat what they are fed and we see the death of anything with any intellect because it no longer is profitable to make, don't say I didn't warn you.

And if you are correct and this new fair use creates billions in new revenue and millions of new jobs I will admit that I was wrong and stupid for thinking the way I do. But I have a feeling that day won't come.

i love how you deliberately ignored the fact that there were TWO questions that congress must consider

so you can only answer the first
let look at that

first of the buzz meter on imdb tracking the jump in interest based on title for new movies this week

Thor 100%
Something Borrowed 129%
Jumping the Broom 321%
The Beaver 199%
Last Night 18%
Passion Play -7%


only jumping the broom had a significant increase and that because it had no press before (unlike thor which has had a steady stream for months) and the press about one of the actresses in the movie

your talking about 1/5 or 20% at best

that jump is not that impressive as the fact

http://torrentfreak.com/hobo-with-a-...top-10-110416/

hobo with a shot gun jumped 252 to 9 after appearing on the pirate bay 13th most downloaded .

natually and organically without a media push normal internet chatter created by sharing the content created the "buzz" your solely attributing to exclusivity.

the all medium method would benefit such movies because convenience sales (it easier to just pay $3 for the PPV then risk getting a virus from the pirate bay)


which means there are probably just as many movies that would benefit from the all access method as the limited access method.

but for the sake of arguement lets say that your side benefits twice as much (which is a stretch given how little jumping jumped up the list vs hobo)

your down 12.5% of the movies will see this benefit.

it doesn't matter the duration it matters the damage

lets ignore the 30 trillion a year lost to new technological advancement even though legally to ignore it you would have to prove that it doesn't exits (since even potential loss is damage based on the probability of the event happening).

let just talk about the damage you aknowledged

first of all there the extra revenue your defending ($3-4 on an $8 ticket)

that like 50% higher cost for EVERYONE in the public. So 100% of the public is paying twice as much money as they would if the "temporary monopoly" didn't exist

Then there are all those small towns with internet access but only one theater. When a movie doesn't show in that town those people are completely denied to participate in the free speach buzz you were talking about.

then they are people who are handicapped and therefore can't go to the theaters (like my dad)

lastly as you pointed some movies that suck would be able profit from good opening weekend before the news got out how crappy there movies were. Of cin exvhourse if you look at it from the publics point of view, that represents people getting ripped off by piece of crap movie because of the "temporary monopoly" your defending


so exchange for a small benefit that my only help 12.5% of the movies released (and probably way less since movie execs would stupidly do the same thing when the market has changed)

your damage is 100% price increase, censorship of free speach, completely denial to handicapped people, getting away with scamming people out of their money)