Thoughts about CP/IP and distribution

[ZippyDSMlee]

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/

 

[Ciarang]

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...

 

[DannyBoy451]

Words words words

I don't understand any of this, please explain what the hell you're talking about.

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...

Spoiler

Well, what were you thinking of?

 

[Sir Toaster]

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...

The CP this person is thinking of is child pornography I believe.
So lets hope OP isn't talking about that CP.

 

[DtDust]

Whos distributing CP?
WHY WAS I NOT INFORMED?

 

[DazZ.]

OP, what CP are you on about?

Just say you mean Capture Points and everything will be ok.

 

[cambodiancam]

Woah dude I hope you don't mean what I think your saying. Also give us those acronyms as actual words please.

 

[Gruthar]

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.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Snippity snop snip snoop

I'm really sorry, but I seem to find it quite difficult to tell what you're talking about.

Perhaps a one sentence summary?

LOL
Lets see if I can do it in a small paragraph >>

Current copy right laws and rules dictate you can't copy, you can't share, you can't by pass copy protection for any reason, basically we the consumer are screwed because they have bought the laws needed to further their monopolies and stagnate business models. Even copy right itself has been corrupted with 100+ year copy rights. So IMO there needs to be a line drawn that protects everyone and forces the media industry to keep up with the times. And the line is it shared in any way and its not making a direct active profit(donations,ad revenue and direct sale) only licensed stuff should be making money, every thing else has to be done out of pocket by the individual or a group of individuals.
========================================

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...

CP=Copy right not child porn what do you think IP incestporn???oh never mind!!!

===============================================

Words words words

I don't understand any of this, please explain what the hell you're talking about.

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....
==========================================

Whos distributing CP?
WHY WAS I NOT INFORMED?

Copy right....... dude...copy right..........
===============================================

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.

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...

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

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......

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

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!"

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

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:
Who has the right to determine how much someone is compensated for their efforts?

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

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:
Who has the right to determine how much someone is compensated for their efforts?

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 . 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.
----------
Edit

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....

 

[Starnerf]

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.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

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.

---
edit

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.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Snippity snop snip snoop

I'm really sorry, but I seem to find it quite difficult to tell what you're talking about.

Perhaps a one sentence summary?

After some thought reexamination I can do it in one simple sentence.

Copy right should not effect peoples day to day life.