Harvard Business Review "Big Content" Is Strangling American Innovation

[gideongallery]

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/03/big_...ling_amer.html

wow even harvard agrees with me.

[BlackCrayon]

I didn't see him say sites with 1000's of hours of stolen content is ok under the guise of 'fair use'. they are saying the music and movie industry needs to find ways the can profit from it, rather than banning it but this only works with the assumption that people would actually pay for it, if they could, which i don't believe they would.

[potter]

Swap "big content" for "adult industry" and you get the same thing. I've been saying it now for a long time but it amazes me how many companies / persons in this industry fear or snarl at new technologies instead of embracing them and pushing forward with innovation.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

I didn't see him say sites with 1000's of hours of stolen content is ok under the guise of 'fair use'. they are saying the music and movie industry needs to find ways the can profit from it, rather than banning it but this only works with the assumption that people would actually pay for it, if they could, which i don't believe they would.

1. the commentary this is my favorite ABDC dance routine, is just as valid as any other commentary even though it makes no sense unless i "share" the clip like



2. your comment is exactly what this harvard proffessor and i are talking about

rather then figuiring out how to make money from the expansion of an existing fair use, your calling it a guise and claiming content sharing for commentary expression purposes as stolen content and trying to block it.

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

I didn't see him say sites with 1000's of hours of stolen content is ok under the guise of 'fair use'. they are saying the music and movie industry needs to find ways the can profit from it, rather than banning it but this only works with the assumption that people would actually pay for it, if they could, which i don't believe they would.

I think they would pay if they felt they were getting their moneys worth.

[Paul Markham]

I stopped reading here at it was BS. Probably written by someone who's scared he can't download free content.

Innovation has emerged as a key means by which the US can pull itself out of this lackluster economy. In the State of the Union, President Obama referred to China and India as new threats to America's position as the world's leading innovator. But the threats are not just external. One of the greatest threats to the US's ability to innovate lies within: specifically, with the music and movie business. These Big Content businesses are attempting to protect themselves from change so aggressively that they risk damaging America's position as a world leader in innovation.

China and India are not new threats to the US because on innovation. They are threats because they have limitless workers toiling away for very very little. Most of their innovation would sink like a brick if they were paying US wages.

Without profits from sales how can the music and movie businesses afford to innovate?

How many of the sites giving access to the pirated material are based outside the US. And the profits from those sites going outside the US?

Profits pay for innovation. That's why China and India can afford to innovate. GG buys so much form these countries because it's cheap. The companies producing the product can put money in R & D.

GG you really are a dumb fuck.

To you change = free content.

To me Free content = Bankruptcy. Except for the bastards that stole it.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by pornguy

I think they would pay if they felt they were getting their moneys worth.

The movie industry is largely going towards big movies in 3D, that have to be seen in a cinema to really enjoy. People who download it are a small part of the market. The whole experience of watching a good film in the cinema is worth paying for.

The music industry has gone the other route. Heavy marketing of stars who seem to last a few weeks. Going into areas that appeal to people who will buy, like Classical. And Talent shows where a star is born, makes a CD and then a second one, which crashes, and then on to the next one.

And downloading songs very cheaply. Would the porn industry be able to emulate that and instead of $4 POV to pay for traffic. 40 cents instead? Interesting question.

Plus live performances. Going to see Roger Waters perform The Wall Saturday.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I stopped reading here at it was BS. Probably written by someone who's scared he can't download free content.




China and India are not new threats to the US because on innovation. They are threats because they have limitless workers toiling away for very very little. Most of their innovation would sink like a brick if they were paying US wages.

Without profits from sales how can the music and movie businesses afford to innovate?

How many of the sites giving access to the pirated material are based outside the US. And the profits from those sites going outside the US?

Profits pay for innovation. That's why China and India can afford to innovate. GG buys so much form these countries because it's cheap. The companies producing the product can put money in R & D.

GG you really are a dumb fuck.

To you change = free content.

