bullshit when vcr first came out no such tax existed.
so that arguement is total crap.

really tvtorrents.com
that site removes any content that has not aired on tv
direct to dvd stuff like bsg the plan are not allowed until they air on tv (and therefore fall under the fair use doctrine of timeshifting)

fuck nut, you have a right to timeshift copyright protected content. A tv show that is protected by copyright is legally allowed to be timeshifted. With a VCR or a CLOUD.

it doesn't have to be public domain to be legal. It not stolen period.



and those people should be prosecuted
like i keep saying

leave the tracker alone
leave the seeders alone
leave the leachers with a fair use right alone
go after the leachers with no fair use right

given the fact that 99.5% (according to the US census) have at least 1 tv (95% have two tvs or more) that only .5% of the population.


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

fair use rights and the exclusive rights of the copyright holder were granted by the exact same act. If i told you that all your exclusive right disappeared every time it was distributed over a new technology, you would scream bloody murder.

So why the fuck do you believe that it ok to take away the fair use right that have ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED every time a new technology is created to allow you take advantage of that right.



The US law was the last one to make that decision

Canada made that ruling years ago

The EU is further a head not only making that ruling years before canada, but establish the bases for ACCESS SHIFTING (1 download != 1 lost sale).

I have predicted for more than 2 years that US ruling would happen BASED ON THE PREVIOUS RULINGS from CANADA and EU.

Now that it finally equal to every where else your trying to argue that those previous ruling disappeared.

WTF.

look theres a guy selling crack in the ghetto, thus it must be legal.

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..




and all the shows on tv are free right ? everyone gets every channel free ?






actually he didnt try and defend copyright theft with one law and and ignore copyright laws based on another countries law sorry.
Gotcha


and none of them say anything about timeshifting tv shows.


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.




if i was gonna buy something and instead i download it for free then 1 download = 1 lost sale idiot.


you should start one of those phone psychic gigs.. you could make alot of money with your abilities.

Congrats on getting something done!

Thanks :)

Same thing worked for empflix too btw, got a bunch of our videos removed from there.

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.


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 ?







so you believe RICO is part of copyright law :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

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.




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.


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.



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.


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)

Glad I could help :thumbsup:thumbsup

i am sending those fuckers an email as well

Make sure to send properly formatted DMCA (otherwise they woudn't respond), send it to [email protected] and cc it to [email protected] to let their hoster know their client has some files to remove.

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.

cept all the people that dont have the right to the show that download it..






actually i did just above.



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.



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.

If you search a crack dealer without telling him his rights, the case will likely be thrown out , doesnt make selling crack legal.


and all the shows on tv are free right ? everyone gets every channel free ?

so you believe boiling old ladies in hot oil is legal :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

oh wait you never said that and i never said rico was part of the copyright act..


i could call anything fair use , doesn't make it fair use.

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.

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..

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.






and it has no ability to discern if the people using the swarm have the legal right to do so.




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.


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.

He is the 310th busiest web site on teh Internets! Do you really think he has time to pay attention to DMCA notices from someone with a site way back in the 40,000's?

Bitch please... He is going to send you a bill for his hookers and coke since you killed his buzz!

This adult biz is so funny.

So, where is that fucking link?

Oded if you are reading this pls msg me, thanks. -Cory

Got a producer account from them today, it works accross their network of sites (tnaflix.com, empflix.com and moviefap.com) - allows to flag content as infringing and it gets immediatly removed (for later review by their administrators, if they confirm removal will stay permanent).

Asking them for a producer account was really a long shot in the dark, I'm actually quite surprised I got it, given their reputation.

But now I have to admit that within the current laws, they did their due diligence - they complied with DMCA request, they hooked us up with the producer account, and they've also added our sites to the list of forbidden content. However sad, but within the current legal environment we cannot press for more.

hense why i said

which is exactly what you did just now


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"


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.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud

that the way legal precedents work

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.


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.


again

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
my response
your response to the above

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.


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.



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

you ignore the fact that timeshifting ruling from 24 years ago was just recently extended to the cloud

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.




http://www.tvtorrents.com/loggedin/show.do?id=559

6 years and counting.


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





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.





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.


says the guy who advices admitting to a criminal act of fraud to get out of a civil liability of a false takedown request.

Yeah, well... the owners of piratebay also thought they were in a "safe" environment. Look at them today... now they are even banned by the court from running a website.
I guess it all depends on how big the pressure is :)

Yes but they laughed at the faces of copyright owners and never removed a single torrent - they even had a page where they MOCKED at all the DMCAs they got, it's still there btw:

http://thepiratebay.org/legal

Now their arrogant attitude was stuck up their own asses, hopefully those skinny farts will suck some Bubba's cock all the while they're in jail.

But they were not compliant, while the tubes in question ARE, that's what makes all the difference. They comply with takedown requests, they have producer accounts with the immediate take down option, and they have a no-upload list. What else could be required of a public service under the current DMCAish legal climate worldwide? Not much I guess.

Of course we'd want them to be responsible for checking the legality of every uploaded video - but that's not required of them by law and they're not going to do that. They're only required to do their due diligence in assisting the copyright holders (which they did), and thus they're clean until the laws get changed. Aside from patroling their sites daily, there isn't much more that we can do now.

That's a lie. You haven't answered the last and the most important question, which makes all of your torrent cloud fair use arguments an utmost bullshit:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...&postcount=258

Seeder IS and infringer because he has no business sharing his copy with others (outside of the usual circle of family and friends).

If you want to continue please either bump this old thread or start a new one - do not post in this thread anymore, it is for people who need to actually have some business done.

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.