Why The Copyright Industry Isn?t a Legitimate Stakeholder in Copyright

[gideongallery]

http://torrentfreak.com/why-the-copy...pyright-110430

[gideongallery]

article explains why copyright industry has no right influence the direction of copyright law

[Agent 488]

wow amazing stuff.

[tony286]

Its amazing the bullshit one will create to make ones self feel justfied instealing . Lol

[dyna mo]

Rick Falkvinge is a regular columnist on TorrentFreak, sharing his thoughts every other week. He is the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, a whisky aficionado, and a low-altitude motorcycle pilot.

[nation-x]

Originally Posted by tony286

Its amazing the bullshit one will create to make ones self feel justfied instealing . Lol

That article is a diatribe of false equivalency. What a crock of bullshit. Take the example of the bricklayer.

Bricklayers don’t have laws guaranteeing they make money

Before the bricklayer laid a single brick there was a contract drawn up that protected the bricklayer from non-payment. That contract is a legal document that obligates the parties. The bricklayer is protected by laws to ensure he will be paid for his work.

I could go on and pull each section of that bullshit article apart piece by piece (especially the Blackwater part). Any idiot that believes it should be forced to breathe from his/her nose for a change.

Copyright protects intellectual property. Without copyrights someone could copy a book word for word and sell it as their own... soon we wouldn't have anyone writing books. The idea that people that earn their money from ideas or digital goods shouldn't have legal protection for their work is ridiculous.

You really are an idiot if you subscribe to this nonsense.

[kane]

As per normal his points are pretty much bullshit.

First off, Blackwater doesn't create anything, they provide a service and are hired help. A bricklayer or plumber will have a contract or agreement of some sort in place to be paid for their work before they ever start it. It isn't like the bricklayer does his job then just hopes to get paid.

Copyright holders should have influence over the direction of the law because it their work that said copyrights are protecting. he actually makes that point himself when he uses the case of the people living around a military base not having a say in national defense. He is right, they shouldn't have a say because they are profiting from the base, the base is the copyright owner and therefore should have a say.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by nation-x

That article is a diatribe of false equivalency. What a crock of bullshit. Take the example of the bricklayer.



Before the bricklayer laid a single brick there was a contract drawn up that protected the bricklayer from non-payment. That contract is a legal document that obligates the parties. The bricklayer is protected by laws to ensure he will be paid for his work.

so why can't normal contract law protect a copyright holder too

if the contract law is equivalent to copyright protection, why not simply abolish the copyright laws and define the relationship by contract law alone.

I could go on and pull each section of that bullshit article apart piece by piece (especially the Blackwater part). Any idiot that believes it should be forced to breathe from his/her nose for a change.

Copyright protects intellectual property. Without copyrights someone could copy a book word for word and sell it as their own... soon we wouldn't have anyone writing books. The idea that people that earn their money from ideas or digital goods shouldn't have legal protection for their work is ridiculous.

You really are an idiot if you subscribe to this nonsense.

he is not arguing for the abolishment of copyright law, just the banning of the copyright holders from the position of authority they currently have

they act to influence the laws.

Under that senerio the example of blackwater being allowed influance government defense decision is a valid comparision.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

As per normal his points are pretty much bullshit.

First off, Blackwater doesn't create anything, they provide a service and are hired help. A bricklayer or plumber will have a contract or agreement of some sort in place to be paid for their work before they ever start it. It isn't like the bricklayer does his job then just hopes to get paid.


Copyright holders should have influence over the direction of the law because it their work that said copyrights are protecting. he actually makes that point himself when he uses the case of the people living around a military base not having a say in national defense. He is right, they shouldn't have a say because they are profiting from the base, the base is the copyright owner and therefore should have a say.

my god the insane limits you will stretch something to make a false analogy.

the base is a government institution, it the analogy it the act itself.

the people are the copyright holders since they get the benefit of the act.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

my god the insane limits you will stretch something to make a false analogy.

the base is a government institution, it the analogy it the act itself.

the people are the copyright holders since they get the benefit of the act.

