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.
I'd really like to see a crowdfunding site which takes venture capital out of the realm of multi-millionaires, and puts it within reach of the common person.
They obviously could do it, but they won't. They rather prefer the common person stay common, and not rich.
The time taken to show all of the goals combined for an average soccer game will usually consume (much) less than 3 minutes of an (approximately) 180 minute broadcast.
Yes, they are inconsequential, quantitatively. I meant, they are substantial, qualititatively, like the best parts or ending of a movie.
This is one of google's definition of the word substantial:
1. of considerable importance, size, or worth.
"a substantial amount of cash"
I think goals are definitely of considerable importance and are therefore substantial. Therefore, posting goal videos for many football matches falls outside the acceptable rules for fair use and should be considered copyright infringement, just as the copyright owners have stated.
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
Aren't goals a substantial portion of a football match?
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. "
Won't rebroadcasting goals reduce potential market (stadium and TV viewership) of the copyrighted work?
You're wrong. You're reducing potential profit from the copyright holders by rebroadcasting information for free. If you were a stadium ticket buyer, or watched the game on TV or DVD, would you be willing to spend the time or the money to watch the game, had you already seen the clips on the web? No.
In short, if you can see the good parts for free on the web, you won't visit the stadium for the match or watch it on TV thereby reducing profit for copyright holders. And copyright is all about preventing freeloaders from reducing profit to copyright holders.
If they made the goal posts wider, there might be more goals.
But seriously, rebroadcasting the interesting parts, such as goals, is definitely copyright infringement just as rebroadcasting all the light saber fights in Star Wars is copyright infringement.
My job isn't going to pay my family for 18 years after I die - why should yours just because you're a 'creative'?
Because creative work benefits the public infinitely (or less, depending on its quality). For e.g., people still listen to Mozart or Beethoven, or admire Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, centuries after their creators have expired. Therefore, it's only fair that consumer payment for these art works should trickle down to the heirs of the creator.
Perhaps your job is skill based and does not have creative output, like a mechanic or a doctor, in which case, you've been fully paid for services rendered and don't deserve extra payment. If a mechanic changes oil in a car, is there a lasting benefit to the consumer? No, the benefit only lasts a couple of months, after which the customer has to repay to change oil again.