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

sony didn't have universals consent when they established the fair use of time shifting

diamond rio didn't have the consent of RIAA they established the fair use of format shifting.

So according to you both those companies are "world class parasite freeloader" even though both those fair uses created economic growth greater then the previous marketplace combined

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

Sony with the home viewing marketplace

diamond rio with the commoditization of solid state disk prices and all the technology that became viable because of that price reduction (cell phones, cameras, mp3 players, computer, pvr .......)

actually someone like me would point out that unlike copyright infringement even your baseball example meets the primary condition that the resource is taken away from someone else.

The act of "stealing" that base means that another player can not occupy that space any more.

By definition another player was most certainly deprived of that space.

1. first of all dont even bother trying to debate me you pice of shit. I am a fucking intellectual giant compared to you you fucking amoeba. Go impale yourself on a fence post cunt.

2. how about a car ? can you do whatever the fuck you want with your car when you buy it ? can I drive my car straight thru your fucking house and lay rubber across your living room ? is that cool idiot ?

3. how about a computer. can you do whatever the fuck you want with a computer dipshit ? can i go plan an assination or robbery on my computer with no consequences ? no of course not you utter imbecile.

I mean just listen to this idiot. your analogies are ridiculous. do brick layers tell you who can enter the house ? i mean wtf is that susposed to mean.

you buy bricks or you make them yourself. you cant just go and take someones bricks and do whatever you want with them unless you BUY them. see that big word there in capitals you dumb fuck. BUUUUUUUYYYYYYY them. If you want to use the fucking bricks or have control of the fucking bricks

you....... wait for it.......


YOU FUCKING BUY THEM


karma will sort you out you stupid fuck. you keep taking and sure enough someone is going to take from you. you can guaranteee it.

So what you're saying is that the rational discussion part of this thread is over?

well...no im sure gideon will continue to rationalise the use of other peoples hard work for your own personal gain.

what was irrational about what I said ?

The dispute over protected works is not without larger implications. Were Baker and his ilk to carry the day, the critics would threaten the very foundation on which the law of intellectual property--indeed all property--rests. They advocate a de facto appropriation of all copyrights in the name of the "public interest." That logic leads inevitably to the socialization of copyright, with creators subject to the tyranny of the majority. Such a regime would effectively destroy any expectation of copyright protection in the work of any public figure. Perversely, the more important a work, the less copyright protection it would deserve.

That many critics are waging their campaign in the name of the First Amendment only compounds their error. In so doing, they trivialize the amendment, transforming it into a burglar's tool wielded by the media. Their theory amounts to opportunism in the name of the "public interest" or the "right to know." All property derives its value from the power to exclude others. The right to free speech does not include the right to take the speech of others for free. Reasonable people may disagree about the scope of copyright protection. But no one can deny that, under current law, a creator?s property is protected.

Now I certainly wish I wrote that but is is a paraphrase of a James Swanson article from January 20, 2002 in support of MLK's family enforcing their property rights.

Gideon makes some good points. This whole concept of consumers being "licensed" content is new and only applies to a small portion of the types of products we "buy", and it isn't entirely clear why. To pick on the earlier examples, you absolutely can take a car and do what you want with it, and not be violating any sort of licensing or copyright, even if you are violating other laws. Ford will have no legal standing to prosecute or persecute you if you drive through someone's house. Nor will Dell if you buy their laptop and use it to commit treason.

Besides that, copyright terms don't correlate with reality. Why should Paul Markham (just to pick on someone we all know) have the rest of his years plus 70 of exclusive copyright assignment on a photo of a girl, but James Ferguson (the guy who invented and patented LCD technology in the early 1970s) lost his exclusivity in the early 1990s? Is it because Paul's contribution is greater to the world than James'? Is it because Paul spent more time creating his work than James did? Maybe Paul spent longer in school to learn his trade? No, with all due respect to Paul, none of those things are true.. Yet Paul can limit the freedom of his consumers, his children will be able to continue to limit those freedoms, and possibly his grandchildren after that.

