Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
oranges have vitamin c in them, thus everything you said is wrong
|
you said it was illegal because it COULD be used to infringe, i just pointed out that VCR COULD be used to infringe and that didn't make them illegal. While my point proves your to be false, your is just stupid.
Quote:
i say your full of shit and haven't pointed out one fact to backup your claims
so whatever ruling egyptians made about trading drawings still stands today.. cool
no that is a link to a court case idiot
so you admit you lied about there being a law saying timeshifting was legal..
There is no such law and you made it all up in your head.
|
first of i said it was legal, and that copyright act makes it so, i never said there was a law that EXPLICTLY made it legal.
The law includes both the statutes created by the congress and the interpretations made by the courts.
No law says producing porn is ok, it was considered prostitution until someone got a court case that said otherwise.
You want to exclude all court cases, to argue that fair use doesn't apply fine, then you have to ignore the court case that makes your business legal. IF that is the case it the equivalent of a drug dealer going to the cops to complain about their coke being jacked.
Confess to that amount of possession and you are going to jail. You can't have it both ways.
Quote:
umm didnt you say theres no such thing as "different" thats why torrents are exactly the same as vcr's right ?
in that particular case with those particular facts, you still have to argue your side.
Thats why copyright cases are often won and lost , because cases are different.
|
the case i am referencing is one where the judge ruled no matter what the tv station does, the timeshifting in a cloud is legal. so if the company keeps selling the RPVR and get caught again they are still not guilty (ruled that was not a crime)
You compared it to a case of drug dealer who get off because the cops failed to read him his rights. Which means if he does it again, and they read him his rights this time he will get conviced (it is a crime, but got off on a technicality).
that the difference
Quote:
|
funny thing is nobody suggested they do. a dmca request fulfills all the requirements under many different countries copyright laws.
|
bullshit filing a DMCA notice does not automagically comply with each countries laws.
They each have their own paperwork, requirements and so on.
Many countries still have the get a court order before we do anything protection in place that the DMCA replaced.
Quote:
|
i think what you mean was they found timeshifting to be an excuse and ignored it.
|
if they found it to be an excuse they would have ruled that it did not apply, so no that not what i mean, i mean the prosecution knowly made an arguement that was invalidated by the ruling (like nautica let keep going back to being it illegal if i put it on a server)
Quote:
and you havent done it yet.
thats because thats not what i asked for.. if i ask for an orange and you give me an apple, dont be suprised if i say "that is not an orange"
post away these interesting "made up in your head" facts 
no i base my thoughts on reality pretty much. I dont walk by a crack dealer and say"must be legal" , i say "that shit is fucked up"
|
weather something is legal or not is based on both
- What is explictly stated in the law
- what the court case precedents established by the judical branch of government
your arguement is that it not legal because the law doesn't explictly say it is legal.
No law has been written that says it legal therefore it not legal
The opposite of A>B is not A<B but that basically your flawed arguement
The opposite of A>B is A<B or A=B.
in this case you are ignoring the second part (court precedents).
considering you work in an industry which only exists legally because of a court precedent.
(according to the written law, all porn actors are guilty of prostitution and all producers are living of the avails of prostitution) you should understand that fact better than anyone.
Quote:
20 years he is still selling crack , must be legal then according to gideon
and so will your cloud/timeshifting bs.. just wait..
just to let you know , you are the only one on the planet who thinks a vcr is a torrent website..
|
i am not the only one who has successfully made that arguement.
i did it against ABC when they asked my isp for my information because i download lost from the torrents
another new york lawyer has done it too.
now if you have to ignore court precedent to justify making torrenting illegal so be it
but that would mean that your entire business is a crime that you deserve to go to jail for.
Quote:
|
with the exact same criteria, if there are other factors the result can be much different, thats why even though parody is "fair use", parody cases have been lost , why because the addle brained idiot who argued it was "parody" got shot down.. they THOUGHT what they were doing was protected, and up until the court case they probably sounded very similar to you , bantering on about other court cases with parody etc etc how long they hve been doing it etc etc
|
parody is a bad example, because the EFF just extended it to include just changing the subtitles.
Quote:
yet they often rule the opposite of a previous ruling...
Just because you claim it , doesn't mean the court will accept your arguments..
|
really name one court case where a judge has overrulled a supreme court decision and that decision stood when it was appealed to the supreme court.
I don't make the arguements based on the lower court rulings that may be overturned up the scale even though many are on point exactly (New york lawyer case i mentioned above) i talk about the supreme court rulings.
Quote:
|
says the guy who admits he injects homless people with acid.
|
in this thread
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=931244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allison
I'm all for this and have attempted to inform other companies of this reseource as well.
Although there are a few lines that I think freak people out:
http://www.google.com/dmca.html
Please note that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that a product or activity is infringing your copyrights. Indeed, in a recent case (please see http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/l...opg_v_diebold/ for more information), a company that sent an infringement notification seeking removal of online materials that were protected by the fair use doctrine was ordered to pay such costs and attorneys fees. The company agreed to pay over $100,000. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether material available online infringes your copyright, we suggest that you first contact an attorney. |
you responded by saying
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
form a fake company , let them file the dmca's for you as an authorized copyright enforcement agent, if the shit hits the fan, say they weren't authorized to file dmca's for you.   |
so want to show me where i said that. othewise your statements are both libel and completely false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
Common misunderstandings of fair use.
Fair use interpretations, once made, are static forever(MYTH).
Fair use is decided on a case by case basis, on the entirety of circumstances. The same act done by different means or for a different purpose can gain or lose fair use status. Even repeating an identical act at a different point in time can make a difference due to changing social, technological, or other surrounding circumstances.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
there goes gideons whole argument lol
|
want to quote your source