There is no such thing as "I-have-no-responsibility-if-I-write-so-and-until-someone-tell-me"... The "forbidden list" does not make a difference, because an infringement is still infringement, whether it is on a list or not. That list tells me only about how many infringments are going on, and if the list had 0 names, then I would have more "respect" for their "moderation"...
Same with other illegal stuff - you can't claim not-guilty, if you only react when police knock down your door for the 107th time in a week. It's the obvious activity, that matters, if a case were brought to the court. They tell surfers to upload and become "king of porn" and "btw, go ahead and upload, as long it's not on our list". How do you think that would be judged by a court? Well, look at the arguments brought up in the piratebay case. The commercial interest too, does not favor the host...

As I posted above, on their FAQ they claim they check *every* upload before published:
http://www.tnaflix.com/faq.php
...which is the opposite of what they claim on their dmca page: http://www.tnaflix.com/dmca.php
So, if they check before published, then there are no way they can deny knowledge of a watermarked movie published on their website, and thereby they can't use the dmca loophole :2 cents:

Unfortunately for us, this is true for all other crimes except for copyright infringement - we'd all wish it wasn't true but it is, our damnation called DMCA.

They can always tell they only encourage those surfers to upload who do own copyrights for the videos they upload, and show some page where a surfer needs to mark a check box where he "honorably" affirms he's indeed a copyright holder.


Yes, commercial interest is a strong arguement - but I don't know of any real court case so far where the ruling says showing ads invalidates the safe harbor protection. So whether it is enough of a "direct financial benefit" or not (DMCA wise), only the future will tell and new lawsuits.

Yet again, they can always tell they thought it was a copyright holder who uploaded the vid to promote his site through the watermark, and show many instances of such things taking place in real life situations (and they do indeed take place, some people upload their own videos to tubes to promote something with the watermark on them).

And our videos didn't even had watermarks on them - that was the mistake we made years ago that still haunts us (lots of our unwatermarked videos flying around).

oranges have vitamin c in them, thus everything you said is wrong
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

just because you havent been busted doesnt mean its legal :)


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.





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.
what are you talking about ?


nobody said not too.

Pawnshops have certain rules they must follow above and beyond what would be required by a normal store because its obvious they are used to procure stolen goods.

you catch my drift.. if you want a cloud by all means, but you must first make sure the cloud isn't being abused , otherwise you are devaluing the content.




common sense says you ask me , and i already told you, if you want to play ignorant, feel free.

funny thing is nobody suggested they do. a dmca request fulfills all the requirements under many different countries copyright laws.

there was no argument, you are the only one arguing made up laws in your head.






i cant show you a ruling where "being an idiot" is fair use, doesn't mean "being an idiot" now becomes fair use.

i think what you mean was they found timeshifting to be an excuse and ignored it.





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 :)


actualy you said
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"




http://tenderloin.net/images/dealerphone.jpg

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..


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

no actually you cant , or you would be a billionaire.. sorry you lose. Ever heard of the term "delusion of grandeur"
yet they often rule the opposite of a previous ruling...

Just because you claim it , doesn't mean the court will accept your arguments..





says the guy who admits he injects homless people with acid.

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.

there goes gideons whole argument lol

actually i did address that issue you just jumped back on same question again

you repeatedly tried to argue that interpretation given is completely false because if you did the same thing as a server it would still be illegal.

I pointed out all of the key differences multiple times

yet you keep going back to your server example (directly under your control) to justify arguing liablity for the exact opposite (indirectly or outside your control).

IT a very important difference, vcr could be used for infringement but that infringement is not directly controlled by sony.

you did it multiple times btw.

in response to your box of complete copyright work example (another directly responsible)


and to your attempt to claim that when i leecher who doesn't have a right does leech trying to stick the seeder with the liablity too (same point of your last post, and your current statement)

in response to your question

"How can a seeder argue he didn't know unathorized copies will be created, if there's no system in place to check wether other users have fair use rights or not?"


the answer to the is the same as i have repeatedly given(direct vs indirect).

since in the very first answer i specifically said

What you are doing when you keep going back to that invalid issue is the equivalent to trying to argue that a touchdown shouldn't count when the player caught the ball scored and then stepped out of bounds because if he stepped out of bound first it wouldn't have counted.

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.


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.



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

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.




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)




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 :)




actualy you said




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"






http://tenderloin.net/images/dealerphone.jpg

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..




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



no actually you cant , or you would be a billionaire.. sorry you lose. Ever heard of the term "delusion of grandeur"


yet they often rule the opposite of a previous ruling...

Just because you claim it , doesn't mean the court will accept your arguments..







says the guy who admits he injects homless people with acid.[/QUOTE]

Nautilus, I don't think anyone can claim "safe harbor protection" (which is a U.S. thingy btw), if it is quite obvious that assistance, or even conspiracy, is taking place. The piratebay case has already proven that, and when that case is finally closed, I think there will pop up tons of other cases. No matter how much legal mumbo jumbo is written and arguments are made, you can't satisfy both pirates vs. copyright holders, and at the same time have own commercial interest from it vs. protection against spammers, because the bigger it gets, the more conflicts arise. For instance, if they eventually "thought" it was commercial upload, why not remove it when the term of use is "solely for personal, noncommercial purposes" :upsidedow

Debating law on GFY is so retarded.

this was a thread for content owners to get some help with making shady fucking websites comply with dmca and as usual it got derailed by convoluted armchair legal arguments and bizarre vcr analogies.

that abuse email is dead for me now

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.