Nope. Wrong again.

Technically speaking the military/government is the copyright holder because they created the base. The people living around the base are simply profiting from it.

If we put it into media context. The government/military created the movie, the base is the movie that they created. The people living around the base are the movie theaters, video stores, DVD stores and cable companies that are making money selling that money. They didn't create it, they are simply profiting from its existence.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

Nope. Wrong again.

Technically speaking the military/government is the copyright holder because they created the base. The people living around the base are simply profiting from it.

If we put it into media context. The government/military created the movie, the base is the movie that they created. The people living around the base are the movie theaters, video stores, DVD stores and cable companies that are making money selling that money. They didn't create it, they are simply profiting from its existence.

except if that your analogy you just screwed up the arguement

if the base is the movie then remove all copyright protection /closing the base makes no difference since the movie/base already exists.

It not the physically created item that issue but the service that is being run on that

the operation of the base//liciencing of the movie.

that the point, your analogy falls apart because it false

The only one that is valid is base being the act itself, the operation being the rights the act grants

and the people who benefit (from the operation) being equal the3 copyright holders who benefit (from the rights granted).

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

except if that your analogy you just screwed up the arguement

if the base is the movie then remove all copyright protection /closing the base makes no difference since the movie/base already exists.

It not the physically created item that issue but the service that is being run on that

the operation of the base//liciencing of the movie.

that the point, your analogy falls apart because it false

The only one that is valid is base being the act itself, the operation being the rights the act grants

and the people who benefit (from the operation) being equal the3 copyright holders who benefit (from the rights granted).

You're going to have run this through your decoder ring and write it in English for me to understand what you are saying here. I feel like I'm reading some kind of broken English.

It is very simple

The government/military is Sony Pictures. The base is the movie they make. The people living around the base are the movie theaters, blockbuster video, Comcast cable and your local store that sells the DVDs. Sony is then the copyright holder since it is their movie and they created it. If they decide to pull that movie off the market (IE shut the base) that is up to them and the stores/people profiting from selling it or showing it have no say in the matter.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by kane

You're going to have run this through your decoder ring and write it in English for me to understand what you are saying here.

Let me help .... I'm to talentless to produce anything and to broke to purchase it. You're welcome.

.

[kane]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Let me help .... I'm to talentless to produce anything and to broke to purchase it. You're welcome.

.

LOL excellent translation.

[bronco67]

It sounds like someone finding a way to rationalize theft. I can't really imagine anyone that creates anything agreeing with this bullshit.

There's no difference between a copy and the original. When a piece of art goes into the fucking rods and cones of your eyeballs and is translated to an electrical signal which creates an image in your brain, thus giving you the pleasure of seeing Patrick Swayze kick someone's ass -- then you've consumed the product. It has nothing to do with the physical media it was delivered on.

You can't just make a copy and watch for free(or sell) because its not the original anymore.

[Barefootsies]

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by kane

You're going to have run this through your decoder ring and write it in English for me to understand what you are saying here. I feel like I'm reading some kind of broken English.

It's called double talk.

You'd have to ask Gideon the question: "Have you ever produced or created anything?"

[Paul Markham]

GG you need lots of people to buy things and the last thing you want is the removal of the copyright laws. That could spell the end of your free Torrents.

Because without copyright then copying would make producing pointless.

What would stop anyone from buying one copy of a piece of material that can be easily copied and setting up shop selling it? Therefore making the original producers work pointless and making future production pointless?

You need copyright laws as much as honest people who do buy?

Originally Posted by gideongallery

except if that your analogy you just screwed up the arguement

if the base is the movie then remove all copyright protection /closing the base makes no difference since the movie/base already exists.

It not the physically created item that issue but the service that is being run on that

the operation of the base//liciencing of the movie.

that the point, your analogy falls apart because it false

The only one that is valid is base being the act itself, the operation being the rights the act grants

and the people who benefit (from the operation) being equal the3 copyright holders who benefit (from the rights granted).

