| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
I'm really sorry, but I seem to find it quite difficult to tell what you're talking about. Perhaps a one sentence summary? | |
I hope CP doesn't mean what I'm used to it meaning, because if it is that's one weird post... Also, could you explain your post a bit more? I have no idea what you're talking about... | |
I don't understand any of this, please explain what the hell you're talking about.
| |
I'm curious now. What were you thinking of? OT: OP what the hell? A summary please? | |
The CP this person is thinking of is child pornography I believe. | |
Whos distributing CP? | |
OP, what CP are you on about? Just say you mean Capture Points and everything will be ok. | |
Woah dude I hope you don't mean what I think your saying. Also give us those acronyms as actual words please. | |
Using my (dubious) skills of analysis, I have deduced that CP = copyrighted property, and IP = intellectual property. Though painful to read, I think the OP is trying to assert that piracy should be legal as long as the pirate does not profit from the distribution of the material. | |
LOL
CP=Copy right not child porn what do you think IP incestporn???oh never mind!!!
See my shorten explanation above if that dose not clear it up any I will try again to make it more clear, thanks for taking the time to ask I try as bad as I am to make this crap make sense....
Copy right....... dude...copy right..........
Bingo! Its not piracy if you are not making an active profit its fans begin fans, look at the spirit of fair use, it basically allows you to copy anything for personal use and freely distributed after a certain point of time the trouble is the DMCA guts it and makes copy illegal because copy protection may not be altered. More abuse is generated, in my opinion, from the industry than the common people and possibly more crime in generated by the counter fitters so make it so copy right can only have the full brunt of lawyers(much less the law) when a profit is made, hell the RIAA just got caught red handed abusing 300K song copy rights http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/20745.cfm while a lady that caught got shearing 30ish songs is on the hook for 657K. I can easily see the riaa getting out of this one...its a shame too when a business is found to infighting they should be charged billions and billions to keep the corporate crime down but no gov gets moneys the business in question re do a deal and the people are screwed.....and I am rambling....my apologies... | |
CP? Hell yes! Oh my god! It's Chris Hansen! Run! FFFUUUUU | |
No wonder the DMCA was passed so easily and no wonder ACTA(world wide DMCA) may will pass as well...... | |
You'll never take me alive! AAAhhh! | |
Thats "Aarrgggggg you'll never take me alive me'hearty! HA ha!" | |
Okay, enough derailment everyone, the OP has put some effort into generating serious discussion, so it'd be polite to honor that. If you would like things re-explained, that's fine, just try to keep things on track. Returning to the point, there's a fundamental issue that I feel needs to be addressed: | |
Thank you! Let me start out by saying that in my musings I look at things from around the middle from afar, top down would be from the CP owners perspective and bottom down from the consumers perspective. With that said its not that I do not see the CP creator in all of this but by signing up with CP owners they kinda become ignored since the CP owner conglomerates are so large and powerful. AS a creator of stuff no one wants(well I suck anyway) I don't care if people share/trade it that is nothing but getting the word out,ect it dose become annoying if its sold(Hypothetically speaking in my case since hell shall frost over if anyone wants to pay for my sht) and I am not part of that process, but in this day and age shearing data is no different than shearing whats on your mind and via parody/criticism and simple daily like posted on the web can easily rain down the CP gods on you this simply should not be so. Like the bluing out of trade marks and such on cops or documentary shows its kinda silly to go to such extremes. Sorry for the recap I let me mind wonder a bit, to get back to your question of compensation, I dunno if this is what you are fully asking but meh I ramble no matter how specific I get :P. I been drooling/dreaming about what if my crap became famous thus signing a contract with "the man". Well I researched it a bit..... and I am not happy with what I saw, meager small upfront frees or royalties even if I sell it out right I'd be lucky to get a tenth of its possible worth over 2 decades. So I thought about mused about it and came to a rather simple ideal a normal contract should be this 0-30% of profit until production costs have been cleared then 50-90% of profit, if the CP creator needs money then that money is added to production costs and any interest,ect is added to it. All contracts can be boiled down to this you need music for your show 0.01-5% after production costs goes to the CP owner of the song, non royalty based work works off the going rate for the job whatever it may be. When the CP creator is getting 50+% of profit after production cost it changes the game to one where production even CP ownership is more work than a stagnate monopolisticly monolithic business. Now that might not be what you asked for as my coffee sets in and after I wrote all that I am starting to think your question is "when do peeps get paid and whats their cut" and all I can come up with is when the industry(all legal and licensed revenue streams) makes a profit from either ad rev or direct sale,ect and thier cut is what they signed on the dotted line for and that's a multi trillion dollar world wide industry it should not be so hard for peeps to get paid. More thoughts, one can bring in the fans and fan sites and the industry can develop ad packages and free and low cost kits to resell stuff threw their site(most of which is handled by the kit provider and not the web site) there is no reason why the industry can not join with the fan and spread the word, well other than its not part of the polished racket of top heavy deals so its bad.....god modern media is stuck in the mud 100 years ago.... | |