To me Free content = Bankruptcy. Except for the bastards that stole it.

profits don't pay for innovation
investment does

if you take the profits and pay lawyers to sue people that doesn't improve innovation one bit.

if you take the profits and give it to politicans to change the laws to make the technological changes illegal you don't improve innovation one bit.


In fact that the point of the article, big content should be spending THAT money on figuiring out how to make money WITH the new technology rather than fight it.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

GG you really are a dumb fuck.

To you change = free content.

To me Free content = Bankruptcy. Except for the bastards that stole it.

nope

to me change = VCR level money making oppertunities

to you change = VCR is the boston strangler

look up in the history books old man

which side of that debate was right.

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by pornguy

I think they would pay if they felt they were getting their moneys worth.

some maybe but there will always be a good % who will be as cheap as possible. Why spend money, when no matter how good the movie or music might be, you can still get it for free? I know people who would rather spend hours looking for serial codes instead of paying 30 bucks for a piece of software.

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

1. the commentary this is my favorite ABDC dance routine, is just as valid as any other commentary even though it makes no sense unless i "share" the clip like



2. your comment is exactly what this harvard proffessor and i are talking about

rather then figuiring out how to make money from the expansion of an existing fair use, your calling it a guise and claiming content sharing for commentary expression purposes as stolen content and trying to block it.

But your example doesn't represent the majority of copyright violation going on with 'sharing' videos and music. torrent sites are not created to help out their friends share their content, its to make money. same thing with tube sites. the people using them, 90% of the time, just don't want to pay for the content. The actual amount of original content is very small. The majority are ruining for the minority I guess.

The movie and music industry will never make money on people giving away content that cost them tens of thousands to create. What they need to do is make it way more convienent to buy it digitally and throw in some extras to make people buy instead of seeking out the sites that give everything away.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

profits don't pay for innovation
investment does

You have to be the thickest person I ever encountered here on GFY. And that's an achievement.

Investment is for profits. Obviously that doesn't make sense to you because you think people should produce products so you can get them for free.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

nope

to me change = VCR level money making oppertunities

to you change = VCR is the boston strangler

look up in the history books old man

which side of that debate was right.

To you change = getting stuff for free.

You never explain how giving it away for free is a money maker. Just come up with the same old tired arguments.

Your previous post shows the level of your intelligence, thinking people will invest without profit at the end. You're a dumb fuck.

When you give your work away for free, then I will believe you believe in what you preach. Until then you want others to work so you can get their work for free, while charging for your work.

What do you do?

The movie and music industry will never make money on people giving away content that cost them tens of thousands to create. What they need to do is make it way more convienent to buy it digitally and throw in some extras to make people buy instead of seeking out the sites that give everything away.

What he wants is others to pay for it so he can get it for free. He doesn't want everyone to get it for free. He knows that will mean the end of him getting anything to download that's new. So others pay, he's a parasite.

[L-Pink]

Let me get this right ....... I spend my time and money/investment CREATING a movie, music or photo shoot. Having control over this product I created, marketing it how I want, charging what I want (that's return on investment) and protecting my final product is no longer my right?

I'm "Strangling American Innovation" because I'm not embracing technology that undermines my basic property rights? The "Strangling of American Innovation" is actually happening when my product is stolen and distributed for free.


.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Let me get this right ....... I spend my time and money/investment CREATING a movie, music or photo shoot. Having control over this product I created, marketing it how I want, charging what I want (that's return on investment) and protecting my final product is no longer my right?

I'm "Strangling American Innovation" because I'm not embracing technology that undermines my basic property rights? The "Strangling of American Innovation" is actually happening when my product is stolen and distributed for free.


.

If that was to happen on the wide scale that GG wants it to, well says he does. There would be a lot fewer to no new movies, films, programs, etc for him to download for free. Him and his other parasite buddies.

Are Pirate Bay going to fund the next block buster movie or CD? No way.

What GG wants is loads of people to buy the product so him and his parasite buddies can download for free.

Free access for every body to everything would be the last thing he wants.

So keep protecting so other people can pay.

