Quote:
Originally Posted by CamTata
I have all the contemporaneous articles and testimony before Congress. You dear sir are twisting his words and thoughts of others at that time. Just as you have morphed "Fair Use" into "Free Use".
|
so i am twisting his words by quoting the entire paragraph of what he said
While your being true to it by quoting a third party interpretation of the context of what he said
Quote:
|
Fair use originally was the idea that there were some uses which were truly in the public interest, parody and reviews for example.
|
and if congress had wanted fair use to be a static thing they would have explictly codified the fair use in the act instead of establishing a legal test for determining what was fair use
Thank god they did, because if they hadn't the home viewing market (a market which exceeds all other movie revenue combined, 5 years after hollywood finally embraced it) would never have existed.
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that, "An owner of property who seeks to take it from one who is unlawfully in possession has long been recognized to have greater leeway than he would have but for his right to possession. The claim of ownership will even justify a trespass and warrant steps otherwise unlawful." Copyright owners should have the same right as other tangible property owners to stop the brazen theft of their property.
|
to bad the very supreme court has explicitly ruled that copyright infringement is not theft
as i have already proven to you before
https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1054...urt+s tealing
i find it funny that you would quote the supreme court to make an argument that the supreme court invalidate
Quote:
Your "Fair Use" piracy costs real people real money. Piracy profiteers offer interesting if self-serving theories, claiming that illegal downloading is either neutral or even beneficial to rights owners. However, the dilemma of creators is too real to just theorize away.
|
if the benefits or neutrality of "illegal downloading" is just a theory, then by definition so would all the damage your complaining about. If you can accurately count the positive effects of sharing, they you have no idea if the result is a net loss or net gain.
Quote:
[
Many pirates want to blame creators for piracy. Claiming they have caused the problem by failing to embrace technology and change their business models. They pose that copyright owners allow free distribution and downloading of their works and then generate revenue by selling advertising or offering enhanced services.
Pirates also intimate creators are too stupid to recognize that illegal downloads demonstrate great untapped consumer demand for their works on-line. They believe that people who have invested real money in the creations don't want to capture new sources of revenue from that investment. Hogwash.
|
5 years after they embraced the VCR as medium the home viewing market was bigger then all other content revenue combine.
Rather then reducing the amount of syndication revenue, syndication revenue jumped as tv stations expanded syndication of shows into daytime time slots.
if the content creators are so good at realizing and capturing new sources of revenue
why did the spend 14 years fighting against the VCR (including going to congress and comparing the vcr to the boston strangler)
instead of embracing it immediately.
History not pirates tells me copyright holders are clueless about understanding the untapped demand that piracy validates.
For every dollar you think your losing now to piracy there is 37 dollars available if you embraced the technology.
Quote:
|
Instead of stopping piracy, Baker and his ilk propose that copyright owners simply hand over their property rights and let the government set the fee for downloads of their works. Not only is this suggestion antithetical to the notion of property rights, it is absurdly unrealistic. You want technological advancement? Let government do it and ineptitude unfolds. Look no farther than the FCC they have been stifling technological advancement for 70 years.
|
seriously moron read the article
he is talking about one form of subsidization (monopoly control) with another more market driven subsidization (assignable tax credit).
the current system grants the "bob Dylan" of our era the same protection as the paul markham's of the era.
His solution would reward quality and punish crap.
Pre paying and guaranteeing income to the artist that produce work that is in demand, rather then creating a fake scarcity to drive up prices.