Fiddy JFK Delorean's.
:pimp

so only the people benefiting from the law get to give input, all the people who are the victims of the law are completely excluded.

you just made the point of the article again.

sure they trade unions like mpaa and riaa set price point for individual tracks and the price psid to licience movies.

a mon opoly is the opposite of competition when there is only one seller of aa product or service a monopoly exist

the fact that there are alternative but not identical substitutes does not minimize the monopoly power granted


but that exactly the point you have these extra right above and beyond what bricklayer has. and your trying to justify those extra right based on the lower standard of rights.

your basically arguing that you deserve all these extra rights because a bricklayer has right too, just a tiny fraction of the rights you have.

Everyone has right

The question is why do you deserve more rights than another industry when it comes to selling your wears.

His point in the article is that those who make/create copyrighted materials should not be included in the policymaking process. I disagree. I think they should have a voice in it.

However, when it comes to consumers of those products I would not be wholly opposed to them having a say, just not as much of one. Should it be equal? No. The reason is simple. I am creating the material. I am spending my time, energy and money to create this material therefore I should be allowed the ability to have a say in how it is protected. I would not be opposed to those who would buy/consume my material getting an opinion on these protection laws, but it shouldn't hold as much weight as mine the creator of the material.

Let me ask you this: Should consumers have the right to tell lawmakers to pass laws forcing companies to set specific prices for products? Say, for example, shoes. Should the people be able to have such influence over the lawmakers that the lawmakers force Nike to sell their shoes for a maximum of $15 per pair? Should Nike not have a say in this and be allowed to explain why they charge what they charge?

And stop throwing around the word victim. People are not victims of copyright law. A victim is someone who is harmed or damaged as a result of a crime. Nobody was ever harmed by buying a DVD and if they feel the copyright laws are so strict that they are harmed when they do so, they are willingly harming themselves.

If this is the argument you want to make then there are thousands of monopolies all over the place and nobody is doing anything about them. What about Nike or Levi or Ray Ban? Sure there are other brands of shoes, jeans and glasses, but they aren't the same. They are alternatives, but not identical substitutes. Thus those products have a monopoly.

I want my fair use rights on these products! I want to be able to buy my Nike, Levi and Ray Ban products where I want them, at the time I want them at a price point I want them at. Why is the government not stepping in on my behalf an forcing them to do this? Worse yet, when my Nike shoes wear out, they are forcing me to buy another pair. I should be allowed a replacement pair for free. I bought them therefore I should have them for life and not be forced to buy them again just because the format that they forced me to buy wore out.

Fair use I say! Fair use for everything!

great give me half of all your money

it not really that bad since you still have half

you yourself argued that movie industry would make $3-4 dollars per movie ticket if the mediums competed equally.

that means that everyone buying a ticket is being forced to pay $3-4 dollars more than what they would pay if FAIR MARKET COMPETITION existed.

of course not forcing companies to sell below market prices is just as bad as companies forcing prices up by eliminating competition (see our access shifting arguement)

BTW you still haven't explained why you believe the lost commerical/lost sales from forcing people to buy albums wasn't a valid justification to stop those fair uses, but the lost profits from a timeline of release dates is.

what is so different between those three lost profits that justifies the first two fair uses but denies the third.

ah we are going back to your bullshit harvard is a monopoly because they have quality arguement again


difference is that copyright material increases prices by limiting supply ONLY

nike improves quality to get a bigger market share, the different mediums (nike, sketcher etc) compete with each other


the theaters don't compete against tv, against pay per view, each get an exclusive window of time

and consumers end up paying more money that they would if they competed

The prices are ARTIFICALLY set higher than normal

Setting the prices ARTIFICALLY lower is just as much of an abuse

And therefore equally wrong.

Answer me this. If a movie company was forced to release their movie in all formats on the day of its offical release, but they modified thier prices as such how you you feel:

Ticket at theater: $8-$10 depending on the theater.
Pay per view: $12. You have to pay a few more dollars for the convenience of seeing it at home.
Rental from blockbuster: $12 same reason as above.
DVD purchase: $35. The DVD price will drop to $15 in 30 days, but if you want it the day it comes out you have to pay a premium price.

Would that fit your fair use model? It is available to everyone on that day. It is in all formats, but if you want the convenience of watching it in your home or owning it on DVD the day of the release you have to pay a premium price.