They can use it anyway they want, but they can't copy it and then distribute it as their own.


Of course not.

But they sure as hell can prevent you from using their blueprints to make replicas of the same.


Huh?


Yeah, whatever.

Keep smoking whatever's in your pipe. It must be damn good shit :1orglaugh

Well, the better question would be what wasn't irrational about what you said.
You may have good points, but you aren't making them effectively.

here let me say it in fewer words for you then

you cant take other peoples shit and do whatever you want with it

that's it as far as I am concerned. the rest of the argument consists of people justifying stealing - almost always people with nothing of their own to be infringed upon

Again, tone down the personal attack and focus on what you're actually trying to say.

Unfortunately, copyright isn't about "you can't take other peoples shit and do whatever you want with it". Copyright is about reproduction and distribution. You don't actually get to control every aspect of what someone can do with something they legally purchased,

That may be true. But porn content that is pirated is NOT legally purchased (that's why it's called "piracy"). I have never sold a license to my content to ANYONE. All I have ever sold to people is a membership to our private area. While they are in our private members area they have interaction with Claudia Marie (a "wall", private messaging, and a weekly LIVE free cam show). They also get to enjoy her pictures and members only videos.

But no...I never sold them a license to the content. And if I ever did sell anyone a license to content then they would indeed be able to do whatever they wanted within the terms of the licensing agreement.

not true current copyright laws are so screwed up you can use them to stop people from running your software on a clone machine

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57.../?tag=mncol;8n



apple now runs on Intel parts it is very easy to match the specs of an apple machine for a fraction of the cost

and yet the courts have validated the right to put a licencing restriction that allows you to force people to buy your highly marked up version of those parts just for the right to run the copyright material.


When standard oil did the same thing with their monopoly the government took away their monopoly.

watching the content requires a licence too.

So you did sell them a licence

The whole point is that copyright law allows you to sell them right to do thing on a piece by piece basis INSTEAD of the normal property rights transfer that exists for everything else.

Seriously for someone who makes their living from copyright material you really don't understand the laws that govern your income stream.

Someone rip this gideonfag's head off and shit down his neck, would ya.

k thankx

So this would repay the millions of dollars invested to write a program or shoot a film?

So the payment is just shifted to another place. Much easier to just charge for B/W.

I'll be honest to say I don't know what CC-Sa is so please explain how this system replaces all the money that legal selling of the property generates.


Yes, the problem is free loaders don't want to pay. what ever system you set up, they want others to pay for their freebies.

Or just take the work and sell it as is.

Ultimately someone has to pay the cost and profits to generate everything you use today. Nothing is free. There are costs of creating anything today, then duplicating it and distributing it. Even pirates need to cover those costs. Who pays the costs in real terms of the billions spent creating something like movies? Will your tax credit system pay for that, will those who now get it for free have to pay in some way?

Total bullshit from the mind of a moron. Buy a car and copy it, then try to sell it. And see what happens. This applies to everything you have around you. Brick manufacturers, car makers, clothing manufacturers, chip makers, etc. Will sue you for "sharing" their creations.

This would make sense if the only stuff the freeloaders wanted to steal was 20 years old. As they will steal things before they come onto the market. You're thinking out of your ass.

If a band record music with no financial investment from anyone but themselves, they are free to distribute it on Mega Upload. When a band takes money from an investor and signs a contract, they are not free to to do as they please with the creative works.

How? Please explain how it replaces the billions spent on programs, films, etc. and better than you have. More detail please.


stupidity at it's max.

Because people wanted it for free. MP3 would of been fine if it had of paid for the license or paid to record the music.

***************************

Ultimately someone has to repay the investments of the companies risking their money. This can be done in the present system or in a new one. We all use goods everyday that cost money to create the design, testing, production of. with tangibles it's easy, with non tangibles it's harder today. That's where the copyright/licensing laws come in.

