Would you believe my generation of Family invented the Wheel?

You do realize that your perfect little solution here is socialism right? You are so hellbent on breaking up the monopoly that the movie theaters have that you are now want to force an entire industry to do things how you see fit and damn the consequences. Of course you don't care about their potential lost earnings, because it isn't your money.

BTW, I didn't create the little town I have used as an example, I live in it. The town I live in has 1 movie theater and we just got that about a year ago. Before that there were ZERO movie theaters in town. We used to have both Blockbuster and Hollywood video, but about a year ago Hollywood Video went out of business so now there is just blockbuster. If I want want cable TV I can get it through Wave Broadband which is owned by Charter Communications. I can also get TV from my local phone company via DSL, but it is just branded Direct TV or I can get the satellite providers. Not all of these offer the same on demand services.

If the movie was made available at every theater, not just the theaters that win your little auction I would only have to travel about 8 blocks to see it, not 30 miles.

Here is the funny thing. The town that is next to mine is smaller and has zero movie theaters. The only TV options are Wave or satellite and they don't have any video stores. There are large segments of the population in this country that live in places exactly like this.

Mostly I am fucking with you because I am fascinated by your mind. You have gone to extreme lengths coming up with ideas that are crazy and that you clearly will never implement and likely only use as ways to justify your downloading of other people's content.

But I ask you this: Where does it stop? HBO and Showtime make original series. I should not be forced to buy that service to see those shows. They are doing exactly as the movie theaters are and they are limiting access to the shows in order to force me to pay for their service. I demand that the also licenses those shows to all mediums on the day that they air. The same with other shows like Breaking Bad on FX. I shouldn't have to buy an extended cable package to get that channel in order to see that show. They are limiting access to their content and trying to strong-arm me into buying more cable service than I want in order to see their show. They should be forced to also broadcast those shows in all mediums. The same must be done with movies that are made and go directly to DVD. I should not be forced to buy or rent a movie on DVD to see it. That is forcing me into a medium I am nor comfortable with. I want all of those movies released in all formats as well.

Worst of all offenders are sports teams. Many pro sports teams have a blackout policy that says if a certain number of tickets are not sold to the game they will not air the game on TV. That is dead wrong! they should not be allowed force me to pay to watch the game, they should release the game on free TV no matter what because otherwise they are limiting access to their content and using that limited access to force me to buy the ticket. The same can be said with band playing live. they are holding a monopoly over thier live shows and forcing me to buy a ticket to it. That is wrong, the show should be available in all formats live as it happens.

If we are going to go socialist and force companies to do what you want, lets' go all the way and get the job done right the first time.

I'm assuming you mean broadcast networks WON'T air every single movie unedited. This is another prime case of the guy who can't actually form a sentence calling other people morons.

This, again, makes no sense. Suddenly studio execs are just going to stop trying to sell extended versions of DVDs? Wrong. Likely they will continue as they are which is that they sell the normal version, then 6 months later they sell the unrated version and 6 months after that the sell the directors cut.

Or they could simply air the movie unedited and add in the exact number of commercials needed to reach the next 1/2 block.

so denying a monopoly abuse as bad as demanding that you want reruns at the time of broadcasting

or as bad as demanding that you demanding you buy 7 songs you don't want just to get the 3 you do

is socialism

i notice you still haven't explained why studios are $3-4 of extra profits is legitimate when the $3 extra (in tv case ) or the $7 (in CD case) wasn't enough to justify denying the fair use.

You might want to lookup the word socialism breaking down a monopoly is by definition a capatilist ideal.


except in the case of butt fuck nowhere you added some other impossible conditions

you skipped right by netflix mailing you the movie

and you skipped right by buying the movie on dvd from amazon

to jump straight to getting it for free from the pirate bay.


all so you could fabricate the claim my arguement is just an attempt to justify taking the content for free.

there is no way to getting the right to download it legally for free in the real world because even backwater town isn't so tiny it cut off from the US postal service.

