What happen to "advertizing is a content" idea? What happen to "access to musician is a scarcity"?
I think there should be paradigm shift for both things.
"Advertizing" to make you more and better known, not part of the final product that should be sold. If people like your music, they will buy it. If not, you should keep on with your life. Besides, there's always been Crowd-Advertizing that spread the product around your own contacts and made it more known. I don't understand why eventually the Publishers want to kill a practice that has been around for like since the first days of humanity.
"Access to musician is a scarcity". With Technology, you can copy the tracks without any cost or loss involved, at the same quality as the original. I know that there is still the "dilluted-value" fear, but here is where you ask yourself if that's really happening or it's all the opposite. Time after time it's been proven that a content that gets spread a lot improves it's value.
I don't think that idea "founder goes to jail" is what "legal" means.
It depends on what does the government defines what's legal and not. Such is a flaw of the current democracy system. If you can influence the government, you can write the rules, even if the do not make any sense or are unconstitutional.
Mike, do you sleep with her or something? Please find another example, this one is overused.
*avoiding the ad-hom, there is no point to refute something like this*
Still, there has been more than one successful cases of Crowdfunding and CwF+RtB being told here. Amanda is probably the most prominent of them all.
Like I say before, option c) is begging. I'm glad it's working for Amanda.
Saying that "Crowfunding = Begging" is like saying "Copyright-Infrignment = Steal".
"Copyright isn't just some magic thing to lock things up content - it's also the basis for an entire marketplace."
If a law is required to create a marketplace... Wouldn't this marketplace be like a new-born that needs to be plugged to a machine his/her entire life to survive? Wouldn't the less cruel solution be to let it die naturally instead of prolonging his/her life and suffering?
Leaving the analogy aside, I believe society as a whole has already answered this, as we see the "Art and culture" shifting from the marketplace Copyright created to another one.
The only result out of it is forcing everything into sneakernets and searching/consuming stuff without a restrictive copyright. In the end, the current copyright will become so poisoning for any kind of content it applies, that anyone will look to get rid of that before anything else.
About the note, I agree. This can be a great advertising opportunity for Samsung.
Also, why Apple chose suing? Given their size and position in the market, possibly it has grown so big that it's now afraid to lose that position, hence using the legal system as a threat (almost like bullying).
What actually leaves me thinking is... why does the USA's legal system enters into this game, to the point that it even seems to encourage it?
Actually, there is a lot of support for the "Right's Holders", but it's not in a way you want to hear it. Here we say: "Change your busisness model, you have the tools, technology, money and power to do it. It's easy and really cost/effective for everyone. Do it before it's too late for you."
Or you might be expecting something like: "Hooray for this busisness model!!! DVDs/VCRs/Blu-Ray with DRM and lots of FBI warnings and never-ending trailers are the lastest innovation of this world. You are our heroes!!!"
There are ways where religion can live with critical thinking (or at least that's the way I've been taught during my pre-bachelor course of Teology). In fact, when a person thinks critically, they have another weapon to reinforce their faith and believes, if they choose so.
Unless you want to have "fanatics". They do not need that.
If rights are property, as you say, that means that the government is in position to sieze, capture or take away my rights, if they see fit.
In fact, this happens on the common criminal situations (Tangible-Stuff Theft, Murder, Treachery, Blackmail, and so many others). Possibly will also happen with "Copyright Infrigment" if it's criminalistically penalized as it was propoused many times in the past (but thankfully it has not happened yet).
Considering the fact that there are major corporative representatives buying different types of enforcement or laws, it's not farfetched to say that this can even reach the Orwell's 1984 scenario eventually, under the presumption of certain well-placed crisis (War on [insert theme here]).
In all and all, this means that maybe laws do not live up to today's living standards.
"In the movie business (or music for that matter) you have a unique product."
The idea that concieves it is unique, but the information that actually contains and transports it isn't. And even better, this information can be replicated without any cost at all. See how I'm quoting you, it's your idea, turned in information and being now replicated in this comment.
"that piracy has created expectations that cannot be met, on price, delivery, and availability"
Your argument has commited suicide just here...
If a "casual pirate" with a low budget PC can do it, why not a multi-millionare industry who can afford complete Workstations and professional IT staffs with ease?
"Any time the movie companies try to run their business in a profitable manner, they have failed to meet the expectations."
Shouldn't they try to actually reinvent their busisness plan to accomodate to the 21st century? And what kind of expectations they have failed to meet? If you mean "Quality of the Content", I don't think piracy is the issue here.
"It's not hard to understand - the competition for content providers right now is their own product, free to get, simple to obtain, and often delivered before the real product even hits the market. No matter what they do (short of giving it all away all the time) they cannot compete, plain and simple."
Then they have a real problem defining who are their competitors and I think they should start there because that's one of the basics in any type of busisness.
Delivered before their product? I'll assume you don't speak about "leaks" here. Still, they send the product with release windows. I could understand the difficulties of selling the product everywhere IF IT WAS COMPLETELY PHYSICAL, but it isn't and in this digital era there is no excuse for them to do that, specially considering the technology we have and how it's available to anyone at almost no cost.