GG might think there is a better way and personally there has to be. A way that makes the freeloaders pay for the goods they share off the becks of others who pay for them. Tax Mega Upload type sites, Tubes, etc. Make advertisers pay the cost of creating the the creations on the sites they promote from, much like TV is run today. Giving everyone a "Credit" is half the measure, where does the money for the credit come from?

Ultimately someone has to repay the investments of the companies risking their money. A SYSTEM THAT MAKES THE FREE LOADERS PAY WOULD BE GREAT.

it a market driven solution so if the film/program is good yes

if it a craptastic movie like john carter no.



cc-sa is the content equivalent to the GPL.



Simple the price of content that has a fake monopoly will increase because of the sales tax. In a sense the monopoly control is balanced by increase taxes.

That money will flow to content produced under an open licence like CC-SA would become tax deductible when you buy it.






But if the market moves to this system the price would move to marginal cost.
Content will be prefunded by people who are fans
And fans will be able deduct the money they give the artist from their taxes.
Which would ultimately be revenue neutral since artist would pay the taxes from thiis tranfered income.



the monopoly price you charge are a tax by definition because the government grant you the monpoly

the shift to a tax credit system, creates a market driven solution, good content will get more money, bad content will basically die even quicker.




people build classic automobiles from parts every day.

people also rent out cars every day

try doing the same thing with software or content and see how fast you get sued.

Why is gideongallery posting here? I have him on "ignore" so I have no idea what kind of stuff he is saying. But he isn't even IN this business. He has never created ANYTHING himself. And he has never posted even ONE post that wasn't just being a shill for piracy.

What drives a guy to post on a forum that he isn't really a part of and is of no benefit? He must be a very lonely and pathetic small man.

And John Carter lost a ton of money.

Now expand on the new payment idea you have. How and where is the actual cash raised for the credits?



Explains nothing, go into detail.

How and where is the money raised for the CC-SA system?

Will it be pre-funded by the freeloaders who now don't fund it?

The money deducted from taxes, where are the taxes raised to cover this short fall?

So it's funded by the tax payer, it's all becoming clearer now. Great idea, raise taxes to fund billions of dollars worth of creativity so people who download it pay via taxes. How would you raise the taxes. Sales tax on tangible goods, income tax, land taxes, etc? Explain ore we're all getting it now.

Because the license allows them to do it. Copy an Adidas T-Shirt or Ford car in 100s and see what happens.

Still I like your idea of the tax payer funding the whole copyright issue. How would this apply on a World Wide basis? Because it can't just be applied to one country, as we know the Internet is World Wide.

I've been thinking about GG's idea of "tax credits" and realise what a genius idea it is. Instead of creative works which need copyright to protect them which in today's age of the Internet is so hard to do. Having Government tax credit system is so much better and fairer.

Let's say the total World Wide industry of creating copyrighted material is $100 billion. Instead of selling the goods and fighting piracy it's all free online for anyone who wants to download it and any copies that are shared offline fall under the same category.

Governments would issue tax credits that the creators could cash in with their countries Government via the tax system.

Fucking genius and has obvious advantages over the present system which as GG points out, is antiquated and out dated.

Can't see any flaws in this idea at all. :thumbsup

So I was thinking this through some more and it has some obvious benefits for everyone.

The Governments will love it. They can issue a license to approved sites, unlicensed sites will fall outside the system. Giving Governments control of huge swathes of the Internet. The license will not cover the whole tax credit system, so taxes will be raised and paid by everyone whether they use the credits or not. Best not a sales tax as this impacts the poor, far better is a rise in income tax.

Then Microsoft, Universal Studios, Nintendo, Manwin, Sony, etc. No longer have to worry about piracy, they just go to the Government to redeem their credits. companies producing something the politicians decide is wrong, are screwed. No matter they can give it away on street corners as the Internet platforms won't touch it with a barge pole.

Extra tax = more people sitting in Government offices shuffling paper so it mops up some unemployment.

