A TV show and a movie are two different things. Often TV shows are developed and tested by the same networks that air them. They can create one cheap pilot episode and see how it does. If it does well then they can go ahead and make an entire season of shows.

I suppose they could guess how much to pay for a movie, but you know that would break down really fast. As soon as there was a hit movie that made a lot of money any movie like that that followed would want a lot more money for licensing and since there was no way of knowing if that new movie was going to be a hit or a flop, it would require the studios to take a much larger risk and pay the higher price to get it. Plus, if it is a rated R movie they now also have the disadvantage of competing against the unedited version of it. Hell, it's fair use after all right? We want access shifting. I want to watch The Hangover, but I can't get to the theater and I don't want to rent the DVD or pay for a pay-per-view so I will watch it on NBC. What? NBC is editing and making it rated PG? I don't want that. I want it how I want it when I want it and since that is not available I will just download it for free.







I would assume the fact that home computers went from being something only a few people had to something that was very commonplace in people's homes had a lot to do with the price reductions of storage devices. Everything has dropped in price, not just hard drives.




You make a decent point here. However, this still doesn't prove that releasing your movie in every medium on the day it comes out will help improve your earnings. As a matter of fact the one movie that tried to release on DVD, pay-per-view and theater at the same time was a flop.









Still, 60/trillion per year? Doubtful. It will create some jobs, but we can't know how many. You are pulling numbers out your ass.




[/QUOTE]do you want to produce a single piece of proof that this is happening.
just one documented record that proves that capital investment in movie production has decreased.

movie budgets have grown year after year, actors salaries have grown
profits are up, more movies are being release[/QUOTE]

According to Box Office Mojo http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/ Here are some numbers

2008- 607 movies released.
2009 - 521 movies released
2010 - on pace for around 450, but there might be closer to 500 with the big influx of summer movies.

I might just be a world class moron and all, but that seems like fewer movies are being made. Add in the fact that Paramount just started a new division where they will produce 10 movies per year with a budget of 100K each. They are searching for diamonds in the rough and trying to reduce costs.

Another good example would be some newspapers. There are newspapers going out of business all the time. People are starting to get their news online. In your world I would get online and check the headlines out on CNN.com or whatever news site I like, but then I would "upgrade" to the premium experience and pay my 35 cents for a local newspaper so I can read more local news, op/ed, columns etc., but that isn't happening. Just the opposite is happening. There is enough new for free online now that many people have turned away from the paper all together. It turns out that free is good enough, no need to actually pay for something.



Please post some proof that the VCR created 5 jobs for every job that was "suspected" to have been lost.








In reality if your DVD player dies you throw it out and buy a new one. Only if it is something that is more expensive like a TV to you actually bother to get it fixed.

I never started this whole thing as an argument over who created more jobs. My point has always been that content producers should be allowed to control the distribution of their content and you disagree with that. You think that if they choose to distribute it in any way they should be forced to make it available to everyone in every medium at the same time and if not then you should be allowed to download it at will. We will never agree on this so really there is no use in continuing this argument.

On one other note I also think you are way off in thinking that eventually "fair use" laws will change in the way you want them. Almost all of the verdicts in cases and judgments made go against torrents, downloading and downloaders. Major torrent sites like Pirate Bay and Isohunt are hanging on by a string. If for no other reason, I say this because the big companies that make all this content have our lawmakers in their pockets. I think their will be law changes, but I think they will go just the opposite way you think they will.

It's true that some poor kid in China downloading illegal is not a loss, but the moment he start sharing with others, some of which otherwise would have paid if it was not available for free, then it IS a loss.

What you want is a dream world of absolute copyrights, which isn't possible.

I understand we have 'thief's' that enter our sites, rip our member areas, and post them on forums or whatever. While that is stealing in my book too, legally we can't do shit about it. Technically, it's not illegal.

The moment we publish porn online, unprotected with no lic agreement to members - legally, they can download it, burn it to a DVD and give it to a friend - legally.

No different than downloading it, and uploading it to a tube, torrent, etc. It's legal for them to do this, it's legal for you to do it as well.

The issue with Copyright is people 'think' it's absolute.. when it was never designed to be that way.

That's assuming they found you first and wanted to buy, before the friend shared the piracy.