BTW, you are getting away from the original argument as per normal and in this post your first answer actually contradicts your second answer. First you argue that the movie industry is forcing people to over pay for a product, but then you argue that they shouldn't be forced to sell under value. Yet you want to force them to distribute their movie in the format you want at the price point you want. You can't have it both ways. You can tell someone how to sell their product and force them to do it your way then tell them that it is free market. Where I grew up we called that pissing on someones back and telling them it was raining.

This whole argument started with your link to the article explaining why copyright holders should have no say in the laws/policies that control then. I explained how the guys examples were flawed and why I felt he was wrong and now you are going back around the same circles you always spin

I would argue that the theaters do compete against TV and Cable and DVDs. There are right now a certain group of movies in the theater, however there are plenty of other movies on cable, DVD etc. If you want to see a movie you have options.

As per your example here, the different mediums compete with each other. The movie in the theater is Nike. The movie on HBO is Sketchers and the movie on DVD is Carhart. They are all shoes, just different kinds of shoes. If I want Carhart shoes, my local store does not carry them, I need to drive about 15 miles to a different store and buy them there. that is no different than the movies. This Friday if I want to see Thor I will have to go to theater to see it, but if I want to watch Spiderman I can rent it, maybe I can find it on-demand or it might even be playing on HBO. One thing is for sure, if I want to see Spiderman I can't see it in a theater I must go somewhere else for it so the theater is going to lose my business. Likewise if the theater has no movies playing that I want to see. They lose my business to their competition.

if those were the prices set by the market competiton between the venues yes that fine.

If that was the price dictated by copyright holder then that price fixing and no.




if that what the MARKET dictates fine, if it what the copyright holder dictates no.

forcing you to use market price determination is not forcing you to sell under value.

taking away the copyright holders "right" to control the timeline of release simply forces them to sell their good at a market driven price.

if thor was release on the same day

marvel studios would go to every single theater chain and say who wants the exclusive right to distribute this movie on their medium and the highest paying theater chain would get that right

the same for tv stations

the same for ppv channel providers

the same for dvd distributors

based on what they paid, the purchase price would be determined for the end consumer.

stop thinking your entitled to set the price and everyone has to pay whatever you say,
that monopoly thinking, competition exist for every other industry.



your new analogy was exactly the same as the old analogy,

you argued that the military should have control over what congress appropriation bill

once that failed you actually went back to a specific example OF a copyright holder

Do you understand how astromonically stupid that is

your arguing the analogy is wrong, because you can't possible make an anology at all.

except there are dozens of different shoes

your doing your catagory is equal to product bullshit arguement again


your fabricating competition to justify monopoly prices

by your standard nike should be granted the exclusive right to make running shoes. If you want to buy running shoes you need to buy them from nike. But that ok because you can buy flip flops from another manufacturer.

when you define competition by catagory nothing is ever a monopoly

microsoft can do whatever they want since OS exist on phones too.

Sorry, you are just wrong here. Nike is a brand of shoe. No they shouldn't be given the sole right to sell a running shoe however, Nike decides how much they want to charge for their shoes and where they want to sell them. If you don't like the price you buy a different brand or shop at a different store. Guess what. Nike uses the market competition to determine what that price will be. They know if they charge $500 per pair they aren't going to sell many shoes, but there is no law stopping them from charging that if they want.

The same goes for a movies. If you aren't willing to pay $10 at a theater to watch Thor this weekend, you can still choose to watch a movie. You are not entitled to watch Thor. there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you have an inalienable right to watch Thor this weekend. Nobody is saying you can't watch a movie. But if you want to watch Thor you have to be willing to pay the price of the ticket and go to where the movie is being show. Just like if you want to buy Nike shoes. You have to be willing to pay the price Nike is charging and go to where they are being sold.

The movie studios and theaters use market competition to set their prices. They know if they charge $40 per ticket they will sell very few tickets. Why? Because there are many other options out there. There is COMPETITION. If they want $40 per ticket for Thor most people would stay home and watch something else and just wait for it to come out of DVD and rent it for $4. So they put their price at a point they know people will be willing pay. The determine this by deciding what they can charge before people will no longer see the value in their product and will turn to their competition.

Ask any movie or TV executive in the world who their competition is and they will give you a long list. Other movies, TV shows, sporting events, cell phones, the internet, video games etc.