Ultimate control on large, for now free to do as they please, parts of the Internet have to be Government approved. So anyone they don't like is screwed.

Anyone else besides me and GG think this is a brilliant idea?

Most economists who believe in free market situations, freedom and privacy, says that government grant is much better than government control. His 10 year old drafted ideas are the middle-aged ones.

Could Micheal Angelo or Leonardo de Vinci create their works of art without a form of Government control? Same goes for so many great artist through time. Bach, Brahms, Constable.

Muck this idea of people going out and voting with their own money. Government funding in any form is the way forward.

Makes far more sense to have creativity controlled by the method GG is launching.

I'm waiting, like we all are, for his reply in favor of his idea.

Moron the government would have as much control as they have over every other tax deductible charity now

the copyright holder would only lose the right to sue for statutorily damages and jail time.

Seriously how stupid do you have to be to believe that this would create a new government overlord system for content.


t

really
dan bull didn't have a record deal with the any record company
dan bull used to make over 7k a year giving his music away on mega upload

and yet mega upload got shut down because of the copyright monopoly.

Rather then spend the monopoly profits finding and taking down the users who were infringing

the entire site was taken down. and the right of all the independent artist was taken away.


so in response to me pointing out the system is fucked up because copyright holders expect the new system that competes with them to replace all the income that competition bring

you ask how all that income is to be replaced.

Do you even understand the concept of free market competition.




1. both examples the courts ultimately ruled that the actions were fair use, so no licence was need

2. The technologies that were held back created trillions of dollars in jobs and income for the public.

So your entire argument is that it ok to cost the public trillions of dollars because the copyright industry was not paid a license they were not entitled too

Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you.

Seriously all your examples are products of the patronage system
the kings(government) funded the creation of the work with money gotten from the public thru taxes.

The church funded the creation of work, from the tax exempt donations of the petitioner.

you just gave two examples on how it would work

Crowd funding would be the method to accomplish this, and people who support the arts would be allowed to deduct those payments from their taxes.

Patronage would be the domain of the masses instead of the uber rich.

instead of bill gates spending 10 million dollars to by a work of art and donating it to a museum and getting a tax deduction

a million regular people would donate donate 10 to fund the creation of a new movie/song

and more projects like this would be funded
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...vie?ref=search

waste like being forced to recreate the models would be eliminated and the over all cost of producing each new iteration would be geometrically reduced.

What a load of shit.

.

You just confirmed which idea is middle-aged...

Creative Commons is essentially a bullshit organization funded by Google that's working for the abolition of copyright so Google can have free use of shitloads of content with no license fees. It's a way for Google to make more money. If you believe any of that bullshit about public domain and crap, you're simply naive...or an idiot like GG.

Communist bullshit. Obviously he never had to actually produce something for a living.

do you realize if when he started these threads and no one posted in them. It wouldnt be fun and it would probably stop. Tennis only works if you hit the ball back lol

I love how the guys defending a government granted monopoly are arguing that a shift to a more market driven system is "Communist bullshit"


Granting a group of people a monopoly because of a supposed future public good is exactly what is communist ideal.

You guys repeatedly argued that if the government didn't give you copyright protection no one would produce anything ( completely false since tons of content is produced under CC-SA)

If any other industry made that claim free market would dictate that market should die.

gideongallery...just seeing your name and the "ignore" message instead of whatever stupid shit you are writing (because you have NO experience) makes me smile.

But seriously man...why are you here? All you ever post is pro-piracy postings. You've never even ONCE posted a business thread (because you are not in our business) or even just a fun humorous post.

It's like you only come here to argue and fight.

This kind of behavior sure makes it seem like you have serious mental issues.

Your arguments sound ridiculous. Everything you say just screams out that you have no experience in owning anything or running a business.

Just go back to the torrent forums and hang out with your own kind. You'll be much happier (if that's even possible for a masochist like you).

You don't belong here. This is theoretically an INDUSTRY board. You are not in our industry. Matter of fact, best I can tell from reading your posts...you are not in ANY industry at all.

