Why are Rightscorp’s principals shy to mention their past endeavors?

Come on, by now you’ve made the money when it was released in theaters. You’ve made the money when it was out on DVD and at the time, VHS. Here you are whining about wanting money for a little code. Same old.

Collapsing stock prices? Boo – f*ckin’ – hoo!! Couldn’t have happened to a nicer organization….

I happen to think that everyone is entitled to a decent living. Certainly those who do create their share of value, but also those who try, yet fail, to do so. The two uniquely most valuable resources of humanity are the planet and society (with its history, culture, science, infrastructure, and everything else binding it together). The first was not created by any human, and so belongs to no human. The second was created by everyone, and so belongs to everyone.

If those two resources are credited with a realistic economic value, all who have a claim to them should be rich; values created by individuals are dwarfed by comparison. Obviously, though, society might collapse with this 100% fairness as the only principle, if everyone decided to live off the revenue of this “inheritance”. In other words, cynical pragmatism is needed; however, we must never confuse the pragmatic concepts of things like government control and private wealth, with “fairness”. They’re just mechanisms, should be used as tools, not as guidelines, and discarded when not needed.

A “decent living” would be material conditions that don’t run contrary to full participation in society. Apart from neither starving nor freezing, in modern society, that would include education, access to the common means of communication, as well as other modern basics. All of it without having to beg. As humans are greedy, having these basics won’t prevent us from being motivated to work hard to acquire additional benefits. This provides basic fairness, combined with necessary pragmatism. The exact balance between the two is a pragmatic issue based on the fair principle of maximizing the first, while ensuring the latter.

That’s a different, and much wider discussion, though. The relevant point in this one, is that it serves all our interests that people with a talent for creating common good, are allowed to use that talent, and that it is, in no way, unfair to the rest of us that they should receive the resources needed for that.

All that aside, it seems clear that we don’t really disagree on the specific and isolated topic of IP.

Your suggestion for payment is similar to the stripped core of my suggestion a few posts back: “a cultural fee or tax, from which the creators are awarded support”. We even agree that this is just a simple sketch of one of many possible models.

We also seem to agree that a change will take time, and happen through a process.

My point, which I suspect you don’t fundamentally disagree with, was that a process (even a quick one) is gradual by nature, and requires stop-gap measures before it’s completed. In other words, measures that are “slightly less flawed than our current system”. There will be no choice but to accept this. I agree wholeheartedly with your point that we shouldn’t /settle/ for such measures.

what they are doing now ARE the facts.

and in any aspect of life derivatives are perfectly fine.
for example i can use the Radio Record function to save tracks on my mp3player.. problem ?
that makes me a thief and i stole their content right ?
we can’t just hop around bending reality to suit our financial wants.. reality does not work that way sorry.

the bottom line is 90% of what we share is not theirs to lay claim to and by the way most movies and TV shows that we share are recorded off the TV just like in my example.

a dvd vs a some random file made by god knows who with god knows quality (hard coded Chinese subs ?) with slow download speeds on a an ISP i have to pay a lot of money for and risk being extorted and harassed is not like stealing a dvd from Wallmart sorry..

And i am not buying what they are selling either so i don’t care how cheap their bullshit is.. i trade files because i am into file sharing.. i also don’t share files specifically because they are deemed illegal.. i share files because i think i have stuff people want to check out for improving their PC experience.
My last upload was an open source program LOL

Twisting around reality to encroach on my rights is not acceptable especially when it’s done out of greed and jealousy and the delusion of lost revenue.. i just said i am not buying what they are selling !

NO amount of verbal gymnastics can twist and contort the derivatives i trade into being their owned content i am stealing.. after all the files did not originate from them did they ?
Don’t want derivatives made ? then don’t make content period .

Why do they deserve money for something they didn’t do ?
Sure of they made the content being shared like a file being traded that is a hashed exact copy of a File on Netflix then fine i concede it’s theirs.. they made it.
But if my friend makes a file then no sorry that is not theirs.. it’s a derivative NOT made by them !
Work they did not do making the derivative does not deserve a payment.

What happened is we started sharing files.. it was fine.
they seen it and got jealous and thought well i bet we could monetize Napster etc and then made up the lost revenue crap.
And have since tried to retroactively make derivatives an illegal crime of theft.. it’s not it’s called file sharing.
A phenomenon as old as man itself and no it’s not going anywhere and will thrive no matter how cheap XYZ product is being sold on Netflix or Amazon etc..
Don’t offer something for sale and then call me a thief because i did not take you up on the offer ! ..that is silly nonsense.

Reality is i am being told i am a thief and stole something but you can’t say that because that is false !
These guys are NOT saying i owe for derivative works..
So your claim of i owe them for it is irrelevant !
They are claiming i stole something and calling me a thief and ruining a million peoples lives and that is a far cry from saying they deserve “”something”” for a derivative.. which they don’t.

reality is reality ..nothing else !

If 100 million people view a piece of art that has an intrinsic value of 1 million dollars to the artist then the fair payment would 1 penny per person to that artist. Due to the cost of bank transactions it cost more than a penny to transact. To resolve this issue IP holders bill disproportionately and may even charge more than the 1 million dollars for their work.

One possible way would be to use a digital currency (something better than bitcoin or current alt currencies) and embed meta data into content. This meta would have the accreditation for the author(s) of the content. The author wouldn’t get 100% of revenue generated since there is a distribution side of the equation. Everyone would be free to share and remix the content creating greater value.

P2P digital currencies can transact without massive banking fees, making a 1-10 cent price reasonable per view to the artist. The currency itself could be based on the creation of content creating further incentives to create. Advertising and other sources revenue could be used generate income for artist. Most people are willing to pay a few dollars a day for a constant supply of content. The issue is who should pay what to who and there should be no restrictions on its use.

Business will always adapt to market conditions. There has to be a signal that says adapt or die. This is just 1 idea and I leave it open because it would require a lot of people working together to figure out how to develop it. Then it would need to be adopted.
___________

An instant transition wouldn’t happen laws take time to be debated, get support, get passed and be enacted. The most likely way IP will end is alternative systems for creation and distribution will be invented that makes IP impossible to enforce. The internet has already made copyright impossible to enforce. 3D printing, encryption and anonymous communication will cause the next major upset.