Now you are going back on the things you said in the past. In the past you said that fair use should provide the content to anyone who wants it, in the format they want it in at a price they are willing to pay. You have said that if they don't want to pay the price for a movie ticket they can get ppv or rental. If they don't want that they can watch it on cable, if they don't have that they can always watch it on free TV.

Now you are saying that you want these people to bid on the rights to distribute the movie. That would give whatever theater chain won a MONOPOLY for having that movie in the theater. It would give whatever cable company won a MONOPOLY for PPV. What if I want to see it in the theater, but your model means that a theater chain that has no theaters anywhere near me won the exclusive rights? Your MONOPOLY just denied me my fair use rights. So I'm pissed but I will still watch it on PPV. But Comcast won the rights and I don't have Comcast so my fair use rights were just trampled on again. So now I am stuck renting it, but when I go to the one and only video store near my house it is all rented out. Again I am denied because you wanted Marvel to sell the exclusive rights to one chain in order to set a bidding war and determine the market value of the movie. Had you just given in to the pirates and let fair use rule and every single outlet had the product then I too would have been able to watch Thor, but now I am a lowly victim wishing the machine that controls the media hadn't trampled my rights and I am left watching a rerun of CSI Miami....well, actually, I could always just download it from Pirate Bay because, as you say after all, I'm not harming them financially by doing so since there was no way available for me to buy it.

exactly m=nike uses market competition to determine price BECAUSE they don't have the sole right to sell running shoes.

they know they can't charge $500 for running shoes because they are competitors who sell the exact same product type (running shoes)

it not like they have the right to claim, it ok we charge $500 for sneakers if you don't like it wear run in army boots.

and there we go again demanding special rights

does a brick layer get to decide how and when you use the house you bought

it only the special monopoly control that gives you that right



see run in army boots example

like i said any monopoly can make up competition by counting tangent substitutes.


again see running in army boots example

:sleep .....

:1orglaugh

now your baldface lying i said at a price determined by the market not at any price they are willing to pay..

that price can be either real money ($) or penalty (tons of commercials).

nope because the market generated price has penalty of location so you would have to drive to a different city to see it

of course unlike your model that would not be the only choice there would be a second competitive choice namely PPV. (see below)


or you could subscribe to comcast so you could watch the movie thereby paying the market price ($) for this medium

of course again there is another competing medium (see below)

or you could pay the market generated penalty and drive to another outlet to get the movie from there

of course again there is another competing medium (see below)
you forgot about ordering it on dvd from amazon and paying the overnight price so that it would get to you on day it aired in the theater.

or going to anyone of the dozens of stores that sold the dvd because lions gate (dvd distributor ) would put it all the stores they could.


of course the only way you would get to that point where there would be absolutely no damage is if you lived in butt fuck nowhere, with no movie theater, one cable company, one video store (with no copies at all) , in a town so cut off from the rest of the world that no packages ever get shipped in

but somehow they have internet access still.

so yeah in that case sure fair use no damage clause would kick in and allow them to download it for free.

so where exactly is butt fuck nowhere located.

i would really like to visit a town so cut off, and marvel at the poor souls stuck there.

oh we forgot commercial based tv

so butt fuck nowhere has to also have some special magic screening of the airwaves that prevents everyone from seeing an station other than NBC.

Wrong. The same digital technologies you rely on to permit unfettered fair use (posting the ENTIRE content for so-called commentary) permit unlimited creation and distribution by ANYBODY.

You can't have it both ways. If digital delivery puts content into everyone's hands, then everyone can contribute. The playing field is leveled and *competition* forces set market conditions. A monopoly cannot exist.

True monopolies limit consumer choice. So what if the so-called government-granted "monopoly" (a term of convenience, not legal doctrine) puts limits on the taking of copyright works without remuneration. The consumer now has a boundless selection, made possible by the very technologies you rely on for your copyright anarchy.

With unlimited choice a monopoly cannot exist. Get over it.

you finally get it

IF fair use of commentary is allowed to the point i described then yes there is no monopoly

however

IF you need to get permission to make commentary then that control "fetters" "unlimited creation and distribution by ANYBODY".


copyright holders are arguing to close the "loophole" that allows that level of commentary.

They want to crush that level of comentary, put it in a box and therefore limit unlimited creation that would destroy the monopoly (need permission to create).

not comentary but parody but the basic idea is the same.

http://alyankovic.wordpress.com/the-gaga-saga/

and since this is the type of control their trying to FORCE upon people (you need permission before you do anything-- ala paul and kane) this type of scumbag censorship is only going to get worse.