Normally what happens is, the person has never heard of you, got the porn through piracy, and know nows who you are.

Then it's a gain..

"Normally" ... "Then it's a gain" .. can you prove that?

The romantic idea that piracy is "free" marketing is normally bullshit when put into practice. The same moderators using that argument is the same that filter it out as spam. That's hypocracy. You know as well as me that all piracy channels would be totally dominated by marketing if the moderators truly stood by that argument.
Besides that, it's still a matter of license. The copyright holder has the legal right and final word, no matter what kind of arguments are presented.

The Napster case proves you wrong.

The music and movie business are making money because they smacked Napster
in the ass and made youtube get serious too.

The Napster case was years ago buddy. Years ago. About a decade ago, so
now you are pointing to music industry profits from this year. :helpme

The issue is not "absolute copyright"; the issue is the failure of people to understand
fair use. Plain and simple, if the material is not used for education, critical speech,
news reporting, commentary then it's going to be a violation. Using a small portion
of the material is not a way to get around the above mentioned criteria.

A porn review site that shows a short clip from a pay site along with a review is
fair use. A tube with no review, full length movies, and not even a reference to
the pay site is not fair use.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster

The only reason illegal porn tubes still exist is because no one wants to
appear to be supporting the porn industry.

No senator is going to give a speech about the lost profits of porn due to piracy and
that action must be taken to protect the porn industry.

by that arguement the gas abuse should be legal too since your not forced to use premium you could wait until the end of the month to buy your regular gas, hell that should be more legal since you can stock pile the gas to cover the embargo of the first 2 weeks.



by that arguement vcr should never have been legalized either
it was just about waiting until the re run happening

by that arguement format shifting should not be allowed, since you would have to wait until sony decided to release mp3 version of their content


one thing your ignoring is that my ability to discuss the movie (free speech) is being limited by your justification. according to you censoring me because i don't like the medium

your desperately trying to justify a monopoly abuse by saying it not that bad, well i can do the same thing with all the other monopoly abuses guess what it doesn't make them any more legitimate.

that a bullshit arguement and you know it
the vcr was considered a industry killer jack V claimed it was the boston strangler
they finally decided to adapt after congress refused block the vcr.

second there are thousands of movies that are released direct to dvd.

did i ever say that no

all i am talking about is removing the monopoly level pricing from medium selection

if the medium has rules that dictate version changes then that is legitimate

downloading a movie as you are justifying would still be a copyright infringement because that would represent a violation of that first sale principle.

it would not be covered by fair use of access shifting.

access shifting is just designed to stop the abuse of medium selection period

stop trying to artificially extending to make a straw man arguement to argue against.





i didn't say hard drive i said solid state disk.
your talking about the commidization of hard ware as the supply increases. The problem with that is solid state disk was used exclusively in very high end server to speed up the delivery of information. Solid state disk was never used in every day computers

which means it would never been commodinized by volume increase

instead of seeing the price drops that they saw (because of commercialization in a consumer device) they would have seen price drop that another technology which was limited to high end equipment (fiber optic network cards)

assuming those price drop level you would still be paying $4 /mb today (maybe if your luck $3)

that means an ipod would cost $640,000 (480,000)


but that because the perculation effect hasn't replaced the forced medium selection effect in that case

that the point of what i am saying.

will some movies fail under that senerio yes

should i care no

using a monopoly to prop up an inferior offering should never be considered valid in a free market enterprise system.








but you missed the point again
it doesn't matter how many jobs are created
because physical goods would be replacing digital goods
and physical goods have LOCAL job creation potential
And physiical goods require more people to support

such a shift will always create more jobs

eliminate monopoly abuses that are holding back technological advancements will alway result in a net benefit period.



so your proof is a number that deliberately ignore all the movies released under the new medium

2009 had 315 movies release thru the internet (bit torrent etc)

add those back in and movies increased.

i find it funny that you acknowledge the medium competition in your very next statement that you deliberately ignored to make your bogus point.


already did when i posted the transcript to the congressional hearing where jack v claimed that the vcr was the boston strangler

google it







and some how you believe that new dvd is magically created without someone putting it together
delivering it
stocking the shelf


but wasn't this the whole point of the copyright monopoly to protect the insentive to create media.

the whole point of fair use was to prevent that monopoly from being abused to cause more harm then benefit.

