Summations Only

I'm aware of all that and pointed out the revenue stream from the various release windows over a film's life in an earlier post. I don't know how much the movie made in total, maybe someone can find it, but outside Holland it was a foreign language film with subtitels so it can't be compared to a Hollywood film.But in any case, and no matter what it made, my point is that without copyright protection it couldn't have been made at all - it barely made it with protection, needing government support and acquiring a bankrupcy petition by the crew that wasn't settled for a year. And this was the most successful film ever made in Holland. What chance the rest?Can someone explain to me how that film could get investment if anyone could copy and distribute it for free - including cinema chains. Because that's what no copyright means, a cinema as well as an individual can do what it wants with the media.

Well if they don't, they won't buy it - that's the way it works.The existence of for-profit art doesn't prevent the production of not for-profit art.

I don't think anyone is saying that.The existence of copyright doesn't prevent anybody from making any art - it just allows those that want to, to make money from it.Those artists that wish to, are totally free to make their art available without copyright. Interesting how not many do though isn't it?

The thing is, lots of would be musicians can and do let people listen to their music for free and always have - but they rarely, if ever, give away their copyright. This from SoundCloud's T&Cs It goes on to explain what copyright is and how many finger nails will be removed if you abuse it.Learn about SoundCloud copyright information - Listen to musicMusic is probably one art form that is going to have a net benefit from the internet's ability to allow individuals to share files - the big vested interest of the globalmusicmegacorp disagree. But that doesn't matter because they only control the distribution rights to the music that they have bought the copyright of - if an artist wishes to free-publish they can and I'm sure they will.

None that I can find either. If anyone CAN find any I'd be grateful because I need some rights-free music for my business.Lots of people will allow sharing, but they don't give away their copyright because one day, if they get lucky, it might be worth something. (But without copyright, it can never be.)

crashfrog and Huntard to name but two. It's been the majority of this thread.

I think you need to re-read the thread :-)crashfrog and Huntard have been trying to make a case that even without copyright, people would pay artists. Crashfrog is fine that this model will destroy Holywood, Huntard thinks that films would still be made even if MGM gave the film away because cinemas would still pay even though they didn,t have to. Etc

I think this is a recognition that without copyright, the film industry couldn't raise the cash to make the movie in the first place isn't it?I doubt your inovative pricing model will work, in fact I'm absolutely sure it wouldn't, but even if it did work, I fail to see why we should replace a working system that's reasonably efficient at producing and distributing films with a speculative one.And yet again, anyone wanting to fund a film by selling tickets to people 3 years before it's made, can attempt the trick today without changing anything.

Wow, I've never seen so many straw men stacked up all in one pile before!Copyright has zip to do with free speech. Talk all you like.And I'm positive that Holywood can exist with the internet and can even benefit from it. Certainly music and musicians have a lot to gain.What the world and Hollywood can't survive without is copyright and so far no-one has even come close to a reason why it even should.Your argument is about how copyright is enforced, not about copyright itself.

Talk away, it's perfectly legal to talk about the Hobbit.You're only not allowed to copy the bloody thing and sell or give it to someone else who hasn't paid for it.

Offs, it's perfectly legal to talk about the Hobbit. I wouldn't try performing it on a stage though.

Once again. You can talk about the Hobbit, that's free speech.You can't perform it. That's because it doesn't belong to you' it belongs to someone else. It's reaaly not that hard to grasp.You can talk about my car, but unless I give you permission you can't drive it. That's because it's my car and not yours.And yet again. If Tolkein wanted everyone in the world to do what the hell they liked with his work, he needn't have copyrighted it. But he did. Maybe the next Tolkein won't. I'm not holding my breath on that, are you?

You're crazily wrong about who can talk about Hobbits and my car but I guess you prefer your paranoia to the reality of it.(People here think that you can't brush the snow off their bit of the sidewalk without risking being sued by anybody that gets injured slipping on it - despite it never, ever happening. People often seem to prefer their version of what the law says.)In the end, what you're actually complaining about is not copyright, it's the tortured lengths some copyright owners try to go to to defend it, particularly in the US - and you're not going to get any disagreement from me on that.But I'm not going to agree that copyright can be done away with. It obviously can't be without damage to the products that we all enjoy. Additionally, copyright law doesn't in anyway prevent those who think that there is a no-copyright business model to be found - it's theirs, they can do what they like with it; including giving it away.

On the snow issue. Virtually everyone in the UK has swallowed the myth of the clearing and non clearing of snow - like there was a law on snow clearing. There is no law.The law is about having a duty of care, particularly if you're a business and have the paying public gaining access to your premises. In that case, the restaurant needed to have a safe way of doing that - it seems that they had bad steps which they made worse. If they'd left the snow and someone fell on it, is likely they would have been claimed against too. But that's the culture you guys live in - if there's blame there's a claim.As far as the public doing their bit to help clear snown on the sidewalk (which was my point), it's virtually impossible a citizen clearing snow could be found guilty for doing it - they would have had to have created such a threat to life and limb that a reasonable person would shudder at the thought of it. It's never happened and never will, but millions think it's a real threat. Really, I must have missed that. Can you point me to where you demonstrated it? (Apart from piracy being impossible if there is no copyright, no one has yet explained how Lethal Weapon 18 gets funded. sheesh, your paraonoia knows no bounds......

Nope, I'm still not getting it.It's 2020. Copyright was abolished in 2012 under a law that came to be known as Crashfrog's Law. Now anybody can copy anything they like and give it to anyone they like. The internet is ubiquitous, high speed and any and all content that has ever been produced is easily accessible instantly and at high quality. There is no guilt or fear associated with getting and using it. Everybody does it; it's now the way we get all film and music, TV, software, books and, well, everything.I'm the director of LW18 and I need $40m to make it. Who do I call and how do they get their investment back?