Have I ever once said that parody should be outlawed? No. Go back and find one instance where I said that parody should not be allowed.

I have simply said that a person who creates a work of art should be allowed to determine how it is distributed and sold. I never said someone couldn't parody it or use a small portion of it for commentary.

So if we use my previous example with Thor, say ABC is going to air Thor on Friday night and they agree to not edit it.So it will not be edited at all for time or content and will show every frame that you would see in the theater. The only difference is that it will have commercials.

I will just invoke my fair use rights to download it from a torrent site which, as you say, is no different than had I recorded it on my DVR, and watch it that way. The good news is that the version on the torrent site will have the commercials removed so I am getting the same movie as I would have gotten had I paid for it. Sweet!

unless the movie theaters decide to innovate technologically (real 3d not the crappy glasses version) then there will be a huge difference between the two.


And billions of dollars of jobs will be created as that technology get improved and perculates down to the tv market.

Sweet, so using your logic there is no reason to pay for a movie unless you are going to the theater. If the broadcast network, or any cable channel is going to air it unedited, you just download it and the commercials are gone. No need paying for the PPV or the DVD because your download will be the exact same thing.

I think you pretty much nailed the point of the entire argument. It's about the sense of entitlement the pro-free people have.

A maker of any product has the right to charge whatever they want, and sell it however they choose. If a customer doesn't want it, then they can buy something else.

If Nike charged $500 for their shoes, there would still be people that pay that amount. The ones that can't afford don't have the right to own them. There's always Payless shoes.

One thing you learn in school is to check the source. This is b/c many people look at one single thing differently. This guy and anyone who believe his bullshit are looking at their information from a FUCKED up point of view LOL. Someone stated anyone who creates anything worth something would never agree with this shit hit it spot on! From the talent side of things I see the direct cost to make a movie, talent gets paid, we see the crew get checks, we hear about how little or how much the producer is getting b/c they always brag or complain lol. It is not free to create a product. I learned this even more when I went into the production side of things. If you allow someone to copy the work of others and make money off of this you will have no more creators and everyone loses!

To bad content thieves aren't treated like horse thieves once were. Hang em!

well death is a bit far, but people do need to start realizing our copyrights. Everyone loses money when content is stolen, the production company loses sales, the industry loses capital, the production teams and talent lose shoots and money, this all leads up to sales taxes lost and income taxes lost.

The adult industry is a multi-billion dollar per year industry... It is sad anyone would allow theft from such an industry but politicians and lawmakers are more set on looking at us as taboo then actually making regulations. If we were able to start suing these tube and torrent sites for millions of dollars like the music and movie industry has it would curve the theft to a negotiable amount.

only if your a moron so stupid you don't realize that free tv has to obey FCC regulations about what they can and can't broadcast.

People who understand that bound contraint realize there are differences that can't broadcast on free tv.


gest the question s are you a moron.

your complaining about a sense of entitlement when your the one trying to defend monopoly profits.

that rich


the senerio your trying to defend is nike being allowed to charge $500 because they have the exclusive right to sell running shoes, because you can run in army boots and that adequate competition.


there is no payless in your senerio.

Thor is rated PG13 so there is likely nothing in it that they can't show on TV. Sure, my example won't work for a movie that is rated R (well it would depend on what it was rated R for), but even if it were rated R there is no reason that a channel like FX or USA on cable might not buy it and show it unedited (so long as the reason for the rating was pretty light) and since I get that channel I can just timeshift the commercial free version of it from a torrent and enjoy it without paying a dime.

Essentially by making fair use what you want it to be and forcing companies to release their movie in every format on the day of its release you have made it so that PPV, premium cable like HBO and Showtime, DVD rentals and DVD sales now all have to compete against a free version of he movie without commercials so long as the movie is shown somewhere for free unedited. That doesn't sound like a very fair market to me. That sounds like you and your pirate buddies trying to figure out how to get something for free.

Actually that is not what he said at all. This is your problem. You read something and it goes through your bullshit filter so when you actually comprehend it you have no idea what is being said.

He said, and I quote: "If Nike charged $500 for their shoes, there would still be people that pay that amount. The ones that can't afford don't have the right to own them. There's always Payless shoes."

This means that if Nike charged $500 for their shoes, there would likely still be some people who would buy them. However, those who couldn't afford them would not have the right to own them and they would have to buy a different shoe from a store like Payless Shoes.