There is absolute no point in having fair use at all if you don't care about the economic impact of the abuse of that monopoly.

btw i never said they should be forced to provide to every medium
i have said they should have a right to prevent it from any medium
if you don't want to support a medium then someone else should have a right to step up under very specific limitations (no DIRECT income generation)

it a sad day when your entire arguement for a free market is to have politicans deliberately break the free market
promote an inferior offering over a superior one because they have been bought by companies.

your talking about a fundamental perversion of capitalism.

i find it funny that a supposedly pro business person is trying to argue that position.

i was listening to this expose on radiohead, and it mentioned the in rainbows album

apparently it was still downloaded illegally from torrents etc, even tho it was a free download

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh fucking clown.... some of the opinions on this forum ... :uhoh

Yeah, because I can give you an EXCLUSIVE license to distribute my content for free
on your domain. You may pay me $500k for this license and now some torrent is
giving out for free what you paid $500k to give away for free to attract surfers.

If I buy exclusive content for my free site that doesn't mean someone can
download it from my site and then build another free site with it.
They need to pay the content producer for that right and since the content is
exclusive the content provider will not give a new license and thus protects my
web site exclusivity and the value of his/her content.

Both Industries were making money with Napster around and newsgroups and irc were 1000x larger than Napster at the time. As well, piracy today is far larger than it was when Napster was around.

Napster which controlled the access to the files, logged it, etc... wasn't removing them on notice and was profiting from it too, without sharing the profits through the distro method. It was a direct copyright violation. Because Napster set the 'what not to do standard' everyone today, knows what not to do.

With Tubes... if you send them a notice, and they don't take it down you can sue them. Re: Topbucks - But if the tube takes them down, it's NOT a Copyright violation and you can't sue them, for that.

They wouldn't be supporting the porn industry, they would be fighting it from being so easily viewable from children, no support needed at all.

They can't do that because 1) You have the same Copyright laws that the Music/Movie Industry has and uses. 2) Freedom of speech wins.

Radio head is a great example... give it away for free, it's pirated for them increasing exposure, allowing them to get more fans, sell more songs and make more money than ever before.

Correct, if someone downloaded your site and made a new one, that would be Copyright infringement. That's not what tubes are doing though... 1) they don't have your entire site 2) they aren't downloading it from you. 3) surfers are allowed to download the content, and they can legally upload it too. You're not selling multi use lic to the members, they can download, burn, upload it to any place they like. Just like music and movies...

Unless your content is restricted, it is illegal to hack or bypass DRM, it's criminal. If anyone put 500k of content online and didn't protect it, then they're stupid.. why not build a mega house in the ghetto and leave the doors open?

how did you come to the conclusion it was "illegally" download when radiohead explictly said it was ok to share.

Here is my final word on this.

First, There is no damage being done to people or industries if a person has to wait a few months to see a movie on DVD or pay-per-view. This does not stifle technology. You can still build all the high end A/V gear you want because there is a ton of existing content out there and more growing every day. I would even argue that there is more money made by having to wait. If a movie does well at the boxoffice it will sell more copies of the DVD and the more copies of the DVD that get sold the more money is spent on shipping, packaging, manufacturing, buying it at your local store etc.

I have never said that they should stop technology. I have always said that I think the artists those who create their own content should have control over how it is distributed. If I make a movie it is mine. I own it. I paid to create it and I should have the right to sell it as I wish.

If gas companies decided to do as you say only sell premium during the first week of the month, people would be out in the streets protesting and it wouldn't take long before the companies caved to their demands and started selling all the different grades of gas again. But here is the difference. Gas is something that most people need to get by in their day to day life. Movies are not. One is something that is vital to the average person being able to provide for themselves. The other is not. One is simply art. One is entertainment. If people protested in the streets demanding that movies be released in all formats the day they are released you might actually see some studios cave in and do that. But people don't riot in the streets because most of them don't care. Most of them understand that if they don't want to pay to see it in the theater they can wait a few months and rent it on DVD or pay-per-view. They don't see it as some life or death struggle like you do.

