Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
Put down the crack pipe.
Claiming "fair use" on a torrent is like claiming your weed is just hemp you are growing to make rope. About 0.00000001% of all the people growing it do that. Surprisingly, that doesn't make it legal.
1. I doubt that anybody downloading a camcorder rip of a movie released in a cinema yesterday is getting fair use. If the files that were listed were well control, source identified, and distributed in a normal manner, you might have a case. But using multiple layers to hide the file source and specifically denying DMCA style reports tells a different story from "fair use"
2. Your definition of "fair use" is pretty wide, when in fact it is pretty narrow. Example, you buy a DVD. If it is defective, you can return it to the store you purchased it from or the manufacture. A membership to a porn site doesn't grant you ongoing access to the material, just for the time that you were a member (and for however long you decide to maintain copies of the content on your own PC). A porn site membership remains active and valid only when you are paying, at the end of your membership all of your rights disappear.
3. Porn membership site operators grant access for a limited time. It is similar to a movie ticket. If you go and see a movie, once that movie is over, you must leave. You cannot stay around for another show, or switch to the other projection hall to watch another movie. You cannot record the movie. You cannot take a copy home with you. You cannot share it with others. The movie ticket entitles you only to one viewing for one person at a designated time. Porn memberships are the same, they grant you entry to a site for a specific period of time in return for a fee paid. No rights are granted that allow you to share that content with others or resell that content. There is no "fair use" in play here.
4. The betamax case doesn't actually apply here at all. If you were discussing CD recorders or DVD recorders, you might have something here. Torrents are not a tool to record or retain, but rather tools specifically made for the sharing of files. There is a rather large difference between having the equipment to record a program and the mass distribution of same. The Betamax case defined some personal space "fair use", but again based on the idea of recording over the air broadcasts for later playback. The case did not grant anyone the permission to take a stack of machines and duplicate copyright material en mass for distribution all over the world (free or otherwise).
I think part of the problem you have here is that you are confusing the methods with the end product. Your DVD burner and a video capture card would allow you to record live TV to disk and play it back at a later point. That is your "fair use" right there. Torrents are NONE of that.
The Torrent systems aren't a recording method, it is a method to share files period. It is clear that most of the files on these sites are illegally sourced or distributed. If they were all legal and properly sourced, then there would be no reason for torrent site operators to hide or obfuscate the source of the files, nor any need to use a complicated and often very slow shared distribution system. All of those things are done because the operators are clearly aware that the content is mostly illegal, and they are attempting to dodge authorities. I don't think a single torrent site in the US won based on the betamax case, now did they?
Further, I have to say you are a funny guy. You use US law when you feel it supports you, and as soon as it is against you, you spout off the "It's legal in Sweden" line. The betamax case doesn't apply in Sweden, does it?
|
Ok so either you are being deliberately ignorant to make an invalid point or you are really really stupid.
Again
TPB actions are legal under both US and swedish law
1. They are not directly infringing on copyrights because torrents don't have the copyright material in them
2. What they are doing is at best call contributory infringement which is not a crime in canada, or sweden.
3. IT is only a crime in US if the action they are contributing to is an infringement.
4. Public trackers (private trackers do manage piece distribution) direct leechers to the primary seeder.
5. Which means that TPB actions would only be illegal in the US if the act of the primary Seeder is a violation.
6. if the actions of the PRIMARY SEEDER are fair use then TPB can not be a contributory infringement of copyright.
This is why i reference the betamax case.
Before sony invented the betamax technology, fair use granted you the "time shifting" right you just had no way of implementing. TV shows had to be watched when the station wanted to air the show, and at no other time.
The technology changed that and now you could record a show and watch it whenever you wanted. The technology created a new "fair use" RESPONSIBILITY for the copyright holders (to comply with their requirements under the act to get the protections they were conditionally granted)
This is how the betamax ruling is relevant, Sony (and thru the ruling all it distributors) were immune to contribitory copyright infringement claims because the technology had a legitimate "fair use" which the copyright holders were NOT providing an adequate legitimate alternative.
Hyperdistribution (torrents etc) are the same type of disruptic technology in that they add a new "fair use" RESPONSIBLITY to copyright holders like yourself. IT doesn't matter that in the past you only allowed access for a limited time because when you were doing that there was no technology that provided free online backup (like the swarm in a torrent does today).
Just like the tv stations after the betamax case, you have to make the same choice, fully support your fair use responsibility, or legitimize the entire technology.
Do it fast because once the ISOHUNT case makes it to a full decision the technology will be legitimate and you will have no choice but to live with it.