[Rochard]

The music industry never understood technology.

Kid Rock is a the perfect example. A few years back I like that "All Summer Long" song. He did entire videos about how it was bad to steal music and put them up on YouTube. In the mean time, his song "All Summer Long" was up on YouTube, but not in Rhapsody, where I buy my music. In other words, I could listen to the song for free, but if I wanted to pay for it I was unable to.

Fucking idiots.

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

profits don't pay for innovation
investment does

if you take the profits and pay lawyers to sue people that doesn't improve innovation one bit.

if you take the profits and give it to politicans to change the laws to make the technological changes illegal you don't improve innovation one bit.


In fact that the point of the article, big content should be spending THAT money on figuiring out how to make money WITH the new technology rather than fight it.

Where do you get the money to invest from, if your product is being stolen and given away for free and you're being encouraged to ignore that fact?

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

In fact that the point of the article, big content should be spending THAT money on figuiring out how to make money WITH the new technology rather than fight it.

New technology also makes identify theft possible. What the hell, let that get stolen also after all it was with new technology so everything is good.


.

[Mutt]

just another rationalization for theft - it's human nature for guilty people to work really hard coming up with excuses and rationalizations for their bad behaviour.

what if the day comes and there is technology to duplicate automobiles, clothing, furniture, houses etc?

there'd be no economy left - but on the other hand if there was technology like that there'd be no reason to work, everybody would have what they need for free. i think i just out thought myself.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

But your example doesn't represent the majority of copyright violation going on with 'sharing' videos and music. torrent sites are not created to help out their friends share their content, its to make money. same thing with tube sites. the people using them, 90% of the time, just don't want to pay for the content. The actual amount of original content is very small. The majority are ruining for the minority I guess.

did you even look at the video i posted
it a clip from a viacomm tv show called americas best dance crew

quest crew was one of the contestants in that competition

that doesn't change the fact that the commentary "this is my favorite dance routine" is just as valid as any other commentary.

the lack of originallity doesn't do one thing to invalidate the commentary.

The movie and music industry will never make money on people giving away content that cost them tens of thousands to create. What they need to do is make it way more convienent to buy it digitally and throw in some extras to make people buy instead of seeking out the sites that give everything away.

go back and look at the testimony of JV when the mpaa was trying to convince congress to outlaw the VCR.

http://cryptome.org/hrcw-hear.htm

they predicted that every single tv show would be cancelled because ad would be skipped by people taping all their shows

they found new revenue streams. and now the home viewing marketplace exceed all other sales COMBINED.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Brujah

Where do you get the money to invest from, if your product is being stolen and given away for free and you're being encouraged to ignore that fact?

In fact that the point of the article, big content should be spending THAT money on figuiring out how to make money WITH the new technology rather than fight it.

what exactly about this statement do you not understand.

MPAA didn't stop VCR from recording tv shows they delivered content to the VCR and created the greatest revenue source (more than all other sales combined)

if they keep wasting money fighting, then they will never discover the new revenue streams (113 and counting now) that exist.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/03/big_...ling_amer.html

wow even harvard agrees with me.

The reason they are at Harvard is because they can't make any fucking money.

Those who can will do and those who can't will teach.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by Mutt

but on the other hand if there was technology like that there'd be no reason to work

You'd still have to "work" the "bar" to get pussy.

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

did you even look at the video i posted
it a clip from a viacomm tv show called americas best dance crew

quest crew was one of the contestants in that competition

that doesn't change the fact that the commentary "this is my favorite dance routine" is just as valid as any other commentary.

the lack of originallity doesn't do one thing to invalidate the commentary.




go back and look at the testimony of JV when the mpaa was trying to convince congress to outlaw the VCR.

http://cryptome.org/hrcw-hear.htm

they predicted that every single tv show would be cancelled because ad would be skipped by people taping all their shows

they found new revenue streams. and now the home viewing marketplace exceed all other sales COMBINED.

I watched the video. I have no problems with it but like i said, that kind of thing is the minority. How does your example in any way address what the majority of 'sharing' is doing?