The movie industry isn't using a monopoly to prop up and sell an inferior product. They are simply marketing their product in a way that they think will allow them to best maximize their profits and you - a guy who goes off about the free market - want the government to step in and force them to do it your way. If the market really demanded access shifting and every movie available in every format the day it was released, they would have it. But most people don't care. Most people have better things to do than sit around and figure out how to get something for free off the internet and use loopholes in age old laws to justify it.

Access shifting is not effecting technological development. We have 3D TV's now, we are starting to see the RGBY TV's now. Companies can create all the A/V gear they want and sell it like made and create this 60 trillion/year industry you have swimming in your head right now. Nobody is stopping them. The fact that a movie comes out this weekend at the theater, but not for another 3 months on DVD is not holding them back. Like everything else these advances are consumer driven. Until the price becomes reasonable not a whole lot of people will buy it. As the price drops it will become more and more commonplace, but the fact that you have to wait for a movie on DVD is not restricting the development of this technology.

The only way forced access shifting as you envision it will ever happen in the US is if our lawmakers create a law forcing these companies to do this or, if someone gets in trouble for downloading and challenges the law and wins their case then that case survives all the appeals and sets a legal precedent. Neither of those is going to be happening any time soon.

More likely is that the movie companies will slowly start to release more product online test these markets out to see if they can make as much money as the traditional system. If they try it and it works, you might see more of it voluntarily, but it isn't going to happen any time soon.

that a bullshit arguement, because unless the content is filmed in that new format it will never get traction

as long as copyright holders are allowed to extend monopoly thru medium selection they can make the same amount of profit without investing in the new technology.

think about it logically would you spend an extra 100k on equipment which films content in 6 spectrum color if no theaters were capable of showing in 6 spectrum color

hell no.

would a theater spend the pennies they have left upgrading the theaters to to support 6 spectrum color if they know people are going to be forced to choose between not watching it at all or watching it in their medium only

hell no

that stifling only exists because the copyright monopoly was extended.

except it still smaller then the number of jobs created for hard good technological advance
people don't repair 10 dvd
but they do repair 999 vcr (original price of the vcr)

you can't seperate the two, the consequence of letting the artist control the medium and not just the distribution has the automatic effect of stopping the technology.

your right to monopolistically control the DISTRIBUTION was only given to you because you agreed to respect fair use.

this bullshit i should have a right to sell it as i wish is an attempt to go back on that agreement

if you wish the monopolisitic control then you ahve to agree to the fair use period

you have no right to take the benefit and refuse to accept the responsiblity.

the two go hand in hand.

respecting access shifting is selling it as you wish because you traded away that respect for the monopolistic control of distribution.


what do you think using the pirate bay to access shift the movie is
the the protest within the context of the medium

i don't want the laws changed you do
i think they are fine the way they are
i want the courts to rule under the current laws
the courts not the government would establish access shifting
they would do so based on the logical arguement i have made, that distribution income is still 100% protected even if right to sue people who extend the distribution to unsupported mediums was eliminated.

the market driven "forcing" them to support all mediums fairly and equally would NOT hurt the copyright monopoly protected profits

it would simply eliminate the profits generated by ABUSING the monopoly.


if that were true they would be no need to sue any of the torrent sites or downloaders
problem solved leave them alone.
because their such a tiny small minority they are not going to matter

the problem you have is that the numbers are there
they are revolting against the abuse, and rather then recognize it and adapt to it
the copyright holders are suing to stop it.


you know this statement is total bullshit.

every technological advancement goes thru three cycles early adopters/ market leaders / mass consumer

the problem is the price point of the early adopters
if the early adopters come in at 100k mark then their adoption drops the price quickly to something that the market leaders will accept
in every case the technology perculated down quickly if you could get a high price point early adopters

compare the difference between how quickly dolby surround sound entered the home market
vs 3d entering the home market and you can see the adverse effect of cutting out the high point early adopters out of the technological cycle.

read up a bit on real 3d
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereoscopic
instead of the crappy you got to wear glass bullshit we are currently experiencing

Lenticular lens was invented in the 1980
and we still don't have movies filmed in this medium
we still don't have theaters with projection equipement capable of show this stuff.

if the rate of adoption was as fast as surround sound (one that had the theaters acting as the early adopters)

we would already have this in our homes.




if the adoption rate of technology was as fast as surround sound
if the price drop from the theater level cost to the home cost
we should have autostereoscopy tv in our homes NOW

we don't

actually mostly likely is the movie industry will try and change the laws to make it illegal even if it would have been ruled to be fair use under the current laws.

