Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
you do realize those are all examples of how the use effect the ECONOMIC value of the content.
which is why i said the arguement would come down to these companies having to prove
but it doesn't matter your arguement just proved you wrong
you didn't make it based on desire not to have it featured but on the ECONOMIC loss
which is exactly the point i was making about fair use
it not about censorship it about ECONOMIC damage.
|
You yourself said that if a company refused to license the songs it was censorship. I didn't say that, you did. You said,
"this is about using copyright to censor free speach by refusing to licience the content at any price."
Sorry dude, that isn't the case. A copyright holder has the right to just say no to someone and they can choose to not license their music to someone. If they choose to do this, it doesn't mean that person now gets to use it anyway.
Quote:
if i teach them how to change their content or their tours so that ratio jump from 1:1200 to 1:300 then my copyrighted material is responsible for that change.
if you want to use old non converting sponsors do so.
i can't use my copyright to claim your income, if copyright worked the way you did, i could simply say i don't want you to use my copyrighted material and i could sue you for sending traffic to those superior tours.
so fair use does specifically prevent that.
it was the condition to your agree to disagree condition, you said you were ok with it and now you are backing out.
which is sort of funny since your trying to misrepresent my consistant statement.
|
Again, you are grasping at straws. If I am sending traffic to a sponsor and they use some magic formula you sell them to redesign the site and get better sign-up ratios they can't just suddenly say that they now own my traffic and aren't going to pay for it. This has nothing to do with copyright.
If they changed the marketing materials they provided me with they can and will copyright those materials. Again, this doesn't give them the right to just take my traffic and not pay for it, remember, they gave me the materials to market their site. I have their permission. In essence we have an agreement. I send traffic, if people buy a membership I get a commission for that sale. Fair use has nothing to do with it. If they decide to stop paying for my traffic for any reason, I will take it to a competitor and so will everyone else that they do that to. The market and competition protects me, not fair use.
I agreed to disagree with you because you think everything is fair use and I feel that the creators of content should be allowed to control how their content is used/distributed regardless of any economic impact. That is what I agree to disagree with you about. This has nothing to do with your magic formulas and "hypothetically" creating some system that makes it okay for a company just to take my traffic and not pay for it.
BTW if fair use protects me can you please notify, Ibill, Girls Gone Wild and Quickbuck and let them know that fair use forbids them from just deciding to screw over affiliates and not pay them. I'm sure once you point out to them that they are in violation of fair use agreements they will quickly cut checks to everyone that is owed money.
Quote:
i agreed only to show him what to do and then walk away, the only condition is what i showed him if implemented as instructed would generate 100ish sales a day.
basically ther 543 building blocks that are available, i believe only 5 need to done to replace the income lost to "piracy" i agree to keep teaching until we make 100 sales/day if i am right it a great deal for me, if i am wrong i will have to give up more of the ip to get it done.
i stand behind that agreement
i will however not do all the work for nothing more than what i would get for being an affiliate (hell 100 sales a day would get me more as a whale).
|
It was made pretty clear that he would build the site, handle the billing and run the site and provide you with anything you would need. Your job would be to send traffic that would create at least 100 joins per day. Basically, you would be an affiliate, but you would be the only affiliate. It is a chance to show all of us who laugh at you that you really know what you are doing. To show us all that you are right and we are all wrong.
Let's do the math: You get to 100 sales per day and let's say you agree upon a 50% split with Doc paying for the processing fees. So on $29.95 per month membership you would get $14.98 per sale, recurring each moth that person rebilled. That is $44,980 per month. Assume the second month that only 30% rebill. That means in month 2 you make your $44,980 plus $14,980 in rebills for $59,960. You keep that up for a full year and you are making 719K for the year and that is being conservative and assuming most people only stay a members for 1 month.
You are telling me your time isn't worth a paltry 719K? Hell, if you really can do this I would bet you could find a dozen companies willing to cut you a deal and pay you $35-40 per signup. That's 105-120K per month. If you really can do what you say, I'm sure there are plenty of companies out there that would offer you this. But your time isn't worth 1.2million per year?
I think we all know the truth here. You can send some traffic and you might get some sales, but in the end you know it will do nothing remotely close to these numbers and you don't want everyone on this board knowing it. We all realize that torrent traffic is made up almost entirely of freeloaders who don't want to pay for anything any will argue until their blue in the face about it being their right not to pay. Getting people to download and share your movies and getting them to buy your product are two different things.