And what pays for the next movie to be created? The thieves stealing the last one won't. Your own explanation proves you wrong.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

You're going to have run this through your decoder ring and write it in English for me to understand what you are saying here. I feel like I'm reading some kind of broken English.

It is very simple

The government/military is Sony Pictures. The base is the movie they make. The people living around the base are the movie theaters, blockbuster video, Comcast cable and your local store that sells the DVDs. Sony is then the copyright holder since it is their movie and they created it. If they decide to pull that movie off the market (IE shut the base) that is up to them and the stores/people profiting from selling it or showing it have no say in the matter.

ah i see your going bavk to your scumbag i want total control no matter how much it would damage the world arguement again

to bad the law doesn't work like that

the monopoly status of copyright law was only granted based on the agreement to void all rights for the scope of fair use (as defined by the 4 rules of the act).


by your completely bogus analogy, no fair use can exist.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

GG you need lots of people to buy things and the last thing you want is the removal of the copyright laws. That could spell the end of your free Torrents.

Because without copyright then copying would make producing pointless.

What would stop anyone from buying one copy of a piece of material that can be easily copied and setting up shop selling it? Therefore making the original producers work pointless and making future production pointless?

You need copyright laws as much as honest people who do buy?



And what pays for the next movie to be created? The thieves stealing the last one won't. Your own explanation proves you wrong.

i love how you keep comming back to the same strawman arguement

the article points out that

The copyright monopoly legislation is a balance between the public?s interest of having access to culture, and the same public?s interest of having new culture created

the fair use of commentary should 100% protect every single upload to tube sites, because the commentary "OMG this is an amazing dance routine"




should be as protected by the first ammendment as the original broadcast.

that statement makes no sence without the right to clip the video and show it. which means that stement is being censored every time such a clip is being taken down by a DMCA takedown request.


yet you guys are arguing that the law be strengthed even more, so that type of "abuse" (how dare people post a portion of my content for commentary purposes) be stopped cold.

that the point, it not an arguement for the abolishment of copyright laws, just an arguement against this type of bullshit "strengthening" of the existing laws.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by nation-x

That article is a diatribe of false equivalency. What a crock of bullshit. Take the example of the bricklayer.



Before the bricklayer laid a single brick there was a contract drawn up that protected the bricklayer from non-payment. That contract is a legal document that obligates the parties. The bricklayer is protected by laws to ensure he will be paid for his work.

still waiting for an answer to my question

if contract law is a good enough protection for the bricklayer (equal to copyright) then why don't simply abolish the copyright law(statutory damages, jail time etc) and just have the entire business covered by contract law only.

[L-Pink]

My god you're annoying.

[VGeorgie]

There is no such thing as a "copyright industry." The article begins with a fallacy, and cannot survive from it.

There is no such thing as a "copyright monopoly." Copyright only protects a very specific expression of an idea, and anyone is free to express the time idea, maybe even better.

A "monopoly" (not a bad thing, even in Greek times when the term was invented) merely confers the right of sellership to the person who creates or owns something. If I build a house, I get to be the one who sells it.

Re contract law: you could easily claim no contract exists between those who trade in stolen goods, i.e. the typical Internet pirate. They never entered into a contract; they cannot be held by contract. Duh.

[BlackCrayon]

oh boy, that article put me in my place har.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

i love how you keep comming back to the same strawman arguement

Because you don't have an answer for the same question.

Who will produce the product if the profit isn't there?

Showing a clip on Youtube is fine. Even though the producer might not like it the damage is little.

So should the copyright law go into the size, resolution, length and what part of the original can be shown as a clip.

Yes copyright law needs to be updated, because it was written in days prior to the piracy we see today. That piracy is diminishing the profit of the original producer. And effecting future productions.

That's a fact not even you can argue against.