That the point i am making i don't want the laws changes. I want access shifting to have a fair fighting chance to exist.

let the courts decide don't bribe politicians to change the laws to corrupt the free market system, it fine the way it is.

btw if this was the burden need to establish a new fair use right
riots in the streets are the only way to justify repealing the abuse that fair use address none of the fair use we currently enjoy would exist
and none of the billion of dollar of new income would be enjoyed by the copyright holders today either

no one rioted in the streets because tv stations demanded that people schedule their lives around the airing of the tv show and it re runs (timeshifting and the vcr)

no one rioted in the streets because the record companies said you had to lugg around dozens of your favorite cd and swap them to hear your favorite songs (formating shifting and the diamond rio mp3 player)

both of those actions were an abuse, an artifical extension of the content distribution monopoly to the medium selection.

all the money, choice and new technology that was born out of that removal of that abuse is the historical proof that if this medium selection abuse is also removed (access shifting) the same thing will happen again.

in fact if you take the new technologies that indirectly spawned from format shifting , because of a commodization of pricing for solid state disks, there are potentially billions if not trillions of dollars of new technology that we can't even think of (ie from the commodization of camera components like lens and optical sensors)

I have said before and will say it again. I don't want them to stop the development of new technology. They can develop all the technology they want. That shouldn't mean that I am forced to distribute my product via that technology if I don't want to. Whether a movie is released in all mediums the day of its theatrical release or not has no bearing on the development of technology.

The way I feel is simple. If I make a movie. I paid for it. It is mine and I own it. I should be allowed to distribute it as I see fit. If I don't want to release it in a certain medium, I should be allowed that luxury. If I don't want a particular country or group of people to have access to it, I should be allowed to restrict access to them. If someone tries to take it without my permission, I should have the right to pursue them legally for that. I see it just like owning a car. I paid for the car. It is my car. I get to decide who drives the car and under what terms that car is driven. Just because I let one person drive the car doesn't mean I have to let everyone.

If you think this violates your fair use rights, I don't care. If this upsets you, I don't care. It is my movie. If I don't want you to watch it, that is just too bad for you.

I see movies and music as art as well as a commodity and those who create that art should be allowed to distribute it as they see fit, not as you see fit.

gideon, do you have a problem with copyright monopoly or medium monopoly? which one is more problematic in your view?

i personally demand full blown win7 on ipad, they have no fricking right to have medium monopoly on OS running on their product. those bastards lol

neither
monopolies are not bad it when you attempt to use them create or extend that monopoly power to another market.

you have a right to the copyright monopoly, it when you abuse it to try and create a secondary monopoly (ie medium) that i have a problem with

your example is only part way there, apple shouldn't be forced to install windows on ipad

however if modified a micro kernal version of linux (or microsoft did with windows) and they flashed the eprom of an ipad with that new os. trying to stop that from happening would be a problem in my mind.

apple got paid for the hardware, they got paid for the software, if i want to "break" my ipad as long as i am willing to live with the consequences ( ie no support) i dam well should have the right.

companies are able to create their own markets, so when does one looses right to monopoly on that market? and should they loose market monopoly at all?

it not dead stop vs full speed ahead problem

it like if you turned the parking break on in a car, you could still gun the engine and go forward.

you would just move very very slowly

your trying to argue that just because you can move forward the parking break being on doesn't have any effect whatsoever

That bull shit. and you know it.


your mixing property rights with copyright

if you want property rights then so do i

i have no problem with that

buying a video from you would be the same as buying a car

i could build a business renting out that property (avis)
i could tear it apart and sell the pieces (body shops)
if i wanted to tear it apart, duplicate all the parts put it back together and produce a new version (reverse engineering/ competitive intelligence) and build and sell my own version of your video.

and you would have no right to stop me

if that what you want great let get rid of copyright al together have the content covered by standard property right laws

if you sell me a car you don't have a right to tell me what i can do with that car after i bought you got paid

if i want to rent it out i can
if i want to ship it to a foreign country i can
if i want to give it away i can

if you want your movie to be treated like a commodity that actually an arguement to get rid of copyright.

