Hollywood muscles Canada

[blueblood]

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.

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.

[jdobbin]

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.

Are you only thinking of Hollywood movies or something on a smaller scale like: Guy writes book, sells it, someone copies it and prints it up and sells copies. He is just a better marketer?

In some cases Hollywood's story is this: Hollywood makes film, someone records it, uploads it and has never paid for it.

The situation for you might be this way: Someone sneaks onto your land, steals your crop and then sells it or gives it away.

[Wilber]

That's what Timmy does, he makes a purchase and then copies it and markets it better than the company.

So what you are saying that it is OK to knock off and sell anything that you are able to including using the original designer and manufacturers name and logo.

[Riverwind]

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.

The two situations are completely different. You are producing a commodity that is consumed. There is no difference between the wheat you grow and the wheat grown by someone else. Intellectual property is the unique creation of one individual or organization. Furthermore, someone who 'copies' your wheat it by growing has to invest a lot of energy and time into the process. In fact, the cost of doing so is about the same as it cost you to grow the seeds in the first place. With IP the creators have to invest huge sums of money to create the idea which can be copied for almost nothing.

[blueblood]

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.

[Riverwind]

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.

It is theft. Timmy could spend the same time making DVDs of his kid's birthday and they would not sell. Yet copies of movies do sell. The difference is the IP created by the movie producers which Timmy is stealing.

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.

The technological revolution occurred around the same time that IP laws were introduced. There is a connection - deny it if you like but the technology that we have today simply would not exist without IP laws. There are numerous examples of critical innovations that depended on the incentive for profit or outright government subsidies. The airplane, the internet, the personal computer, the phone all would not exists or would be pale shadows of what they are today.

[Wilber]

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.

I would think that knowing anything you spent time an resources developing could be legally ripped off by anyone who had access to it without compensating you would be an even bigger impediment to a free market.

So the guy that bought your wheat would have the right to put your name on any wheat he grew from it and sold to someone else. Of course putting his own name on someones intellectual property would be plagiarism or is that OK in a free market as well.

A free market does not legitimize profiting from the fruits of another persons name, capital or labour without compensating that person. That's called stealing. In your free market are people compensated for what they achieve or what they steal?

[blueblood]

A free market does not legitimize profiting from the fruits of another persons name, capital or labour without compensating that person. That's called stealing. In your free market are people compensated for what they achieve or what they steal?

Welcome to the farm income crisis.

The technological revolution occurred around the same time that IP laws were introduced. There is a connection - deny it if you like but the technology that we have today simply would not exist without IP laws. There are numerous examples of critical innovations that depended on the incentive for profit or outright government subsidies. The airplane, the internet, the personal computer, the phone all would not exists or would be pale shadows of what they are today.

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.

[sideshow]

Well I can agree with the argument that Riverwind and others make when a DVD or whatever is copied and sold for profit. What I cannot agree with is when someone purchases the DVD and freely distributes it-via, lets say P2P sites, or whatever. Since they have purchased the product, and then distribute it without any profit whatsoever, I dont see what is wrong with that.

For instance, if I want to buy a car and give it away, my choice. No profit made by me. The argument that that person I gave it to would have possibly purchased another car is weak-maybe, maybe not. But its a case of what ifs.

This industry is making a killing. As for the artists, actors, etc. I feel sorry for them and their lost profits. It must be tough living in those mansions and having to slum it because of the "theft" of their fans.

[Riverwind]

Since they have purchased the product, and then distribute it without any profit whatsoever, I dont see what is wrong with that.

It violates the contract you agreed to when you purchased the product therefore is it wrong - end of story. We could change the laws and require stores to collect signatures from anyone who purchases copyrighted material but that would not change anything of substance. It simply makes life difficult for the majority of people that understand the nature of the purchase contract and are willing to abide by it.

[sideshow]

I guess I am spinning my wheels here, but I would say again that I never agreed to any contract upon purchase. The fact that the creator of the product (note, not the seller of the product) has put a disclaimer on it really means nothing-as evidenced by Canada's copyright laws.

I don't see why as a Canadian, we should be subjected to a foreign countries laws. If the US feels like they need to pass such laws to "protect" their industry-that is their right. But they don't have the right to enforce them here.

If the movie industry wants to wait to release things in Canada, so be it. Their choice. They just stall the massive profits that they will eventally make. And if we have to wait an extra three months to see a movie, who cares?

As well, if they decide not to release things in Canada at all, whatever. People will go south of the border, or people will use digital means to get it one way or the other.

I think that the industry needs to think outside of the box, and stop trying to continue its massively profitable monopoly, and stop trying to have government regulate entertainment. I mean really, we are talking about music and movies, not health care and military spending.

[blueblood]

Well I can agree with the argument that Riverwind and others make when a DVD or whatever is copied and sold for profit. What I cannot agree with is when someone purchases the DVD and freely distributes it-via, lets say P2P sites, or whatever. Since they have purchased the product, and then distribute it without any profit whatsoever, I dont see what is wrong with that

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

[Wilber]

For instance, if I want to buy a car and give it away, my choice. No profit made by me. The argument that that person I gave it to would have possibly purchased another car is weak-maybe, maybe not. But its a case of what ifs.

You can only give away the car you bought, which is your right. You are not making an selling copies.