And yeah, these people are old and don't like change. The vcr created a whole new market. I believe digital content can too but not at the hands of any kid who throws up a torrent site or tube site and shares it with millions giving the content creator absolutely nothing besides exposure.

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

what exactly about this statement do you not understand.

MPAA didn't stop VCR from recording tv shows they delivered content to the VCR and created the greatest revenue source (more than all other sales combined)

if they keep wasting money fighting, then they will never discover the new revenue streams (113 and counting now) that exist.

You didn't answer the question. I asked where the money comes from. You haven't given any answers yet. You basically left it at something like this:

Me: I'm hungry. Where can I get some food?
You: You need to figure out where to get some food.

Well, duh. You haven't told me anything new. You haven't answered any questions. You haven't contributed anything useful. You've given what's commonly known as a "non-answer."

I was wrong to assume that considering the great amount of effort you've put into focusing on this topic over the past several years, you might have had some interesting ideas. Apparently not.

[bronco67]

You can't compare VHS as a threat to the movie industry in the same way that digital video files are.

Vhs tapes could hold a free copy of a movie, but it wasn't like it could be floated through the ether instantaneously to millions of people that wanted to watch it without paying -- then re-distributed to even more people. Sure, the movie industry made a fortune selling VHS tapes, and the copyrights were pretty much safe, because 99% of people that made copies didn't have the resources to go big with their piracy, and cut into the profits. They were just regular people that wanted to have a copy of their favorite movie.

Today, anyone can just give away an artist's product without one cent getting back to the producers. Also there's no consequences to worry about since you're almost anonymous on the internet, or nothing is really enforced.

Same with music. You could make a cassette tape back in the day, but how were you going to give it out to millions of anonymous people in the world, without costing yourself a fortune?

It's not the same threat to the arts/entertainment industries during analog times. It's hundreds of times more damaging.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

I watched the video. I have no problems with it but like i said, that kind of thing is the minority. How does your example in any way address what the majority of 'sharing' is doing?

Users submit shit they like thru their accounts, in essense every submission is making that commentary



if commentary was "extended" to that level then every single video on every single tube site is 100% fair use

that 1005 how is that anything but a majority.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Brujah

You didn't answer the question. I asked where the money comes from. You haven't given any answers yet. You basically left it at something like this:

Me: I'm hungry. Where can I get some food?
You: You need to figure out where to get some food.

Well, duh. You haven't told me anything new. You haven't answered any questions. You haven't contributed anything useful. You've given what's commonly known as a "non-answer."

I was wrong to assume that considering the great amount of effort you've put into focusing on this topic over the past several years, you might have had some interesting ideas. Apparently not.

for someone who complains about your stuff being given away for free, i find it interesting that you demand that i give you the info for free.

ok

1. do watermarks correctly
2. branding bugs
3. do live interaction properly
4. setup aa private tracker properly
5. product placement

if you want to learn the exact step by step pay me.

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Users submit shit they like thru their accounts, in essense every submission is making that commentary



if commentary was "extended" to that level then every single video on every single tube site is 100% fair use

that 1005 how is that anything but a majority.

haha, thats taking it to such extremes that its laughable, and you know it.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

haha, thats taking it to such extremes that its laughable, and you know it.

no more extreme then saying every single person has the right to move the viewing time for content they bought on monday to tuesday even if the content producer wants them to only have the right to watch it on reruns.


but that exactly what the betamax case did.

that the point the technology has radically changed the scope of a fair use commentary.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by bronco67

You can't compare VHS as a threat to the movie industry in the same way that digital video files are.

Vhs tapes could hold a free copy of a movie, but it wasn't like it could be floated through the ether instantaneously to millions of people that wanted to watch it without paying -- then re-distributed to even more people. Sure, the movie industry made a fortune selling VHS tapes, and the copyrights were pretty much safe, because 99% of people that made copies didn't have the resources to go big with their piracy, and cut into the profits. They were just regular people that wanted to have a copy of their favorite movie.

