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

.

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


buy it and read it yourself.

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stealing is stealing no matter the devices or conduits used.

lolololololol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

as i have already proven to you before

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

instead of embracing it immediately.

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

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


seriously moron read the article

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

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

His solution would reward quality and punish crap.

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

except as i have pointed out

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

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


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

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

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

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

: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.