but your going back to rights again
liciencing and rights only exist because of the copyright act
there are two parts to that act the exclusive right that give you that control

and the fair use right you traded away (your payment) for those exclusive rights

what you want is to get the benefit without paying the cost (sort of funny since your actually trying given your theft stance)



stop saying forced , no one is forcing you to support a medium, fair use allows someone else to support that medium if you don't want to.

fair use is the barter you pay to get the exclusive rights.

lots of people would like to get the benefits of an agreement without paying the cost

doesn't mean they should have a right to do that.

Do you not see that by saying this you are defacto forcing me to distribute in all mediums? You are simply saying that if I don't put my movie out in the medium of your choice you will simply take it or that someone else will distribute it on the medium of your choice. That is kind of like saying to someone, you can give me the $5 I want, or I will just take it from you.

Maybe this is my plan. I release a movie into the theater. 1 year later I sell it on DVD. 1 year after that I sell it to pay cable. 1 year after that I sell it to free TV.

But since I didn't release it on DVD at the same time I put it in the theater you are saying that you should have the right to then download it because you can't get to the theater and since it isn't for sale in your area you aren't damaging me. But you don't know that I will be selling it on DVD, it is just going to take time.

So unless I release it how you want it and when you want it you will just take it. Growing up we called that a shakedown.



I have always said that when something has aired on TV I have no problem with people recording it or downloading it.







So the supreme court has said that if you buy my DVD you have the right to distribute it? Please show me that ruling.

but if the tv stations got to decide weather their show could exist on tape cassettes then the vcr would have been illegal until they found a way to block it from recording the unauthorized broadcast.

The whole point of timeshifting is that it COVERED unauthorized broadcasts

that was the section of the ruling.

your arguement it total bullshit,
your trying to say that access shifting should not exist for reasons that timeshifting already ruled was invalid.

Dude, debating with you is like trying swat a hornets nest. You can't stay on topic and just fire bullshit until you wear the person out.

I have said time and again that people should be allowed to record TV shows and that I don't care if they download them.

TV is a different thing from movies. TV is broadcast for free to anyone with an antenna. You can't do something like that and still control what people do with it. A movie is a different thing. When I put a movie into the theater I can control how it is viewed, by whom it is viewed, where and when it is viewed and even how much people pay to view it.

If I then choose to not release the movie on a VHS tape that should not give someone else the rights to sell my movie on a VHS tape and it should not give someone the right to just take my movie for free.

there is only one reason you would stagger the release
and that to make more money
if you made exactly the same money you would not do that, because your profits would be lower, you would have to advertise 4 times.

all that extra profit comes from granting a monopoly to the medium

you don't have a right to grant new monopolies
in fact using one monopoly to create another is suppose to be sherman anti trust violation

that the point
that all i am trying to prevent


funny

you want monopoly profits from extending distribution monopoly to medium and your arguing the attempt to stop that sherman anti trust abuse is a shakedown




but it the same exact law that makes it legal

you can't have it both ways
if the copyright holder has a right to control the medium then both should be illegal

if the copyright holder doesn't have the right to control the medium that both should be legal

that the point.






you said i was wrong and that transmission thru the cloud was distribution

your exact words

timeshifting in a cloud said public transmission was not public distribution.
it doesn't have to say it have a right to distribute (and i never said it did)
it says it not distribution.

again

but it the same exact law that makes it legal

you can't have it both ways
if the copyright holder has a right to control the medium then both should be illegal

if the copyright holder doesn't have the right to control the medium that both should be legal

that the point.

Let's just agree to disagree and put this to an end.

Yes, I feel that I should be allowed a monopoly on content I create and own outright. If I want 10 monopolies so that I can stagger distribution over 10 years and make a bunch of money with my content, I should have them. It is my content, I should be allowed to do with it as I please and if you try to take it for free against my wishes or distribute it against my wishes I should be allowed to pursue legal action against.

That is how I feel. All the double talk, legal loopholes and mumbo-jumbo speak/changing of the topic isn't going to change my mind.

just as long as you are willing to suffer when someone turns the issue against you

if i licience the solution to you at 73 times the cost as everyone else because you have to pay the fee for every medium.

you should thankfully pay that fee without complaint at all.

gideon, if i release a movie on dvd which says - license: you cannot back it up on other mediums, you cannot copy it to other mediums, you cannot share it, you cannot transmit it over air, sea, land and internet. you are only permitted to watch it once. you read this licence before deciding whether you want to buy it or not. question, is my license against the law?

