Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 31. (Read 105875 times)

"Nice ideas.  And they don't need an either/or approach.  If they take off, slavery is not needed for cotton.  If they don't, then some other picking mechanism is needed for cash to cotton growers before we remove slavery."

Nice ideas.  And they don't need an either/or approach.  If they take off, IP laws are not needed for movies.  If they don't, then some other transmission mechanism is needed for cash to movie makers before we remove IP protection.

http://vo.do/ as just one, currently implemented example.

Does this count as a "West Indies" example? Does it show that IP law is not necessary in order for movie creators to get paid for their movies?

Direct Bitcoin donations as another. Imagine, in the credits, a QR code pops up and says "If you liked this movie, please send a Bitcoin donation to the encoded address."

I can't help but notice you fail to provide a way for the movie maker to get paid.

You are assuming that movie theaters don't get decent copies to show their customers.  Since its their core business, one has to assume they would take the trouble to get decent copies.  So the movie maker gets no payment.

Hulu content is only Hulu content if its not leaked.  So the movie maker gets no payment or Hulu loses money if it is leaked.  And people will leak it.

TV movies and documentaries ARE protected by IP law.  Take that away and the expensive ones won't be made.

To make a decent movie costs millions of dollars.  You need several movies a week to compare to where we are now.  So far, you have not given any way for the paying public to get their cash to the movie makers in return for seeing a movie in a movie theater.  Can you not see that its going to be hard to get even one movie per week financed without providing a way that guarantees the movie maker hasa a way to get paid?

So, any evidence that disproves your point is just a "college project"? That's convenient.

As was mentioned, there are fewer movie theaters, so direct sales to them are easier to control through contracts. Theaters that download crap quality movies will suffer. High rez theater qutrality movies aren't available for download.
I am still hoping you can tell me how to copy movies from Hulu. Or explain how TV movies and documentaries can make any money when they are not exclusive.

Movie downloading is not a threat to Hollywood.  The loss of revenue from movie theatres would kill them.  Take a look at what they report as a hit - its not DVD sales - its the boxoffice sales.  If the movie theatre owners can get the movies without paying the movie makers, there will be far far fewer movies.

As I mentioned earlier, your idea for Hulu and Netflix type companies presumes that they have some kind of exclusive content.  Without IP law, there will be zero exclusive content so companies like that simply won't exist.  

Actually, no you didn't. I specifically pointed out that paid services provided by the likes of Hulu and Netflix greatly outweigh the annoyance of having to download and manage movies yourself, especially when older movies and DVD extras are very difficult to find, and can easilly replace the revenues movie makers ger from DVD sales. For example, half of Stephen King's movies were network produced, didn't see a movie theater, and were shown to people without them having to pay for a DVD or a theater ticket. And someone else pointed out that having high quality movies and providing a movie going experience greatly outweighs watching crap quality downloaded videos, even if in a theater. Your reply to both those was that "people will torrent movies," completely ignoring that people are already doing that almost completely unimpeeded, to which we can only reply "see above." Actors make millions, which is part of where that millions of dollars to produce comes from. If actors can't be paid that much, they will have to take lower, more sane salaries, will have to work harder (the way stage theater actors do now), and only worthwhile movies will be made (Nicholas Cage would likely be out of a job).

But, really, do you believe that IP laws are stopping movie downloading in any way?

Yes - sincere college projects.  But the issue is the movie industry with blockbusters and a steady flow of entertainment.

There will always be movies. I never said otherwise.

Actually by the time of the Civil War, the abolition of slavery in the West Indies by the British had proved that paying wages worked just fine, so your analogy is historically inaccurate.  However, even if it was actually accurate, you would still be labouring under the delusion that because one group of people got one issue wrong once, then everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

So, wrong on the facts and wrong on the logic.  That's hardly a basis to ask for a change in the law.  Do you have anything that might actually make life better and thus be worth trying to get the law changed to?

There's your logical fallacy again. Just because the current movie industry depends on IP, doesn't mean that without IP movies won't be made. Just as the (at the time) current cotton picking industry depended on slavery, but the end of slavery didn't mean the end of cotton.

You agreed with me earlier in the thread that the movie industry depends on IP law but you thought that we should accept the loss of movies as a price worth paying for increased liberty.  Is that still the case?

Actually I pointed out why they fail.  That's not ignoring - that correcting your sloppy thinking.  If the movie is on bittorrent and there is no IP law, all of those ideas will generate zero revenue.  It costs millions of dollars to make a decent film - no one will invest that money unless there is a way to protect the investment.  So if we lose IP laws and that's all you got, we lose movies as well.

Asking me to come up with business plans to finance your half baked ideas is self-defeating.  We already have a thriving movie industry based on IP law - if you feel you have something better tell us.  So far, all I see is people saying "You have no right to create IP laws" which is nonsense or "If there were no IP laws, some miracle will occur that makes movies possible" without saying what the miracle is.  Neither of these arguments offer an improvement on the existing set-up.  If you don't have anything better than what we have now, then I guess we have to live with the fact that IP laws are useful and move on to looking at ideas to make life better.  

I'm sure you've figured out how people like Hawker and FirstAscent operate by now. They don't put forth complete ideas. They demand that you explain an entire system for them and then they will fire off a few objections from the top of their head that are either trivial to fix or live with. When you overcome all of their objections or point out how minor they are they'll just say something like "it's not that simple, educate yourself" or "you need to explain why society should change for you". They clearly aren't here to think but rather they are here to justify and rationalize their preexisting beliefs.

Why? What's the point! You totally ignored ideas about subscription-based service (like made-for-tv movies on Cable, or criterion Collection on Hulu), ignored or tossed aside the point about movie theaters relying on contracts instead of IP and mostly selling the movie-goingexperience than the movies, ignored the part about how economy trends towards services and away from goods, so it's very plausable that even if movies are freely copies, people will pay to have someone else store and organize movies for them...
Why don't you come up with a business model that will allow movies without IP yourself? We all have. It's your turn now.

If you have a business model that will allow movies without IP law, lets hear it.

Hawker: Stop comparing IP laws with slavery. They are not the same thing.

It's so predictably sad...