the problem it your trying to argue you should have property right for control copyright give you.

a control that was explictly given to you under the condition you respect my fair use rights.

you want the benefit without meeting your responsiblity of the agreement

why the fuck do you believe that is fair.


btw it not me but the independent court that would have to determine if it fair use or not.

just because you would not win that arguement since you are basically making claims that if applied to established fair uses would have made them illegal too (see your they are not rioting in the streets so it must be ok arguement above)

copyright is not a market create monopoly it is a government granted one

you own the exclusive right to the commercial distribution of the content (while the fair use distribution must be free market)


you have a right to maximize your profits within that monopoly, it only bad when you try and extend it to another market (ie medium)

being a monopoly is not a crime, there are dozens of good monopolies (petro canada for example)


in this example, if the mediums (tv/theater/dvd/payperview/etc) competed all the liciencing fees would still go back to the copyright holder (content monopoly)

all the money would be theirs.
You are not costing them their monoply
it still exists

the only thing that disappears is the extra money that comes from destroying the free market competition between the mediums.

That what kane is complaining about losing. I am just pointing out that it has nothing to do with content monopoly revenue that the copyright holder is entitled too.

It outside the scope of that exclusive right, and therefore should be outside the scope to sue for when attempting to stop.

if you truely saw it like owning a car you would agree with me.
the copyright holder is not the buyer of the car they are the creator of the car

they are ford the movie viewers are the car owners.

your trying to argue that ford should have a right to force you to drive the car only on their roads

the right to force you to never share, it or give people rides in your car

ford doesn't have that right just because they created the car

why the fuck do you believe you should have that right because the work is content instead of something physical.

oh wait the goverment gave you that special right in exchange for you agreeing to respect fair use

If I want to put the parking break on my car and drive is slowly down the road that should be up to me to do. You are free to do with your car as you wish. I'm not stopping you. I'm not telling you what to do, I just want the right to do what I feel is best for me and not be forced to do things I might not want to do.



I never said anything about selling you a car and telling you what you could do with it. If I sell you a car I don't care if you fuck it in the muffler. But my car is mine and I should be allowed to dictate how it is used.

Fair use, as you see it, means that if I decide not to release my movie in every possible format in every possible market then you should be allowed to download it and view it without paying since I didn't provide you with a way to conveniently view it. I disagree with that. I think fair use does as it says and it allows some people to use small parts of it for news, study, parody etc, but it doesn't mean that I should be forced to provide everyone with a my product when they want it in whatever format they want it or risk losing money to them just taking it.

It is no different than if you made a movie then sold the rights to that movie to me. That happens all the time. People make a movie and pay for it out of their pocket, they then sell it to a bigger studio or distributor and it is now theirs to do with as they please.

Ford makes a car. They then sell it to me. Once I pay for it is mine to do with as I please.

so by your logic i should have a right to do whatever i want with the dvd i bought

if i want to rip it and post it on the torrent i should be allowed to do that since i paid for it mine i should be able to do with it as i please.


you don't buy the right to drive a car, you buy the car

if you want property rights to dictate the transaction there are no such thing as licience rights to consider.

if you want licience rights to be the bases of the transaction, then you have a problem because your control over liciencing right are given to you by the government in exchange for your agreement to respect fair use.

pick one

you can't have your cake and eat it too

when you buy a dvd you agree use it for your personal use and not to copy for distribution by the same respect of fair use

but that my arguement

i never said the copyright holder had be be forced to deliver it on every medium
i said they shouldn't have the right to prevent anyone who want to deliver on a medium they don't want to support





sure you are

we are talking about STOPPING people from putting it on the torrents.

fair use doesn't force you do anything with your content
fair use simply takes away your right to stop people from doing what they want with the content they bought.

copyright allows you to make the sale for the content in every medium
if you decide not to make the sale in a medium then there is no sale to be lost

so yes that is correct


your not forced to provide it in all formats

Ok. Forget the car as an example.

Bottom line. If I own the rights to a movie I should get to decide how it is distributed. That is it. That is all I am saying. If my movie isn't playing near you and you want to see it, tough. Just because it isn't available right then doesn't mean it won't be latter and you are not entitled to see it just because it is playing somewhere on some screen.