Don't go away mad. Just go away. (copyright: Motley Crue) heh-heh

gideon....

how is your system coming along? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh you said you had a revolutionary system :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh how much money have you made so far?? :1orglaugh

gideon logic: his system makes him exactly 0$ but he will moan like a whore about other people making money with "faulty and outdated" systems like copyright :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

reality <---------------- This is what your broke ass is not in touch with :1orglaugh

I wondered if you were stupid enough to fall into the trap I was clearly laying. So you're basing this on the Government deciding to take no control on where the money is spent. The sites giving away the content will need to redeem the credits. Just making payment to the creators pre supposes those getting it for free will now pay for it or the "Credits" can be redeemed from the Governments. The charity organisations that have the tax deductible donation status, are they approved by the Government or can anyone just set themselves up?

You are stupidly opting for a system that puts people in the lap of the Government.

Yes I gave examples of how it would work, with the patrons controlling the artists. Thank you for seeing the obvious problems.

So people would pay for the goods. Which land do you live in? The rest of us live in the real wold where they wouldn't.

How much would this raise and how do you know a million would pay?

Enough money to fund the billions of dollars spent? Show proof please.

And you know this because?

GG you're too stupid to see the trap I laid for you. The moment the "tax credit" system comes in, you don't realise the Governments will decide who will qualify and therefore have control. They won't allow tax credits on any donations to anyone. You just came up with a great idea for Government to rule what qualifies.

You also dream those who get it for nothing will suddenly start paying for the product. They can pay for it today, they don't and won't.

See my signature to see what I was doing. You are seriously too dumb to breath.

the ability of the copyright holder is currently bound by both the legislature and the courts.
so you have the iexact same problem.

If that not an issue, changing the system to create competing model isn't going to hurt

Remember the option exist to keep the old copyright system

And the attempt to change the laws to deal with the "problem" of piracy always goes against the public interest.

Which means your never going to get a solution unless your willing to give something back.

The tax credit system at least has a market influence in it.






As opposed to the current system where you need to sign a record deal, or get a distribution deal with a studio to get your film out there.

You yourself pointed out those "investors" want to get paid back, they make creative changes to the content to maximize their investment.

The type of patronage is all that changes, from one where the goal is ROI to one where the goal is the artistic expression.

And since it micro partonage (lost of small people combined together) the consequence is that people fund the stuff where the artist vision matches their desire outcome, not the reverse of the artist having to conform to the desires of the 1 or 2 investors.

Expression is better protected by a micro patronage system

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...83/the-canyons

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...-tour?ref=live

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...nture?ref=live

double fine made 3.5 million for a game in a genre that is investors said was dead (point and click adventures).





http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...nture?ref=live
3.5 million for a dead genre of games


you seriously need to look at the number of successful projects on kickstarter there are a lot of people who are paying lots of money for stuff they want to see created.



a kickstarter project just recently broke 10 million dollars

when was the last time you sold 10 million dollars of your content.

The whole concept of crowd funding is that if your a totally unknown person with a good idea

you may get 50k-100k

if your a game developer who is know by 1 person out of very 115,643 people your project raise 3.5 million

If martin Scorsese went crowd funded his next movie, went to every press outlet he had access to how many of his fans would want to see what he creates.

people are willing to plunk down 10-15 to see what he creates after the marketing investors have "fixed" his artistic vision.

of which maybe 2 goes back to the original production company

If only 10% of that audience spends the same amount of money to see the true artistic vision you have made exactly the same amount of money.




done above


because that exactly what happened with open source software 10,000 time and more.
linux is the proof.
The model has been proven



the current charity system doesn't stop deductions for donations to the humane society
even though less then 1% go to the advertised pet shelter support

http://humanewatch.org/

lobby groups and political donations are tax deductible.

The national endowment of the arts has had problems censoring types of art by cutting funding because of first amendment issues.

In addition to all the normal establish charitable handcuffs this tax credit system would be equally protected by the first amendment.