If you buy products that can be copied and pirated you're paying for the pirates free ride. Because the cost is passed onto you. If you're pirating, you're a parasite living off others who pay for you.

Step up to the plate and share what you produce for free and maybe you'll have some credibility.

the fair use of commentary should 100% protect every single upload to tube sites, because the commentary "OMG this is an amazing dance routine"

should be as protected by the first ammendment as the original broadcast.

that statement makes no sence without the right to clip the video and show it. which means that stement is being censored every time such a clip is being taken down by a DMCA takedown request.

The statement IS protected by the First Amendment. And the Copyright of the clip is protected by another law. So the "should be" statement is stupid.

so what if the Statement makes no sense. Making no sense has never stopped you. A DMCA does not cover the Statement.

If the original poster of that clip wants to put it on Youtube with a comment. He has a way of doing so. Contact the copyright holder, obtain his permission and if obtained, post the comment and the clip.

Your statement can be applied to anything. I can pirate a movie, show it in a cinema and put a comment in the bottom right hand corner saying "great movie". If publishing something protected by copyright is legal so long as it has a comment.

Can I put adverts next to the screen as well?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

There is no such thing as a "copyright industry." The article begins with a fallacy, and cannot survive from it.

fine if you want to be technical a collections of industries who collectively lobby as a cartel

so copyright cartel then.

There is no such thing as a "copyright monopoly." Copyright only protects a very specific expression of an idea, and anyone is free to express the time idea, maybe even better.

you need to look up the legal definition of a monopoly then because the "exclusive rights" granted under the act clearly match the 4th definition.

A "monopoly" (not a bad thing, even in Greek times when the term was invented) merely confers the right of sellership to the person who creates or owns something.

that not a monopoly that property rights.

If I build a house, I get to be the one who sells it.

right but you don't get to dictate how a person can use that house AFTER you sold it to them.

That the difference between a copyright monopoly and normal property rights.

Re contract law: you could easily claim no contract exists between those who trade in stolen goods, i.e. the typical Internet pirate. They never entered into a contract; they cannot be held by contract. Duh.

so how exactly did the pirate GET the content is NO ONE ever entered into a contract with the seller. Every piece of "pirated" content had to ultimately come from someone who bought from seller.

if contract law was the default protection, that would be the sole person you would go after, and your ability to get damages would be bound by the validity of the contract.

[CrkMStanz]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

still waiting for an answer to my question

if contract law is a good enough protection for the bricklayer (equal to copyright) then why don't simply abolish the copyright law(statutory damages, jail time etc) and just have the entire business covered by contract law only.

physical goods need to be protected by laws - laws against theft - and those that produce, distribute, and sell physical goods need to be stakeholders in the creation and ongoing maintenance/changes of those laws

services need to be protected by laws - contract law - and those that deliver those services need to be stakeholders in the creation and ongoing maintenance/changes of those laws

digital media, ideas, art, need to be protected by laws - copyright and counterfieting law - and those that create those medias need to be stakeholders in the creation and ongoing maintenance/changes of those laws

and the same for any other law - those who PRODUCE or DELIVER need to be involved/consulted

this in no way minimizes the involvement of those who consume - nor do we want them minimized - we just don't want to be dictated to - which is what you want - you want the CONSUMER to dictate how a thing is given to them (free preferably) and totally minimize any say that the PRODUCER may have in the transaction



you really are a moron sometimes

.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

still waiting for an answer to my question

if contract law is a good enough protection for the bricklayer (equal to copyright) then why don't simply abolish the copyright law(statutory damages, jail time etc) and just have the entire business covered by contract law only.

if rape laws are good enough to protect rape victims, maybe we should abolish shoplifting laws and just have the entire judicial system follow the rape laws.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Because you don't have an answer for the same question.

Who will produce the product if the profit isn't there?

the guys who figuired out how to profit from the new enviroment

profits don't disappear Types of profit disappear.

you want an example old man

profits from commercials disappeared with the vcr, profits from selling content on cassette tapes came into existance.

