Sorry to bring in this line of thought so late but since it seems people don't think outside the box much.
Step 1
Make free distribution.... free.
Step 2
Then have ISPs follow simple rules you have unlimited download plans but upload is limited to 5-15GB before you have to pay extra for it. Say 25% of the monthly plan rate for every set of 10GB you upload. For business with a normal business license ISPs should charge a bit less than they are now for light to medium usage for business.
Step 3
With laws and snooping becoming more effective and wider spared in a decade or 2 it wont be hard for the industry and law enforcement to go after illegal sites, even more so if ISPs ban together and black list bad parts of the web. Yes if you know what you are doing you can bypass it or ask for a proxy setup to bypass it for a extra 10$ a month but this is just to get the majority away from real illicit media. If common carrier laws make it a impossibility to block bad sites the system will still know who/what/where/when for the most part.
Step 4
Set up laws that treat all forms of unlicensed for profit media usage like drugs IE over 1K luxury items are taken(all forms of media,TV,electronics,expensive clothing and shoes,ect vehicles/houses not so much) over 10K everything is taken by the state.
This covers ALL for profit infringement unless the CP owners make a deal with the defendant or AG, tho I would rather throw all big time crooks under the bridge.....
Step 1
What do you mean by 'free'? Distribution, even by electronic means, is not free of cost. Bandwith costs are not a drop in the bucket.
Step 2
Your account with an ISP already covers your side of the bandwith equation. If you put the control of distribution in their hands, and have them in charge of recovering the costs of electronic media (as your proposals seem to only cover that particular form of IP), you encounter the issue of people who don't want that service - thereby making the ISP corporation in charge of limiting access to content on the internet based upon what you pay. You will find a hard opponent in the Net Neutrality proponents, as this is the very foot in the door to corporate control of the internet that they fear most. Anticipating side-effects is tough, but the ones you miss may cause more harm than good.
Also, consider what this site would look like under your proposal? Would it even exist? Why would an ISP be a better corporation for distribution than the existing ones?
Step 3
Decreased individual privacy is also something people may not be keen on. As with 2, you delve into the Net Neutrality debate, and you may want to consider all potential aspects of what you are proposing.
Step 4
If the work is no longer protected by copyright, then what is the problem you are attempting to solve with this?
1.By free I mean it dose not generate profit without a license.
-------
2-3. This is more simple to deal with than people want to think it is, yes common carrier prevents them from blocking stuff tho I wonder if they could get away with charging more for unfiltered and offer cheaper filtered plans. Tho I guess it would be problematic and this is just a half(wit) thought.
ISPs are part of the media industry they have been looking for ways to charge people more money and slack on infrastructure upgrades, so look to upload, I figure normal people may use up to 5-15GB a month gamers might need an extra 10GB but really 25% on the monthly plan is 5-15$ for a plan that costs 20-60$.
Lastly as tech advances and law catches up with the net the ability to track and find infringer's will get easier and easier.
----------
4.What works of worth are traded in high volume that are public domain? Not as many as things that should have gone to public domain years ago.(before I start ranting if its not copy righted its not protected, but the trouble is everything is copy righted and then some these days)
My point is copy right dose not function as it should to allow the natural process of stuff to fall to public domain.
Looking at copy right there are a few thigns that can be done to make it non harmfull on the populace.
Five year whole distribution protection, up to 50% per site fair use "clip" usage.
Inf profit protection, CP/IP is treated as a profit right contract sold and traded like any other contract.
One of my musings with inf CP/IP is non profit groups and other orgs buy up old CP/IP on the cheap and put it into public domain.
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?
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.
It's not just corporations - individuals get the benefit of the protection. To reuse a phrase, "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" applies equally when you want to remove protections.
Parody and critical work are protected by Fair Use in the US; I am unfamiliar of other countries as it's hard enough trying to keep passing knownledge in just my own. The owner of the property has the ability to waive the protections of copyright at their choosing.
