Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
amd i pointed out that just because someone is doing it doesn't make it legal, there is no provision in the copyright laws saying its ok to give away tv shows after they air.
actually i did just above.
|
hense why i said
Quote:
[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.
|
which is exactly what you did just now
Quote:
cept all the people that dont have the right to the show that download it..
|
your so right, vcr were illegal because they could be used to bootleg movies.
oh wait vcr were legal and only the people using them in that illegal way were convicted
sort of like
"go after the leachers without a fair use right to the content"
Quote:
so in a nutshell you changed all the words around to make it into something completely different, there is no law that says anything about timeshifting or clouds or any of the other nonsense. you are quoting a case result about vcr's, highly doubtfull thats going to be a precedent over a completely unrelated item.
|
nothing about that ruling says it only applies to VTR it established a right irregardless of the technology that was used to do it.
IF what you were saying was legitimate and the precedent would have to be established with every new technology
Tivo /pvr would have had to gone to the supreme court too. The precedent (with the established right of timeshifting) protected all the other technology that came after it.
Quote:
|
Twenty-four years ago in the Sony Betamax case, the Supreme Court declared that using a VCR to "time-shift" — to record a television program for viewing at a later time — was a fair use. Today, the Second Circuit rejected [PDF] an attempt by the content industry to change the rules of the game if your video recorder is stored "in the cloud" on the Internet.
|
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud
that the way legal precedents work
Quote:
yet you cant actually quote it.. ok then
lets see this LAW that says timeshifting tv shows is fair use, post it , dont post links to other links that you spin more bullshit.
|
there is no law that makes selling porn legal either, it was a court case that did that
just because there is no law that explictly saying that timeshifting is legal doesn't make it illegal.
Quote:
If you search a crack dealer without telling him his rights, the case will likely be thrown out , doesnt make selling crack legal.
|
two different issues and you know it
the court case doesn't say that it would be a crime if they had been notified but because they weren't they get off
it says that the action
was not an infringement.
If you want to use your drug analogy, the crack dealer example you gave would be not complying with the appropriate takedown request of the country in question.
And fair use arguement would be trying to bust a medical marijuana store for selling weed.
Quote:
and all the shows on tv are free right ? everyone gets every channel free ?
|
again
Quote:
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.
|
what exactly about
go after the leechers who don't have a fair use right to the content do you not understand.
your first quote
Quote:
|
I wasn't aware the rico act extended to the netherlands, but now that you have made us aware we will simply push the "rico arrest button" under our chairs..
|
my response
Quote:
every country has organized crime statutes moron, of course since fucknut who started this thread wanted them to honor US laws even though they were not US citizens.
It is interesting how you are calling me on doing the exact same thing as the thread starter
Gotcha
|
your response to the above
Quote:
|
actually he didnt try and defend copyright theft with one law and and ignore copyright laws based on another countries law sorry.
|
since the beginning of the conversation was simply pointing out that the thread starter should file a complaint complient with that countries laws, and not expect them to comply with the DMCA take down notice. there is no way you can get to your last statement without arguing that rico was part of copyright law.
the fact is you don't have a right to force people to obey US laws, they don't take precedents over the other countries laws.
The subsequent arguements about the legality of timeshifting under US laws don't change that fact.
Quote:
|
i could call anything fair use , doesn't make it fair use.
|
and you can call anything you want to be an infringement, totally irrelevent to the point i am making because i am taking about case law and SHOWING HOW THE SWARM MEETS THE SAME PRECONDITIONS.
you on the other hand have done no such thing. Show me one case where the issue was brought up and a judge actually ruled it doesn't apply. The only convictions you can point to are ones where those key issues are hidden.
Quote:
if thats what i said , then yes, the slight problem in your thinking is i never said anything remotely similar to that, makes me wonder whether any of the giberish you spit has any basis.
the courts may have ruled for or against certain cases , doesnt make other cases legal.
|
sure you are
you are demanding that i show a law that says timeshifting tv shows is legal
but when i show you a court case you say that doesn't count
Quote:
|
there is no law that says anything about timeshifting or clouds or any of the other nonsense. you are quoting a case result about vcr's, highly doubtfull thats going to be a precedent over a completely unrelated item.
|
you ignore the fact that timeshifting ruling from 24 years ago was just recently extended to the cloud
Quote:
|
Twenty-four years ago in the Sony Betamax case, the Supreme Court declared that using a VCR to "time-shift" — to record a television program for viewing at a later time — was a fair use. Today, the Second Circuit rejected [PDF] an attempt by the content industry to change the rules of the game if your video recorder is stored "in the cloud" on the Internet.
|
significantly extending timeshifting to other cloud technologies like a swarm.
you argue that they are "completely unrelated" but fail to document one failed precondition that could be used to argue that timeshifting in a cloud ruling doesn't apply.
Quote:
but dont take my word for it. start an hbo timeshift website and see how long you last, you talk alot of talk yet i dont see any action..
|
http://www.tvtorrents.com/loggedin/show.do?id=559
Quote:
Record expires on 11-Jan-2013.
Record created on 11-Jan-2003.
Database last updated on 30-Oct-2009 09:06:01 EDT.
|
6 years and counting.
Quote:
in the specific examples ruled upon. just as why parody fair use cases often go either way , why , because just cuz you call it "fair use" doesnt make it so. Just cuz you call it a pardoy doesnt make it one.
|
bullshit, the only way in which parody get overruled is when it is proven it doesn't meet one of the established court preconditions.
go thru the previously quoted thread where i discussed this stuff with Nautilus he brought up a laundry list of "failures" that would make swarm illegal while still allowing ruling to be true. I answered every one of them, sometimes multiple times.
If you want to make that arguement you need to show a difference that was not covered by the court case, one that is distinct enough to justify a ruling of liability
Your next one is most definately not it because
Quote:
and it has no ability to discern if the people using the swarm have the legal right to do so.
|
just like a vcr which could not tell if you were using it for the legitimate purpose of timeshifting or the infringing actitity of bootleg cassettes.
It didn't make VCR illegal hense it doesn't make the torrents illegal either.
Quote:
|
please tell me the logical ruling of every court case currently awaiting trial as you are obviously much smarter than a judge or any lawyer.. as you can predict results without having even heard evidence or sat at a trial.
|
That the principle of the legal system, precedents are established you try and extend them to apply in new ways. However once they have been extended they DO apply to all cases. Can i predict the extension no, can i predict the ruling after the extension has happened yes.
Judges are bound by those previous rulings. Lawyers are paid to know those rulings. IF the legal system was a crap shoot where any judge could make up a ruling how he feels the world would be chaos.
Quote:
i probably don't need to tell you this but , you are seriously deluded. You may want to seek professional help..
If you talk yourself in circles because its fun to do , then by all means go right ahead , if you actually believe half of what you say, you have serious problems.
|
says the guy who advices admitting to a criminal act of fraud to get out of a civil liability of a false takedown request.