Summations Only

I think it's well-known that the RIAA is offering settlements that don't have legal merit; when they come to you and say "here's all the violations of the DMCA you're guilty of, here's the criminal and civil penalties you could face in court; here's the settlement we'll take from you to make it all go away" it's pretty well-established that this is without legal merit, since the RIAA doesn't have the statutory authority they claim to immunize you from prosecution under the DMCA. They know that if they request settlement amounts below the expected legal costs of a protracted courtroom battle, they can get most people to fold, anyway.It's extortion. Because the law makes everybody an "infringer!" You yourself described several use scenarios which you thought constituted reasonable "fair use", but which actually made you a criminal under the DMCA. Just about everybody is. Even ripping a CD to use in your iPod might run up against the anti-circumvention provision.

If it's not worth $9 to you, then sure, roll those dice. But it was also the sane thing to do to let someone else pay for Louis CK's comedy video and then download it from them. And sure, a lot of people did that.But a vast majority of people decided that Louis CK's work was worth patronizing, despite the fact that they did not have to. Over four million dollars, Tangle. You just can't argue with that. People overwhelmingly want to patronize the artists that they enjoy. They want to even if they can get it for free.If what you're saying is that nobody will enjoy Lethal Weapon 18 enough to patronize the artists involved, well fine, but then why should the movie even exist? I don't see how it is. Presumably the "money men" aren't going to settle for any less evidence than 4.5 million people, at least, willing to pay for the movie. Actually, in your case, 45 million people, since you're looking for a 10:1 ROI.Under the Kickstarter model, when you convince 4.5 million people that the movie is worth it, you've already got the money. Under your Hollywood model, you have the ten-times-as-hard problem of convincing 45 million people, and then when you have you still have to convince a bunch of other people to "invest."That's clearly a lot harder. Not only is the Kickstarter model more direct, it's easier. So, your position is that I can't be right, but even if I were, it wouldn't convince you. Wow, quite the fortress of invincible ignorance you've set up, there.

No, you're stuck in a dreamworld where piracy isn't unfettered now. That's what you keep ignoring, Tangle - that copyright law has erected precisely zero obstacles to piracy, yet movies continue to be made.How is that possible, under your position? It seems like you have an enormous unanswered question of how movies can even exist. Do you think that the average consumer of a movie can't now download any movie they want, for free, the day of release? You're just being naive.The only question, here, is whether content creators should be able to use the law to punish consumers. Can you, at last, explain why they should?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

if you look really closely, you'll notice that I'm NOT arguing with that. In fact I'm agreeing with that.It's already worked for a few people with low production costs, that's why it'll work quite well for musicians and some writers. I like that model very much, particularly when it's also backed up by public performances that people will pay for. I think it's great.But you'll notice that it's all already been done without changing a single word of any copyright law? Well that's nearly right, you'll never convince me that abolishing copyright will not prevent high cost projects - like Holywood movies - being produced. Without being able to protect the product of their investment, they won't make the investment at all. So that's the end of the Holywood and TV production model.And I don't believe that your plan to replace that existing investment by getting a one off pre-payment for each movie or TV production years in advance from individuals is credible as an idea. In fact, it's barking mad.But, as I keep saying - there's absolutely nothing to stop someone trying - well, nothing except a bit of common sense.

A similar discussion over at FRDB has cropped up.I keep getting censored. If anyone wants to come over and start posting, though, I'm sure they can't censor us all.http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=311064SPREAD THE WORD!ABE: Here's the stuff that's been censored: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=7055624#post705...Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

I never said it couldn't be. So what? But they can't currently protect their investment. You can find any movie on the internet as we speak. The largest markets in the world - the Asian markets - trade pirated copies of films freely, even for profit.Investments in movies are currently completely unprotected, yet investment in movies continues apace. Ending copyright law and restrictive DRM doesn't leave investments in movies any less protected; it simply ends the counterproductive practice of rightsholders choosing to punish their own customers out of misplaced paranoia.

So there's obviously no need to abolish copyright to achieve what you desire. Perhaps that's why the copyright holders are creating such a fuss and demanding all these drachonian measures to protect their investment so that it doesn't disappear entirely? Simply wrong, it is under threat from piracy though. This is just naive nonsense. Western cinemas would not break the law showing pirated movies, shops would not sell pirated movies. That would change overrnight if copyright was removed. it would certainly stop the prosecution of thieves if that's what you mean. It would also destroy an industry whose products I often quite enjoy and am happy to pay for. Just like millions of others.