If the owner of a legally protected work is requiring compensation in exchange for usage/consumption of that work, and someone else without legal rights to it is giving it away at no cost to the user/consumer, the owner of that work is not unharmed. The consumer sees no harm ('hey, free stuff!') and the unauthorized distributor might have decided not to receive compensation for his costs (bandwith, printing, transportation, whatever applies), but the owner is now out his compensation. Additionally, the compensation that the unauthorized distributor might receive in giving out a work for free may be intangible: the very reduction in compensation the owner incurs may damage their ability to create further works, and drive them from the field.
Again the trouble is that the individuals can not do anything without the aid of corporate, its not as much throwing the baby out with the bath water but forces the baby to take a bath.If a CP/IP is not known and respected by a great number of people its worth is worthless and is not worth societies time to nitpick now when it comes to the real profit end of it its very much worth the time and effort spent.
Again the trouble is fair use is worthless these days as frivolous lawsuits keep people from using their fair use rights.Parody tho is more defined and has a history in the courts so its easier to sort out when the holly hand grenades go off.
I think you miss my greatest point about "free distribution" you can not make any money off it for any reason so you a individual will have to get a domain and host and pay out of pocket if you want to legally share, if you just want to download you'll have to avoid unlicensed commercially driven sites.
Just looking at torrents private or public trackers that take donations or subscriptions are out, torrent search sites engines may well be out as well since there is a slow progression in law and events to differentiate a search site that search the web as a whole and sites that focus on torrents and ad revenue from those searches, IMO by being torrent/location only you are a distributor and thus you shall not gain unlicensed profit. But even if search sites are allowed to to run follow the money if any of that money goes to hosting the file in any way its
illegit.
My musings regarding this are not about compensation merely making legal what people are doing now, people get paid regardless of the millions world wide who can not afford,in the wrong region or do not openly support the current media system. This simply dose not effect the CP owner in any drastic way, 60-80% of current file shearing and distribution online will still be illegal if "free non profit distribution" is made legal.
Even if you tipple the number of shared files the media industry is still raking in huge profits because of the consumer driven mentality they have honed in the masses "legalized free non profit distribution" is oblivious to that because one can not share massive data without spending alot of money and if one may not make money on shearing without a license it makes it oblivious to the eb and flow of commercial media distribution.
==============
lots of edits in this post, sorry for adding in so late.
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?
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.
It's not just corporations - individuals get the benefit of the protection. To reuse a phrase, "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" applies equally when you want to remove protections.
Parody and critical work are protected by Fair Use in the US; I am unfamiliar of other countries as it's hard enough trying to keep passing knownledge in just my own. The owner of the property has the ability to waive the protections of copyright at their choosing.
If the owner of a legally protected work is requiring compensation in exchange for usage/consumption of that work, and someone else without legal rights to it is giving it away at no cost to the user/consumer, the owner of that work is not unharmed. The consumer sees no harm ('hey, free stuff!') and the unauthorized distributor might have decided not to receive compensation for his costs (bandwith, printing, transportation, whatever applies), but the owner is now out his compensation. Additionally, the compensation that the unauthorized distributor might receive in giving out a work for free may be intangible: the very reduction in compensation the owner incurs may damage their ability to create further works, and drive them from the field.
Again the trouble is that the individuals can not do anything without the aid of corporate, its not as much throwing the baby out with the bath water but forces the baby to take a bath.If a CP/IP is not known and respected by a great number of people its worth is worthless and is not worth societies time to nitpick now when it comes to the real profit end of it its very much worth the time and effort spent.
Again the trouble is fair use is worthless these days as frivolous lawsuits keep people from using their fair use rights.Parody tho is more defined and has a history in the courts so its easier to sort out when the holly hand grenades go off.
I think you miss my greatest point about "free distribution" you can not make any money off it for any reason so you a individual will have to get a domain and host and pay out of pocket if you want to legally share, if you just want to download you'll have to avoid unlicensed commercially driven sites.
Just looking at torrents private or public trackers that take donations or subscriptions are out, torrent search sites engines may well be out as well since there is a slow progression in law and events to differentiate a search site that search the web as a whole and sites that focus on torrents and ad revenue from those searches, IMO by being torrent/location only you are a distributor and thus you shall not gain unlicensed profit.
