fair use win: the copyright backlash has begun
 

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communi...sion-10024835/


as predicted by your truly

You have more of a clue about tubes, copyright in this era etc than most here. Hell I remember everyone swearing off tube sites as if they were fucking heroes. Most of those guys have either gone out of business from equally outdated ideas of how to work in this business or have capitulated and now do business with those they hated.

Anyhow, my point was that while you know about some of this shit you still talk all kinds of crazy. I've noticed without trying to. I am fully aware that most of this industry is stuck in the dark age and will never make it in this new environment but find it hard to even read what you write after seeing some of your less on point posts.

holy crap there a complement there.

please clarify what crazy your talking about

this backlash has been a long time coming

a drug company has to spend billions and 5 years of R&D to get 14 year monopoly on what they create

yet an "artist" spends a couple of hours filming a scene and they get a monopoly for their entire life plus 70 years more.

That just insane how unbalanced copyright law is.

I agree with all of that. I can't point out any specific thing because I've seen you in huge threads over many years. I just remember some nutty posts from time to time, weren't you the time shifting guy? I haven't noticed anything lately that would make me cringe so never mind me for now.

But yes, I agree with you that everyone yelling at you about tubes was retarded. They were retarded then, many are still retarded but most have left the biz or come around. They did not understand the market, waged unwinnable wars (Steve Lightspeed still suing his fans) and so many that swore that they would never do business with anyone that had any relation to tubes. Mojohost capitulated recently, one of the last in a long line of liars. :1orglaugh

For an industry that worked in gray areas from the start they sure were pissy about the gray area tubes operated in. Whatever.

As we all see, tubes aint going anywhere and the business model it will take to be successful has changed. Welcome to the internet people, it's been like this forever.

Why does the amount of time spent have anything to do with how much of a right an artist has to their work? this is you trying to impose your own twisted logic --and as I've always said, have mots likely never created anything in your entire life.

Copyright law did not start out like this nor was it ever fucking intended to work like it does today. It has been fucked around by corporations that wanted to keep making their billions. I can go sell DVDs of old movies that have fallen out of copyright TODAY but with these retarded ass laws stuff created in 2011 will be copyrighted in the USA until LONG after the original creator is dead and most likely after their kids are dead. This blocks the flow of information / art and it's not good for society.

Also, true artists have no intentions of locking their shit down for 100 years. True artists are looking to spread their work as far and wide as possible so that it can be appreciated. The people that want it locked down are businesses trying to make an extra buck even though they could use alternate monetization schemes and actually adapt to the world around them instead of dying a slow death while bitching the entire way.

Hope this helps.

you do realize the point of copyright law right

when originally enacted it was designed to create a financial protection so that copyright holders could recover the cost of developing their stuff.

if a drug company can expect to recover billions in only 14 years

why would you ever believe that a copyright holder needs 70 + entire life time to recover their cost of developing their 8 hour scene.

Blame Disney.

actually i would say the time shifting argument was the most insight full because it was validated by the supreme court.

at it core it was the simple argument that i should be able to use any technology i wanted to move the viewing of content i paid for from Monday to Tuesday.

The established right of time shifting is fair use and therefore outside the scope of the control of the copyright holder

the fact that the copyright holder doesn't like me using torrent as the worlds best pvr (infinite hard drive, records every show, never deletes anything, let me go back and get something i paid for but failed to realize i would like) is irrelevant because their monopoly control does not exist for that context.







I have the advantage of actually seeing the new revenue streams

it gives me an insight that no one else has

we are on the verge of the next great shift, an explosion of revenue so great that it will make the home viewing marketplace created by time shifting seem like pocket change.

Access shifting is the key, the realization that copyright holders telling you can only watch their shit at this specific location, is just as invalid as saying you can only watch my shit monday at 9pm (what timeshifting killed).

I never said you were wrong about that specific one, just came off as crazier than hell repeating it 100 times. Everyone should have some grasp of the revenue streams, it's happening in front of their face. The obvious stuff started in mainstream years before adult so it's not like they haven't had time to figure it out either.

Q: Why don't you simply make your own movies and music and then not worry about
some law stopping you from using other people's work?


A: Because you have neither the talent, money or even the patience to do it.


You just want to bottom feed off those who have the above attributes.


:2 cents:


You're a bottom feeder, but soon the bottom will fall out.

:1orglaugh

I like gideon. He's just the right amount of crazy. Just crazy enough to provide endless entertainment... not so crazy we have to worry about him shooting up a grade school with an assault rifle. Not that I don't worry about the latter... just a little.

really want to name one thing you have done that has never been done by anyone else before.