He says nothing about Nike being the only one who gets to sell running shoes. He simply said Nike as a brand deciding to charge $500 per pair, there would be other running shoes out there, they just wouldn't be Nike.

Oh, and for the record. Maybe someone who actually writes a sentence that says, "gest the question s are you a moron." Probably shouldn't be calling people morons. What does this sentence even say?

first of all fcc rules are so severe that you can't even say fuck, BSG had to create a word frack to get by those rules (form of self censorship)

seriously how stupid do you have to be to not see the solution in your own statement

in a world where mediums compete there would be no insentive to do that type of self censorship you no longer have to struggle to avoid the dreaded R rating because the difference would actually increase the demand for your dvd/pvr/movie sales.

nope were talking about killing a system that is designed to promote self censorship to avoid the dreaded R rating and replacing it with one that promotes full cultural expression.

only a world class morn to stupid to see the solution withing his own statement would think otherwise.

except he made that statement to backup your bullshit statment that CSI miami represeted true and valid cmpetition to THOR.

which was equal to nikeing being the sole supplier of running shoes and saying that they still have competition because you can run in army boots.

hell it more valid that your bullshit CSI = thor arguement because there are 100k of people in the army every single day doing that. CSI is a totally and completely different demographic.

what he is arguing for is exactly what i am talking about

the content being available on every medium and being sold based on true market driven competitive advantages.

you do realize that exactly the arguement the article is making right

that congress shouldn't blindly accept the copyright cartels recomendations (like chanign the laws to may you liablle based solely on IP address) because there personal interest is to protect there monopoly income.


btw you might want to look up the senate hearings against the VCR JV made the exact same arguement.

your so busy trying to defend the monopoly profits you can't even see the solutions to your made up problem already exist

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg

You like to argue that since torrents (or file sharing sites or whatever) may contain at least some non-infringing material that the service must be viewed as legal. Only if ALL of the content is infringing should the site be considered contributory to infringement.

How is it then that in your logic an action from a significant minority (basically a handful) of copyright holders becomes the de facto standard for all of this so-called "copyright industry."

There are FAR fewer copyright holders engaged in such practices as IP-hunting than those that are. There are FAR fewer copyright holders complaining about legitimate fair use rights than those that are (especially since appropriate commentary of a work almost always INCREASES sales -- copyright holders know this).

When was the last time you saw all copyright holders complain about public libraries buying just a single copy of a book, then letting any just old slob read it for free? You've never seen that, because that's a ridiculous scenario, yet if one idiot publisher argues against libraries, you use it as a "proof" of illegal copyright cartels.

no i didn't i said based on how the technology works since no one is sharing a complete working copy at all, the actions of the seeder and the tracker are covered by fair use (cacheing/backup/recovery)

and that the actions of the downloader could be either fair use (timeshifting/backup/recovery/access shifting) or not

they are legal because the way the technology works their actions are already covered by existing fair use.


the decision to go after the infringing downloaders should not violate the privacy rights of the fair use downloaders.



because of baldface misrepresentations like the one you just did above.

If you can't even be trusted to accurately represent what i said , then you are part of the "minority" i am decrying

when you add all of those people it no longer a "minority".

you just did exactly what i am complaining about you.

by putting a bound contraint about "appropriate" commentary of work

you not supposed to decide what is appropriate commentary, you gave up that right when you claimed your exclusive right

all commentary weather is cost you sales or makes you sales is "appropriate".



so because your not arguing against an established fair use that would be insane to argue against i should allow you to censor a free speech in area just established by technlogical innovation.

the fact is if i were to invite people over to my house, play my taped copy of orquestra and tell my friends you have to check that out this is the coolest dance routine i have ever seen. that would be protected commentary

the only difference between doing that and posting the video on youtube is that i can now tell the world MY OPINION.

both actions are equally legitimate, and denying me the second means your denying me the technological advancement for self expression that the tubes provide.

That just wrong

torrent freak is to copyright what foxnews is to politics. lying sacks of shit pushing an agenda.

right and it not like MPAA isn't pushing their agenda

the point of balance is that you need to take the time to look at the other side

and when you have people like kane making the point of the analogy with there own analogy

and the trying to argue the analogy is wrong because they can't make any analogy.

your "side" doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The problem is that your "solution" actually causes the producer of the content to limit its access. I understand you can't say fuck on broadcast TV, but if Thor is PG13 (which it is) there will be no uses of the word fuck in it.

