blueblood

This is my point of view and I have to defend it. The only reason the entertainment industry makes all that money is due to hiding behind copyright laws. In essense we subsidize it. Well that depends on ones point of view. The stuff sold to Bunge from my sales would not be there if it wasn't for me. The problem here is a difference of beliefs and my lack of being articulate, I'll admit this is getting bloody ridiculous, there's enough points on both sides for an unbiased party to make a decision.

Can the artist go to a store and honestly say I made that particular album, no he sold his talent and the company manipulated it onto a medium and rapidly distributed it, the copies of his talent are indistinguishable like my Canola. He can say that's me on there, but it's not mine. Why should he get paid time and again for already selling his work? Why the cherrypicking? Good Grief the first nations can easily distinguish their land, they demand to be paid over and over again, even though it was signed over. The treaty system is another copyright system. I'm pretty sure your against the treaty system. They in essence get royalties year after year from signing over the land that the taxpayers have to subsidize. We use and manipulate the land, and they get a cheque every year.

What is unique about your grain and canola? Copyright can only be applied to unique creations. Canola does not qualify as unique.However, if you developed a new strain of canola that had some unique feature then you would be able to patent that strain and no one would would be able to grow it without paying you. That is a matter of opinion. Throw out the copyright laws. Your hiding behind laws again. That's cherrypicking. It's unique in that I put the effort into growing it, it's a plant now my creation, those seeds are my creation now, they wouldn't be there if it wasn't for me. Why can't I collect royalties when it gets manipulated like the entertainment industry? The entertainment industry is the biggest dead horse of an industry, it's time they experienced the free market like the rest of the industries. Movies and music aren't unique, people acting and singing occurs all the time, why do we need to subsidize that?

What new products do farmers develop that they can't get copyright protection for? Anyone can be forclosed on if they don't pay their bills. Umm, my grain and canola. If Hollywood can get copyright protection why can't I?

Ya, who and how? Farmers just starting out for starters. They can foreclose when things go south.

Who is going to loan money to, or invest in a company that can have products which took years and a fortune develop ripped off by the first fly by night who has invested nothing? Feel free because there is no way in hell I would. Investing in the fly by night wouldn't even be worthwhile because there would be nothing to copy. Lots of people invest in Universities to develop products. Without copyright laws, R&D could shift there, then they sell off their initial to development companies, then it gets to get worked out to be cheaper and cheaper.

Without protection no bank will loan money and no investor would provide capital. Lots of people get loans w/o copyright protection, there's other ways to provide loan security.

Then who is going to put up the massive investment to develop those drugs which your life or someone you love may depend on? You? They have to charge higher prices initially to recoup their investment because their patents are only in effect for a limited time. Then Joe is free to knock them off as much as he pleases. Also, for every successful and profitable drug they develop, they have spent millions on ones that didn't work out. How many did Joe develop in the same time? How many did he even try to develop? That's the whole idea, it makes developing new products worthwhile. The massive investment at first is a bank loan, through smart marketing, he can pay it off and make money, going public with a successful company nets you investors, it builds from there. The better the company does, the more one invests in it. If he can successfully compete with Joe, then Joe is screwed. When Joe develops and produces the consumer wins. You are supporting a market imbalance. The copyright laws hurt the consumer as they are abused by industries. We should not subsidize their lack of skill of marketing in a true free market. The drug company is going to make money initially as his is the first product to be sold, how much more money he can earn is up to him and his marketing skills.

Nope, there are laws against that too ! I believe they are called anti-competition laws Hmm. Funny I don't recall Walmart abiding by them then.

9 billion dollars to first nations, more native welfare just what we need.

