Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks
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?????
|
i could have posted the court case where they sued and lost but since you have a habit of misrepresenting the facts i thought i would provide you dumby version
Quote:
|
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).
|
expect such a transaction would not show up in the fraud declarations because daddy would have to put his son on the hook for a crime of fraud to get his $30 bucks back
I would do that to my children
And so do you
Quote:
|
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.
|
so point to some low fraud levels and claiming that it doesn't happen is total BS.
Quote:
|
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.
|
i suggest you read your own quote
Quote:
|
In the digital environment, in particular, the services of intermediaries may increasingly be used by third parties for infringing activities. In many cases such intermediaries are best placed to bring such infringing activities to an end. Therefore, without prejudice to any other sanctions and remedies available, rightholders should have the possibility of applying for an injunction against an intermediary who carries a third party's infringement of a protected work or other subject-matter in a network.
|
they are talking about third parties who are within the infringement process, that host, that isp. Canada recognize the right to contact them to ask for the account to be suspended.
That is significantly different than being a contribuitory infringer not with no contact to the actual copyright material. (open up the torrent file and show me the copyright material)
Not having contributory infringement laws does not prevent canadians from protecting their content. They can contact the isp of the seeders and ask for the accounts to be terminated.
The isps then would contact the users asking the justify their actions, and if the actions were unjustified the seeder loses his access to the internet problem solved.
What you seem to want is to take a way fair use rights away, i understand why you make a lot of extra money if you don't have to incur the expenses of providing those rights.
Quote:
|
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.
|
really where did you get your law degree from.
i have spent a lot more money researching this issue than you.
Quote:
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.
|
accidental infringement uses the term infringement and it is not a crime. You know that contribuitory infringement only exists under US law, you have repeatedly acknowledge that fact here.
since the contribuitory infringement is only happening in sweden (outside US jurisdiction) it not a crime. That is why they can't be touched, which is what you have been bitching about.
your entitled to the copyright protection of every country, not the copyright protection of your country IN every country. There is a difference. the first requires you to respect the limits set by that countries laws and the second does not.
I am glad to live in a country that recognizes intermediary infringement but does not recognize contribuitory infringement. Having to actually participate DIRECTLY in the trading of content to be liable is a good thing. because it prevents the abuse of the law to try and eliminate fair use.
Contribuitory infringement as been use by the movie studios to prevent distributing information on how to crack dvd protections even though that software can be use to make legitimate fair use back ups of DVD you own.
Quote:
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.
|
but see you just proved my point contributory infringements can be done by SOMEONE OTHER THAN AN INTERMEDIARY
nothing in the EU ruling allows you to go after these "OTHERS" as you so eloquently pointed out it is the intermediaries who you have a right to go after
Quote:
|
They are violating US law, which is why they don't run on a US server, they are also violating EU law, .
|
then you should have no reason to hack their servers, just file the paper work and swedish courts who have to obey the EU would have to comply with your request.
Except they don't which would tell an intelligent man that he must be missing something.
I live in a country that has similar difference in laws and i am informing you of the difference.
If you want to continue making the claim that there is no difference between indirect contribuitory infringement and intermediary infringement then spend your hard earned money trying to make that claim
You will lose, just like the media companies who saw the only solution was to break the law.
Quote:
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.
|
you know torrents fully describe the ip address of the peers which means all you have to do to get access to all the connecting people is for you to use the torrent.
you can then look up which isp control using the airn records.
which is more than enough to track down all of the infringment, if you are right go forth young man spend millions fighing the good fight
and tell us all how well it is going.
In my opinion you will lose and because i am involved in a mainstream solutions to these problems (for tv shows and movies) i have spent a lot more money researching this than you.