Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks
People have a right to make a backup for themselves. Period... the end. They do not have a right to re-distribute randomly and blindly.
But it is not free (only to the end user, and again there is no policing of who the end user is. The internet is plainly different from the television market) and the torrent sites do not have distribution rights, nor do the end users (I fully expect that YouTube and it's clones will be seeing major lawsuits in the very near future addressing this issue from mainstream media).
|
fair use grants me the right to redistribute to other people who have also licienced the content. If my brother loses his windows cd but record the licience number i can let him borrow my cd.
If a friend claims he has a valid licience key and asks to borrow my cd and he is using a crack software i am not guilty of 20k statutory infringement HE IS.
torrents are the same way, those that don't have a right are breaking the law and should be targeted those who have a legitimate fair use.
You have to remember that there are two sides to the arguement, because to gain the protection of the copyright act you HAVE to honor the fair use rights.
Quote:
|
Further, TV Guide is a service that all major networks and cable services adhere to in order to promote their product (They do so in order to gain market share for advertising revenue based on viewership). I do not adhere to TPB or any other service to provide for the marketing of my product, unless they agree to my TOS and marketing agreement.
|
you can't TOS fair use rights away, if you do you are in the same boat as microsoft when they got sued.
Quote:
|
Fair use doctrine is delivered for you and for you only as the end user. You do not gain rights as a distributor or re-seller. You also have a legal requirement not to deliver it to others without verifying that they have a legal right to it as well or you place yourself in legal jeopardy.
|
just like you are not required to prove that the buyer of your porn content is over 18 before you sell to them, i am NOT required to PROVE that the leecher has a legal right. I only need to prove that the leecher CLAIMED he had a legal right. TPB does this thru there terms of service so does tvtorrents.com, my actions are legal because of this disclaimer even if a leecher has lied to gain access to my legitimate licienced copy of a tv show.
Using the arguement from the NY case, if i used an online back up services and someone guessed my password (becaue i used the password password )and download content i put up the law would not make that person guilty of copyright infringement. The courts in your country have ruled that they are the same way. Especially when you consider that according to the spec bit torrent is a session REQUEST protocol not a media announcement protocol.
My share is there if a legitimate user ASKS for the piece the transaction is legitimate. IF a peer fraudlently asks for a piece then it is a illegal use.
Quote:
|
TPB is not acting as a TV Guide, for if they were, they would (just as TV Guide says) indicate that content is available at the following locations... meaning giving out the legitimate website of the content, rather than copies being rebroadcast without authorization.
|
but in your example you were talking about if ABC infringed on NFL copyright, in that example TV guide and TPB are exactly the same. both would point to the location of infinging content. flipflop back to the normal non infringing situation does not make your arguement valid because the context is completely different.
Quote:
|
I agree that a solution which infringes on your rights is no solution, but what you neglect is that the current solution is infringing on my rights. There is no defense to say that hey.. I wasn't the hooker, I was only the Pimp. Sorry, GUILTY.
|
again another apples to oranges comparision. it more like saying i am not the hooker i am only the newspaper that advertise escorts.
Quote:
|
The pushers in question, are located in Sweden, hiding behind Swedish law, pushing their wares to US Citizens. It is illegal in the United States to do what they are doing. Plain and simple. I personally don't want to have a presence in Sweden if this is what they can do there, but apparently I can't control it. But what I do want, is control in my home country. I want to know that this can't happen where I am abiding by the law, but they are not. I personally want their site blocked to all US customers (which would effectually shut them down as I am sure most if not almost all of their users are US based). I am abiding by the US law, and they are not. If they want to push outside the US where it is legal.. fine.. go for it. I can't argue with that. But here in the US, they are standing on the other side of the curtain saying FUCK OFF.
|
first of all they are obeying US laws because US laws says that the DMCA does not have jurisdiction. and in the example you are justifying (hacking their sites to take them down) you are breaking the law.
For you to obey US laws you would have to go to sweden setup an office and sue them under swedish law.
Quote:
|
Fine, I will fight the international fight when I have the funds to do that, but they are killing my business here, by doing what they are doing. Further, if they would turn over their usage logs and tracker information providing me with the information of users, attacking the end user would be a viable option. They won't. Sorry.. we have a right to privacy here in Sweden. So.. the best I/we can do is go after the pusher. You won't give me the names and locations of the hooker and the john's?? fine... be all high and mighty. Tag you are it. You get to be guilty.
|
so because they will not violate their countries laws to help you out their guilty even though what they are complies with US laws (courts have ruled the laws don't have jurisdiction)
you have rights, got to sweden setup an office sue them there. Use other means to gain access to the information of US citizens who are downloading illegal copies and go after (seed spoofing-- though you will pay a 20k fine for invading the privacy of all the legitimate users who do have a right to the content)
Quote:
|
A torrent is not you using a VCR. It is you contacting a location to gain something where you have not made the original copy. Apples and Oranges just like you said. You make the copy to your machine, I have no problem with that. Your machine goes down.. I feel sad for you.. it happens to me to. You should have backed it up appropriately. You have no right to go to someone else to get what I rightfully control.
|
yes i do under canadian fair use rights (see above example with my brother)
Quote:
|
The tracker is not being used as a VCR. It is being used as an indexing device. A VCR does what you tell it to. You are the control of the system. The tracker is providing you a listing of all available materials without regard to whom you are or what you want. It doesn't know if you have a right to what you are getting. In regards to your cable TV scenario, if you don't pay the cable bill, you don't get the show.. it doesn't matter if the VCR works or not.... in the torrent scenario, there is no control whatsoever to determine whether or not you deserve to have a backup
|
first of all torrent = VCR
torrent tracker = Walmart.
again i would be guilty of a crime if i lied on the TOS of the site if i was telling the truth i would not be.
IT is exactly the same as the little john example i gave you, you are the torrent tracker in that case.
So it comes down to the same question should you be sent to jail for 3 -5 years because little john steals his fathers credit card and you don't ABSOLUTELY verify he is actually of age.
Quote:
|
Legality is about going after the biggest fish first. If I can kill the source, the end users become irrelevant. The end users on the whole are not my intended consumers, otherwise they would go to my site and purchase legally. TPB is indexing content to provide to users that have no intention of using legitimately. They do it proudly and they do it under the guise of legality. If I had my choice of paying attorneys fees to stop TPB and the likes of them vs. attorney's fees against 50 million down stream end users.... all I have to do is stop the torrents and win judgment against them.. which is a much more reasonable path than chasing down 50 million guppies.
|
but you are not arguing in favor of paying an attorney to sue TPB if you were i would not have a problem because the court systems would only rule in your favour if TPB was violating the laws.
you are advocating not ILLEGALLY hacking someone who as of right now is performing a legal business (until you prove that their actions are illegal thru the courts) INSTEAD of going after the people who are actually commiting the crime.