Taking someone else's property and marketing it yourself without compensating them is theft. Why would someone like Pfizer or GSC invest hundreds of millions into developing new drugs if they knew they would have no hope of recouping their investment because Joe's Knock Off Drug Company who's only investment is the machinery to copy their product is going to rip it off and flood the market? Why would anyone invest in a company that develops drugs? Why would any company spend millions developing any products and why would anyone invest in them if they knew that would be the result? If in your free market knocking off others products and selling them without even changing the name is legal, why shouldn't counterfeiting the nations currency be legal. What's the difference? People seem to be pissed when these companies are successful and make lots of money. That's the whole idea behind having a free market. If Pfizer and GSC can't compete with Joe's that's their own damn fault, Pfizer could drop their prices very low, put Joes out of business, enjoy the large market share and have investments increase making them more wealthy. It's the sky high initial prices that spawn these Joe's Knock Off Drug Companies.

Other farmers that were commenting on the policy seemed to love it. In any case, it isn't likely to stop you voting Tory this election, is it? Split 400 million by 245,000 farmers and what do you get --> 1633 bucks a farmer. That is a pittance. That doesn't help anyone. Inputs work out to well over 100,000 dollars and over. Reorganizing how farmers are taxed would help out much more, setting up input co-ops would help out much more, investing in the biofuel sector will help out much much much more. yah i'll still be voting tory.

Harper you idiot!!! This is a baaaaaaaaaad idea. That billion dollars could have been spent creating input co-ops and helping out set up the biofuel industry which will help out much more than tossing a billion dollars around, these Liberal party spending policies don't work!

You are still denying the industry profits, hence the hullaballoo.

Welcome to the farm income crisis. What if all the industries did that, such as Hydraboss's example of the welding shop, prices would be so inflated that consumers just won't buy anything. Lots of inventions are invented just because it makes things easier, the industrial revolution comes to mind. Also if it makes things easier, chances are you can make money off of it. That is a huge part of our economy is buying something, manipulating it, and selling it to gain a profit, Hollywood is NOT letting us do that. As C. Anthony would state CRONYISM!!!! If the entertainment industry wants to make money so bad, they should find a better way of marketing their product, as I've been repeatedly told if an industry can't make money in the free market and needs government protection they should fold up.

Dobbin, that's apples and oranges and you know it. That would be like me going onto the set, tie and gag the producers and force the production to go on and net the proceeds from the theatres and DVD sales. Not quite the same, THAT is a crime and stealing. Wilber, yes, ethically in a free market that is right, as a consumer you will get rock bottom prices due to increased competition. The cherrypicking copyright laws are an impedement of the free market economy. Riverwind, there is no difference b/w a DVD sold at the store and the DVD timmy sells, it's the same movie. it's still watched. Timmy invests time and energy too making the copies. Timmy and the guy who bought the wheat off of me just get a huge return on investment that's all. Hollywood believes it is above free market principles. IP is a severely inflated commodity. IP was around before copyright laws, (I don't know if there was copyright laws when classical music was at it's prime) IP can survive without them, it's time to stop making the consumer subsidize this dead horse of an industry and bring the levels of IP to where the market dictates.

So at least buy the DVD before you copy it. That's what Timmy does, he makes a purchase and then copies it and markets it better than the company.

I have been peppered for my defense of supply management (IMV producers should be able to restrict supply in order to get a profit, but with no gov't interference) as market distortion, but copyright laws which are even a bigger market distortion, I get peppered again. Why the defense of this double standard? People invent many things to make their lives easier, often without monetary gain. I'm pretty sure the guy who invented the wheel wanted to move stuff easier, not get rich off of what was of value back in those days. Walking around some farmyards is a testament to that. If something could wind up costing no money in the free market, it's time for that outfit to fold up, why are we subsidizing this flogging of a dead horse? Should I be upset that some guys buys a bushel of wheat from me, plants it, ends up getting 5 and sells it? No, I sold it to him, it's his and he can do what he wants with it. That's how ridiculous Hollywood is being. I'm told to buck up, they can surely buck up too.

