Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

...snip...

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.

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?

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.

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?

[1713488366]

1713488366

[1713488366]

1713488366

[1713488366]

1713488366

[NghtRppr]

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?

There will always be movies. I never said otherwise.

[Hawker]

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?

There will always be movies. I never said otherwise.

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

[Rassah]

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.

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?

[Hawker]

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.

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?

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.  

[Rassah]

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.  

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.

[NghtRppr]

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

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

[Hawker]

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.  

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.

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?

[NghtRppr]

To make a decent movie costs millions of dollars.

[Hawker]

To make a decent movie costs millions of dollars.

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

[BitterTea]

To make a decent movie costs millions of dollars.

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

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."

[Hawker]

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

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."

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.

[BitterTea]

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.

"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."

[Hawker]

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.

"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."

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. 

Lets see what kind of films get made by your ideas and if they compare to Hollywood.  Its one of those "proof of the pudding is in the eating" situations.

[BitterTea]

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

Just as the use of alternative methods of film financing proves that IP laws are not necessary in order to finance films.

so your analogy is historically inaccurate.

Only if you believe that the abolition of slavery in the West Indies convinced everyone that slavery was no longer necessary.

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.

Incorrect. The form the analogy takes is this:

X is a social institution that is argued, by those to which it is beneficial, to be necessary for the greater good of all
X is known to not actually be necessary, and in fact detrimental to a much larger group

So, wrong on the facts and wrong on the logic.

I find it hilarious that you lecture me about logic.

Lets see what kind of films get made by your ideas and if they compare to Hollywood.  Its one of those "proof of the pudding is in the eating" situations.

Have you heard of independent films? How about the Sundance Film Festival? You make this too easy, really.

[Rassah]

I liked Dark City. That cost a lot to make, and made almost no money in the theaters, but still made money in the end from a lot of people who were shown the movie by die hard fans, who later when out and bought DVDs. It's also readily availble for download on torrents. I own both, a DVD and a downloaded copy.
It's pretty... um... insane I guess? that, when I said that a lot of the "millions of dollars" just goes to extremely overpaid actors, and that in a more competitive movie economy actors would get paid normal wages and movies won't cost millions of dollars, your reply was, "but movies cost millions of dollars!"

[Hawker]

You are wrong about slavery but its boring to remind you of facts.  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/disunion/ is a good place to start. 

...snip...

Have you heard of independent films? How about the Sundance Film Festival? You make this too easy, really.

They are dependent on ability to get paid.  How does that make it easy?

[Hawker]

I liked Dark City. That cost a lot to make, and made almost no money in the theaters, but still made money in the end from a lot of people who were shown the movie by die hard fans, who later when out and bought DVDs. It's also readily availble for download on torrents. I own both, a DVD and a downloaded copy.
It's pretty... um... insane I guess? that, when I said that a lot of the "millions of dollars" just goes to extremely overpaid actors, and that in a more competitive movie economy actors would get paid normal wages and movies won't cost millions of dollars, your reply was, "but movies cost millions of dollars!"

Almost no money?  It took $27 million at box office: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=darkcity.htm

The fact that it needed more than that to break even gives you a clue how important box office sales are.  Without that $27 million, the makers would have taken a loss.

Anyway, with respect, you have no right to impose your tastes on the rest of the world.  People freely choose what movies to watch and and any replacement to the current system has to still allow that freedom.  Otherwise, its not an improvement.  

[BitterTea]

The fact that it needed more than that to break even gives you a clue how important box office sales are.  Without that $27 million, the makers would have taken a loss.

To beat a dead horse...  "The fact that it needed more than that to break even gives you a clue how important slavery is. Without those cotton sales, the plantation owners would have taken a loss."

Anyway, with respect, you have no right to impose your tastes on the rest of the world.  People freely choose what movies to watch and and any replacement to the current system has to still allow that freedom.  Otherwise, its not an improvement. 

Yet, because of your taste for "hollywood movies" (the current system), you believe it is right to impose IP law on others. Hypocritical much?

[Hawker]

...pointless drivel snipped...

Anyway, with respect, you have no right to impose your tastes on the rest of the world.  People freely choose what movies to watch and and any replacement to the current system has to still allow that freedom.  Otherwise, its not an improvement. 

Yet, because of your taste for "hollywood movies" (the current system), you believe it is right to impose IP law on others. Hypocritical much?

I believe that we have a right to choose as a society.  If you seek a change that takes that choice away, you need to convince the majority of people its a good idea.  Otherwise a minority could argue they want slavery back and you'd be saying we should listen to them.