Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
look theres a guy selling crack in the ghetto, thus it must be legal.
|
your not that stupid so stop pretending
you made the arguement that every torrent site has stolen content on it
i pointed you to a torrent site that was dedicated to tv shows after they aired only.
Where the only purpose was the moving of the viewing time of show from day 1 to day 2
Since moving a show from day 1 to day 2 is the definition of timeshifting...
the only way you can argue that meets your definition is to argue that right doesn't exist.
Which is the point i was making with the CP reference, it only by reclassifying fair use out of existance that you can claim that EVERY torrent site is filled with stolen content.
Quote:
i have never seen any such "right" given, a long ago case was won based on that argument for a vcr, not for torrent sites that profit from the theft of copyright material.
please post proof, highlight the words "legally allowed" , "tv show" , "timeshifted", "vcr" and "cloud" please
i bet you are all talk jack..
|
broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i.e.,
recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so that it can be watched at a later time
satisfies this standard of noninfringing uses both because respondents have
no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such time-shifting for their programs and because the District Court's findings reveal that
even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use
http://supreme.justia.com/us/464/417/case.html
as for the cablevision case
i discussed it quite completely
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...a+cloud&page=4
i quoted from the ruling multiple times and covered all the points you made and some you haven't yet (but suspect you will given your later statements)
and all the shows on tv are free right ? everyone gets every channel free ?
Quote:
actually he didnt try and defend copyright theft with one law and and ignore copyright laws based on another countries law sorry.
Gotcha
|
so you believe RICO is part of copyright law
i defend fair use, not copyright theft, there is no theft because as i pointed out fair use is not an infringement.
each country has fair use doctrine in their copyright act, the commonality is what i am referencing when i mention one ruling will (future tense) apply when the issue is addressed in that country.
Quote:
|
and none of them say anything about timeshifting tv shows.
|
so now your arguing that none of the court established fair use exist.
timeshifting
format shifting
backup recovery
all court established, they could be established because the copyright act specified rules for the creation of new fair uses. Those rules make any of those court established fair use JUST AS VALID AS THE ONES GRANTED EXPLICTLY by the act.
Quote:
well first off i never said anything remotely close to what you just said. Just to be clear.
Nobody is trying to "take away" fair use, timeshifting for yourself should be legal. The problem arises in the "cloud". The "cloud" is vastly different now and we KNOW the cloud is being abused, yes laws should reflect the fact that the "cloud" had very little impact on the revenue of the copyright material in the "cloud" years ago. Now the "cloud" is having a huge impact on the ability for copyright holders to profit from their material.
|
but that exactly what your doing
re read the quote
"a new technology is created to allow you take advantage of that right."
the new technology is the swarm. Timeshifting using a swarm is superior to the old pvr way because their is no limit on storage space (swarm = infinite storage), it never loses power, misses a show due to user error, never loses the content due to accidental deletion, allows me to jump into a show after it aired for months, etc.
Your talking about denying a person who only torrents tv shows that he bought a right to view (by subscribing to the cable stations necessary) the extra benefits of the new technology simple because you don't want to go after the people who didn't buy that right to view.
THAT IS EXACTLY what i was talking about.
Quote:
|
if i was gonna buy something and instead i download it for free then 1 download = 1 lost sale idiot.
|
you set a precondition, before that ruling every download was considered an automagic lost sale, without such proof. Even if there was no way for you to buy the content (because of regional restrictions). copyright laws were never ment to be a censorship tool, they were designed to protect your income. IF you don't sell the content to person A, there is no sale to lose. ergo there is no infringement.
Quote:
|
you should start one of those phone psychic gigs.. you could make alot of money with your abilities.
|
not psychic just logic
if country a makes ruling 1
and country b relevent copyright laws are worded the same as country a laws
then when ruling one goes in front of the courts a similar ruling should LOGICALLY happen
That the bases of my predictions (all of which have been right so far)