A worker who did that would be sued into bankruptcy.Our economy depends on intellectual property. Without it we would be a much poorer and much less technologically advanced society. I realize that you are so focused on the production of tangible goods so it is hard for you to understand the significance of intellectual property. Without IP there would no internet, no computers, no cellular phones or no airplanes. In each of those examples I can point to key innovations that would likely have never been discovered if the inventor did not believe they could get paid for their efforts. The same is true of music and movies. Without income the artists would have to find other employment and our society would be much less interesting as a result. The guy does get paid for intellectual property off the bat, how much should depend on his ability to market his IP, not some law. He should also be responsible for marketing it, if he sucks at marketing then T.S., Bill Gates is an extremely good marketer. Should all the phone companies on Earth pay royalties to Alexander G. Bell's descendants?. I don't buy that at all if that were the case then there would be only one company for everything marketed. Artists have been around before copyright laws, they don't need income to be artists. Was the wheel invented so the inventor could get rich?

There would be no DVDs if there were no copyright laws. Nobody would invest $100 millions into making movies if they could not make a profit. The only place you would be able to see a movie would be in a theater and they would likely inspect all bags taken into the theater. So? A worker could also tape the movie and make himself a nice profit too. People buy blank DVDs and tapes for recording personal stuff like a highschool b-ball game and stuff like that. If the only place to see a movie is in a theatre I have no problem with that.

Okay, but did Timmy create anything, or just reproduce it. Maybe the definition has to be defined. Create vs reproduce. If you create it you get royalties, if you reproduce it you pay royalties. Hmmm... Personally, I would like to see the copyright laws repealed for everything. If I come up with a new product that no one can live without, I should hire armed guards to protect it (like the Caramilk Secret) and charge an astronomical amount for the product before some Chinese company reproduces it for 1/7 the cost. If they do, I should probably come up with a new idea. The DVD factory makes piles of reproductions, Timmy just gets it out cheaper. The record/film companies pay artists/actors to reproduce their "work". Timmy paid to go see it. Don't blame Timmy because he is a much better marketer than record/entertainment companies. If I can make it without royalties, those boys from hollywood can.

The government won't have time to finish the CWB off before the next election. Besides those families won't be peeved off until few years down the road. Right now they believe they can negotiate better prices for their product than the CWB can and they are more concerned about gay marriage. Inky is my MP, gay marriage is not a big priority in my riding, sure the evangelicals are all about it but, they're evangelicals and not to be taken seriously. He's definetely a populist, and as a whole we're pretty happy with him hence his HUGE landslide wins. Well the thing is Canola isn't part of the CWB jurisdiction and people can market it fine. I personally believe that with the high amount of support the CWB has, if the gov't opened up the market like it wants, the amount of support it has won't really affect it. Most of the small guys which the CWB helps the most are very old, so that's sort of redundant. Don't worry the biofuel thing is really helping things out. The GST thing really helps out here (the GST on farm inputs is mind boggling), the child care thing is very popular, tough stance on crime very popular, the lower tax ideology of the tories is also popular.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. If Hollywood is allowed to be ridiculous why can't I, the welding shop, the mining co. etc. Why do we have copyright laws in the first place, its a subsidy of an inefficient industry. Throw them out. A recording artist gets signed for X amt. of dollars, then gets some royalties on record sales. I bet the guy at the steel foundry would like a deal like that. Monsanto get this, makes me sign an agreement that I have to buy their seed, buy a technology agreement (tech agreement runs me 50 large a year). I cannot save left over seed to plant next spring, that's bloody ridiculous. Due to a law they make a killing, this needs to be opened up to the free market pronto. Take those copyright laws and torch them. It makes for more competition and cheaper products for consumers. I'm upset at the utter hypocricy of thse copyright laws and their cherrypicking. Timmy the videotaper can give cheaper products than Hollywood. Either everybody gets royalties, or nobody, the ridiculousness must stop.

I'm pretty sure he went over to the PC's

Yep. But good luck getting the buyers to agree. If an organization came up that was run tighter than Harper's cabinet, the buyers would be in one heck of a pickle.