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.



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

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.




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)



weather something is legal or not is based on both

1. What is explictly stated in the law
2. 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.



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.



parody is a bad example, because the EFF just extended it to include just changing the subtitles.


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.





in this thread http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=931244

you responded by saying

so want to show me where i said that. othewise your statements are both libel and completely false.




want to quote your source

i said no such thing


not even close a vcr is not a torrent.



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.



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 :)


fair use is decided on a case by case basis.


no i dont actually ,as i pointed out there is no law saying it is illegal , there are plenty of laws to say sharing copyright material is illegal.





maybe he said that about that particular case , but as i pointed out , even an identical fair use at a different time may be infringing.


the only people that disagree with you is the rest of the earth apparently :) as its quite clear it says thats NOT the case :)





and if i had said that then you may be correct , big problem is nobody ever uttered those words but you :)



see the big problem is laws you invent in your head dont count..

There is no such law with any such wording..




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.

keep trying gideon, you fail.

when you say things like

"parody is a bad example, because the EFF just extended it to include just changing the subtitles. "

everyone here knows you're full of shit. As i pointed out , its a common misconception ( aka myth ) , so don't feel too bad , there are many other idiots who were just as dumb apparently :)

Check your spam folder, they send an automated reply from their support ticketing system, and a link to follow your request online.

Same goes for tnaflix e-mails, they've got a similar support tickets system which auto replies with a link to track the progress of your request online (which surprised me a lot they have such a system, but they do).

Also make sure to include necessary keywords in your e-mail title, their hoster mentioned they get tons of spam, as well as their client so maybe they have some sort of filtering system in place.

I used the following subject line which went through in both cases:

"Copyright infringement (DMCA) - immediate attention required"

And also make sure your DMCA is properly formatted, using this template for example:

"To Whom It May Concern:

1. The copyrighted work that has been infringed is the copyrighted
content of yoursitename.com found below on your site:

2.

http://www.tnaflix.com/yourvideo1
http://www.tnaflix.com/yourvideo2


I, the undersigned, do solemnly and sincerely declare and CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that:

1. I am authorized to act on the behalf of Your Company Name and
yoursitename.com

2. I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted content described above is not authorized by the owner, its agent or the law.

3. To the best of my knowledge the information contained within this notice is accurate and correct.

Location of ORIGINAL WORKS:
http://www.yoursitename.com

Signed,
/s/ Your Name
Your Company Name
[email protected]"

Replace bold with your actual data.

Also make sure to send your DMCA to BOTH tnaflix and nlforce, their hosting needs to have an official and clearly written document to react upon, not just a vague complaint "your sonofabitch client wouldn't remove our vids", they also need to see that this complaint was sent to their client too (otherwise they'd tell you to send DMCA to the client first, or again, probably they didn't get it bla bla bla).

Please do not engage with gideon any further, you sidetrack an important business thread. If you enjoy your arguement, please continue in some other thread.

I just do not feel like debating such an optimistic predictions - If you're right and the crush on the online piracy is really coming, no objections from me whatsoever :pimp

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).


neither is a pvr, a rpvr or tivo



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.


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)

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.




i suggest you read more than the summary read the linked references

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.

gideon is:
1. an idiot
2. not even a webmaster

why are people talking to him

lol @ gideon trying to back peddle. you are right gideon , everyone is wrong except you. harvard law is wrong the supreme court is wrong . wikipedia is obviously totally wrong. Every argument you make is an extrapolation you think up in your head.. changing a subtitle does not make it fair use because one guy won a case on his particular facts.

PAY CLOSE ATTENTION

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.


what part of that do you not understand.

go fuck yourself :thumbsup:winkwink:

The thread topic was answered all ready so we are just beating a dead horse really :)

If the thread starter wants it locked they can, if you want to be helpfull , start a thread entitled " here is where you send your dmca for tna flix "

Wow they even have some of my videos there!

Of course they do :) Seen lots of your vids there:

http://www.tnaflix.com/view_video.ph...0b7f90404c8e0f

You need to check every page at this site.

and what exactly about taking a statement out of context do you not understand

direct quote from wikipedia

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

See section Amount and substantiality ('sampling') and others above for cited examples of changing standards


those examples are

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."

the way you read the summary could mean two things
your misrepresenting the context of the message.

to mean that fair use disappears and reappears willy nilly when you look at the referenced proof it clear that it is talking about scope change. Which is 100% consistant with what i am saying (the supported extension of old fair use right to the new technology so we can get the extra benefits of that technology)

wikipedia is not wrong, a moron who misrepresents what wiki is actually saying is wrong.

Sorry to bump an old thread but you can meet all of these guys at Webmaster Access Amsterdam.