Fair enough.

there is no law against just making a bogus licience so not against the law

invalid -yes.

your trying to term of service away fair use

you only have the exclusive right because you agree to honor fair use, you can't turn around and use those exclusive rights to take away the bartered payment.

there wouldn't be any point in having fair use defined at all if the copyright holders rights allowed them to be TOS away.

cool what company do you work for
i need to know who get charged 73 times as much unless they fire you

What? Who gets charged 73 times as much for what? Your sentence doesn't make any sense.

if you work for a company
if they choose to employee
if they choose to buy from you

they must pay 73 times as much as for my instructions as everyone else

they can either pay that cost or fire you/cut their business deals with you.

I am just asking for that company name.

Well, I work for myself.

Since I'm not buying your product it really makes no difference how much you charge for it.

I won't be firing myself any time soon.

If you decide to charge 73 times as much for your product as everyone else you will be out of business pretty quickly.

your arguement was

even though the country has laws against using one monopoly to create another

that even though ford doesn't have a right to create monopolies forcing you to use their highways, their gas

you should have a right to make as many monopolies as you want, to maximize your profit no matter how much those extra profits damage someone else.

and i said as long as that level of abuse was ok with you.

the point of that type of abuse is that i should have a right to make ever liciencee choose between dealing with you (a monopoly right around you) and paying 73 times as much and not dealing with you and paying a fair and normal price.

so if your an affiliate, before they pay you a dime the must collect 73 times the value of the contract and give it to me from your traffic.

And of course you will pay it without complaining at all.

the point is fair use would prevent me from making such a licience

to specifically create a licience that excluded demanded they take the money they would have paid you for your legitimate services and tell them to just give it to me would violate every principle of fairness (unless you explictly gave me permisson)

you are argueing that movie creator should have a right to take all the money that a torrent site has made from building up the traffic, selling the advertising etc and just take it (fair use be dammed) just because their movie was on the site.

i am basically saying give me the permission to do the same thing to you, for all the people who licience my stuff.

in your mind that perfectly ok, since i should have a right to create as many monopolies (even one that surround only you) to maximize my profit.

i just recognize that copyright doesn't grant me that right, so i have to get you to agree to suffer that abuse volentarily.

As per normal you have constructed sentences here that make no sense so I have no idea what you are talking about.

No, I am arguing that I should be able to sue for damage and force them to remove my movie from their site. They don't have the right to distribute it and that is what they are doing.

Because the reality of the world and market doesn't create these violent spikes in the price that you imagine so you need to make them up in order to make a point. Fair use exists and many people/companies use it in the way it was intended to be used. Companies like local news and shows like The Daily Shoe used fair use in a fair and accurate way. Companies that want to take my entire movie and allow people to download it in torrent from their website are not.

Below I will answer your questions once again responding to each one exactly as you have asked them.

Here, again, are the answers to your questions:
if you work for a company
- I work for myself.

if they choose to employee
- I assume you mean if they choose to employ me, which, of course I do choose to employ myself.

if they choose to buy from you
- Well, I don't really sell anything to myself.

they must pay 73 times as much as for my instructions as everyone else
-I don't need your instructions so I wouldn't be buying them. If, for some reason, I did I would buy them from someone else. You say yourself that you are going to charge 73 times as much as everyone else does. That means everyone else but you is cheaper. I would go with everyone else.

they can either pay that cost or fire you/cut their business deals with you.
-Again, I can't really fire myself.

ok how do you make your money if you don't sell anything to anyone.

Like many of the people in this business I make money as an affiliate. I send visitors to sponsors sites. If those visitors sign up for said site, I get a commission. Pretty simple really.

I also make money writing for various people. Be it blog posts, articles, fiction or whatever.

another hundred idiotic justifications for plain theft

even if the courts rule that access shifting is a fair use right and they therefore do have a right to distribute it.



again vcr make a complete working copy of the tv show and movie
backup make a complete working copy of the content
and formating shifting make a complete working copy of the content

and timeshifting has been recognized to be just as valid in the cloud as it was on tape cassete by the supreme court

all of those are fair uses
so stop arguing that partial copys like commentary are the only valid fair use.


but that does not represent being bound by the abuse you want copyright to give you

copyright law doesn't give me the right to create as many monopolies as i want just because i wish to in a licience, fair use prevents that

if you were sending traffic to company a as an affiliate and i taught them how to change their content to maximize their sales under the it can be shared freely world (ie setting up a private tracker properly) your rebills would go up, you would benefit from my copyrighted work.