[Riverwind]

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

Copyright does not only affect large American corporation. It affects average people just trying to make a living: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ertainment/home

[Charles Anthony]

Wrong. In a free market a seller should be able enforce a contract of sale. When someone buys copyrighted works they must agree to a contract of sale which prohibits copying.

It is true that the state assists copyright owners in enforcing this contract, however, the state also assists people who wish to enforce their rights of tangible property as well (i.e. trespassing laws).

Do not say my statement is wrong when it is right.

In a free market a seller assumes the costs HIMSELF of enforcing his contract of sale. Point final.

Once a market is influenced by coercion -- in this case, by the state -- it is NOT a free market. There is no discussion on that point. It matters not one single bit if any other aspect of an economy is influenced by coercive actions either. The single fact, as you admit, "that the state assists copyright owners in enforcing this contract" is sufficient to violate a free market situation.

So no reasonable person can argue that there is a double standard when it comes to property rights.

Actually, it is highly unreasonable, at best and dishonest, at worst to make the assertion that our Glorious Almighty State enforces contracts and property rights uniformally for all citizens of the land. If my car gets stolen, I have equal chances asking YOU to come to my aid as I do calling the police. There is different levels of justice for different levels of people in this country and your "free-market" argument is a lame apology for the state.

Furthermore, even if there was perfect respect and enforce by the State of property rights, it would still NOT be a free market.

Service based organizations almost never develop new technologies - they simply help people use existing technologies. Almost all advances in technology that we take for granted today were developed by people or companies that believed they would be able to protect the intellectual property once it was created. Without that protection those ideas would have never been developed in the first place.

Irrelevent.

Nobody in the world is owed advances in commercial technology. In fact, most of our environmental problems (conveniently, we expect the State to fix) are caused by government favoring crony-commercialism and assigning political privilege. In a few thousand years from now, is it more important that humans have State-enforced advances in technology or a sustainable environment??

I can't think of one product innovation developed by the open source community. Everything that exists is simply a copy (often pretty shoddy) of ideas developed by private enterprise expecting protection or by universities operating with government funding.

Irrelevant. You speak like both government protection and funding are necessary for them to happen.

[incidentally, I can not think of one automobile that drove across Canada that did not avail itself of the exclusively wonderful privilege of the TransCanada Highway. Does that mean it could not be possible to drive across Canada today if the TransCanada Highway was not built years ago?]

I can not think of one single person who ever saw the Mona Lisa in person but I can not think of a single person who can not identify her.

Shakespeare did not make a living with copyright protection. In fact, the scripts we have today are a result of people (modern-day equivalents of copyright pirates) in the audience who furiously tried to scribble down the verses.

States, statesmen, state-privilege and state-warfare will always exist but there will only be one single Beethoven. Guess what the most famously recognizable melody happens to be throughout the world?

In a hundred years from now, do you think the latest blockbuster movies and today's latest chart-topping pop hits will be still available on DVD? Maybe.

However, they will likely lie in delete bins and lie in landfill sites on the Moon long before the works of any of the masters are forgotten.

Appealing to such incentives for innovation or creation is culturally very poor.

I don't see why as a Canadian, we should be subjected to a foreign countries laws. If the US feels like they need to pass such laws to "protect" their industry-that is their right. But they don't have the right to enforce them here.

Excellent point.

I think that the industry needs to think outside of the box, and stop trying to continue its massively profitable monopoly, and stop trying to have government regulate entertainment. I mean really, we are talking about music and movies, not health care and military spending.

Excellent point!

Since they have purchased the product, and then distribute it without any profit whatsoever, I dont see what is wrong with that.

It violates the contract you agreed to when you purchased the product therefore is it wrong - end of story.

False contract. False justification. Without government sanctioned privilege -- once again, I remind, paid by taxes -- those contracts would not exist.

Copyright does not only affect large American corporation. It affects average people just trying to make a living:

If the public opinion in Canada gradually changes so that the vast majority of Canadians want to completely repeal copyright protection laws, those laws might change. Following such a hypothetical turn of events, would you defend the concept of copyright?

[Wilber]

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.

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.

[Riverwind]

Without government sanctioned privilege -- once again, I remind, paid by taxes -- those contracts would not exist.

Not true. The only issue here is what constitutes an enforceable contract. I argue that the notices on copyrighted material constitute an enforceable contract and that it is rediculously cumbersome to require that every transaction involving copyrighted material be accompanied by a signed contract. That said, would you be willing to respect these contracts if the vendors insisted that everyone sign them?

If the public opinion in Canada gradually changes so that the vast majority of Canadians want to completely repeal copyright protection laws, those laws might change. Following such a hypothetical turn of events, would you defend the concept of copyright?

Of course. But there won't be much I could do about it.

[guyser]

I don't see why as a Canadian, we should be subjected to a foreign countries laws. If the US feels like they need to pass such laws to "protect" their industry-that is their right. But they don't have the right to enforce them here.

That is not true. We aren't and they don't.

I think that the industry needs to think outside of the box, and stop trying to continue its massively profitable monopoly, and stop trying to have government regulate entertainment.

They arent and they dont.

[blueblood]

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.

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.

[guyser]

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.

Nope, there are laws against that too ! I believe they are called anti-competition laws

[Wilber]

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.

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.

[blueblood]

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.

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.

[blueblood]

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.

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.

[Riverwind]

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.

Without protection no bank will loan money and no investor would provide capital.

[Wilber]

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.

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.