The new source of profits was greater than all other profits combined.

Showing a clip on Youtube is fine. Even though the producer might not like it the damage is little.

So should the copyright law go into the size, resolution, length and what part of the original can be shown as a clip.

of course not
the consideration should only be the 4 conditions of fair use when compared to the LOWEST PROFITING LEGAL SUBSTITUTE.

doing anything else would cripple innovation.

Yes copyright law needs to be updated, because it was written in days prior to the piracy we see today. That piracy is diminishing the profit of the original producer. And effecting future productions.

That's a fact not even you can argue against.

of course i can, total production is up in every industry

it just a fastest growing percentage is independent production

more hours of content
more people working on producing content
more total wages for actual producers

what down is profits of the big companies that are actually bleeding the little guy

if you adopted any of the techniques these new type of guerilla producers were using you would see that

you don't so you are blind to it.

If you buy products that can be copied and pirated you're paying for the pirates free ride. Because the cost is passed onto you. If you're pirating, you're a parasite living off others who pay for you.

Step up to the plate and share what you produce for free and maybe you'll have some credibility.

so the only way i would have credibility when talking about these guerilla techniques is to not use the guerilla techniques.


idiot

[CrkMStanz]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

f

blah blah blah...

right but you don't get to dictate how a person can use that house AFTER you sold it to them.

That the difference between a copyright monopoly and normal property rights.


blah blah blah....

you continually rant on about how digital/media piracy is not theft and we should never equate the two or try and apply the same laws because they are different

yet you continually use the rights granted to a person re their physical property and right to that properties usage - to justify their 'rights' to the digital medias they 'own'

you say they are two different things (physical vs digital) therefore - quit conveniently cherry picking concepts of physical rights to justify your arguments for digital rights.

they are different things - and need to be protected by different laws - and what is ok for one is not ok for the other

you DO NOT have a RIGHT to view my productions - no RIGHT at all
AND - if you want it - pay for it - and don't re distribute it - and if you lose it - you can fucking buy another copy.

posting a full scene I produced - in its entirety - and making a comment of "OMG I luvs this" with your money making advertisements surrounding it does not constitute "commentary"

moron

.

[fris]

maybe if the story was on a site besides a torrent site promoting piracy it would be worth reading.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

physical goods need to be protected by laws - laws against theft - and those that produce, distribute, and sell physical goods need to be stakeholders in the creation and ongoing maintenance/changes of those laws

are you really trying to claim that only reason why shoplifting laws don't have 25k statutory damages clause is because the retail trade union is filled with morons who simply didn't ask for it.

We don't have statutory damages because property laws take the PUBLIC interest into account . PERIOD.

services need to be protected by laws - contract law - and those that deliver those services need to be stakeholders in the creation and ongoing maintenance/changes of those laws

ditto. PERIOD.

digital media, ideas, art, need to be protected by laws - copyright and counterfieting law - and those that create those medias need to be stakeholders in the creation and ongoing maintenance/changes of those laws

and the same for any other law - those who PRODUCE or DELIVER need to be involved consulted

the level of control the copyright "cartel" has is greater than any other industry specifically because the people benefiting from the monopoly influence the constraints of the monopoly.

If the laws were balanced the penalty for violating fair use would be exactly the same as violating any other monopoly attempting to extend their monpoly to another market (loss of the monopoly or 3X damages).

this in no way minimizes the involvement of those who consume - nor do we want them minimized - we just don't want to be dictated to - which is what you want - you want the CONSUMER to dictate how a thing is given to them (free preferably) and totally minimize any say that the PRODUCER may have in the transaction

of course it does, the difference between the definition of statutory damages is a clear example of that.

no other industry has those kinds of statutory damages.

No other group of producers have that kind of free pass in the court system (no proving damages).

that free pass hurts the public by eliminating defences that they would be entitled to in other cases.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The statement IS protected by the First Amendment. And the Copyright of the clip is protected by another law. So the "should be" statement is stupid.