Here is the problem with your solution.

You are pissed because the theater is limiting access to their product but no releasing it in all formats. Your brilliant idea is to force them to release in all formats at the same time. However, to force competition you want them to "auction" off the rights to the highest bidder. So say ACT 3 theaters wins the rights to show Thor in the theater. Good for them. The problem is there is no ACT 3 theater within about 30 miles of where I live. There is a Regal Cinemas theater about 5 minutes away, but I will have to drive a long ways if I want to watch it in the theaters. This limits the availability in the theater and will cost the producers money.

So for me it isn't a big deal because I would rather watch it on PPV. The problem is Comcast won the PPV rights and I don't have Comcast. I don't even have the ability to get Comcast. Where I live I have cable through Wave Broadband. I also have the option of one of the dish companies or TV through DSL from the phone company which is just a licensed version of Direct TV. In the US there are lots of areas where cable companies have the sole right to operate in that area. That is the monopoly you should be pissed about. only about 20% of households in the US have Comcast. So again, your solution limits access to the product. The idea was that fair use would provide the product to all customers in the format they desired and clearly that isn't happening. Your soultion was that I switch to Comcast. Even if I could why would I? What happens next week when a movie I want to see on PPV is sold exclusively to Dish Network, do I then switch to that service?


So your suggestion is that movies that would have held back a little bit so that they were PG 13 will now push themselves to be Rated R so that they they can force broadcast networks to edit them and compete with the theaters?

That is idiocy at its finest. You do realize that most rated R movies don't do as well at the box office as PG 13? They make the movies PG 13 or below so that they can reach a wider audience. They aren't going to force themselves to limit access to an audience in the theater just so they can force an edit on TV. Believe it or not there are some artists who can tell a complete story without cursing, nudity, sex or violence. They shouldn't be forced to add those elements to their story just so they can be edited out by the networks.

Your argument is getting more and more delusional as you rant on.

I used CSI Miami as an example because it was what was in my head.

Here I will give you a better example. After your fair use solution keeps me from seeing Thor in the format I want or at a price I can justify for myself I will be stuck having to watch Spider-Man.

Happy now. They are comparable. Thor is a Marvel superhero, so is Spidey. Just like if I can't afford a Nike shoe I can go buy a different brand running shoe. You are the one that took the leap that Nike should be the only one allowed to sell running shoes. Not me.

you do realize that how it works now

two big chains famous players and cinimax odion control virtually all the theaters in the marketplace. Theaters for the most part belong to one of those two chains, sure there are a few "independent" theaters in small towns (so small they only have one theater)

but even tiny cities like london have both chains supported.

look at the paper some times the movie doesn't appear on both chains screens it one or the other.

So your arguement against is total bs

even if you were right

30 miles is a whole 30 minute drive, big fucking deal.

if the 30 minute drive was to much you have other medium to choose from
mediums your completely denied now.



again the current system would just change in time, it would be the ppv liciencing chains that would bid for the rights, and would sublicience

exactly the same type of eclusivity that currently exist

the only difference is that this medium would compete that it


do you even know how the rating system works.
A movie is complete and sent to the MPAA for rating.

movies are usually shot to a level above the PG 13 ratng and then go thru a pain in the ass editing process to get down to the PG 13 version

which is a hell of a lot worse for the independent film maker.



parallel rating release would be way better




really how much you want to bet that when thor comes out on DVD they will have a directors cut version of the movie.

the concept of having a directors cut version as a way to sell the movie again to people who already saw it in the theaters is now an established principle


that principle would simply move back in time with ppv and theaters carrying the "director cut version"

while tv would carry the PG-13 version.

This is what i am talking about your so desperate to defend the abuse you actually ignore the existing system that already in place which solves your made up problem.

I live in one of those small towns. As does a very large segment of the population.

It wasn't that long ago you were arguing that your dad was too sick to even get to the theater and now you are telling me a 30 minute drive is nothing. What if I don't have a car? My local theater is a few blocks away, 30 miles is a long way.

All I am doing here is exactly what you do. Someone makes a point with you and your reply is IF this happened and IF this were the case. It is always IF IF IF IF until you find a loophole.

I'm just doing what the pirates do which is pick every little thing apart until you find some little loophole that lets you get it for free.





