Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
i suggest you read the wikipedia article about a movie called Charade
|
If you are gaining your knowledge from Wikipedia, no wonder you are such an idiot... Wikipedia for information LOL
I thought I was being brilliant looking up US copyright law at the federal website and getting the European Union Copyright Directive straight from their site as well.... Why didn't I think about Wikipedia?????
Quote:
The act of making 1000 copies is not in and of itself a copyright infringement, it is the act of copying AND distributing beyond the scope of the liciencing agreement. Without the scope limiting licience "charade" the act of copying and releasing (even for a a profit) was just LEGAL.
Before you argue that you are not giving away such a right, remember that you can't TOS away fair use rights. And the copyright act in and of itself gives those rights.
so the parallel you are trying to draw is not really parallel.
i would give you a more accurate parallel
suppose i own a store selling dvd. i burn 100 copies of a brand new movie. and at the check out i give them one of these burned copies to be use as their "fair use" backup of the movie they just bought.
That act would NOT BE CRIMINAL because while i am distributing and copying i am only distributing within the scope of "fair use".
Now before you point to the fact that i am getting proof that they own the content by tying the granting of a copy to a sale. you have to remember that this is a real world example, and the internet bar is set a lot lower.
|
You don't have the right as the purchaser or distributor to distribute in this means without my permission. You have been given license to sell the authorized copied. You cannot make people's back-ups for them. It is against the intent of fair use. You are a commercial venture as a video store. Your actions could be construed as a financial move to benefit the sales of your videos (buy this movie, we will create and give the copy to you for free). That is against the four point test as you are getting commercial gain from your infringements. Nice try, but wrong example.
The internet bar is not set lower, it is being abused lower. Copyright is copyright regardless of the medium. The creator has rights that must be addressed.
Quote:
AND YOU KNOW THIS. (see next point)
Again the key point is that you are trying to associate real world situation with internet when you know such an associate is not valid.
If you owned a porn shop selling porn dvd and a 16 year old walked in and tried to buy a dvd. If you sold it to you would be guilty of the crime of distributing porn to minors
|
(only because you can look at him and know he is not of age and also did not verify his legal right to buy or not buy the merchandise).
Quote:
You would be dragged of and sent to prison for 3-5 years.
The expectation in the real world where you have face to face interaction during the buying process is that you check the id of the individual (drivers licience, health card, age of majority etc)
Now move to the internet, you take the credit card and that it, you don't ask for a driver licience, and you don't have to, because in the case of the internet trying to get all that documentation is ubsurdly problematic. If minor (little johnny) commits the crime of identity theft ( fraud) to gain access to your porn you are not responsible.
The bar is set much lower in the case of the internet, and the TPB is taking advantage of that just like you are in your case.
|
You keep using this example in comparison to how we check for vailidity of the card holder (like we are attempting to sell to minors. That is the furthest from the truth. I don't want minors on my site... the minute they are, I am guaranteed that their money is in question. Not only do I lose a sale, I lose the recovery of my bandwidth costs... They are expensive). Do you know the percentage of credit card fraud across the Internet vs. legitimate sales? In 2006 it was 1.6% (which totalled over 2.6 billion dollars).
The courts ruled that a credit card is a valid way to check identity (remember that the internet really isn't all that different from a phone call... the identification method is almost identical). You must be 18 to own a credit card (otherwise the CC company would be entering into a contract with a minor). The assumption is that you protect your card with fairly rigid measures as it's part of your financial package. People don't randomly hand their CC's to strangers
If my son takes my card and uses it fraudulently on a website... 1- when I find out I will attempt to make good with the website in question. After all I have a responsibility to control my children. The website, unless I find out otherwise, has done their best to keep my child from being within their bounds. If I find they have been advertising at Nickelodeon.com or some other child friendly location, that's a different story. 2-my son doesnt' know how to use a credit card and the verification measures on it are above his knowledge. If someone else's child gets around that... I would worry more about their ass being usable to sit down for a month, than I would be about my $30.
1.6% of my sales being fraudulent is very small in comparision to 50-60-75-80-90% of my content being available with unrestricted access due to your .0001% need to backup shows from Nick at Nite.
Quote:
world wide there are three levels of copyright infringement
direct - i make a copy and i give it directly to you
intermediate - i make a copy, put the actual content up on the intermediary, you download that copy from the intermediary.
Contributory - I share a copy , you connect to me directly the trading of content only involves us, as a third party you contribute in some way without getting directly involved.
US law combines intermediate and contributory together and classifes it all as contributory.
CANADIAN, EU don't recognize contributory (indirect) and only recognize the first two.
|
Wrong... the EU recognizes indirect infringement.. did you not read the post I had directly copied from the EUCD???? I now have to check the Canadian site, because you are probably wrong there as well. Civilized societies (which means pretty much the whole world) have laws that are very common with each other. They don't vary that widely. You can't tell me that the population of Canada (which was 33.4 million as of July 2007), and especially their artists, producers, software engineers, etc... don't think that indirect infringement is a violation of their right to control their works and products. Same statement would go for the EU. Most American laws came from laws on the books over history.. as have the laws of all nations. No one in their right mind wants you to control my works rather than me. Get a clue. You are not a lawyer.. you are just dabbling in what sounds right to you at the moment.
Quote:
no we don't agree, you are misrepresenting indirect or contributory infringement as intermediary. While all intermediary infringements are contributory all contributory are not intermediary. Just like all odd numbers are numbers does not make all numbers odd.
See i would disagree, they are not criminally violating the copyright act, if they setup operations within the united states then those assets and those assets alone would be seizable because the scope of US law would apply.
|
You don't agree because you are stupid and ignorant. Indirect infringement is a crime, you just don't want to admit that the law says it is. Which it does.
While all intermediary infringements are contributory all contributory are not intermediary. Are you stupid????? The key word is infringement. Which is the defining characteristic. It's breaking the rules. Also your circular logic is just dumb.... no.. not all contributory infringements are done by intermediaries... they can be done by someone other than an intermediary as well. As the EU so eloquently described... intermediaries would most certainly be used to violate copyrights. I have a right to have an injunction placed against them.. according to the methods and modalities of the member state. Further, the member state is left up to determining how to punish the infringer. But I do have the right to request that they stop immediately.
They are violating US law, which is why they don't run on a US server, they are also violating EU law, but no one has dragged them into court with the proper list of violations and proof of violations because they do not have access to their usage records. Once the proof is figured out, the listing of the intentional contributory infringments will run in the billions.