But the draconian measures don't protect the investment, either. It doesn't "protect" anything at all to arrest people who operate DNS servers. It doesn't protect anything when I can't play my iTunes songs via my Xbox. What threat? But both of those things do currently happen, yet Hollywood stays in business.Everything you think would happen in a "copyfree" society is already happening, we already live in your worst-case scenario yet there's no shortage of profit from content creators. Why? If you're happy to pay for them, why would you stop? Here you are admitting that you want to patronize the artists that you enjoy, and you wonder why people would want to patronize the artists that they enjoy? Answer your own question, then. Why do you want to patronize the artists that you enjoy?

I'm not sure I can see agreement here with my own sentiments and senses.I have to agree with Tangle that complete removal of copyright would quickly result in theatres showing movies and not paying for them.The only fix that the movie makers would have would involve convincing the theatres (instead of the people) to invest in their product. Which might be an alright thing. But it isn't the world we live in now.Movies would still get made, don't get me wrong, and theatres would still play them for free and make killer profits. But it is a little inaccurate to say that we currently live in a 'worst-case scenario' regarding copyright, because we don't.On a side note, I am all in favor of copyrights that prevent others from financially profiting off of other people's work. But I think that is as far as copyrights need to go.Jon

Another thing that crashfrog seems to overlook are the people who would download movies and music if it were legal, but don't because it is illegal. Claiming that we currently live in a world where everyone who wants to download does is just wrong. I know quite a few people who obey the law, even when they think the law is stupid, including people who won't download, or who won't smoke marijuana, "only" because they are illegal.

Because it is easier and more reliable to do so than not?If I could guarantee the same quality of experience and ease of access for free I wouldn't pay to see a film or listen to an album......In fact since I discovered torrenting some years ago I haven't paid for an album. And the only reason I don't take the same approach to films is that it's a fucking bind to download them and then transfer to a format that I can watch at my leisure on TV.Then you have the whole 3D cinema thing....If I had a 3D cinema in my house with the latest films downloaded for free I wouldn't pay for any of them.Would you?Where I do pay for music is to see bands live. And that is because you cannot achieve "he same quality of experience and ease of access" for free.But if someone offered me free tickets I would take them...

Ok, i give up. You're living in a reality that I don't recognise and arguing from contradictory positions.These are my closing remarks.1. Copyright law is necessary to protect the creator's work. If it is abolished indiscriminately, it will destroy existing content creation industries because unless creators can benefit from their work, much of it won't be created. This was why copyright was established.2. The internet and the digitalisation of content has made the piracy of copyright material easy, threat free and for a generation of younger people, guilt free. This will worsen.3. It's unlikely that any measures that the megalithic copyright holders try can do anything to protect their rights in the long run but not everyone everywhere will break the law - particularly businesses. They need to change their business models and in the end, they will.4. New revenue models are being found already, but these are so far low cost of entry products. These models do not require the abolition of copyright, they can be done now.5. Products - including software, TV and cinema - that have high production costs are at risk because without legal protection their investment and business models fail and with it the product flow. Broadcasters like Sky would lose their USP overnight as they lose their sports rights and ability to show first TV film content. Companies - like Microsoft and SAS that are reliant on software rights would fall as their content would become worthless. Many would say that they can live without these things but they really haven't thought it through.5. The new American SOPA stuff is an offense to reason and is unworkable anyway but they could damage the internet - it is rightly being protested and hopefully stopped.

I'm in the same boat as you. However! If I could pay a nominal fee to download a movie from a company for a reasonable fee and be able to do with this copy as I wish (sans distributing) like it being able to play on any media player (PS3, Xbox, media streamer), I would be more than happy/willing to do this as opposed to piracy. I would love to have hollywood catch up to the times (in the same sense as Louis C.K. did). I do also subscribe to the likes of Hulu and Netflix, so that model does work. As it stands now, though, I can be half way through my movie by the time the paying customers even get to the menu of their paid for blu-ray copy. I'd like to think one would be able to skip material on a disc they purchased. This isn't even addressing the current model of movie download sevices and the restrictive DRM.Suffice to say, even if SOPA, PIPA and ACTA are passed, users of the internetz and bays full of pirates will stay one step ahead.{abe}
Holy fuck boys, the grammar of this post is utterly atrocious! I'll leave it here anyways, as is.Edited by hooah212002, : that's some bad hat, harry.

I don't think there's anything there to overlook, but I've already thought of that. The evidence is abundant that the civil and criminal penalties don't really deter downloading. So the people who don't download because it's illegal are largely expressing a moral preference, not responding to the disincentive of the penalties. And the people who are expressing their moral preference not to break a law would be just as likely to express a moral preference that artists they enjoy should be rewarded.

So, in other words you're not going to pay for music under any circumstances.So why do we care what you do? No amount of copyright law is going to force you to patronize the artists you enjoy. Trying to capture your uncapturable revenue just makes things harder for me when I decide to patronize the artists I enjoy. How much sense does that make?