Today, anyone can just give away an artist's product without one cent getting back to the producers. Also there's no consequences to worry about since you're almost anonymous on the internet, or nothing is really enforced.

Same with music. You could make a cassette tape back in the day, but how were you going to give it out to millions of anonymous people in the world, without costing yourself a fortune?

It's not the same threat to the arts/entertainment industries during analog times. It's hundreds of times more damaging.

your missing the point

the movie industry wasn't selling their shit to people on betamax tapes when they were complaining about the "piracy" of the vcr.

it was only when congress turned them down did they spend the money on figuiring out how to makke money from the vcr.

To this date nothing has been done to stop the loss of aad revenue from timeshifting, commericals are still not counted at, tv shows get timeshifted to death.

But the home viewing market now exceeds all other markets combined.


that the point, stop looking at the old way of making money and figure out the way instead.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

your missing the point

the movie industry wasn't selling their shit to people on betamax tapes when they were complaining about the "piracy" of the vcr.

it was only when congress turned them down did they spend the money on figuiring out how to makke money from the vcr.

To this date nothing has been done to stop the loss of aad revenue from timeshifting, commericals are still not counted at, tv shows get timeshifted to death.

But the home viewing market now exceeds all other markets combined.


that the point, stop looking at the old way of making money and figure out the way instead.

So your argument is that if all torrent sites were legal. If anyone could just take whatever they wanted whenever they wanted it then the movie industry would be forced to figure out ways to monetize those markets and they would be better off for it?

[sadiedazzle]

I think in porn that you have to have a niche. Otherwise you're just competing with huge sites that have hundreds of thousands of updates and surfers expect alot for their porn dollars these days.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

So your argument is that if all torrent sites were legal. If anyone could just take whatever they wanted whenever they wanted it then the movie industry would be forced to figure out ways to monetize those markets and they would be better off for it?

did i ever say that every use of a vcr including daisy chaining them together to make pirated copies of movies was legal

no

if the underlying fair use was extended to it maximum all torrent sites would not be legal (just a majority)

and yes if fair use was respected, the movie industry would be better off, from personal experience each lost revenue stream is replaced with a bigger one.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

did i ever say that every use of a vcr including daisy chaining them together to make pirated copies of movies was legal

no

if the underlying fair use was extended to it maximum all torrent sites would not be legal (just a majority)

and yes if fair use was respected, the movie industry would be better off, from personal experience each lost revenue stream is replaced with a bigger one.

If it were left to you to define and the rules you set up were adopted, how would you define use that was not fair use. What exactly would consider illegal?

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

for someone who complains about your stuff being given away for free, i find it interesting that you demand that i give you the info for free.

ok

1. do watermarks correctly
2. branding bugs
3. do live interaction properly
4. setup aa private tracker properly
5. product placement

if you want to learn the exact step by step pay me.

You're such a joke.... watermarks of every flavor bring in a fraction of the attraction. At that, most "piracy" rips them out. Hell they can even rip out thumb prints in the videos now.

Branding bugs... hahahahahahahahaha, hold on... hahahahahahaha

Yeah, I think musicians have live interaction down better than anyone online. Live porn doesn't mean members stay around longer, does not mean they convert more, they do not bring in more sales when doing promotions, they do not retain members longer.... If you're a live girl and that's your thing - that's different, but normal porn - it's 100% useless - it will cost you more than it makes basically.

Private trackers are micro incomes within a micro traffic source within a micro technology.... it's a joke of an income stream compared to any other source of traffic online.

Most movies and even music videos have product placement. However for that to work with piracy, you would need to be able to track it... and product placement in porn isn't paying for shit, damn sure not making anyone millions.

Your list is a pathetic joke and proof you have no fucking clue in this area of business.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

If it were left to you to define and the rules you set up were adopted, how would you define use that was not fair use. What exactly would consider illegal?

that question can't be answered because it totally depends on what the content producers do to fulfill the fair use responsiblity for their customers

if you give people lifetime access to download all the content they have ever paid for forever for free for example, then using the torrents as a backup is no longer legitimate, since your backup rights are being provided completely, without any charging of monopoly prices.