If the government had the free hand you are trying to claim it does, this industry would not be protected by copyright law.

Porn producers would not be entitled to copyright protection.

For someone who producers porn you really don't understand the first amendment at all do you.


except i have shown you people are willing to pay for content
kickstarter proves that

louis c.k. proves that

radio head proves that

dan bull proves that.

zoe keating proves that

and more than 100 other example i have already given.

And as such it doesn't apply to this article. Dean Baker's article wasn't about socializing anything or making everything free either, but that's likely gideons spin on it. Dean Baker's points were related to stimulating the market and putting more money in the artists pockets, as he mentioned, and not about making anything free and without compensation. I think that point is lost on many in this thread.

If anyone takes a look at Dean Baker's past commentary, he's very pro-market (and anti-bailout), etc... and at least is offering some interesting ideas and thinking outside the box.

lol yep, but then it's an interesting topic and could've gone a different way if not for gideongallery being the messenger. Ah well.

you might want to re read the article

the argument is to replace an abusive market distortion with a less abusive one.

One that doesn't provide a billion dollar government granted hand out to multi-billion dollar companies just for existing in an industry.

When I said making anything free, I meant he wasn't suggesting making anything free at the expense of the market or the creator. Otherwise, he wouldn't be posting so much about how to compensate them more.

A few quotes emphasized from the article:

"Of course we need to pay creative workers, but we should find more efficient mechanisms, where a higher percentage of the cost borne by the public ends up in the workers' pockets."

...

"However, we would clearly need much more funding if the flow of money from copyright protection were to be lost. "

...

"We would also need new mechanisms to support the development of software."

...

"Developing the best mechanisms for supporting creative work will take much thought and debate."

Obviously, Dean Baker wasn't suggesting the same thing gideongallery usually does. Dean acknowledges some major important changes would need to happen, and wants creators to be fairly (moreso than now) compensated.

Exactly. But gideongallery is trying to twist things so that it does.

And again, the REAL question is WHY does gideongallery even post here? He brings absolutely nothing to the table.

Just like he does in real life. He owns nothing, creates nothing, and spends his days reading torrent forums and drinking that kool-aid as a "true believer" (translation=Useless freeloading parasite of society with a masochistic streak that compels him to post on GFY)

All i talk about it is how content creators can get paid without abusing copyright laws

dan bull using mega upload to get paid while he gives his content away for free

dan bull using the try my content and if you like it pay me

dan bull using call to action of proving the viabliity of the pirate bay promo


zoe keating with her smaller but higher person ticket prices

double fines kickstarter campaign

amanda palmers kickstarter campaign

open tubes kickstarter campaign

setting up CC-SA as a fully recognized charitible contribution method (ala open hardware)

open hardware

wil weatons uses of CC-NC

johnathan coultrons use of CC-NC

louise CK

kevin smith smod cast
kevin smith red state tour

kevin smith speaking tour

MC hammers record label

MC hammers internet business and promotional tours

Trent Razors promo

Radio head promo

and over 76 additional examples.

gideon, those are examples of the content creators making these choices. You are either consistently misunderstood here, or you are far too often actually condoning piracy regardless of the content creators choice.

This is just so sad:
Unread Today, 05:55 PM
gideongallery
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.

gideongallery...please stop posting on GFY and get yourself some help. Ask your parents if they can get you some of that free Canadian health care and get you to a mental health clinic.

There is something really, really wrong with a person who keeps posting over and over on a forum that he is not wanted on and never posts anything relevant to business (because he isn't in our business).

I'm really worried for you. All message board shenanigans aside...you are probably a couple of steps away from putting a bullet in your own head in your current mental state. Please go get help before it's too late for you. :(

look at the first example on the list

dan bull made money by giving away his stuff using mega upload

but because some other users used the exact same service to infringe

rather then go after those individuals

Taking the choice away from dan bull.

Why do you believe pointing out how unfair that is condoning piracy.