If you want to use that logic then when a movie gets a limited start release and in only playing in one theater in LA and NY for a few weeks before rolling out to the rest of the nation/world you should be able to download it because it is playing in a theater, you want to see it and it isn't near you. That isn't how it works. That isn't how it should work. Again, it is my movie, I should get to to decide how it is distributed and if I decide that you don't get access to it and you want to take it I should have the ability to come after you legally for trying to take what is yours.

You can spin all the bullshit in the world and site all the bullshit numbers about technology and economies and fair use, I don't care. This is how I feel. If you make a movie and want to distribute it a different way, so be it, but I shouldn't be forced into anything I don't want to do just because you the viewer has decided you are entitled to it.

Yes you are. You are saying if I don't release it in all formats that those who prefer to see it in that format can now just take it for free because it isn't a "lost sale." I want to be allowed to distribute it at my leisure and if that means it will be a couple of years before I release a theatrical movie on DVD, so be it. Just because your taking it without paying doesn't damage me to day doesn't mean it won't down the road.







Fair use does not allow you to distribute someone else work. I know, you will argue that you are backing it up to the cloud, that is horseshit and you know it. You are distributing it to other people and you don't have that right.



See my answer above. Just because I choose not to sell it in a particular format today, doesn't mean I won't a few years from now.

actually it when it pressed

the copyright holder get to define the rights when they release the content


your not buying the content, your buying the licience to use the content.

it a special type of sales transaction created by the exclusive right monopoly of the copyright act. an exclusive right which is supposed to only be limited to the revenue generated from the distribution of the content.

An exclusive right that is granted to you in exchange for recognizing whatever the court determine to be fair use. The purpose of fair use is to prevent copyright holder from abusing that monopoly to take money that is beyond the scope of the distribution of the content.


if you want to sell your content as property go ahead, but that means there are no liciencing restrictions once they buy it they can do anything they want with it.

physical ownership gives you all rights.

you want to define the transaction by the liciencing rights, something that does not exist in property sales, that only exists because of an agreement that defines and demands a respect for fair use. Then you have to honor fair use.

i agree with kane, exclusive copyright holder should determine when and how his content be distributed and if he doesn't want it on some mediums at present moment then his content should not be available for free in those mediums.

you just declared a choice in that statement

your not being forced
you must distribute it on all format for you to have a copyright rights
all your content must be public domain unless you distribute it in all formats

that would be an example of being forced to distribute it in all formats

all we are talking about is not giving you the right to stop fair market competition for mediums you have abandoned.

if you don't then someone else can step in.

they even have to obey special rules that prevent them from directly profiting from the support of that medium.

that more than enough competitive advantage for the mediums you want to support because for most mediums the cost would make it infeasible to support for free.


so deliver re runs 3 months from now rather then let people tape the show and watch it when they want

guess what that fair use damaged the tv stations they lost the revenue from that second running of ads.

you may want that right, but you gave that up when you agreed to the special "licieincing" business model granted by the copyright act.





not under the current law, the supreme court said so






again see my above point.

but if you were right
that control would have prevented the vcr since the copyright holder would have a right to reject the medium of the tape cassette

and the mp3 because music companies would have had the right to reject the medium of solid state disk.


what you want and what you agreed to under the law are two different things.

Movie theft sucks.

mp3 does not equal specific film or music

but solid state disk is a different medium then cd
and if copyright law allowed you to dictate the valid medium as you argued

that right would have invalidated format shifting too.


the point is your arguement is wrong, no matter how much you want it to be right

those old cases prove it.

i don't see how your examples of fair use of mediums relate to fair use of intellectual property. above mentioned examples of owning and using a car can relate to tangible mediums such as vcr and ssd. but since all above agreed that car is a bad example in comparing with copyright monopoly, i don't get why are you comparing real tangible property use in argument about exclusive copyrights of intellectual property

This just isn't correct. Just because a movie company doesn't want their movie sold on VHS tapes doesn't mean others cannot choose to sell it that way. They are rejecting the option of having their media available on that medium, they are not rejecting the medium.

For MP3 you can play them on many other mediums than a solid state disk. Again, you can choose to not sell you music on MP3, that doesn't mean you are telling people to not make a solid state disk.