[TheDoc]

Hey Gideon, you must be a god btw... what has it been, 3, 5 or 9 years that these techniques have worked, like clock work for you?

It's really cool how your techniques never get old, never change, are always the same...years of use, killer results... with such steady longterm results it must be hard keeping the billion dollar pharm companies off your back.

What do you eat or drink that allows you to be the only person on the Internet that has techniques that are the same today as they were years ago?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

You're such a joke.... watermarks of every flavor bring in a fraction of the attraction. At that, most "piracy" rips them out. Hell they can even rip out thumb prints in the videos now.

doing them the old way is not doing them properly

Branding bugs... hahahahahahahahaha, hold on... hahahahahahaha

you have proven that you don't even understand what they are so laugh all you want

Yeah, I think musicians have live interaction down better than anyone online. Live porn doesn't mean members stay around longer, does not mean they convert more, they do not bring in more sales when doing promotions, they do not retain members longer.... If you're a live girl and that's your think - that's different, but normal porn - it's 100% useless - it will cost you more than it makes basically.

again cluelessly trying to apply the old method to the new technology.

Private trackers are micro incomes within a micro traffic source within a micro technology.... it's a joke of an income stream compared to any other source of traffic online.

ditto

Most movies and even music videos have product placement. However for that to work with piracy, you would need to be able to track it... and product placement in porn isn't paying for shit, damn sure not making anyone millions.

you didn't even know what the q-ratio was for your own video, so the fact you don't know how to get product placement for porn is no surprise.

if your making 1 million dollars a scene, then you have enough eyeballs to sell

Your list is a pathetic joke and proof you have no fucking clue in this area of business.

just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist

you think way to much of yourself if that what you believe.

the fact is simple if you can't see the solution there are always too possibilities

there is no solution

or

you don't understand the solution

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

doing them the old way is not doing them properly

You do them the old way, I do them the newest way....

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you have proven that you don't even understand what they are so laugh all you want

Hahahaha... no, you clearly have no idea what a branding bug is. If you think they're going to hold a porn company up, you're a complete idiot.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

again cluelessly trying to apply the old method to the new technology.

Yeah, 1000's of paysites, porn companies, even cam companies that already do it right, found out this doesn't work... but hey, Gideon with ZERO experience in paysites, knows better. HAHAHAHA.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you didn't even know what the q-ratio was for your own video, so the fact you don't know how to get product placement for porn is no surprise.

if your making 1 million dollars a scene, then you have enough eyeballs to sell

Q-ratio in porn, holy crap.. you have no idea what a q-ratio is, clearly.

Nobody in porn makes a 1 million a scene in porn. I said, product placement isn't making porn millions.

And it's odd, when we did product placement for a major Wine company, they never asked for a q-ratio... HAHAHAHA, I wonder why. P.S. they have placement in movies, so they probably have a clue....

Originally Posted by gideongallery

just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist

you think way to much of yourself if that what you believe.

the fact is simple if you can't see the solution there are always too possibilities

there is no solution

or


you don't understand the solution

Here's what I do know... your list has been the same for 5 years now. And while the rest of the entire Internet has changed, your list hasn't.

Some how, your 'ideas' have stood the test of time while every other marketing/traffic/online company has had to make drastic changes.

The billion dollar Pharm companies must be kicking your door day 24/7 with results like this.... the only man in the world with results like this, you should be making billions.


I understand you have no solution. I understand your theory is completely fake, just words you type, nothing more.

[TheDoc]

Gideon with your skills.... without question the top firms in the world would be paying you top dollar, hundreds of millions yearly... beyond anything you ever stated here, beyond what anyone here makes.

It's odd that you visit gfy and work for someone else with the skill sets you have... that company you work for should be paying you tens of millions a year with your results.

Or... are you bullshitting us?

