[QUOTE=gideongallery;13163830]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks
you keep ignoring the fact that TPB is not distributing any copyright material
THEY ARE A CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGER,
their criminal liablity is dependent on seeder being liable as well
Bouncing back to TPB because you can't make the arguement against the actual seeder doesn't make your arguement valid
is the act of the original seeder an infringement
remember according to the law
" For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."
can you prove that the seeder knows that he is providing it to people who don't have a right.
In my case you can't because every person who uses tvtorrents.com stipulates that they have a right to the shows. I know i have a right because i pay my cable bill, and i use the torrent only as a timeshifting/ recovery. I assume that everyone else is telling the truth too just like you do when people purchase porn from your site.
if the seeders actions are not an infringement then the TPB is not guilty of contribitory infringment because there is nothing to contribute too.
|
I am not ignoring the fact they are a contributory infringer.. if you were to look back over my posts I have acknowledged that. But.. that' doesn't change the facts. A crime is a crime and they are involved. In fact, when the proof is provided, the primary infringers may be responsible for whatever damages they incur, but TPB by virtue of their stance and the intent of their site, will be liable for millions upon millions of infractions.
All it takes is one seeder to create the liability, but we all know (even though you won't acquiese to the fact) that there is not one seeder with bad content... it's almost all of them.
My argument is valid because a crime is a crime and they are willfully part of it. If they made any attempt to distance themselves from the illegal activities, it would be different, but they actually revel in it.
I]
" For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."[/I]
It's great that you keep quoting this, but it's not the only test to be applied. Go back to the four point test and you find the infringments without problem. The key word in your quote is "by itself"...... this is not by itself... the scope of the reproduction, the size, the actual purpose of the distribution, etc.
Your reliance on this quote is valid in that the individual may reproduce the work without violation. The individual may also reproduce based on fair use.... fair use covers areas outside of commercial gain (education, parody.. etc.. you know them all). FAIR being the key word. It is not FAIR to act outside the legitimate purpose of the work and destroy the ability for the creator to reap the financial benefit they deserve.
I don't have to prove that the seeder knows they are delivering to people that don't have the right.. I only have to prove that they are acting neglegently and not making the reasonable effort to protect the copyright. You cannot randomly distribute and claim that you are making the effort to know you aren't violating the law. It's not your work, you must not act as if it is in your power to distribute it at will.
TVTorrents is realistically a different beast altogether... you can't compare television and the Internet at they are different mediums.. just as I would not compare my work to a painting or a musical recording. But the protections for each are valid and real.
You may have the right to the front fender you bought at the garage sale due to the fact that you paid the seller, right up until it's determined that he chopped up a car and sold it. Not only don't you have a right to the fender at that point, now you must go after the criminal to get your money back. Just because you have a right at TVTorrents, doesn't mean that everyone is telling the truth and that TVTorrents is completely out of legal jeopardy. But most importantly, the delivery method via television and the Internet make their comparisons really apples to oranges. That would be like saying that your right to see Survivor and your right to another copy of Photoshop are identical in the eyes of the law.. which they are not.
BTW.. if your arguments were 100% reasonable, why would NBC not just broadcast any movie they wished at any time. All they have to do is own a copy of the movie after all and they are 100% legal. In fact, why don't they do this on their website. That way they wouldn't be broadcasting it over the air, just making it available to their viewers that have a legal right to view it. There is a reasonable assumption that that vast majority of their audience has already seen the movie, or rented it, or owns it... why not just do it? It's up to the viewer to decide right???
That's where TPB is. They are well outside the lines. They know they are. They intend to be. They are not a backup resource, nor anything else.. they are a piracy site.. they are just attempting to hide behind legitimacy.