About music, a promising and viable business model alternative to the “all rights reserved” one is the “some rights reserved”: contents protected by licenses with “some rights reserved”, like the 6 different Creative Commons licenses. It has been clearly shown, for example by Jamendo, that this business model is sustainable and surely better than classical copyright.

About books, in Italy we have several famous writers who have releasing every and each book under Creative Commons since 15 years, not to mention of course giants like Cory Doctorow and others.

In Europe, about 60% of the artists earn, from royalties, not even the price they pay to the collecting societies to be their members. Year after year the artists’ balance from copyright is not 0, it’s negative.

This is one among several signals that there’s something deeply wrong with copyright.

While it seems to work with music and books, can the “copyleft” business models be extended to movies? This is a tough question, basically because the investements for a movie can often be hugely superior than those required for books and music, but some encouraging signals are coming from that sector too (see for example the VoDo project by Jamie King).

I think that, anyway, a solution must be based on a reduction of copyright terms. Nowadays terms discourage creativity, instead of fostering it. A good balance, in my opinion, would be coherent with swedish PiratPartiet proposals.

Finally, more solutions are drafted in the Charter for Innovation, Creativity and Access to Knowledge of Barcelona, which may be a source for inspiration. It has been compiled by a hundred of high profile experts and signed by the most relevant NGOs in the world:
http://fcforum.net

Ciao!
Paolo

So, what’s the answer? What better then the copyright system? I have no idea. But, I do know that it isn’t the ONLY system. The problem is that very little effort is spent trying to find a better system. For example, what if an artist is payed a one time fee for releasing his art to the world. Once it’s released, the world owns it. Is this a better system, probably not. But like I said, there are other ways of doing it. THIS is the discussion that we need to be having. We are wasting everyone’s time arguing over who is right, the artist or the pirate. They are both right. The artist NEEDS to compensated, that the pirate SHOULD be able to download it for free since it is an unlimited resource. What we need to do is come up with a system that compensates the artists for his work without resorting to imaginary concepts like reproduction rights that have absolutely NO BASIS IN REALITY.

Yeah, Reese is just obsessed with money. I’m sure his concern has NOTHING to do with the fact that his chances at making future are hinge on how profitable his previous works happen to be. It couldn’t be THAT at all.

Of course, it, also, can’t be that he and/or the studio have the right to set the price on their product and the consumer has the right to decide it is worth that much money and purchase it or that it isn’t worth the money and go without. Nowhere is stealing it a perfectly valid and moral option, especially since it isn’t essential to you living to draw another breath tomorrow.

You people trying to reference the past cultural methods of art financing really are pretty clueless. Private patrons commissioned art…for their own collections. They didn’t always immediately see the light of day. Many times they only became available for public viewing after the patron passed away and willed his/her collection to a museum or his/her surviving family sold it to one.

Would art exist without such a for-profit industry backing it? Sure. Would you get even half the shit you can’t wait to download the day before it hits theaters or shelves? No fucking way.

Rejoin reality as soon as possible. Some of your friends who learned how to use their brains miss you, I’m sure, and would love for you to join them for a rousing session of intelligent thought.

Think back to the days of the pirates that sailed the seas in ships, read up on that, there is a reason they existed.

Mr Reese lives in fantasy land if he thinks the only real artists are the ones that mass market their crap to the rest of the world. There are many people that make ‘pure’ art simple for the sake of art. case in point -> there are no product placements in ‘art’.

Seems Mr Reese should have gotten more money from Tide or whatever other products to whom he whored himself out.

I used to goto theater more but I kept getting burned on bad overpriced movies. I cant stand blockbuster and the garbage on the shelf there. The quicker I can download it the quicker i can determine how much its worth. first run theater showing? dollar theater showing? new release rental? old release $1 rental?

Zombieland was definitely worthy of theater viewing and maybe even SHOCK purchase for DVD library (very few movies are worth owning to me. i dig zombie movies tho)… long story short i’m not paying shit to that pretentious douchebag Reese. dont make zombieland 2.

His own behaviour will be what kills any sequels, not piracy.

He believed the 60 minutes report? Does that mean that he believes everything he sees? Does he believe his own movie was real then?

If anything studios have slowly come to understand there’s a lot of money to be made from anti-piracy, going after fans who download content online.

Embrace evolution, make new business models.

Just look around you, there’s a huge demand for it!

If the people behind distribution are not up to it, fire them!
They are responsible for the loss of a lot of money for not being able to keep up and LEAD the way things have gone.

Fans obviously want to be able to see this content easily as well as contribute in a lot of ways if they can, people want other people to be able to see these movies and hear music and share it with as many people as possible.

If only they had offered a set amount to be able to access a large library of DRM-free content…

Instead that money now goes to a seedbox and vpn.

Oh well.