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.

Your idea falls on these hurdles.

1. The assumption that Governments will treat the Internet better than they treat charities. By not using their involvement to control what's published on sites relying on this system.

2. That all the Governments of the world will join the system.

3. People will start to pay. Yes the tax credit won't cover all the payment to the creators. Unless you think Government swill cover the cost 100%

4. That those who pay are covered by the tax system.

5. That any site can just set itself up as a site that will be able to take a donation for the creator and then pass it on.

6. That the donations will cover the cost of the creation and profit of the copyright works.

7. Populations excepting extra taxes to cover the "tax credits: to pay for Government involvement.

This system now pays for the entire industry of creating movies, games, programs, music, porn, etc. So where does the "$200-$300 million" come from before the film is released. If not from the companies investing the money before anything is created. Or do companies opt for one of these processes. Go cap in hand to the Government for the money or risk that the people will pay rather than get it for free?

Paul Schrader says the money raised isn't going into saleries. So are you giving examples of schemes where people work for free? Give examples a lot more movies made by raising $10,000,000 and we can start looking at this idea. For tiny little projects.

I did and it's fine for small projects.
so the system of private funding already exists and no need to invent one and when it becomes better than raising the billions needed for an industry like movies. They can do away with the copyright system of ROI.

No you didn't. You showed a few examples that raised pocket change in the terms of money needed. Go and show how it elevates itself to the level of billions.


So anyone who wants to go this route, can do. Better today as people have a choice. you want to remove choice.

It covers far more than the porn industry, it covers anything the Government decided shouldn't be covered.

So this only works in the US. Fine, what happens in the rest of the world or will the US tax payers cover all the costs.

And people are now free to choose either system, they can get use the copyright system or the donations system. what's your problem.

Are the projects launched under Kickstarter covered by the copyright system? Of course they are.

and that why i specifically said you do both

make buying cc-sa content 100% tax deductible

and balance that lost revenue by taxing non cc-sa content that want to keep the current under the existing copyright protection


The current choice is to give up all the benefits of the government granted monopoly (because your nice)

vs taking the full benefit of government subsidization.

Both sides should be equally subsidized by the government, or neither side should be subsidized by the government.

let the market decide which is better thru equal competition.

http://cryptome.org/2012-info/megaupload/pict80.jpg

ADG

line got deleted because of a double click select and typing over it

Unread Today, 10:29 PM
gideongallery
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.

Look gideongallery...if you need someone to talk to let me know. I think you really, really need help.

It's just a sad, sad situation for you man. Do you have any kind of family to help as a support system for you? Maybe you could talk to them and try to work out whatever mental and/or emotional issues cause you to come to GFY and post...then re-post pro-piracy threads over and over and over.

Look man, don't despair. You're still young and the world has a lot to offer you. You just need to get away from the computer.

From looking at your posts I would say that you have an addiction to the internet, a desperate need for attention, and a nasty masochistic streak (probably born of your severe insecurities)

Dude, there is medication out there. And good doctors and support groups who can help you get through this.

Now keep in mind...you can not download or pirate this help. It's going to require you to interact with actual grown-ups in the real world.

But here's a bright spot for you...your health care is probably free. So that should sooth your worries.

Just please brother...get yourself some help. Come back a year from now when you are straightened out, actually have a job, and are a productive member of society.

You could be the greatest success story of GFY of all times.

If you don't...I'm afraid you're going to continue to spiral down in the world of fantasy and make-believe that you have created as "gideongallery" :(

It's funny Gideongallery. Earlier you worried about the privacy of people hunted for downloading pirated porn. Now you assume the same people will file their porn addictions on tax forms :1orglaugh

I read the theory by Dean Baker. Besides it's 10 years old and based on old prices and technology (hosting and bandwidth is cheap today), the paper is only 8 pages and too simple. Looks like something written by a first year high-school student.
By comparing charity with real business, the hole theoretical model become bogus. It's not going to work in any open economies, and certainly not for adult business.

Few is going to choose the second "privacy option", which is keeping direct payment records for later tax audit. Most people will choose the tax form option, instructing government controlled entities, where to send the money.
Since the first option doesn't need any records, money will often be sent to other creators rather than the ones from which they consumpted. For instance, no one is going to instruct on a tax form to send money to a producer of midget gay bukakke porn. Instead, they will write something else unrelated to porn (or other unrelated themes, because why would anyone share their private interests with the government anyway?).

Besides privacy issues, the biggest bogus here is time. With charity, the concept is mostly to raise money, but real business depends on many other things. Since most will choose the first option of tax deduction, the timeline from consumption to payment can span up to 2 years. This leads to many disadvantages compared to charity:
Humans are humans, no matter the digital technology. Most people can't remember everything they consumed longer time ago, and certainly not details like name of creators.
A business can not wait too long for their money and statistics. Long term uncertainty about their economic situation and market position does not work for business models that need to react fast.

The model also open up for excessive fraud. Copyright protection today is not only granted to the 500,000 suggested, but everyone who publish any of their own creations on internet. Anyone can simply take one picture of the sky and place it "for sale", then anyone can also deduct money given to themselves.
The only way to prevent this kind of fraud, is for the government to evaluate and control content. And that is not "free internet", right?