I think the copyright owners have the only say in what their work is worth. If they wanted you to have it for free they wouldn't have charged you for it. And the concept of Fair Use is, I believe, limited to small portions of copyrighted works, like 30 seconds of a song or 2 minutes of a movie. It doesn't mean that just because you're not selling it you can have the whole thing for free. | |
Not so much anymore whatever fair use gave us is mostly out the window do to the DMCA, and what of the CP creator? Owners are a different entity altogether, also copy right no longer lasts 20 years or less and the world has changed so much you can't keep holding to an antiquated and obsolete mentality and law. When copy right was created one could not harmlessly infringe on it(well in rare cases you could), distribution was profit,profit was distribution in today's world that's just not the case. The difference has to be noted. --- We could always make it so common people(not selling it/making money on it), news and libraries are exempt from copy right laws. edit I guess it would not hurt to say I have always seen copy right/IP rules as a business thing that dose not or should not effect common day to day life. | |
After some thought reexamination I can do it in one simple sentence. Copy right should not effect peoples day to day life. | |
Oh, okay. Thats an idea I can get behind. | |
Sorry about the eye gouging wall of text OP, I tend to think to much and sometimes to deeply but my skill of expression sucks and then some and well...I may suck at thinking as well too :P LOL Now I am going to ramble on a bit more about CP and day to day again I apologize if its a wee bit eye bleedy :P Ok so what makes up day to day shearing with friends either lending or making a copy either way its harmless, posting about CP/IP stuff online no profit made no reson for CP/IP owners to go after them, copying and backups sure as CD/DVD/BR blank media is mainly used for that stuff but modchips or things you have to solder onto circuits not so much. One may be able to make it so a license(reverse engineering/electronics) is needed to sell/install them to make that legal. Devices that can make a copy or run copies on a device as long as they have other uses(run more media,add features,ect) its a legit device. Now that is a bit contradictory to have a device made to run copies but may not be sold because it only plays backup copies but its a bone to give to the industry...then again if you give them a bone they take your hand with it since will sue device makers on the grounds its only used for playing copies and we have the statistics to prove it.... uhg...... sorry for the rambling >< | |
Ok, so if I'm reading things correctly, you aren't against Copyright or Intellectual Property rights, just the way it's currently enforced. Unfortunately I can't go into detail on how I see the current mess as coming into being, since it'd take more time than I currently have to devote (site improvements take precedence over in-depth discussion), but simply put it grew from gradual changes based upon pressures caused by the desires of those who create, those who want those things, and those in the middle (i.e distribution). Right now the problem most people have with the system is that the 'power' seems to have collected under those the middle. | |
Pretty much I don't have a problem with people getting paid and owning "IP" when it comes to things that revolve around profit and who gets what in terms of ownership and profit rights but when you get into regional,personal and the inability to afford information you can not put a price on knowledge and inspiration when it comes down to the individual they should be free to do anything but profit from "IP" . If you don't draw a strict line you have to nit pick and allow those with so much power and money to nit pick working moms,kids, grannies and the dead will be sued for infringement, its my opinion that common people the populace at large and even the cheap ass hippie sect can not infringe on copy right until they profit from it. I mean it should make a clear line int he sand if you one is making money off the site/distribution of "IP" if you limit it to what comes out of peoples pocket and kill off the rest to licensed only it really dose become the perfect scenario, even more so if counter fitting is treated like drug sale(over 1K all entertainment stuff/computers,ect can be taken over 10K everything can be taken). But as things are now society is allowing a mafia like industry using the courts to bully the public at large and that should never have happened.... IMO (again) CP and the media industry has always been a bit greedy I mean look at the stuff that happened in the 20's or so with showtunes and such then as media conglomerated more and more things changed again in the 40-50s and again lil by lil making it so owners not creators have so much power. Take your time and reply as you can I just like trying to work these thoughts out with people more to the middle of it all rather than "all copying/bypassing is high seas piracy" and "free stuff 4evra". And thanks again for taking the time to discusses this!! | |