Truly original work is as rare as hen's teeth.

If only truly original work was allowed to be heard then your talking about a censorship that would end all censorship.

derivative work is/should be allowed and that exactly what the article is talking about

copyright has moved from facilitating expression to hinder it.

post all the recent news about artist organisations lately going after pirate sites because they are destroying their livelihoods.

of course you wont because you are a deluded moron who still has a day job.

I have had my shit looted hundreds of times in this business alone. Not once have I stolen someone else's work. I don't even download music on the internet, never cared to be a cheap ass to save a few bucks.

Point being, it's all fucking irrelevant. Either you adjust to the current climate or you go out of business. Sure, you'll do it slowly while kicking and screaming the whole way but you're still on the slide.

I created slow motion into a Flash video player without using a plugin or media server.
Sig sig. :1orglaugh

Copyright is not about doing something that has never been done before.

It's about creating your own expression of an idea whether the idea is original or
not. Uploading someone else's content to a tube site is not creating; it's stealing
a creation for one's own sake.

Copyright does not stop "derivative works"!

The problem you have is that you think editing a 20 minute video down to 5 minutes
is a derivative work.

:1orglaugh

Patent law especially and copyright coulda use some tweaking. The people who are radically against protecting the livelihoods of people who create content don't arm to be thinking things through, though. We couldn't spend all this time doing R&D if people were allowed to just steal copies of Strongbox and Throttlebox. In order to eat, we have to sell software, and that means copyright protection. Our systems would therefore not exist without some sort of copyright protection, because we couldn't spend our time and money creating something we couldn't sell.

If you spend your day building a table, after investing your money in the tools you need to build tables and investing your time into learning how to build tables, the table you build is yours, right? Why would anyone think that digital goods are any different than wooden goods?

The odd thing is, those who rail against music copyright don't seem to download any of the millions of songs that have been freely released by the artists. I do lighting for a band who has all of their music freely downloadable from their web site. How many people listen to it? Essentially none, because professionally produced music recorded and mixed in a $2 million studio sounds a lot better. These pirates COULD legitimately download the free stuff, but they don't. They want the best professional stuff produced with the most expensive gear, but they are indignant about paying 99¢ as their share of the cost. They think you and I should pay their share, it seems. Odd. Very odd thinking.

Dude, the reason you are in this thread is because the dynamic is changing against
piracy. Adapting by becoming a pirate is not an intelligent option.

Copyright infringement is going to be like drunk driving; people will continue to get
away with it but those who get caught will get what they had coming.

Their music isn't downloaded because they aren't popular enough, not because they didn't spend $2,000,000. So many artists these days created their own stuff at home and got huge by giving it away.

Again, all of that is irrelevant. I don't like having my online stuff stolen easier. It's either waste all my time worrying about it and fighting it or keep creating and building and making money.

Anyhow, I haven't seen anyone here argue against copyright. The only time it was brought up was to say that 70 years is ridiculous and it is. The law was not written to do what you want it to do, it was changed thanks to the super rich lobbying to keep their stranglehold on certain markets.

your joking right

you actually believe the RIAA supports the artist

they are industry organizations that support the record companies

the abuses of the industry

artist organizations actually object to the lawsuits.

I'm in this thread to talk some God damned sense. You keep pulling things out of your ass but none of them are true. Whether things get pro piracy or they lock the entire internet down so that tubes disappear I will be fine.

Speaking of, I assume that is your original work in your avatar? I'd hate to think I'm arguing with a giant hypocrite that is claiming fair use on a stolen and edited image.

As soon as you post the study that shows piracy either has no impact on sales or causes them to increase.

This thread is classic Gideon. First off, this article is just one person's opinion and it makes mention of all the actions that are going on against sites that help people infringe. I wouldn't go so far as to call this a backlash it is one opinion in what is becoming a growing sea of legal action.

Second, it just says we need to think outside the box, but makes no mention of what that might be.

Third, a person who creates a work that is copyrighted is free to do whatever they want with it. If a person wants to raise the money themselves and make a movie they can do whatever they want with it. Copyright doesn't stop them from giving it away for free or distributing it any way this wish to. If they are the sole holder of the copyright they can distribute/monetize it anyway they want.

List some of these artists that created stuff at home and got huge from it.

I won't argue that copyright laws could use some tweaking. I'm sure there are ways that they could be changed for the better, but most people who sell a lot of music do so because they have a ton of money behind them promoting it. It seems to me that it is a pretty rare occasion that someone self-releases something and gets huge from it.