So I'm in Czech and want a copy of an American film and where do I get the 100% tax deduction from, the US or Czech Government?

So how does it work on an International basis?

Neither side should be subsidized by any Government. If people want to donate to projects, let them and if companies want to invest in projects let them. Leave it exactly as it is and squash pirates with some new and better laws. Like making all those who profit from piracy, liable to the damages.

This is why there will have to be massive Government controls and as he says it doesn't stop piracy. Because companies who can opt for the present system still have to deal with piracy. So build more bureaucracy, tax laws and piracy still remains. Plus the problems of regulating it on an International basis are unsolvable.

So why even bother?

Seems all he wants is for the present system of schemes like Kickstarter, to have the donations tax deductible.

Well the currently system of pay us or face massive government granted penalties has a problem with international sale too.

Piracy enforcement make it really difficult to get those people from foreign countries (since the "need" for sopa)

so the problem your complaining about is balance.

That being said

you would be allowed to take the content for free (under cc-sa conditions) and the copyright holder would have to use the other methodologies to convince you to pay for it.
ie (dan bull method, zoe keating method, louis c.k. method ......)




Granting someone a right to charge monopoly prices is a form of government subsidization

so you just argued to abolish all copyright protection.

of course if you want to keep that subsidy then you need to equally subsidize the cc-sa side of the equation just to be fair.








1. not all kick starter campaigns only those which release the content under cc-sa

2. and not just kick starter but every sale across every network. Buy music that cc-sa from dan bull web site get to write it off your taxes.

idiot the artist still has to declare the money paid as income

so paying yourself doesn't create any tax benefit

you would get 100 tax deduction from your other income to declare an extra 100 dollars of artist income.

net effect is zero.

The so called fraud that would require government control to prevent, can't even exist.

Ergo the need for government control

oh and btw unless your stupid enough to put the charge for your porn content as "giant dildo in your gay ass inc"


the tax deductible purchase would be just as hidden as it it now.

hell if your using crowd funding agencies like kick starter, even more so.


This process would require no more control/regulation then the current dividend tax credit that countries give to spur investment in local stock market.

In fact it could be even simpler.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

gideon...


how much money has your system made? :1orglaugh


you keep shitting left and right about how great a system you have :1orglaugh how much money have you made? :1orglaugh

So your idea doesn't work. I can't get paid using your system, unless they allow tax deductible payments to overseas companies. Nor can I deduct a payment to a foreign country under my tax system.

And replace it with a system that doesn't work. :upsidedow


I can't write it off. I'm not in the US.

And replace it with a system that doesn't work. :upsidedow

Then tax people via the charges added to content companies don't want to give away under your plan. Does the added tax apply to International sales or do we get it cheaper? :upsidedow

Your idea will never ever, in a million years happen. so go think it through a lot more.

You haven't explain away the Government control element. Does the US Government allow tax deductions on a charity to support dependents of suicide bombers? Extreme but you get my drift.

First Amendment doesn't cover your scheme which is about payment. If it does, you don't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting this through. Not that you have a chance any way.

And you've seen this system?

Or is it another of his dreams?

No I have not seen it LOL but he has this 45 step system where he will generate "more traffic than with any other method before" :1orglaugh

But this magical system does not seem to make him any money :1orglaugh and its based on his "give shit away for free model" :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh no surprise there....

93% of all the current tax systems have treaties with the US that would in fact allow you to make the tax deduction if you simple extended 501 c to include cc-sa. (either totally for free or with a couple of hours of paper work)


for that 7 % that isn't covered (your specific example being one) it doesn't work.

Woopptie fucking do.

That still a much better success ratio that trying to get US copyright laws to be enforced in other countries.






1. never said replace simple allow the option or choice

2. with one simple change (extending 501 c status to cc-sa ) you would get a better international support then the current copyright treats provide for the current system.


so y





so your so disperate to try and make the government control your equating open content to terorism

your like the morons who claim that you should have a right to censor free speech commentary "this is a great video" because it illegal to FALSELY yell fire in a crowded theater.

As if loss of a couple bucks of revenue is equal to getting trampled to death

As if loss of a free expression which serves a constructive bases of the community is equal to expression which only results in pure harm (trampled to death, damage to property, loss of paid for service etc etc etc.

When open source becomes declared a terrorist organization you can argue such control is necessary.

you have to cross a very high bar to justify denying this.

sure it does.

Your subsidizing one form of free expression thru the granting of a monopoly power that by definition put limits on people free speech rights.

and your providing no equal compensation for system that by definition does not hinder a persons free speech rights.

The act of denying the tax deduction as a charitable contribution for public good (openly accessible content to build derived work upon ) would represent preferential treatment for a censoring based solution.

That preferential treatment for a censoring based solution is very much a first amendment issue.

As it's never going to happen. Your ideas are pointless.

Now tell us about your system to generate traffic. Does it actually happen?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh good luck with that one

Thievery is a relic of the middle ages and has no place in an advanced society.

-Henry Kissinger