I wouldn't really call them a new spin on taxis.
They are a new spin on taxis. Instead of calling a cab company/driver on your cell phone or waving them down on the street, you call/wave them down over the internet.
The monopoly is that only you get to sell that particular movie.
If someone created that commercial movie, of course, they're are going to want to sell it. Who else, besides the owner, should have a right to sell movie tickets or DVDs for that movie? Pirates? Consumers? Who's being silly now?
That's like complaining that a donut-shop's owner has a monopoly to sell his donuts? Who else should have the rights?
what exactly is copyright if not a monopoly concerning an intellectual product?
The same kind of monopoly a car owner gets after paying for his car? (Do non-owners have the right to a joyride without the owner's permission?) In this case, the copyright holder has the monopoly because he paid hundreds of millions for the creation of the content and therefore has a lot of rights in controlling it.
a person is given singular and absolute control over distribution - hows does this differ from a monopoly?
BTW, calling it just a monopoly is completely wrong without saying it's a monopoly of what? Is it a monopoly of racing movies? No, there are dozens/hundreds of other such movies. So, where exactly is that monopoly that you claim is stifling?
$1,000 is way too much, because $230 is already expensive. Let's do the math:
Current CPM (cost per thousand ad impressions/views) is $3.10
Therefore $230 will buy you (230 x 1000) / 3 = 74193 page views / year.
And that happens to be 74193 / 365 = 203 page views / day.
Few people, other than web addicts, browse more than 200 pages / day.
If a company took a look at how the gpl code worked and then came up with a brand new algorithm with the same results as the gpl it would still be considered gpl code which is ridiculous.
Why should it be considered GPL code? Since the new code is different in multiple ways from the GPLed code, there is no copyright infringement. Only patents deal with abstraction of multiple implementations of an algorithm.
To take something away from someone, it would have to belong to them in the first place. The only reason it is theirs is because of copyright law.
Interesting, so if you were to compose an original poem, who exactly would it belong to, according to your liberated rules? Would it belong to the entire public?
I was giving them money and in return they promise to offer up some item to me.
Maybe that's enough for dumb fucks like you. But others, like me, want to own a part of the company we paid for.
Your deal sounds like this to me: "I will offer you $100 for an item worth $100. And if you don't deliver the item to me, it's okay, I'm screwed. If you make billions on the back of my investment (even if I don't use that word), that's okay too. You deserve all the profits and I'm owed nothing, even though I took a risk investing my money in your risky company."
Yeah, that's really smart.
I'm guessing you know absolutely nothing about startups. In tech startups, the creators (people with the ideas and/or technology) obtain capital from investors called angel investors. These angels are first in the series of many types of investors that fund the startup (other types of investors include venture capitalists and the stock market). Depending on the amount invested and the risk, the investor demands a certain percent of the company ownership.
As an example, a tech startup raises $2 million from an angel investor in exchange for giving 10% of company ownership to the angel investor. However, when the tech startup raises the same $2 million from crowd funding, it gives 0% ownership to the people who risked their money for at best 0% rate of return. That's the ripoff! Do you get it now?? People who invest in startups should demand a chunk of the company no matter how small that chunk.
Now imagine you invested $500 in a crowd funded (total $20 million) company that subsequently sells to a bigger company for $2 billion. Don't you think, the startup owes you tens of thousands of dollars for risking your money?
Have you seen a football/soccer match? Some games have no goals at all. Therefore they are not substantial.
Not so. There are other important (or substantial) portions of the match such as: the near goal misses, the clever dodges, penalties, free kicks etc. I do agree these are nowhere as important as goals, but they are of secondary importance (and still important).
Fans (the only real market for rebroadcasting) do not care about random goals.
I disagree. Nobody posts videos of boring or inconsequential things such as the goalkeeper throwing the ball to a player, or some player passing the ball to another player far away from the opponent's goal post. Goals are rarely inconsequential unless one team has scored a lot of goals.
If you don't advertise which game etc. it came from it will not in any way affect resale value.
I think it would be rather easy to figure out which game is being played (especially because other viewers can post comments about it) unless you are very new to football.