My musings regarding this are not about compensation merely making legal what people are doing now, people get paid regardless of the millions world wide who can not afford,in the wrong region or do not openly support the current media system. This simply dose not effect the CP owner in any drastic way, 60-80% of current file shearing and distribution online will still be illegal if "free non profit distribution" is made legal.
How are individuals unable to take advantage of copyright without the assistance of a corporation?
I think you're missing my point, actually: free distribution of a work that its owner is legally requesting compensation for damages the owner's ability to receive his compensation. Money is not the only issue here. Lets say I am releasing a game, piece of music, or written work of some sort, and hope to receive payment for the effort, but someone else in the same market, or someone who dislikes me, or even someone who just believes all things are free decides to release it on their own site for no profit. The consumer will naturally want the lowest price for the same good. The benefit these people get from releasing a product they do not own is not monetary, but they get something, whether it is revenge, reduced competition, or personal moral satisfaction.
Access to a piece of copyrighted material is not an inherent right. Inability to afford something does not trump copyright. Region issues need to be dealt with on an international trade level, not copyright level. Your issue with 'do not openly support of current media system' you'll need to explain more, as I have no idea what you mean by that, and how copyright applies to it.
Problems with enforcement of copyright (your example of being unable to bear the cost of defending fair use in court) can be addressed by reform of the legal system. The expense of lawsuits is not a problem limited to copyright issues, and I feel it would be better addressed at the source, not piecemeal.
To return to the other post's conversation, specifically:
What works of worth are traded in high volume that are public domain? Not as many as things that should have gone to public domain years ago.(before I start ranting if its not copy righted its not protected, but the trouble is everything is copy righted and then some these days)
My point is copy right dose not function as it should to allow the natural process of stuff to fall to public domain.
How can one sale anything media wise without becoming a part of the industry?
Sure the internet offers a great way to get stuff out at low cost but if it is not worth while(catches the peoples attention) to begin with its not the small portion of the net/world shearing it freely that will effect it any its the fact it sucks and no one wants it.
I think you're missing my point, actually: free distribution of a work that its owner is legally requesting compensation for damages the owner's ability to receive his compensation. Money is not the only issue here. Lets say I am releasing a game, piece of music, or written work of some sort, and hope to receive payment for the effort, but someone else in the same market, or someone who dislikes me, or even someone who just believes all things are free decides to release it on their own site for no profit. The consumer will naturally want the lowest price for the same good. The benefit these people get from releasing a product they do not own is not monetary, but they get something, whether it is revenge, reduced competition, or personal moral satisfaction.
And you over look my point its true what you say until the site goes down when the person doing the shearing stuff can not pay for the bandwidth, have you looked at what it costs to up keep even a tracker service? 300 if you are lucky 600-1200 seems more the average how many people are going to have that kind of money? You weed out 90% of group shearing and push for stronger friend to friend shearing. Also de centralized shearing will come into play but ISPs charging more for upload will balance that out.
ISPs changing more for uplaod services because you are acting like a server and not a normal user connection, sure some ISPs might not charge more but they will get hit with bandwidth issues and will have to deal with them in some way, rasieing rates is the most obvious.
The trouble is if you bring in lawyers or accountants they will seek to make it complicated so they can be paid more, no make it clear from the start and draw the line in the sand closer to the consumer that way there will be no abuse harmful.
Access to a piece of copyrighted material is not an inherent right. Inability to afford something does not trump copyright. Region issues need to be dealt with on an international trade level, not copyright level. Your issue with 'do not openly support of current media system' you'll need to explain more, as I have no idea what you mean by that, and how copyright applies to it.
Problems with enforcement of copyright (your example of being unable to bear the cost of defending fair use in court) can be addressed by reform of the legal system. The expense of lawsuits is not a problem limited to copyright issues, and I feel it would be better addressed at the source, not piecemeal.
The trouble is its happening right now and its not effecting the industry the people whop are being effected the most are consumers who are randomly executed in a literal since to warn others don;t even try it, its just not working and making to many victims.