But in the meantime you are going to force movie producers to potentially deny large chunks of their potential audience their product. Movie studios are so anal about making every dollar they can that they stress out over a few theaters somewhere having a power outage that costs them some ticket sales. How will they react when you and your fair use solution forces them sell their PPV movie to one provider thus denying it to 70% of the country?




For starters not every movie is shot to a rating that is above PG 13 then edited back. Many of them shoot towards PG 13 and may have to make some tweaks. I won't deny that the ratings system is fucked. It is different for everyone. When the South Park guys make a movie they are treated differently by the ratings board than someone like Spielberg is.

You can be sure that Toy Story 3 was not shot towards an R and edited down. Because of this there would be no reason for a broadcast network to edit it unless it was for time. If they don't edit for time, I download a commercial free version and have the exact same product others are charging for.






First off a "directors cut" or "unrated" version doesn't mean it is rated R when the original was PG 13. In the case of unrated it simply means they made a change to it and didn't resubmit to the ratings board. They then market it as if it it somehow dirtier or something more intense then the original. Same with the directors cut, he might change some stuff, but it doesn't mean it is now an R rated movie. Charlies Angels: Full Throttle the theatrical release was rated PG 13 and was 105 minutes long. The unrated version was 106 minutes long. So they added 1 minute of footage, it could be anything, and then they don't submit it for rating. it doesn't mean the unrated version is now rated R.

Sure they can then go back and market it again on PPV, but are you not against this? Don't you want it to be out at the same time? This is just the movie studio denying access to the content in an effort to stretch out their monopoly and control distribution. They should be forced to also release any future planned editions including directors cuts or unrated versions all on the same day that the movie is released. They should not be allowed to see if the movie performs well at the box office and then decide if it is worth the effort and money to release an unrated or directors cut version.

idiot you just made my point for me

under your system the 30 minute drive means you have no ability to see the movie at all

under mine you could use any of the other mediums that would be allowed to compete

no matter how much you want to twist it my solution solves the problem your complaining aobut more than yours.


my solution doesn't have to be perfect it just have to better than yours at providing full access.



you created a city of butt fuck no where where there was only one theater, one video store with no copies one tv station, one cable company no ability to recieve any packages from the outside world and no stores selling dvd

but full internet access to the thepiratebay


your so desperate to justify charging $3-4 more by limiting choice that you actually fake a town that can't exist in the real world to justify your "lets you get it for free" bullshit.




i just googled your system is exactly like the candian, roger and bell are the cable providers and the PPV channels are licienced based on the station carrier (HBO, SHOWCASE, etc)

the ondemand version are actualy carried by the channel

So the exclusivity currently exist now



Nothing would change no one who has access now would be denied access in fact as you pointed people who would normally be denied access because of theater only system could use another medium


HBOonDemand bought the exclusive PPV rights to THOR every cable carrier that sublicienced HBO would grant access, you simply would have to call up and add the channel to your monthly bill.




very few movies are shot perfectly with no editing whatsoever

your arguement is based on an impossible situation where the only thing that will be a bases of editing is rating.

you know that senerio is just as unlikely as butt fuck nowhere existing in the real world

so i am dealing with that insanely impossible situation with my point.




even toy story 3 had an extended version

we were talking about rating because you prequalifed no editing for time consideration

we are talking about the impossible unlikely situation where the only reason for editing was rating.

no your switching back to non rating editing

guess what the current situation is the solution again, instead of differentiating on rating they differentiate on time

the commercial free (HBO version) would be the extended version because of time based editing (not having to fill an X 1/2 hour slots)

again your making up a problem to justify ripping off the customer.




MORON it doesn't have to be R rated

it just has to be different enough that people will want to buy it even if they can timeshift comercial free version.

but here the point if the difference isn't enough to legitimately convice people to buy (your charlies angel example)

your actually trying to justify setting up a system that will deliberately screw people over by selling this crappy "unrated" version at a later time.

the system that allows competition to prevent that type of screw job is better for consumers.

this is the bullshit premise to justify your position

braodcast networks will air every single movie unedited so that there will be no need to buy a ppv or dvd because you will be able to download the exact same thing for free from the torrents

supposedly after access shifting comes into existance all the movie studio execs who realized they could sell dvd to people who already saw the movie in the theater by releasing an extended version will forget this fact and decide not to release such an extended version on dvd or ppv

even though broadcast tv has to fit into X 1/2 blocks while Premium channels/PPV can have any beginning and end times they will always cut their movies to fit in X 1/2 hour blocks.

my god are you still at it ........