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.

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

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.

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

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.

So how do they figure it out Einstein?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Yes you are.

What do you do for a living?

same GIDIOT rationals LOL

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

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.

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.

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.

50 evil copyright cartels.

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.