Did I upload my avatar to a tube? :1orglaugh

Besides, it's clearly a derivative work used as a parody, which fits just right into
the copyright law.


And yes, I created it. I didn't simply google up an image and COPY it.


You don't even know the law you are trying to quote.
And that would basically be your problem.

:2 cents:

so you copied a function that has existed for years in normal videos to flash videos

really interesting double standard you have there

again not saying it illegal, or wrong, such copying is exactly what fair use is designed to protect.




exactly without fair use that however is exactly what would be left

remember the copyright holder controls all ability to monetize it

taking the code base that was used in regular videos and adapting it to flash videos would fall under that scope.

actually copyright has nothing to do with expressing idea, if your work is in the public domain your rights of expression are exactly the same as if you own the copyright

the difference is the ability to make money/control that expression, to prevent people from making money/their own expression based on that work.


look up the word derivative that exactly what it is.

Even if it was infringing it would still be derivative

however when the context is changed, free speech right dictate that it should be allowed

this is the greatest dance routine i have ever seen is legitimate free speech

it means nothing without showing you the dance routine i am talking about.

who happens to be the technology officer for the EU


all documented in as a problem, not as the solution.


so now you need the solution handed to you for free


again putting it in the public domain, or shortening the time of the exclusive right doesn't stop them from doing any of those things either.

you keep comming back to the fact that the copyright holder can give the stuff away for no money (for free) why are you so stupid that you don't understand that we are talking about free (as in free speech) not free (free beer)

copyright is not supposed to stop free speech because of fair use, when fair use is limited (you need to get permission to make a cover, parody etc) that exactly when it is.

And tubes with user uploaded material fits right into the copyright laws as well. You are ok with parody (legal) because you are OK with it but a lot of people don't like their shit used in this manner. Can't fall back on the law for one thing then bitch about the same set of laws for the stuff you don't like.

By the way, that would be similar to me taking a BMW and changing how the front end looks when 85% of it is exactly the same. Can I claim fair use or not? What about a script you write? Can I change 10% of the code, call it fair use and distribute it?

I know what laws I'm talking about. You've gone off in 3 different directions so I'm just continuing the conversation instead of trying to figure out what exactly you want to accomplish. This conversation started about the length of time shit is copyrighted for but you keep on digging, accusing me of pirating, etc.

I've said clearly and several times that it's irrelevant. The law is what it is and you are going to have to work within it. They are not going to pass legislation that makes YouTube illegal to operate and the entire rest of the internet is fighting against it.

Good luck yelling about right and wrong all the way down.

1. huge is a relative term, you can make 1/25th sales and make as much money as a represented artist.

2. this article pointed out the fact that " one large EU country 97.5 percent of artists earn less than ?1,000 (£856) a month from the copyright system". The average kickstarter mucian make 2x that amount.


here is the fact

if you want to make it big in the music industry your better off, doing it on your own
taking all the money above 1k a month you make from kickstarter and buy lotto tickets

the odds are way better you will make millions then hoping that the record company will promote you to success.

The fact is no one in the record industry has ever gotten a marketing push without FIRST paying back their advance.

The fact that some artist have enough talent to make back their money on their original single sales doesn't change that fact

the fact that artist who have an establish career can get million dollar advances so big they can't ever sell enough records to recover from (with the 90/10 split) doesn't change that fact.

Still one person's opinion. Doesn't make it the final word in the argument.




Well, I guess it depends on how you read it. To me the person is just pointing out that there is a long standing complaint and how they have gone about trying to stop piracy.




I just want it in the public domain so I can benefit from it just like everyone else. I don't want someone coming up with the idea and then. . . GASP. . . holding the rights to that idea and forcing me to pay for it.

(this BTW is sarcasm) My real point is that people keep saying think outside the box and that they should change the system, but they never suggest how that change should be made. This person should be in a perfect place for this because they personally don't benefit from the changes and they could let the world know a better way of doing business that benefited everyone, but they choose not to.



In all honesty I'm not opposed to shortening the time of exclusive copyright. In a different thread a while back I suggested that they make a system that had the copyright decrease in steps over time. For example you get an exclusive copyright for 30 years. Then after that for a number of years (say 10) you still hold the commercial rights, but if a school or some kind of education/artistic type of group wanted to use your work in a non-profit way they could without paying you. After that 10 years is up it enters into what I would call semi-public domain. This means anyone could do whatever they wanted with it, however if they used it in a way that made them money (for example if we are talking about a book they could just reprint and sell your book) then they have to pay you a small royalty based on their sales. Nothing huge, but enough that you still benefit from your work.