That the point

you have to make up an impossible situation to get the content for free legally

what exactly about the statement

do you not understand

do you think marvel studio sends reps to every single hick town to negotiate their movies showing one theater at a time

Hell NO

they assign the right EXCLUSIVELY to a middle man like lion's gate

lions gate (this would be the exclusive buyer i am talking about)
goes to the theater chains (famous players) and sell them first run rights exclusively
your backwater theater would get the movie rights to broadcast by going to the chain that has the exclusive first run rights and agreeing to pay the fee (usually 100% of ticket sales for the first week, 75% second week and 50% for all remaiing weeks).

the only difference between what happening now and what i am talking about is that

first run won't be for all mediums , just theaters.
the parallel distribution channels like DVD/PPV/Broadcast TV would be "allowed" to compete for the viewers.







since i am not talking about changing the current liciencing in any way but time delay between releases

if this was accurate your actually arguing for a complete ban against such towns.

while i am arguing for enough choice that there is at least a potential to see the content.

i get that your arguements are insanely stupid, your ignoring the US postal services existance to jump right by netflix and amazon to claim a free download which doesn't exist will exist.


No one is that stupid.


except your not forcing them to do anything

your just talking away the special control granted by one act for any medium they CHOOSE delberately exclude from competition.

That a consequence of an abuse

that no different that saying you will go to jail if you kill someone

no one is forcing you to stop killing, if you want to kill someone you just choose to accept the consequence if you do.

no you moron for your statement to be true broadcast networks will have to air every single movie unedited.

If even one movie is aired edited your bullshit there is no reason to by the dvd or PPV arguement completely falls apart.


exactly your bullshit arguement about no one needing to buy DVD or PPV because they can get commercial free timeshifted copy would never happen

because the execs who are currently selling extended versions of DVD will simply sell those versions in simultaniously

The PPV version will be the unedited directors cut version too

So there WILL be a reason to buy the DVD or PPV if those difference justify the extra cost.



so to justify your bullshit arguement the current FCC laws that govern the ratio between commercials and content would suddenly disappear.


or are you claiming that the FCC will suddenly become stupid about inforcing those laws.

Again it is pointless for this to go on. Clearly I feel the movie companies distributing movies the way they do now is not a monopoly and even if it were it is only for a limited time because within about 3-4 months of a movies release it starts to roll out into different formats and at different price levels. I see competition for these movies in theater between other movies and even other theaters. The theater in my little butt fuck nowhere town charges $8 for a ticket, while another theater that is about 15 miles away and is a little bigger, has nicer chairs and bigger screens charges $11 per ticket. Right there is competition.

You, on the other hand, want to force companies to do things your way. You want to dictate to them how they sell their product regardless of the potential financial loss or burden it puts on them. Regardless of whether a movie only being in theaters is or is not a monopoly, a government telling an industry how it will operate and controlling how it will sell its product is socialism. It is the definition of socialism. Your idea is so far fetched and so far out there that it isn't possible to pull of on a logistical scale. The bottom like is that you are a just another member of what I call Generation Me. You want it your way on your terms and if you don't get it you want people to be forced to give it to you that way. It is sad really.

and you just proved the point of the article

fair use is the bound contraint on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder

and you want copyright holder to define those bound contraints

imagine if any other monopoly was allowed to dictate Weather they were or were not a monopoly

Do you think microsoft would ever say we are a monopoly of course not

if you have any doubts look up bill gates testimony to congress.

bullshit i do care about the potential loss, my arguement is based on balance and previous precedent

copyright holders said the VCR was infringing because it would cost them the revenue they would have gotten from people watching reruns.

copyright holders said the diamond rio was infringing because it would cost them the revenue they got from selling people 7 songs they didn't want to get the 3 on the album they did want.


both of those "lost revenue" streams were income generated by using copyright exclusive right to prevent alternative MEDIUMS from competing (beta max tapes vs re runs & mp3 vs CD)

which is exactly what i pointed the extra $3-4, your defending, is coming from (theaters VS DVD VS Broadcast TV VS PPV VS Streaming VS Torrents)

i have asked you over 53 times now to explain what is so different about the revenue that justifies handicapping of competitive mediums this time when it was never accepted in those previous cases

you keep dodging the question.