copyright law as stated would not allow me to declare that your affilate income is mine because i want a monopoly for medium of traffic sent. (i am being nice by simply capping it at 73 times what they paid out, if you send enough traffic to exceed that limit then you can keep the money)

i need you to agree that if we share the same clients, as an agreement between us, i get to declare your work is covered by my monopoly so all your money earned is mine instead.

because the point is copyright law doesn't give me that right, just like your wrong when you claim that it does give the movie studioes that right.

copyright law doesn't give me the right to create as many monopolies as i want just because i wish to in a licience, fair use prevents that

if you were sending traffic to company a as an affiliate and i taught them how to change their content to maximize their sales under the it can be shared freely world (ie setting up a private tracker properly) your rebills would go up, you would benefit from my copyrighted work.

copyright law as stated would not allow me to declare that your affilate income is mine because i want a monopoly for medium of traffic sent. (i am being nice by simply capping it at 73 times what they paid out, if you send enough traffic to exceed that limit then you can keep the money)

i need you to agree that if we share the same clients, as an agreement between us, i get to declare your work is covered by my monopoly so all your money earned is mine instead.

because the point is copyright law doesn't give me that right, just like your wrong when you claim that it does give the movie studioes that right.

And we are off the topic once again.

I would argue making the content available worldwide on a torrent would reduce my rebills. If they can get it for free, they won't pay.

My traffic is not a form of media and therefore not covered by copyright. Traffic is a person. If I am suggesting a site to them and they join the site I get a commission. If somehow that relationship changed and I was no longer going to get a commission, I would send them to other sites that would give me a commission. You didn't create the traffic so you have no right to it therefore you cannot claim a monopoly on it.

As I said, you are all over the map. This entire discussion has been about movies, yet you insist on talking about everything but movies.

I'm done with this topic. You are free to go back to figuring out all the loopholes in the laws that allow you to take other people's content for free. You don't need to convince me.

the swarm is just a network of people so that arguement is bullshit too.

the torrent is just a pointer to the location of the copyright material on a particular machine

by that arguement it just traffic too and should be immune to copyright law

you pointing a person to a tour modified by my training would still exploit my copyright material. Your getting the sale BY USING my copyright material.

if anything torrent sites are even more indirect since they don't point to the copyright material they point to a file that tells the computer how to setup a session that creates a network that points to non working pieces of the copyright file which the computer later on puts in the right order so it would work.

and that is your choice, i am simply saying if you send traffic to someone who liciences my techniques, you give me permission to declare your sales invalid (just like want to invalidate the torrent sales of movie theaters copyright material)
because as i have repeatedly said copyright law doesn't allow me to extend my monopoly to things outside the scope of the distribution of the content (like medium, or traffic)

again the movie theaters didn't create the torrent site traffic either. In fact the very act of refusing to support the medium absolutely prevents any connection to the creation of the traffic.



your the one that is making up one rule for yourself an another for torrent sites.

your the one who claims that movie theaters should have a right to void the use of their content on medium if they want.

but that if i want to void your sale because i didn't give you permission use my techniques (my copyright material) that not allowed.


i am saying quite clearly the copyright law as currently stated makes both voiding wrong.
so the only way i could legally do the second is if you personally agree to the abuse

you said you would, now you are back peddling, trying to make up bogus justifcations that apply equally well (if not better) for the traffic sources you want to censored.

i found the print out of the report i was talking about

60 trillion a year was obtained by taking the original market size of mp3 when diamond rio was the only player, and then dividing that into current market size of all devices that use solid state disk etc.

that number is mulitiplied by the total market size if theaters were to high end video at it current price point.

the assumption being new technology would be created at the same rate, as the components of those high end projectors (RGBY etc) become commodized like the solid state disk.

which means the stuff i was talking about here (like the sale of new RGBY versions of the content) was not even included in that number.


obviously it not statistically accurate but it the best that can be done, given the fact that we don't have 1500 fair use (valid sample size) that generated technological growth.




but it 's obviously a lot more accurate then the MPAA/RIAA lost sale calculations especially when you consider that their own research (in the EU) determined that some of those lost sales would have required a person to jump on a plane and fly half way around the world to buy the product.

kane i am still waiting for permision to take your affiliate income if you send to someone who uses my advice.
Fair use prevents me from doing that so i need your permission.