Also, you are smart enough to know that free speech and fair use are not the same things. Free speech is not limitless or without boundaries. The same goes for fair use.

issue is that gideon defines certain words and concepts in obscure ways that no one shares with him, not even copyleft in pirate circles, so it makes discussing anything pointless. waste of time.

You're confusing copying with imitating here. And in porn biz, a producer making an unique exclusive niche does not exist because everybody gets imitated. Max Hardcore and Andrew Blake were inventors but still get imitated today.

As for copyrights and piracy; everything is going to merge. Tube sites are slowly moving to controlled and honest biz, and content producers are slowly moving to the tubes. Fighting the piracy is no point and if you can't beat something you better join it.

Neither will vanish and there is no dark age. There will always be a demand for free crap porn in large quantities so the tubes will stay forever. But there will always be a demand for new material too so content providers will continue to be here forever as well. But not all of them, most have gone out of business and many will follow and only a few will survive. I think that's a great development and I truly thank the tube- and piracy scene for finally cleaning out the porn industry properly.

Producers who want to survive stop bothering about their older content being shared for free on the web and try seeing it as free advertising. And have the guts to give that old content for free themselves. Give the people what they want; free porn. In the meantime concentrate on creating better new content and do some efforts to keep that from the free market for a while. People who appreciate what you do and can afford it, will pay for your product sooner or later. Unless you're the 2345th producer producing MILF and Handjob and "fuck my wife" content. Because the market has been saturated with that for years and nobody's interested in it anymore, let alone willing to pay for it.

What you write is true but I agree with Stocktrader... what's honest and moral and legal isn't relevant. With the internet, a worldwide network for sharing content was created and the only way to stop that would be taking down the internet completely, which is not going to happen; adapt or die. I'll adapt.

and only roughly 50% of the members of the writers guild that work in the film and TV industry actually make money in any give year from writing. This is because being a working artist is difficult. Regardless of copyright laws creating something and then building an audience for it is not an easy thing to do no matter what form of art you are pursuing.

In the recent movie Pearl Jam 20 Eddie Vedder talks about how when you are a kid playing guitar in your room you can only dream of big success because that is what it is, a dream. Actual success on a huge scale just isn't going to happen.


For once you are making sense.

The fact is making it in the music business, just like making it as an actor or writer or painter or director or photographer, is very VERY difficult. Most people fail. It often has nothing to do with your talent level. There are many very talented people out there who just don't get lucky and get the break or who don't hit the market at the right time. There are so many factors that surround success that are out of the artists hands that any amount of success a person gets is about 80% luck.

This is DEAD wrong. I have said it before and will say it again. Read a book called, "So You Want To Be a Rock N Roll Star." It was written by the drummer of a band named Semisonic They went from being an unknown band to having a big hit single. The record label had about a million dollars including about $500,000 just to get their single on the radio before their single was ever actually broadcast. Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera both had a ton of money dumped into them before they ever had a single out. I once read in Rolling Stone that Jive records was into Britney for about $3 million before anyone knew her name. An unknown band named Candlebox was signed my Maverick records and got a $800,000 advance. The label had over a million dollars into them before their first single ever came out.

Also read a book called Hit Men it all about the record industry and many of the deals that were struck. In it you get to read how they spent about $600,000 just recording Whitney Houston's first album because they were sure she would be a star and wanted it to be perfect.

There are plenty of examples of artists getting big pushes before they ever pay back anything.

and how many times have you refused to pay me my fee when i said i would show such a solution if you paid me




so your definition of shortening is to go from 70 years after a person death to forever (since you will never go into the public domain and be totally free to use)

and in exchange for that fake "shortening" you want everyone to give up the fair use rights they currently have for the first 30 years.

do you really believe anyone is stupid enough to believe that bullshit.

never said it was

i said that fair use was the mechanism in which free speech is protected. The court declared monopoly of the copyright has only one limit fair use. That outlay has been put in place to protect free speech, innovation and a host of other public benefits.

as for the limits of fair use, as i have repeatedly pointed out i know exactly what they are

your the person who says that the copyright holder should have the right to control their work completely.

I am the one that says that they should have the right of control for everything outside the scope of the 4 rules of fair use.