I think the best course of action is the 3 strike idea. You get caught infringing once, your ISP sends you a notice saying "Stop it, what you're doing is wrong." The second time you're caught they send another notice saying "Okay, you didn't listen the first time, now we're cutting off your service for a short period to teach you a lesson. If you infringe again we're calling the cops." And they cut off your service for a day or two. Then the next time you're caught infringing they call the cops. Of course, you'd have the opportunity to defend yourself if you feel you've been falsely accused, like if someone's piggy backing on your wi-fi. But I think 3 chances should be enough for anyone to get the picture that you shouldn't be stealing stuff. You may think common folk shouldn't be subject to such tyrannical measures, and I agree that companies shouldn't go from 0 to sue at the first sign of infringement, but once you've been warned you no longer have an excuse. Common people aren't entitled to intellectual property any more than they're entitled to physical property. If the owner wants to share then so much the better, but owners shouldn't be forced to share if the licensing of their IP is what they make their money from. I also think that publishers are greedy and tyrannical, but they're a necessary evil in today's mainstream markets. If you want to get a product out there and sell it, you need money. And the best way to get money is to team up with someone who already has it. I think that if we want to circumvent the publishing issue, then self-publishing is the way to go. Then the money stays in the hands of the IP owner and the customers know their money is going to the person who actually generated the IP. Then the developers have a larger portion of the sales revenue to reinvest in their newer products. But until the exposure for indie developers is increased, they will remain a tiny portion of the market. I'd say if you hate the publishing business so much, support independent content-makers. Make them more popular and show other people that alternatives exist. | |
The trouble is what is infringement when we see clips, parts of script,lyrics and other things being successfully removed due to it being infringement 3 strikes is frankly not doing anything but allowing things to continue people still have no solid rights and the media industry has to much power to do nearly anything on a whim. And this is why I say they should be exempt because most of the things they do with it is harmless. What is needed is a solid and un vague set of rules that gives consumers full protection from corporate abuse and allows business to focus on real and substantial harm while getting them to target each other more than the people at large. | |
| |
Again, Fair Use ideally should allow the use of small portions of an IP for non-commercial use. But many IP owners don't want to let that happen either, so they threaten to sue the content hosts. Rather than spend money on legal fees, they elect to just remove the material, thereby saving themselves the money. The copyright holders just have to say you were infringing on their copyright, which, if you're using part of their copyrighted material, you are. It's the defendant's job to claim that the use is covered by the Fair Use Doctrine. The guidelines for determining Fair Use are: The truth is, right now, the IP owners have final say over what their material can and can't be used for. If you don't like it, use someone else's material or try to convince the owner that it's not detrimental to them. | |
It all depends, actually. Yes, i agree that nowadays, distribution does not neccesarily equals profit. I support the idea that free distribution is out there, and you can't do shit about it. Corporations should shut up and slowly die. That i can get behind. But what if i - a creator - want to use art as a full-time job and feed myself that way? Even if i will be successful (i.e. my song/comic/game will not be a steaming pile of you-know-what), i don't get any money for my effort. Just how do we do this? Donations? "Pay-whatever-you-want" model? Just hope and pray that people buy it, say, off Steam? How? But yeah - having people search for your games on the Internet and play them 20 YEARS AFTER they were released is a very good added bonus. | |
no one who spells like that should make walls of text like that. | |
ninja'd OP: i don't have an opinion on the matter. | |
The trouble is it simply dose not work its too vague and allows to much dickary and abuse of the court. Now lets take those guidelines and simplify them tot he point they can not be so easily abused. 2.Nature of the copy righted work can be either what medium of media it is or in what was its used for fair use, IE null speak since 1. over rides it. 3.This is where they go crazy because they will not allow any portion to be used for any reason. One could use a blank percentage of 30% it dose not matter what it is as long as its under 30% but this dose not work for images and other copy righted things. 4.This tends to want to limit fair use of newer items and or limit the fair use of tiems that are doing well. You combine them and its a total mess IMO copy right is not about keeping you from copying or lending its about protecting it as a sell able item being sold in the national/world wide marketplace. I mean modern copy right prevents you from recording broadcast programing in the way you use to do it sure you can still record with tape but to record HD broadcasts you not only need licensed and approved hardware but the broadcast has to be approved as well... this nit picking just has to stop.... | |