If the original poster of that clip wants to put it on Youtube with a comment. He has a way of doing so. Contact the copyright holder, obtain his permission and if obtained, post the comment and the clip.

you just violated the bill of rights

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

you made the right to comment (free speech) dependent on a congressionally created exclusive right of control.

you reverse the priority of the two laws

which is exactly the point i am making

Your statement can be applied to anything. I can pirate a movie, show it in a cinema and put a comment in the bottom right hand corner saying "great movie". If publishing something protected by copyright is legal so long as it has a comment.

Can I put adverts next to the screen as well?

only if your a moron who doesn't understand how to support fair use and fight piracy at the same time.

[iamtam]

you can also ask a rapist to write an article on why victims should have no say in rape. doesnt make it right.

[DaddyHalbucks]

What a bunch of self serving rubbish.

[CrkMStanz]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
The statement IS protected by the First Amendment. And the Copyright of the clip is protected by another law. So the "should be" statement is stupid.

If the original poster of that clip wants to put it on Youtube with a comment. He has a way of doing so. Contact the copyright holder, obtain his permission and if obtained, post the comment and the clip.

you just violated the bill of rights


Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

you made the right to comment (free speech) dependent on a congressionally created exclusive right of control.

you reverse the priority of the two laws

which is exactly the point i am making



Quote:
Your statement can be applied to anything. I can pirate a movie, show it in a cinema and put a comment in the bottom right hand corner saying "great movie". If publishing something protected by copyright is legal so long as it has a comment.

Can I put adverts next to the screen as well?

only if your a moron who doesn't understand how to support fair use and fight piracy at the same time.

Your "RIGHT" to "Free Speech" protects your words and expression of your ideas - not your posting of MY works

so if you want to be protected for your 'commentary' - use words - not a full reposting of my work with a one line comment (or even a 20 page diatribe) - if you want to comment then do it WITHOUT posting my work - fair use allows for a small portion of the original work to be used - not a full re-posting.

your "RIGHT" to free speech does not cover your redistribution of my digital media

and - you pretending that you don't make money off of my work while your profitable advertisements surround the display of MY work is ludicrous at best


.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

Your "RIGHT" to "Free Speech" protects your words and expression of your ideas - not your posting of MY works

so if you want to be protected for your 'commentary' - use words - not a full reposting of my work with a one line comment (or even a 20 page diatribe) - if you want to comment then do it WITHOUT posting my work - fair use allows for a small portion of the original work to be used - not a full re-posting.

your "RIGHT" to free speech does not cover your redistribution of my digital media

and - you pretending that you don't make money off of my work while your profitable advertisements surround the display of MY work is ludicrous at best


.

so now we are pretending that the poster of the video is the owner of youtube.

the person who you are censoring isn't profiting in anyway shape or form from your content.

the provider of the commentary service is

and they have just as much of a right to do that as sony did from selling the vcr.

stop trying to justify not figuiring out the fair use friendly (commentary) equivalent to putting your shit on the cassettes and selling it to vcr owners (timeshifting).

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by iamtam

you can also ask a rapist to write an article on why victims should have no say in rape. doesnt make it right.

and making a false analogy equating the laws that govern what constitutes a crime, the necessary level of evidence to get a conviction (rape law) to the actual violation itself (rape) doesn't invalid the arguement.


this guy was never convicted, he is arguing based on the premise that the civil liberties are being erroded. The current drafts of things being proposed by MPAA include automatically liablities based on your ip address ONLY.

that shit does not fly.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

Your "RIGHT" to "Free Speech" protects your words and expression of your ideas - not your posting of MY works

you might want to tell that to all the people micheal moore ridiculed in his documentaries over the years

oh wait, the use of those copyright protected speaches within his copyright protected work was successfully protected by my "free speech" arguement.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

ah i see your going bavk to your scumbag i want total control no matter how much it would damage the world arguement again

to bad the law doesn't work like that

the monopoly status of copyright law was only granted based on the agreement to void all rights for the scope of fair use (as defined by the 4 rules of the act).


by your completely bogus analogy, no fair use can exist.