It is very simple. If the VCR was never allowed to exist there would NEVER be movies on tape. If the MP3 was never allowed to exist there would NEVER be digital music. With a movie it will be out in all kinds of different formats. You aren't denied it forever you just have to wait for it.

-When a drug company invents a new drug they get the sole rights to be the distributor for that drug for a number of years. The idea is that since they took all the risks to develop it, they can use that time to recoup their cost.

-Sports teams limit access to their product all the time. With the NFL if the game isn't sold out they black it out in the local market to force people to buy a ticket. MMA and Boxing have PPV events all the time where the only two ways to see the event is to buy a ticket and see it live or pay $50 to watch the broadcast on PPV

-The music industry does a version of this when they release a single or two and use it to build up interest in an album then release the full album.

-Netflix is doing a version of this right now. Netflix doesn't get many new releases for around 30-90 days after they are released. they cut a deal with the movie studios that they would wait to get the new releases in exchange for getting more of their library available on streaming.

- Many clothing companies do this. They have exclusive deals with certain retail stores that force you to shop at certain stores in order to buy that particular brand of clothes.

- Premium cable does this. HBO and Showtime develop their own shows like Dexter and True Blood. The only place you can see them (at first) is on those channels so they force you to buy those channels in order to watch them. Later they make them available on DVD.

-Going back to the music industry we are seeing more and more exclusive deals with stores. When Taylor Swift put out her last album she made a deluxe version that had a couple of extra songs, but it was only available at Target. AC/DC struck a deal that Walmart would be the only store that carried their latest album.

What I am getting at is that that there is a difference between EXCLUSIVE and MONOPOLY. The movie companies are simply releasing their material in a manner that makes it exclusive at first so that they have the best possible chance to recoup their investment. They are not denying anyone it, they are just telling them that if they don't want to pay the exclusive price, they will have to wait a few months.

If that doesn't answer this question you have supposedly asked me 53, times then I need you to calm down and actually write sentences that look something like the English language and explain to me what it is that you want want me to tell you.

except those revenue streams didn't come out until years after the copyright holders lost the rights to the revenue streams i am talking about.


it took 14 years of fighting with the technology for the movie industry to realize that they could put their shit on the cassettes and sell it to people.

It took more than 20 years for thr music industry to create the digital music industry.


You can't use the fact that the copyright industry was totally and utterly wrong about potential revenue generating capacity of the fair use to justify DENYING the next fair use.

and



http://supreme.justia.com/us/464/417/case.html

you might want to actually READ the betamax case before claiming that their is a difference between

ok i will starting your answer for you so it just complete the sentance then

in 1984 the supreme court rejected "fear that time-shifting will reduce audiences for telecast reruns" (and the appropriate revenue generating from liciencing those reruns) in part because "strict enforcement of this monopoly would inhibit the very "Progress of Science and useful Arts" " and copyright exclusive rights were never designed to allow the copyright holder to select one technology over another.


The same arguement basic arguement was upheld again this time denying the selection of one Format over another.


The extra $3-4 dollars of revenue generated from selecting one LOCATION over another should however be considered legitimate because

......

You just made my point for me.

First, I won't argue fair use with you. We clearly have two different opinions on what that is so that is a moot point.

As you posted: "The granting of such exclusive rights, under the proper terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly."

