Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
Can I say this? Jane you ignorant slut.
Let me start at the end... "Guilty until proven innocent" isn't the case at all. You are straining reality in all sorts of directions trying to cover the failings in your logic. If you don't have the rights to something (or don't know if you have the rights to something), the decision shouldn't be "put it up until someone complains". Further, knowing that you have in the past gotten huge numbers of complaints, your ongoing operating strategy shouldn't be "put it up until someone complains". At some point, either as an individual or a corporation, the site operators should become aware that some significant percentage of the material they are trading in is illegal, and move to take steps to stop the infractions.
The "out" in DMCA is really intended to protect companies and individuals for errors that are made, but the intent is on an occassional basis. A mulligan. A "oops" because when you accept content from users, there will occassionally be issues. But when I go to torrent sites, I see page after page of material that isn't licensed (and could never be licensed for free distribution). Every shot they take is a mulligan. That isn't the intent of DMCA, and that is the point of abuse that many people use. It is the reason that DMCA needs to be reopened and cleaned up because a small exception create to protect occassional issues is being used as a business model for certain companies, leading to mass copyright violations.
You have to look at the results to understand why the law isn't working.
|
again lobby to change the law, DON"T USE IT AS A JUSTIFICATION TO BREAK THE LAW
Quote:
BTW, I wish you would get over the "they don't have to by swedish law". I don't give a flying fuck what they do in Sweden. But they are distributing the material into the US, and that is an issue.
As for Canada, the courts have ruled that the distribution of music via P2P networks isn't illegal, as the duplication media (CDs,DVDs, and even MP3 players) are taxed and those funds forwarded to the music producing companies and distributed according to a formula. In the end, the public pays for the music, they just don't realize it.
|
ok since you want to talk about US laws
1. The US supreme court has explictly ruled that DMCA does not apply to non- US citizens even if they are distributing to US citizens. The US citzens would be breaking US laws and the foreign country resident would be violating their countries copyright laws (the convention referenced previously recognizes the validity of the copy right not the validity of the home countries infringement laws). Which means under US LAW pirate bay has a legal right to say fuck you to any DMCA complient request
2. New York Supreme court case has ruled that using torrents as a back up recovery method is legitimate under US "fair use" provisions. In that case a media company (time warner) sued an individual for downloading their TV shows using torrents. That individual proved he had a valid right to archive that show by buying a cable subscription to that show. He had a right to make digital copies, he had a right to remove the commercials and he had the right to back it up using online back up services. He successfully made the arguement that IF it was legal for him to recover (download) a tv show he had bought an archive right to from this online backup service he had a right to use the swarm as a similar free alternative. While the ruling in his favor applied to a licienced right to archive and fair use for TV shows it really applies to all licienced archive rights. So using porn sites as an example a former US member of a pornsite has a right to use the swarm as a back up recovery of any file his subscription allowed him to download. Which means not all US citizens are violating your copywrite when they use pirate bay.
IF you were taking care of all these people who have a legitimate "fair use" right to use pirate bay then you could argue there distribution to the US would be purely illegal activity but no porn site does this.
Why should pirate bay have to give up these legitimate customers just because you don't want to incure the expense of supporting them, or incur the expense of finding those people who are abusing the pirate bay service to actually steal your content.
Why should pirate bay have to give up their US supreme court granted right to ignore the DMCA just because you are too cheap to go after the US citizens who are actually infringing on your content.
Quote:
|
Your arguments are weak and all over the road. Care to address the tracker thing again? I am enjoying watching you make an ass of yourself.
|
your arguement is we should be allowed to break the law because the laws that pirate bay is 100% in complience with are just not good enough
Which comes back to the same point i have been making
lobby to change the law, or change your business model.
just understand that if you completely close the "loop hole" you seriously hurt yourself too because you make the honest "oops" mistake a $20,000 per instance infringement.