The law matches what i say, not what you say as you have repeatedly admitted.

you can't say that never is a long time
it statistically impossible that one person can't do everything right in the crowd funded environment and become a mega star

given enough chances it always possible

this kind of business model has existed for 5 years

it already way ahead of what the transitional music industry was when it was in it infancy.



your doing it again

your taking the entire production cost of the album, all the promotion for the first single and pretending that money was spent in advance

Jive records didn't spend 3 million to promote "baby hit me one more time"

yes they recorded the entire album first, but they didn't do post production on anything else but the one single they were going to push

they didn't put money into music videos, media campaigns etc until it proved itself in the test market.


the record company spends very little testing the first single
if it flops they cut their losses hold your music hostage until you promote yourself to a level where they can make your money

All your proof is deliberate fabrication, the misrepresentation of the entire cost of promotion as an upfront cost

it has never happened, the record company has never spent money like your pretending they did.

You have never ONCE given any proof that you actually have anything to sell. You claim to give classes and all kinds of stuff, but you never have shown anything including a single canceled check or a receipt for a rented conference room or ANYTHING that would suggest you actually have something.

All you ever offer is to show someone how to do this and then make them enter an agreement that if they show someone else they have to put all their content into the public domain.

So answer me this: How much would you charge me to show me this magical formula of yours and teach me how to use it? Do you have a money back guarantee? Prior to me spending a dime on your service can you give me a list of clients or customers who can vouch for you?






Actually, I wouldn't be opposed to all copyrights ending upon a person's death or after a reasonable amount of time thereafter. For example if someone lives to be 90 and they die, the copyright dies with them. But if they are like Kurt Cobain and die young, their family gets to hold onto it for at least that 30 year window.

Also, I find it kind of funny that you are pissed at people getting paid for life for their copyrighted works, yet you are doing the exact same thing. You claim that you teach people how to use your system and part of the deal (at least as I remember it from the big fallout with The Doc) is that you get something like 5% of whatever they make for a long as they use your system. So if I write a book I should be forced to give up my copyright which would force people to pay me if they used it after a set period of time, but it is okay for you to force people to pay you for life when they use your system to make money. How is that fair or different?

We could reform to 10 year copyright after date of creation and 99% of the content on torrents and file sites would still be piracy.

Piracy is not the creation of derivative works, it's the copy of existing works. Persecuting pirates does not stifle creativity, they have none.

And yes I made my avatar but even if I hadn't that would be non commercial fair use

It could happen. Anything could happen. There are exceptions to every rule. My point is that becoming a big star no matter which route you take is a nearly impossible task where many of the things that must happen in order for you to find success are luck based and out of your control.





I'm not debating this with you. I spent about 5 years in the record industry. I know how they work. Sure, most people get signed and they record an album and if the first single doesn't hit the label abandons them. But there are acts that the label believes heavily in where they pump money into them before they ever see the light of day.

There are great examples I gave you in that. Whitney Houston's label spent $600,000 recording her album. That is a lot of money before she ever paid back a dime. Candlebox got an $800,000 advance. Britney Spears was signed to Jive records. They hired a vocal coach to work with her for a month to refine her voice. They then paid to send her to Sweden and hired some of the biggest, best known producers and song writers in the business to work with her. Before her album came out they paid to send her on a tour of malls where she did little mini-shows. This is all money spent before the single ever hit the air.

You saying it NEVER happens is just wrong.

bald face lie

i never refused to show you proof i refused to show you proof for free

put the million dollars in an escrow account that is accessible and i will post the bill for conference room tomorrow.

the offer was i would show the public here the solution and if robbie used any of the techniques i showed him he would have put all his shit in the public domain.






the difference is nothing i do stops your from enacting your fair use rights with whatever content i decide to publish.

And that all the difference in the world

i have no problem with you making money for the entire life of the copyright as long as you fully respect all the fair use rights.

BTW i am still alive, so how can you make that comparison, i haven't gotten anywhere close to the 70+ after death area which i object too.

by definition cutting the copyright to day of your death, still wouldn't apply to me yet.

I wouldn't want to debate the issue with me either if i was lying as much as you were

Britney spears won star search, was on the Micky mouse club years before jive records exec ever met her.

the statement "Jive records was into Britney for about $3 million before anyone knew her name" is a bald face lie

She signed a development deal before she ever got her advance.
he album was recorded under that development deal

in fact some of her earliest mall tours used her Micky mouse club appearance as promotion

and because of that those malls PAID for her to appear.

The cost were more than recovered, your example are bogus. That the point it magic numbers shift around the time that money was paid, ignoring the revenue that came in
to fake an upfront investment when there was none.