I can make the argument that by granting the movie industry a temporary monopoly (which BTW I still don't believe it is) it is actually benefiting the public. How? Simple. Many movies will play the festival circuit before getting a wide release. During this time many people have a chance to see it and write about it. It builds a word of mouth and puts more information about the movie out there for the general public. So when the movie is finally released wide people have enough information about it that they can make an educated decision as to whether or not they want to see it. Secondly, If the movie is a hit at the theater it will get a bigger DVD release so the chances are the DVD will be on sale the first week of its release and save people money. Add in that the video stores like blockbuster will buy more copies of it so the odds of you being able to rent it are greater.

Sure, these are small benefits, but they are benefits. If the producers was forced to release the movie in all formats at the same time they may choose to charge twice as much for the DVD upon release. Blockbuster may have no idea that a particular movie is going to be a hit and under order so renting it could be difficult. Not to mention the reality that some movies rely on the festival circuit to build an audience because they are low budget independent movies. Without being able to take advantage of that marketing tool the movie would hit its release as a complete unknown and likely fail.

We aren't talking about monopolies that last 5 years, 10years, forever. We are talking about 16 weeks. 16 weeks is about the average time it takes for a movie to shift from the theater to DVD. Your life isn't going to be destroyed if you have to wait a few months to get your DVD.

And as I posted above once you have brought the socialist hand of justice down on the movie industry and forced them to distribute to your model are you then going to clean up those other industries I mentioned?

The extra $3-4 dollars of revenue generated from selecting one LOCATION over another should however be considered legitimate because the two have nothing to do with each other. Is a location the same as technology or format? No. The movie industry is not saying that you cannot have a DVD or a download or PPV or a free broadcast of the movie. They are just saying you need to wait for it to trickle down to that. The above case with timeshifting the studios wanted to fully deny people that ability. That isn't the case here. They just want some time to have exclusive rights to their distribute the movie to premium customers first so that they have the best possible chance of making their money back.

Think of it like boarding a plane. The airline lets the first class customers on and off the plane first. Why? Because they paid for that privilege. You aren't being denied the plane ride, but since you chose to spend a lot less on a cheaper seat, you have to wait a few minutes to get on and off the plane. The same goes for a movie. If you want to pay $3-$4 instead of $8-$12 you have to wait for a little while. at the bakery you don't get to pay the fresh bread at the same price as the day old.

really then why the fuck did the movie industry say

if you want to timeshift (wait 14 weeks) and watch the reruns

it was all about selecting one TECHNOLOGY for timeshifting over another
in that case reruns over Betama


so forcing people to wait 14 weeks is wrong but making them wait 16 is right

how stupid do you have to be to believe that bullshit.

the highest court in the land explictly says that it a monopoly and you don't believe

and you wonder why people argue against you having input into re writing the laws.

it however does share one unique characteristic with both techology and format
all three are NOT content.

copyright grants exclusive right to control the distribution of content
the courts recognized that the act does not give them the right to use that exclusive right to grant someone else/themselves an exclusive right to something other than content (technology/format/location).

if the fact that location is not technology was enough to justify your position then the fact that format was not technology would have won in the diamond rio case.

Kane,

Stop feeding this troll please. It's useless.

Peace,
BV

Format is technology. A hard drive that spins is a technology. A solid state hard drive is a different technology. Me standing in my house is a location. Me standing in my neighbor's house is a location. I didn't need to develop anything new in order to stand in my neighbor's house. I simply had to walk over there. They are the same thing, just in two different places.

Look, clearly we are two different mindsets so there is no use in going on with this so I will just submit. You win, you are right. Strip all copyright holders of all their rights. Force them to release on your schedule how you see fit any way you want it to happen. Shut down and destroy the film festival circuit. Force independent filmmakers to compete on the same level as the the major studios and see them get crushed.

The old saying is be careful what you wish for you just may get it.

If you get your way and independent film gets crushed and every movie and TV show is so full of blatant product placements that they become impossible to watch or songs become keyword stuffed or most movies made a simply junk to appease the masses of sheep that will eat what they are fed and we see the death of anything with any intellect because it no longer is profitable to make, don't say I didn't warn you.

