Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
the ability of the copyright holder is currently bound by both the legislature and the courts.
so you have the iexact same problem.
If that not an issue, changing the system to create competing model isn't going to hurt
Remember the option exist to keep the old copyright system
And the attempt to change the laws to deal with the "problem" of piracy always goes against the public interest.
Which means your never going to get a solution unless your willing to give something back.
The tax credit system at least has a market influence in it.
|
Your idea falls on these hurdles.
1. The assumption that Governments will treat the Internet better than they treat charities. By not using their involvement to control what's published on sites relying on this system.
2. That all the Governments of the world will join the system.
3. People will start to pay. Yes the tax credit won't cover all the payment to the creators. Unless you think Government swill cover the cost 100%
4. That those who pay are covered by the tax system.
5. That any site can just set itself up as a site that will be able to take a donation for the creator and then pass it on.
6. That the donations will cover the cost of the creation and profit of the copyright works.
7. Populations excepting extra taxes to cover the "tax credits: to pay for Government involvement.
Quote:
As opposed to the current system where you need to sign a record deal, or get a distribution deal with a studio to get your film out there.
You yourself pointed out those "investors" want to get paid back, they make creative changes to the content to maximize their investment.
The type of patronage is all that changes, from one where the goal is ROI to one where the goal is the artistic expression.
And since it micro partonage (lost of small people combined together) the consequence is that people fund the stuff where the artist vision matches their desire outcome, not the reverse of the artist having to conform to the desires of the 1 or 2 investors.
|
This system now pays for the entire industry of creating movies, games, programs, music, porn, etc. So where does the "$200-$300 million" come from before the film is released. If not from the companies investing the money before anything is created. Or do companies opt for one of these processes. Go cap in hand to the Government for the money or risk that the people will pay rather than get it for free?
Paul Schrader says the money raised isn't going into saleries. So are you giving examples of schemes where people work for free? Give examples a lot more movies made by raising $10,000,000 and we can start looking at this idea.
For tiny little projects.
Quote:
|
you seriously need to look at the number of successful projects on kickstarter there are a lot of people who are paying lots of money for stuff they want to see created.
|
I did and it's fine for small projects.
Quote:
a kickstarter project just recently broke 10 million dollars
when was the last time you sold 10 million dollars of your content.
The whole concept of crowd funding is that if your a totally unknown person with a good idea
you may get 50k-100k
if your a game developer who is know by 1 person out of very 115,643 people your project raise 3.5 million
If martin Scorsese went crowd funded his next movie, went to every press outlet he had access to how many of his fans would want to see what he creates.
people are willing to plunk down 10-15 to see what he creates after the marketing investors have "fixed" his artistic vision.
of which maybe 2 goes back to the original production company
If only 10% of that audience spends the same amount of money to see the true artistic vision you have made exactly the same amount of money.
|
so the system of private funding already exists and no need to invent one and when it becomes better than raising the billions needed for an industry like movies. They can do away with the copyright system of ROI.
No you didn't. You showed a few examples that raised pocket change in the terms of money needed. Go and show how it elevates itself to the level of billions.
Quote:
because that exactly what happened with open source software 10,000 time and more.
linux is the proof.
The model has been proven
|
So anyone who wants to go this route, can do. Better today as people have a choice. you want to remove choice.
Quote:
the current charity system doesn't stop deductions for donations to the humane society
even though less then 1% go to the advertised pet shelter support
http://humanewatch.org/
lobby groups and political donations are tax deductible.
The national endowment of the arts has had problems censoring types of art by cutting funding because of first amendment issues.
In addition to all the normal establish charitable handcuffs this tax credit system would be equally protected by the first amendment.
|
It covers far more than the porn industry, it covers anything the Government decided shouldn't be covered.
Quote:
If the government had the free hand you are trying to claim it does, this industry would not be protected by copyright law.
Porn producers would not be entitled to copyright protection.
For someone who producers porn you really don't understand the first amendment at all do you.
|
So this only works in the US. Fine, what happens in the rest of the world or will the US tax payers cover all the costs.
Quote:
except i have shown you people are willing to pay for content
kickstarter proves that
louis c.k. proves that
radio head proves that
dan bull proves that.
zoe keating proves that
and more than 100 other example i have already given.
|
And people are now free to choose either system, they can get use the copyright system or the donations system. what's your problem.
Are the projects launched under Kickstarter covered by the copyright system? Of course they are.