You need to up the dose of whatever medication you are on.

All I am pointing out is that the guy in that article says the correct things, he just has the players in the wrong positions.

With his argument about a military base and the people living around it he claims the people living around it/off it should not have a say in military policy. I agree. He says they shouldn't have it because those people are the copyright holders I'm simply pointing out that he is wrong. The people living around the base are not the copyright holders. The government/military is. The people living around the base are simply people making money off of the copyrighted material. IE they would be like theater owners, video stories etc.

In his argument about Blackwater it is the same thing. No, you don't want Blackwater making military policy but not because they are the copyright holders. Again, they aren't. The military/government is and the conflict that Blackwater is hired to fight/work within would be the copyrighted item which makes Blackwater simply hired help.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

You need to up the dose of whatever medication you are on.

All I am pointing out is that the guy in that article says the correct things, he just has the players in the wrong positions.

With his argument about a military base and the people living around it he claims the people living around it/off it should not have a say in military policy. I agree. He says they shouldn't have it because those people are the copyright holders I'm simply pointing out that he is wrong. The people living around the base are not the copyright holders. The government/military is. The people living around the base are simply people making money off of the copyrighted material. IE they would be like theater owners, video stories etc.

so the government is the policy maker who is being influenced in his analogy

who is the policy maker being influenced in yours.

your making up an analogy to justify copyright holders having a right to influence the law maker that doesn't have a policy maker to influence.

In his argument about Blackwater it is the same thing. No, you don't want Blackwater making military policy but not because they are the copyright holders. Again, they aren't. The military/government is and the conflict that Blackwater is hired to fight/work within would be the copyrighted item which makes Blackwater simply hired help.

exact same question

who is the policy maker being influenced in your anology.

[dyna mo]

does anybody here share/agree with the op's view on this?

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so the government is the policy maker who is being influenced in his analogy

who is the policy maker being influenced in yours.

your making up an analogy to justify copyright holders having a right to influence the law maker that doesn't have a policy maker to influence.







exact same question

who is the policy maker being influenced in your anology.

I will break it down into a simple, detailed example.

The military is the copyright holder.
The military base is the copyrighted material.
The policy maker would be the US congress/senate (or in the case of other countries whatever governing body makes their laws).

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

I will break it down into a simple, detailed example.

The military is the copyright holder.
The military base is the copyrighted material.
The policy maker would be the US congress/senate (or in the case of other countries whatever governing body makes their laws).

so in your analogy the military tells congress what should be in the laws that dictate there operation and how much of the budget they should get.

that called a coup d'état

you do realize that actually disallowed by your govermental system right

you just made the exact same point made by this article.

[Agent 488]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

does anybody here share/agree with the op's view on this?

the people in the copyleft/free culture/even pirate movements wouldn't even understand it. it's some weird home brewed world view.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so in your analogy the military tells congress what should be in the laws that dictate there operation and how much of the budget they should get.

that called a coup d'état

you do realize that actually disallowed by your govermental system right

you just made the exact same point made by this article.

The point I have been trying to make is that his example is flawed. Yes, you wouldn't want the same people who make the laws controlling the industry, but those who the laws influence should have a say.

The military base and the blackwater examples are fundamentally flawed simply because of the nature of those involved in it. Let me make the example a different way. His argument is that copyright holders should not have a say in the making of copyright policy. I disagree. I won't go so far as to say they should have a veto power, but they should be allowed a say and at least a opinion/position on the laws when they are formed/changed.

Here is a more accurate example:
Sony pictures makes a movie. They are the copyright holder.
The movie is the copyrighted item.
The theater owners, video store owners and cable providers are simply agents that are making money off of Sony's movie.
The congress/senate is the policy maker.

