There's already a number of incentives given. If you're looking for monetary support, that comes from good Kickstarter campaigns.
If you're on Youtube, you can make money through Google Adview or working with a licensor.
Further, you are building your own streetcred. Copyright has always been a subsidy to create works. I doubt you need it any longer. People have found their own way to create, monetize, and distribute their works. The concept of copyright is being distorted to prevent artists from doing this exact thing. If there were evidence of copyright being used to create more works, I would be open to the research. Sadly, I have yet to see that in the last 15 years I've studied copyright.
Yes, I would argue that you do not need copyright to create. The schemes used now merely prevent someone from their natural inherent right to share information. If copyright is not helping the public,it should be abolished for the social contact with the public is gone.
Citizens United was the case that sets up Political Action Committees to allow money into politics. Since money is speech, rich people have a larger influence on how politicians vote. They can provide anonymous donations in the millions to these PACs and basically show that their money speaks louder than anyone else's views on a subject.
In essence, corporations have a constitutional right to speak, even though they aren't real people. And this allows them to run ads, or destroy those that don't do as they say.
So even if you formed a merry band, you can set up your own PAC. How you're going to fund it is anyone's guess.
I'll have to disagree. From the looks, most Republicans seem dedicated to the idea of destroying government and all types of social support set up by the FDR courts of the 50s and 60s.
You're awesome. You go to a conservative website for news even though there are more cases of shark attacks than cases of voter fraud. One example does not equate to an entire nation of problems. Particularly when you're looking at who is corrupting the process by buying out politicians.
If infringement were a zero-sum game, then yes, there needs to be a balance. But it's not.
That's the entire concept that people miss. If you were to eliminate copyright law tomorrow, people would continue to create. The objectives is a subsidy for people to create works. Nothing more. With technology as it stands today, we don't need to strike a balance. We can do without copyright. And that's what people should focus on. How many works are being created to progress knowledge and learning?
Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
Eliminate the electoral college (12 and 24th Amendment)
Advocate alternative voting system
Public financing of campaigns
Proportional voting
Eliminate disenfranchisement of the vote and gerrymandering.
Instill a Mixed Member Proportional System
RT is trying way too hard to compare everything to SOPA and get everyone riled up against legislation. It's really not helping them make their case when they continue to report bad info.
I generally take the view that "censorship" is only censorship when it's the government doing it.
It should be noted that the history of movie theaters in America has always been a collusion to exclude until the 50s where studios were essentially banned from owning theaters and preventing independent film makers from being shown.
It's still that same problem that Matt Stone and Trey Parker talked about so long ago with the Paley Center, where the MPAA is so large that they control what the smaller film artists can do.
He's talking about Holder's recent speech saying that you don't have judicial rights under the Constitution. Also, due process is having 15-20 guys go around and say "hey, that's illegal" before you have a judge or jury agree.
On the post: Yes, Copyright's Sole Purpose Is To Benefit The Public
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're on Youtube, you can make money through Google Adview or working with a licensor.
Further, you are building your own streetcred. Copyright has always been a subsidy to create works. I doubt you need it any longer. People have found their own way to create, monetize, and distribute their works. The concept of copyright is being distorted to prevent artists from doing this exact thing. If there were evidence of copyright being used to create more works, I would be open to the research. Sadly, I have yet to see that in the last 15 years I've studied copyright.
On the post: Paramount's Post-SOPA 'Outreach' To Law Students About 'Content Theft' Still Shows An Out Of Touch Operation
Re: Re: Re:
Stays at the Clerks station. ;)
On the post: Yes, Copyright's Sole Purpose Is To Benefit The Public
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Yes, Copyright's Sole Purpose Is To Benefit The Public
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gah
Citizens United was the case that sets up Political Action Committees to allow money into politics. Since money is speech, rich people have a larger influence on how politicians vote. They can provide anonymous donations in the millions to these PACs and basically show that their money speaks louder than anyone else's views on a subject.
In essence, corporations have a constitutional right to speak, even though they aren't real people. And this allows them to run ads, or destroy those that don't do as they say.
So even if you formed a merry band, you can set up your own PAC. How you're going to fund it is anyone's guess.
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gah
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Social Networking Patent Thicket Consists Of At Least 30,000 Patents
On the post: More Mistakes In The Megaupload Prosecution: Videotape Of The Mansion Raid Has Gone Missing
Re: Man, this is gonna be a whole carton of eggs on their collective face
In total, we've had 758 seizures in America.
On the post: Yes, Copyright's Sole Purpose Is To Benefit The Public
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If infringement were a zero-sum game, then yes, there needs to be a balance. But it's not.
That's the entire concept that people miss. If you were to eliminate copyright law tomorrow, people would continue to create. The objectives is a subsidy for people to create works. Nothing more. With technology as it stands today, we don't need to strike a balance. We can do without copyright. And that's what people should focus on. How many works are being created to progress knowledge and learning?
On the post: Once Again, The Administration Vindictively Charges A Whistleblower As Being A Spy
Re: Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
Seriously, Obama needs to fight the Republicans instead of hiding in a corner.
On the post: Once Again, The Administration Vindictively Charges A Whistleblower As Being A Spy
Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
Advocate alternative voting system
Public financing of campaigns
Proportional voting
Eliminate disenfranchisement of the vote and gerrymandering.
Instill a Mixed Member Proportional System
Just a few ideas.
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
Re:
On the post: MPAA Stops Picking On 'Bully', Actually Gets Some Good Press For Once
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is STILL bad...
It should be noted that the history of movie theaters in America has always been a collusion to exclude until the 50s where studios were essentially banned from owning theaters and preventing independent film makers from being shown.
It's still that same problem that Matt Stone and Trey Parker talked about so long ago with the Paley Center, where the MPAA is so large that they control what the smaller film artists can do.
On the post: AOL Sells Its Patents To Microsoft For $1 Billion: Microsoft Now Owns Netscape IP
Oh great...
On the post: Just Because It's Now Cheaper And Easier To Spy On Everyone All The Time, Doesn't Mean Governments Should Do It
On the post: Jakerome's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: IP
On the post: NYTimes Columnist Stirs Up A Controversy That Will Only Drive Human Trafficking Further Underground
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Somewhat controversial
On the post: Arizona Politicians Scramble To Adjust Internet Censorship Bill After The Internet Mocks Them For Being Clueless
Re: "How do people like this get elected?"
Banning of political ads and public financing of campaigns.
On the post: Megaupload Points Out That The Feds Want To Destroy Relevant Evidence In Its Case
Re: Re:
Next >>