And if you are correct and this new fair use creates billions in new revenue and millions of new jobs I will admit that I was wrong and stupid for thinking the way I do. But I have a feeling that day won't come.

i love how you deliberately ignored the fact that there were TWO questions that congress must consider

so you can only answer the first
let look at that

first of the buzz meter on imdb tracking the jump in interest based on title for new movies this week

Thor 100%
Something Borrowed 129%
Jumping the Broom 321%
The Beaver 199%
Last Night 18%
Passion Play -7%


only jumping the broom had a significant increase and that because it had no press before (unlike thor which has had a steady stream for months) and the press about one of the actresses in the movie

your talking about 1/5 or 20% at best

that jump is not that impressive as the fact

http://torrentfreak.com/hobo-with-a-...top-10-110416/

hobo with a shot gun jumped 252 to 9 after appearing on the pirate bay 13th most downloaded .

natually and organically without a media push normal internet chatter created by sharing the content created the "buzz" your solely attributing to exclusivity.

the all medium method would benefit such movies because convenience sales (it easier to just pay $3 for the PPV then risk getting a virus from the pirate bay)


which means there are probably just as many movies that would benefit from the all access method as the limited access method.

but for the sake of arguement lets say that your side benefits twice as much (which is a stretch given how little jumping jumped up the list vs hobo)

your down 12.5% of the movies will see this benefit.

it doesn't matter the duration it matters the damage

lets ignore the 30 trillion a year lost to new technological advancement even though legally to ignore it you would have to prove that it doesn't exits (since even potential loss is damage based on the probability of the event happening).

let just talk about the damage you aknowledged

first of all there the extra revenue your defending ($3-4 on an $8 ticket)

that like 50% higher cost for EVERYONE in the public. So 100% of the public is paying twice as much money as they would if the "temporary monopoly" didn't exist

Then there are all those small towns with internet access but only one theater. When a movie doesn't show in that town those people are completely denied to participate in the free speach buzz you were talking about.

then they are people who are handicapped and therefore can't go to the theaters (like my dad)

lastly as you pointed some movies that suck would be able profit from good opening weekend before the news got out how crappy there movies were. Of cin exvhourse if you look at it from the publics point of view, that represents people getting ripped off by piece of crap movie because of the "temporary monopoly" your defending


so exchange for a small benefit that my only help 12.5% of the movies released (and probably way less since movie execs would stupidly do the same thing when the market has changed)

your damage is 100% price increase, censorship of free speach, completely denial to handicapped people, getting away with scamming people out of their money)

if that your definition then how is a film projector not a different technology then a dvd player

if your arguing that format was covered by the not allowed to use content monopoly to pick a technology

how would picking a film projector over a dvd player not be covered by the same arguement.

You do realize that 30 trillion dollars is about half of the GDP of the entire world. It doesn't matter how much bullshit you sling you won't convince me that not releasing movies in all formats on the day of their release is costing that much in technological development.

Otherwise, you win! you are correct. I give up! You wore me down! You get it your way!

I will spend now stop arguing in this thread and spend my time developing content that you and your socialist friends can tell me what to do with and how to make money off of.

hey like i said i ignored it just for you
the number came from assuming technology would accelerate just as fast as technology accererated when format shifting drop down the price of solid state disk

the technlogical improvements perculated thru every computer technlogy from cpu to memory to hard drives.

Try adding up all the computer electronics as a portion of GDP convert it to 1982 dollars and subtract the computerized industry of that time.

from cellphones to camera to even cars and farming equipment you would be hard pressed to find a single device that has not improved because format shifting comercialied and commodized solid state disk.

get it thru your head no one is forcing a content creater to do anything

all that i am talking about taking away the "right" to stop people from redistributing their content IF abuse their monopoly (supreme courts words) to pick one medium over another.

If a copyright holder wants to pick one medium over another they can do that

They just have to live with the consequences of that decision.