[TheDoc]

That Harvard article forgot a few facts.... major one being that the movie, music and porn Industries don't 'create' technology. We ride and improve off of other technologies... and 'we' have no choice what people like, 'they' make the choice - so even if something was created, it doesn't mean people will use it.

And the movie/music industry does invest, greatly - but again that doesn't mean the people accept it.

[TheDoc]

Gideon with his S.M.R.T.'s should know this stuff though.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

that question can't be answered because it totally depends on what the content producers do to fulfill the fair use responsiblity for their customers

if you give people lifetime access to download all the content they have ever paid for forever for free for example, then using the torrents as a backup is no longer legitimate, since your backup rights are being provided completely, without any charging of monopoly prices.

so hypothetically you have a content producer that supplies access for lifelong backups to anyone who has purchased the content. Then what? What about movies that are in theaters? Do you think if you buy a ticket to see a movie in the theater it then you now have the right to go home and download the movie? What if you can't make it to the theater. You have argued that there should be access shifting. How far should that go. What could be the legit excuses. Maybe if you were handicapped and physically were unable to make it to the theater then you are allowed to download it. What if the nearest theater was 30 miles away? Is that far enough to allow for access shifting to take place? What if you have a kid and can't find a babysitter?

I'm just looking for an idea here. If it were up to you what fair use rights would you make content producers grant? You lay down the rules and they have to follow them. What rules would you put in place?

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by kane

so hypothetically you have a content producer that supplies access for lifelong backups to anyone who has purchased the content. Then what? What about movies that are in theaters? Do you think if you buy a ticket to see a movie in the theater it then you now have the right to go home and download the movie? What if you can't make it to the theater. You have argued that there should be access shifting. How far should that go. What could be the legit excuses. Maybe if you were handicapped and physically were unable to make it to the theater then you are allowed to download it. What if the nearest theater was 30 miles away? Is that far enough to allow for access shifting to take place? What if you have a kid and can't find a babysitter?

I'm just looking for an idea here. If it were up to you what fair use rights would you make content producers grant? You lay down the rules and they have to follow them. What rules would you put in place?

I wonder if Gideon knows it's CRIMINAL to 'record' the movie in theaters. It's a single medium that is DRM protected.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Hahahaha... no, you clearly have no idea what a branding bug is. If you think they're going to hold a porn company up, you're a complete idiot.

yeah the guy who coined the term created it's definition doesn't know what it is

cool.

why don't you tell me what a branding bug is then.

Yeah, 1000's of paysites, porn companies, even cam companies that already do it right, found out this doesn't work... but hey, Gideon with ZERO experience in paysites, knows better. HAHAHAHA.

arrogance blinds people to solutions

the movie industy did see the solution of putting their shit on the tape cassettes and selling it to people even though 100s of porn companies were making ungodly profits from it.

Q-ratio in porn, holy crap.. you have no idea what a q-ratio is, clearly.

Nobody in porn makes a 1 million a scene in porn. I said, product placement isn't making porn millions.

And it's odd, when we did product placement for a major Wine company, they never asked for a q-ratio... HAHAHAHA, I wonder why. P.S. they have placement in movies, so they probably have a clue....

Here's what I do know... your list has been the same for 5 years now. And while the rest of the entire Internet has changed, your list hasn't.

Some how, your 'ideas' have stood the test of time while every other marketing/traffic/online company has had to make drastic changes.

The billion dollar Pharm companies must be kicking your door day 24/7 with results like this.... the only man in the world with results like this, you should be making billions.


I understand you have no solution. I understand your theory is completely fake, just words you type, nothing more.

how long has the 7 habits of effective people been the same
how long has six sigma, E6, or more than 15k frameworks stayed the same

frameworks don't change

practices do

if i am the only guy doing what i am doing, and keep it under the radar, the practices don't have to change much.

that why i expected you to do all the work, in the partnerhsip deal, because i would have been busy adapting the practises as people started copying everything i showed you.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

so hypothetically you have a content producer that supplies access for lifelong backups to anyone who has purchased the content. Then what? What about movies that are in theaters? Do you think if you buy a ticket to see a movie in the theater it then you now have the right to go home and download the movie? What if you can't make it to the theater. You have argued that there should be access shifting. How far should that go. What could be the legit excuses. Maybe if you were handicapped and physically were unable to make it to the theater then you are allowed to download it. What if the nearest theater was 30 miles away? Is that far enough to allow for access shifting to take place? What if you have a kid and can't find a babysitter?