Which is essentially refusing to show proof. This is what yo do. You demand such a one sided agreement that nobody will ever call you on it thus you are safe in your realm of bullshit.

Answer my question:

1. How much will you charge me to show me your system?
2. Do you have a money back guarantee so that if you show me the system and I decide it is not going to work for me I can choose not to use it and get my money back?
3. Will you be able to supply references of people who have used your system and can vouch for you?













Bullshit. You are talking circles again. There is no difference. If I make a song and want to hold the copyright life and get paid anytime someone samples it or uses it or sells it, that is no different than you supplying someone with knowledge and they forcing them to pay you everytime they use it.

You use my music in your movie that you intend to make money off of = me getting paid.

Someone uses your system to sell their product = you getting paid.

there is no difference. You created something and every time someone wants to use it for a profit you want to get paid.

Thieves are sweating the loss of DMCA.

They are worried that if they steal just a little, they will get caught and have their sites blocked.

Reputable business don't steal, even a little bit. You are responsible for what you promote on your websites.

Take responsibility for your sites or admit that your sites are out of control and a danger.

Just my opinion.

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. You could use the internet to find this stuff you you know.

Britney spears left the Mickey Mouse Club in 1994. She signed with Jive records in 1997. Her mall tour was in 1998 and was co-sponsored by L'Oreal. The Mickey Mouse Club stopped existing in 1996 or there about. It was long gone before she ever started recording a record.

But Britney aside. What about Candlebox getting an $800,000 advance? What about Semisonic getting a much smaller advance but having the record label spend around $700,000 on their album and getting their first single out there? What about the label spending $600,000 just to record Whitney Houston's first album?

Another to add to the list is a band called Helmet. They were in demand had a small bidding war around them and signed a record deal with Interscope that gave them more than $1 million up front and they were unknown.

Even if I am wrong about Britney Spears I am not wrong about these other people who had big money spent on them before anyone knew who they were.

funny so it one sided for me to place a condition that i could only claim IF i was telling the truth.

if i was lying you would put the money up, i would fail to claim it and you would have paid out nothing.

The only reason to refuse is that you know it can be done.

you could charge what i charge for the shit i have shown you guys for free, analyse the kickstarter campaigns i showed you. understand them fully and you could teach that as a course for 2k a pop easy.


1. 5 things i said would solve the problem one on one 45k + 10% forever.
2. yup refund is tied to agree to put everything that uses those techniques into public domain, that way you can't lie say you wouldn't use get your money back and then use it anyway.
3. nope not going to give you the name of someone you can copy without paying me.



difference is you can use it for free if you are willing to put all your derived work into the public domain

you don't want to let them use it unless they get permission from you (even if they put all the derived work into the public domain)

BTW nothing says they can't profit from it, like i said you can still sell stuff that in the public domain

open source proves that

So again your bald face lying.

re read wikipedia moron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meantime_(album)

it was a $1 million dollar budget, not an advance

That the agreed total payment promoting the album, that agreement had conditions

the only way it was paid out is if those conditions were met.

Again total misrepresentation of the deal.

btw that deal had options on the second and third album
so that wasn't even the deal for a single album.

in other words it was paid for already just like i said

btw look at the original signs they advertised her appearance on Micky Mouse club

those posters are collector items now.

the fact is those promo didn't cost jive a cent, they made money on them.

That the point i have been always making, this putting money in hoping that the artist will break has never happened

it always a misrepresentation of the entire cost, as a upfront cost.

I've never asked for you to divulge any secrets. I just want proof that you have actually done any of what you claim. You could easily show a cancelled check and a receipt for space rented and at the least it would show you have spent and/or earned some money.

But you never do anything unless people are willing to risk everything while you risk nothing. let me ask you this. Say I put $5K in escrow and all you had to do to get it was show proof that you have a company that does what you claim and you get it. However, you have to put $1million in escrow so that if you fail to show proof I get it. That is an easy $5K for you with no risk right? Why not do that?




So I just have to plunk down $45K blindly with no references or proof that you can do what you claim and if I decide that you don't know what you are talking about any content I have used to try your technique now has to stay in the public domain?

Yeah, there are people lining up for that deal.




So what if I just use your techniques, make money and choose not to pay you?

As someone that actually produces something and just doesn't want to consume it for free (gideon), you actually get it.

Isn't it ironic that he wants to be paid for his content but doesn't want to pay others?

Gideon, why don't you record yourself explaining the method, torrent it so I can download and timeshift it and you make money alternative ways. Easy, right?

Or you wont eat your own dog food?