My point was: no matter how much you give them, they will always demand more. Even if you compensate them 'beyond what they deserve', they will scream and cry and pout and pay off politicians until they get more, more, MORE!
You misunderstand. That $5 billion annual loss is "profit", not "revenue".
After paying all of the middle-men, contractors, politicians, lawyers, website designers, themselves, recording studios, themselves, massage 'artists', politicians, label designers, themselves, scabs, politicians, disenfranchised union workers, and themselves, that number would really need to be more like $100 a month - MINIMUM - to properly cover the costs involved and accurately replace their lost profits.
You clearly just don't understand "accounting". =)
Excellent point - it does make sense that the President can't do that. So we'd need a cooperative Congress as well. Well, too bad that will never happen.
And since we're all dreaming big here, I'd also like to add a Constitutional amendment which allows for a nationwide referendum on a vote of no confidence in the government. This would provide for a special election, initiated somehow by the states (I'm not sure on the logistical details) - if 75% of turnout votes no confidence in the government, a new nationwide election is triggered for ALL members of government (House, Senate, President) and all currently serving members are prohibited from being re-elected.
Obviously the details are sketchy on this one, but this would sure put those idiots on notice, don't ya think?
Overturn Citizens United, via executive order and then via a proposal for a Constitutional amendment stating that corporations cannot be recognized as individuals. Failing that, at least having legislation passed to that effect... but I imagine you could probably get the *people* of the states to ratify such an amendment.
Institute term limits: 12 years for all Congressional offices - that's a political MAXIMUM of 6 House terms and 2 Senate terms per individual, and then 2 Presidential ones, should you be so lucky.
Immediately remove Congress' ability to vote themselves a pay raise.
Freeze Congressional salaries and index them only by inflation. Taking national office should be the civilian equivalent of serving in the military - a sacrifice.
Commission a thorough investigation of campaign finance corruption, and eventually require all political action groups to have full transparency or severely reduced limits on contributions, remove the ability for corporations to contribute directly to any politican's coffers or campaign, and institute strict public funding for any direct contributions. This may also necessitate a law requiring broadcast/cable networks to provide time for political discussions during campaign seasons.
...and, while I'm dreaming, I'd also like to implement instant-runoff voting and make voting mandatory.
You say "Presumably even Techdirt, whatever it may be, would find it somehow objectionable if its proudly reusable works were to share space with incitements to commit child abuse, stringing up politicians..." etc, etc
They might find it objectionable. That's probably true. That does not make it IMMORAL to do so, and it also does not mean any kind of legality should be enshrined against it. I'm pretty sure that Mike would argue the same thing.
Nothing you have presented in your post gives any legitimacy to the idea of establishing legal remedies against a problem perceived as immoral. Your Roy Orbison example falls flat - they sued, and lost... do you sympathize with them and think it should have gone the other way, or do you actually "celebrate the resulting fair use doctrine"? Saying "Oh, I'm glad they lost but I don't question why they did it" is flawed - it's hedging for the ability to stand on both sides of a fence.
If you "don't belittle the estate for caring or say they must be making some insane distinction that I cannot for the life of me fathom" - please tell us, then... what is the distinction? Do you understand it? You spend a fair number of words here telling us what you "don't" think... so what DO you think?
Also, 2 Live Crew's "Pretty Woman" is not an "interpretation", as you say - but a legally protected parody. That's a "pretty" big difference.
When it gets right down to it, you seem to be saying (if I may boil it down) that it should be a legal right for a creator to have the ultimate decision about what can and cannot be done with their work. Is that right?
Please present to us a cogent argument that explains why, precisely (and without weasel words), the 'feelings' and 'morals' of a given creator should be enshrined as a legal right to shut down any kind of derivation or building on their work that they happen to disagree with?
Now, for bonus points: Can you do so without resorting to logical fallacies and more vague personal attacks?
It boggles my mind that someone could watch something like that '39 songs I like' mashup that was posted here the other day and NOT consider that something entirely new and creative.
The time involved; finding precisely the right clips from the songs to use, the practice it must have taken to arrange and then perform that live on camera... staggering. Easily equivalent to what any amateur musician does - and I say that being an amateur musician myself.
Yes - attribution is a good thing. Even though many of the songs used in that particular one were not my cup of tea, I still listened to a bunch of them to try to figure out how it had been put together.
How is it morally wrong to make fun electronica using clips of other people's work, if they're correctly attributed? I just don't understand.
Wait, wait, wait... what in the name of all that is capitalist is an "audiophile deduction"?
"Man, we've got this suit in Distribution... yeah, he really loves music. Like, REALLY loves it. So we, y'know, we give him a discount and take it out of your royalties because we comped him your album. Yeah. Hope that's OK."
The Federal Copyright Investigation Commission (FCIC, established as part of ACTA) has dispatched agents to your location to ensure that you are paying the proper 'public performance' fees to the copyright holders for this party. Since you and all of your friends are 'members of the public', this is clearly a 'public performance' and therefore you will be fined the not unreasonable rate of $10,000 per attendee.