To return to the other post's conversation, specifically:
What works of worth are traded in high volume that are public domain? Not as many as things that should have gone to public domain years ago.(before I start ranting if its not copy righted its not protected, but the trouble is everything is copy righted and then some these days)
My point is copy right dose not function as it should to allow the natural process of stuff to fall to public domain.
I don't see Micky mouse, White Christmas and other 50+ year old things being moved to public domain the mechanism is broken and have been for decades when they managed to secure a copy right for more than 20 years after the creators death.
====================
Also I am very much in support of a data storage and transmission tax all writable flash,hard drive,disc and ISPs get hit with a 10% tax that then gets divide out to the media industry or companies/people that can show massive use of their CP in non profit settings.
We already pay a tax on blank discs and possibly tapes(I forget) no reason we can nto take all data storage stuff and net services a mislay 10% and route that money into better enforcement and the poor pitiful industry itself.
======================
edit
When I try and boil down my train of thought it comes down to this the people are not going to be able to distribute on the scale or "ease of use" as business will, yes I am aware of whats going on now in terms of torrents and file shearing BUT the vast majority of that will still be illegal if the populace is not harassed for shearing or posting about CP/IP.
More thoughts as I have been trying to balance things further to CP creator?s side
Ok so we know the system in place now does not work its too complicated and allows for too much abuse from the top down, with my train of thought you limit legal distribution to what people pay out of pocket for but may not in any way gain a unlicensed profit from the site the files anything involving a direct or even indirect unlicensed profit from ?distribution?. IMO this is more than enough protection of CP/IP as business will be the only distribution to sustain and flourish.
Ok so now what let?s try and work out one more mechanic one more thing something not to complicated,? intent of whole distribution? comes to mind it?s one thing to share with a few things with a few friends but another to share it with the whole world, with that in mind now what. Well making things available in whole should not start the alarms you need a lines to cross.
First is retail quality you can share all you want as long as you do not profit in it as long as the quality is under the minim retail/licensed release short of VHS quality or poorly compressed image or sound for picture and sound based mediums.
The next line is volume sharing I am thinking 1000X the data value of the lowest retail quality can be shared because the media police go in and levy fines.
These are necessary because I feel one cannot properly use their fair use rights of commentary/criticism and general fandom without being held at gun point by the industry.
But IMO by preventing any and all unlicensed profit you marginalize distribution so much that it does not need to be regulated more, even go as far as to prevent sharing applications (clients that connect to shareing networks short of FTP/HTTP,ect) and networks(torrent, decentralized networks) that were created on donations or profit to touch ?free legal? licensed data, this kills off most torrent clients dead. It?s so marginalized that it can do no harm.
Well all my trains of thought of this come down to if its not making money (IE follow the money) then its distribution is not a threat to either the CP creator who wants more people to know about the work and the CP wonder who wants more people to buy it, in these times its very hard to distribute on a large business like mass scale without making something from it to keep it going.
If you ensure that people can trade freely and I do not mean just share files but post pictures rant and rave over music and clips and anything that falls under the vast spectrum of copy right you place the emphasis on profit and then by weeding out all illicit profit which is easily found and mostly already legal(you know you need to make making a back up of your game or DVD a crime and such as it is under the DMCA currently) you balance thigns as well as they can be.
I know I am missing something in all this or more to the thing that's the hardest to phantom is letting people share and send files as they share and trade DVDs,tapes and crap with neighbors. One could separate this and other forms of "distribution" the difference of "whole" vrs clip/part but IMO that's moot look at what we have right here and right now the wealth of questionable file shearing things going on now and its not harming the industry any it is perhaps shuffling around ad revenue and maybe at most 10-20% of digital profit but that's mostly from sites like MP3.com and others that trade around the skirt of organized and legitimate media all of which would still be illicit if copy right focused more on profit crime and less on "ZOMG someone is watching an unauthorized clip of a clip sue them into the ground!!!111". It seems to me the industry is spending more on inane policing via vague ahrmfull laws that hurt the public than dealing with real threats......
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