LOL well that's the thing you have to let corporations do their thing but with proper regulations to ensure that they are forced to keep up with the times. This is why I say if its its distributed without gaining any profit(ad rev, donations, direct sell, ect) it should not be touched this allows CP creators to create despite not owning their CP anymore this allows fans to create and business to jump upon any worth while idea(since they haz savagely raped and milked everything else) and bring it into the CP this allows fans to gut, criticize, parody and lend to their hearts content all the while the stuff the people of the world and the majority of regions truly like are well paid and stay in business becuse people want to spend money on them. People tend to think that somehow just because its free to get its going somehow out due commercial goods and that's not the case how many of us can afford 200+ a month to share that much data? When the only way to freely share information/media in a legal sense places the cost of shearing it on the person shearing it, it marginalizes into what it should be fans doing what fans do, while business focus on becoming better not grasping onto their monopolies with every ounce of life they have in them. | |
So you approve of copy right police(think MP3 police only they go after all instances of unapproved copy right usage,pictures,sounds,words,ect ) and only being able to rent media? IMO its a vague form of censorship if you do purchase the approved rights for the approved item you are not only entitled to not know but not see it or speak it. | |
Again, i don't have an opinion on the matter. although i don't approve of the copyright police since i DL alot of music. | |
| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
Extra Punctuation
Experienced Points
MovieBob: Intermission
First Person
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Exploding Barrels
Loading Time
No Right Explanation
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Mahalo
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Space Janitors
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
The Retro Show
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
Max Payne 3 Review
Company of Heroes 2
XCOM Enemy Unknown
Black Ops 2
Diablo 3 Review
TERA Review
Firefall Beta Preview
Starhawk Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
Thoughts about CP/IP and distribution
-----------
Idoit(ME) is back wif a thought, plz ignore or add holes all you wish, I''l just b e happy if people read half it and not die from the grammatical implosion!!.
-----------
More thoughts again, some still do not understand fully what I mean when I say focus on profit.
Savings from free stuff does not count since the free stuff costs money to find and store so that is not profit when I say profit I mean when someone willingly makes money from selling CP/IP without a license. When it generates profit directly for someone the CP/IP owners should have control over it but when it does not make money its fair use IMO as its fans being fans or people who choose to work at being legally cheap.
There is merit to free and lax distribution more people will see it, more people will muse and make stuff about it more people will be inclined to buy it if the media industry wises up and dose a better job at packaging and pricing media. As things are now they don't have any reason to change by making free distribution legal they are force to keep up with the times.
Now you are going to ask what is the meaning of "free distribution" what does it mean for something to "gain profit". If something is copyrighted or even patented(in which case the design cannot be used to make stuff to sell) the CP owner should have full rights and protection when it comes to selling their stuff to the people but that is where the protection ends distribution is no longer something that happens under profit generating circumstances and thus there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water because corporate is too busy trying to fatten the bottom line that care about anything else by nature they are arrogant, cruel and greedy much more so than the people of the world because they have the money to over ride the people most of the time.
As the world shrinks and laws and treaties covers more and more of the world one has to look at things from a whole perceptive one is time how will the world look in 10,3 or 50 years and the other is what protects the people and business the most and that to me is profit.
Paying out of pocket to host files and share stuff but not consume it and allowing corporations to go after all unlicensed profit based distributors it is more than enough protection for art and information as it greases both sides and keeps them healthy allowing neither to stagnate to much.
=================
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/thoughts-about-cpip-and-distribution/