Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
i said no such thing
|
sure you did, you keep going back to the people who don't haven't bought the show (.5% in the case of lost or any other broadcast show) to justify taking the right to use it as a timeshifing device for me (as a person who paid for all the content he torrents).
Quote:
|
not even close a vcr is not a torrent.
|
neither is a pvr, a rpvr or tivo
Quote:
|
actually you did,, now you are denying it because you were proven wrong and there is no such law as you claimed with the words "timeshifting","tvshow" or any of the other words you bullshitted about.
|
really post the quote then.
I never said the copyright act said "timeshifting" "tvshows" i never even said that it EXPLICTLY grants the right, i have argued enought times that fair use rights like timeshifting backup recovery and format shifting were all established by the courts after the act was founded, because fuck nuts here keep trying to argue that the only valid fair use rights were the ones defined in the ACT.
Quote:
laws dont say whats ok they say whats not , not ok  , no law says producing porn is illegal but there are laws saying distributing copyright material is illegal.. thats the major difference
|
Prostitution is defined as ??
any lewd act between persons for money or other consideration.?
pandering,? defined as ?procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution?
every single producer and actor is in volation of these statues every time they have sex on camera.
The only reason you are not convicted is because of a court case, which justifiable covered the action of filmed sex acts. (people vs freeman)
Quote:
|
In that case, Harold Freeman hired and paid actors to perform in a non-obscene erotic film, called ?Caught from Behind, Part II.? ?As part of their roles, the performers engaged in various sexually explicit acts, including sexual intercourse, oral copulation and sodomy.? The State of California charged him and convicted him of five counts of ?pandering,? defined as ?procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution? ? under the California Penal Code.
|
the state supreme court decision established (rightfully) pointed out that if you paid someone to beat someone up you could be charged with crime, but if you put them in a ring with gloves filmed it then it would be transformed into a sporting event. The illegal act was transformed into a legal act due to the first ammendment.
every porn actor is performing a lewd act between persons for money or other consideration
every modeling agency/film producer is procurement of persons for the purpose of performing a lewd act between persons for money or other consideration
Without that court case and the precedent this industry would not exist.
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use ever heard of it but i forgot you are smarter than everyone else and that doesnt apply to you..
Just to repeat incase anyone actually starts to believe gideons bullshit about some old case about vcr's means everything is just fair use.
------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
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.
|
i suggest you read more than the summary read the linked references
Quote:
|
The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. Yet see Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios for a case in which substantial copying?entire programs for private viewing?was upheld as fair use. Likewise, see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, where the Ninth Circuit held that copying an entire photo to use as a thumbnail in online search results did not weigh against fair use, "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use."
|
that the bases for the summary conclusion you referenced btw way.
that 1 cloud based PVR is legal but another used for the exact same purpose on the same internet, is not is not what is ment by that statement. IT only because you stopped reading at the summary (and your an idiot) that you come to that conclusion.
Of course for someone who doesn't know enough about his own industry to know how the court case(not a written law) people v freeman change the criminal act of prostitution (he was convicted at the lower court level) into the perfectly legal industry sort of make sense you would make that kind of mistake.