Thus, Sony should be allowed a voice when it comes to making the copyright laws (Don't shit your pants and get all tweaked out I'm not saying they should shape policy or be the only voice, but they should have a seat at the table). However, the theater owners, video stores and cable providers should not because they are not copyright holders.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

the guys who figuired out how to profit from the new enviroment.

So how do they figure it out Einstein?

And if they don't figure it out, what happens then?

profits don't disappear Types of profit disappear.

You mean the profit from creating something new and selling it over and over again, rather than your system of selling it once.

you want an example old man

profits from commercials disappeared with the vcr, profits from selling content on cassette tapes came into existance.

The new source of profits was greater than all other profits combined.

VCR could only release content licensed for video sales. In fact some TV programs and films found these methods and extra revenue source. After the film or program had been released into the prime markets. Your idea is to give the product away for free, so others can make a profit from it and the producers find a way to monetise it.

Go find out how it will work and sell the idea. Don't steal, then tell the creators to figure out a solution. They have a solution already, fine the the pirates and close the sites. No need to find some allusive way of profiting from piracy. Pirate Bay have already found a way to profit from piracy.

of course not
the consideration should only be the 4 conditions of fair use when compared to the LOWEST PROFITING LEGAL SUBSTITUTE.

doing anything else would cripple innovation.

How do we pay for innovation if the product is given away for free?

Google can't afford to license the content on Youtube, so these bright lads haven't worked out how to produce a profit good enough to pay for content.

of course i can, total production is up in every industry

it just a fastest growing percentage is independent production

more hours of content
more people working on producing content
more total wages for actual producers

what down is profits of the big companies that are actually bleeding the little guy

if you adopted any of the techniques these new type of guerilla producers were using you would see that

you don't so you are blind to it.

OK I now know I'm dealing with a retard who doesn't read the papers or watch the news. The whole world is in recession. Production has moved to countries like China, India and other 3rd world countries that pay "producers" cents on the dollar. The system was fueled by what the banks could earn. And companies like music, films and programming could of helped a lot more, without people pirating their product.

so the only way i would have credibility when talking about these guerrilla techniques is to not use the guerilla techniques.

The Gorilla's are the apes who steal money out of the system and expect people to change the system to suit them. But clueless of how it should change. Maybe Pirate Bay can support the music, films and programming industries. What do you think?

Originally Posted by gideongallery

blah blah blah...

right but you don't get to dictate how a person can use that house AFTER you sold it to them.

That the difference between a copyright monopoly and normal property rights.


blah blah blah....

You prove how little you know. The buyer of the house bought the house. The buyer of a song, buys the song, the buyer of a film, buys the film.

The buyer of a copy of that song or film, BUYS A LICENSE. Which costs a lot less than buying the song or film. Where did you get it into your head that buying a CD or DVD, meant you had bought the film? You're clueless about everything.

idiot

Yes you are.

What do you do for a living?

[PiracyPitbull]

same GIDIOT rationals LOL

[VGeorgie]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

cartel

There is no cartel because the owners of copyright are not engaged in setting prices, production, or content.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you need to look up the legal definition of a monopoly then because the "exclusive rights" granted under the act clearly match the 4th definition.

You speak of a nebulous copyright oligarchy where only a small group of individuals hold sway over an entire public. There can be no monopoly where the production of new goods is boundless.

The rights protecting a single expression cannot be a monopoly because there is no restriction to others for creating and distributing their own creative work.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

right but you don't get to dictate how a person can use that house AFTER you sold it to them.

The first word in your reply says it all. Your exception doesn't work when title isn't passed from seller to buyer, which is the case for copyright.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

if contract law was the default protection, that would be the sole person you would go after, and your ability to get damages would be bound by the validity of the contract.

Why even argue the point. Copyright is covered by tort law, and it applies to parties even when a formal agreement has not been made. Stop talking gibberish.

[Agent 488]

50 evil copyright cartels.