Summations Only

I'm going to ignore your mp3 stuff for the moment because I asked a different question to the one you answered. I asked about LW18. Again. I'm the filmaker. If I can't get $40m, I can't make my movie. So how do I persuade someone to give me the dosh?

Like I've said before, good luck with that.In a world where films are free, the sane thing to do is let someone else pay $9 then get it anyway. Then there's the small administrative matter of getting $9 from 4.5m people 3 years in advance.... hopeless. Cobblers. It's a damn sight easier convincing a handful of money men who are hoping to turn their $40m investment into $400m than 4.5m people you don't know and just think it might be a good idea to part with $9 to see if they get anything in three years time. That isn't the way I want to buy my movies.But if someone thinks it'll work, there's nothing stopping them trying anyway.This is the problem with your entire argument. You can't come up with a replacement business model that generates the same content but if you could, it could be done anyway without having to remove copyright from everyone else.Until you can sort that one out, you're stuck in a dreamword.

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.

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.

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.

Rather good TED talk on this here:TED: Not Found

This is really at the core of it - there's plenty to stop people doing it.I'd be staggered if the majority of people know what a torrent is let alone how to get one. I'd be equally staggered if they also knew how to rip a DVD from it or connect their PC to their 20 year old CRT TV and play the pirated film.I'd be staggered again if the majority of people thought that it was ok to break the law and then go ahead and do it, in the knowledge that there is a risk involved - no matter how distant it might seem to us.BUT in a world were all of those issues have gone away and everyone is used to the concept of no copyright, free content and no technology or knowledge barriers, then, of course everyone will do it. THAT's when Hollywood is dead.

That's what you say now.In the world where it's as easy, as convenient and legal to get the movie for free, why would anyone pay a company like Netflix to get it? Everything about human behaviour and economic theory says that the majority, if not all, would use the free method rather than the paid for method. To say otherwise requires a massive leap and flies in the face of common sense.

That's exactly the way it will go. Digital content will be delivered digitally and either streamed or stored locally or a combination. The concept of manufacturing a piece of plastic, printing it, shipping it all around the world and having to go into a congested town with no parking to buy it or get it posted to you is obviously the past not the future.Steam (Valve) says that they are a service business (as opposed to an IP property creator). They half mean it, they still have the copyright symbol on all their works and always will but i understand their point.Netflix is the same idea and is a brilliant service. But actually we only need one Netflix that holds all content. But that's a monopoly.... One way to not have a monopoly is to have many Netflix but how does that work, by limiting content to particular service providers? You can only get LW18 from NetflixA but LW21 is on NetflixB, so you have to pay two subscriptions? Dunno, but I do know that none of it works if content has no copyright.

That's an interesting development, I'd like more details if you have it please.It's worth pointing out that this was done without the need to abolish copyright as I've repeated ad nauseum throughout this thread.It will be interesting to see what happens when the game is published - will it be given away? Who owns it? Is this just another way of raising finance and the game will be sold like all others or is it an entirely different model?

To answer my own question, they will not be making the game copyright free - no surprise there then - and those that fund it get the game as a Steam download when it's ready. I think it's a great idea and good luck to them.I have a few questions along the lines of what happens if it takes 5 years to develop (a lot of games do), it needs more funding, or the game never gets published? Also what happens if it's a huge hit - is there profit sharing? And so on.None of this has anything to do with copyright though......

i'm utterly speechless. So I won't speech.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

And I never claimed it wasn't possible. I claimed - and still claim - that the removal of copyright would destroy Hollywood and that Lethal Weapon 18 would not get made in a world without it.This game is great and I really hope it works for them; the fact that it's not a tech game (relatively low cost and quick development) and that Steam exists to distribute it is a great help.But this thread is about copyright - this has nothing to do with copyright. This game is being developed under existing laws, I still doubt that it would be biilt if there was no copyright for the devlopers to protect future revenue.I know a bit about the games industry and I would be extremely doubtful that a new game from an unknown developer could get this sort of funding or that games that take 3-5 years and $20m+ to develop (more usual than adventure games) could. i also doubt that the public would have any confidence in the model if a game got canned before release (quite normal), was absolute crap because it had already been sold or your mate also got it for free on the day of release.

Well I'm not going round it all again - this is a really interesting business model and, like some of the music models now growing around the internet and performance, I'm sure some of these new models will work well.But it's all happening without changing an atom of the copyright law and it all falls apart - imo - when the entire population has got used to free media easily available. (And no, neither of those two situations exist yet - not even close.)