I'm just looking for an idea here. If it were up to you what fair use rights would you make content producers grant? You lay down the rules and they have to follow them. What rules would you put in place?

we have already talked about access shifting and the full support for that fair use

provide the content for every medium at the exact same time

play it in the theater
on tv
online
on dvd
all on the exact same day

make all the money from selling it all those medium without artifically inflating any of it, by extending the media monopoly to the medium.

if you would make x dollars if the medium competed, and x+y by limiting Medium competition then y represents abusing fair use.

it simple don't extend the content monopoly to any medium.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

if i am the only guy doing what i am doing, and keep it under the radar, the practices don't have to change much.

that why i expected you to do all the work, in the partnerhsip deal, because i would have been busy adapting the practises as people started copying everything i showed you.

Why keep it under the radar? If you really can do what you claim and you can do it on scale large enough to make real money that a real movie studio would be interested in why not take it big? Why not approach a studio and offer your services to them. Do some kind of a profit share with them and rake in millions? If it really worked every studio in town would be knocking on your door and throwing money at you to teach them how to profit from torrents and pirate sites.

Better yet, keep all the money for yourself. Hire a writer or a staff of writers. Get together with a producer and hire a staff and cast then make your own TV show that you distribute online using your techniques. It should be no time at all before that show is rolling money and you are laughing all the way to the bank.

My sense is that you know how to get a little traffic and make a few dollars, but movie studios are interested in big dollars, not pennies.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

we have already talked about access shifting and the full support for that fair use

provide the content for every medium at the exact same time

play it in the theater
on tv
online
on dvd
all on the exact same day

make all the money from selling it all those medium without artifically inflating any of it, by extending the media monopoly to the medium.

if you would make x dollars if the medium competed, and x+y by limiting Medium competition then y represents abusing fair use.

it simple don't extend the content monopoly to any medium.

So if the industry adopted this and provided free backups for life for content you have paid for then, in theory, torrent sites should have no reason to exist because everyone out there would have access to whatever they wanted in whatever format they wanted for whatever price they were willing to pay. Correct? The torrent sites should then naturally just fade away and be something of the past right?

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

yeah the guy who coined the term created it's definition doesn't know what it is

cool.

why don't you tell me what a branding bug is then.

That's the point... you made it up, it's not real. It's whatever you want it to be, it's your term.. Unless I want to claim as my own, then I can define it anyway I wish.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

arrogance blinds people to solutions

the movie industy did see the solution of putting their shit on the tape cassettes and selling it to people even though 100s of porn companies were making ungodly profits from it.

So as porn made a few billion the movie industry made hundreds of billions... yeah sounds like they had it allllll types of wrong.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

how long has the 7 habits of effective people been the same
how long has six sigma, E6, or more than 15k frameworks stayed the same


frameworks don't change

practices do

That's management styles.... not marketing & sales styles (that always change) within an medium that changes every second of every day.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

if i am the only guy doing what i am doing, and keep it under the radar, the practices don't have to change much.

Yeah, they do change, as the Internet changes, technology changes, people move around, habits of people change - this are factors you can not control.

NOBODY else on the entire Internet can say what you just said... how odd.

And OF COURSE it's ONLY YOU doing this.... hahahaha.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

that why i expected you to do all the work, in the partnerhsip deal, because i would have been busy adapting the practises as people started copying everything i showed you.

The deal would have never happened because you can't produce a 100 sales a day.... who gives a shit what was said or wasn't said - fact is, you can't produce the sales - everything else is a bullshit excuse from you.