Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
Gideon, you can't use the betamax case because it doesn't apply.
You are making very serious mistakes in logic. I think you spend too much time reading the torrent forums and not long enough thinking for yourself.
|
do you remember how much the original VCR cost. They were like $1000 each. The original media was expensive and if you recorded over more than 10 times it became unwatchable.
The majority of people who were buying them were not time shifting tv programs, they were daisy chaining VCRS together to bootleg copies of movies (record once watch many times).
even when they were time shifting they were rebroadcasting the content, if you were rich enough to have a VCR you invited all your poorer friends over to watch shows they missed at your house.
The courts didn't care what the majority of people were doing (just like torrents).
Quote:
|
The initial seeder DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT to redistribute the work. He has the right to make a copy for himself, but he doesn't have the right to enter into widescale distribution of the copyrighted product.
|
You claiming that if the power goes out in my house and my PVR fails to record the show, and my brother gives me a copy from his PVR he is committing a copyright infringement even though i paid for the right to watch the video.
That is funny as hell, of course he has a right to redistribute, considering that copyright infringement is only a crime when you KNOWINGLY DO IT.
The law says
"the initial seeder does have ther right to KNOWINGLY redistribute the work to someone who does not have a right to the work.
Ignoring the conditions artifically grants you more rights than you are entitled too, and denies me rights i am entitled too (getting replacement copies of failed access rights i have bought).
if all the people have a bought a right to the content (see tvtorrents.com) then the action is just as non infringing as my brother giving me a copy of the show i missed (but had a right to see).
Even if some of the people in the swarm are lying claiming they have rights they don't actually have, the initial seeder would only be guilty if you could PROVE HE KNEW they did not have a right (see the selling to minors references).
The really funny part is you to stupid to realize that you could increase your profits by meeting your new fair use obligations because
- you would criminalize the sharing thru torrents be eliminating the need of former members to use torrents
- you could post the same type of advertising (the TPB is using) within the limited access members area
- AND you could upsell all the videos that are available but they don't have access to because their membership is canceled (select Preview_thumbs where Created_date > Canceled_date)
under that situation PRIMARY seeders would not be allowed to post the content because your service would eliminate the need to use the swarm as a backup. Therefore the ONLY use would be an infringing one. You could then stop the torrents even under swedish law because TOS torrent distribution would not be violating the "fair use" rights.
those that were legally entitled to gain access to old content would do so thru your site only (for free) and you not TPB would make the money from the advertising around the distribution.
And you would have an upsell that even the TPB would not be able have.