Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
This is my last response to this thread. I'm leaving in a few hours for a short vacation. I'll check back when I get back in a few days so I can see how I am wrong 
Here is what I am saying. If Pirate Bay allows the torrent for the new Wolverine movie to be on its site 100% of the people downloading that movie are doing something illegal. That movie hasn't even gotten to theaters yet but it did get leaked somehow. So if that torrent is on the site, it is illegal. You can't argue that pirate bay wouldn't know who is illegally downloading that movie because 100% of the people downloading that movie are doing it illegally.
If that torrent or any torrent for any movie that is either in theaters only or has been leaked pre-release (or any CD that has been leaked pre-release) is on the site then the site is being use for illegal purposes. |
the problem is the law is against you there 1 download != 1 sale and the fact that monopoly was only granted for the scope of commercial distribution
Work prints are not sold (so there is no economic loss).
Quote:
Again you fail to answer the question. How many of these MAJORITY you claim are simply timeshifting their content IE broadcast shows are living in areas where those shows are not available to them?
Lets use a few numbers. You say 49% of all torrent traffic is TV shows. Great. So then lets take pirate bay's numbers that somewhere around 9% of their connections come from north America (US and Canada although I do understand that not all US shows are shown in Canada) So if 100 people are downloading torrents from pirate bay that means that 49 of them are downloading TV shows. Of those 49 about 9 of them are from North America that means 40 of those people are from somewhere else. Where? Well according to that other study I posted it could be anywhere from Australia to the UK to Slovakia. Now you might argue that these shows are on the air in Australia or the Uk, but somehow I doubt Heroes and 24 are on every Monday in Slovakia. Maybe I am wrong though. Still if 9% of the connections are from the US (this is pirate bay's number not mine) then that would mean as much as 91% of the people downloading TV shows could be from areas where those shows don't air on broadcast TV or maybe even cable. If that is the case then those people are illegally downloading it.
|
remember timeshifting is only one of the fair use right we are talking about
using your example everyone else is covered by access shifting so it still legal. You may want the law to be different but that not the case.
Quote:
I disagree. Universal could agree to not put their movies out on tape. Sure the courts correctly say that they can build and sell VCRs. The courts (if challenged) would say that a person can build and create an MP3 player or a CD player or a DVD player, that doesn't mean that a content provider should be forced to have their content distributed on that network and made available to anyone who wants it if they do not choose to. Some will, and they will make money from it and some won't and they won't and they don't want to and lose out that is there problem.
If I create a movie and I don't want some guy in bumfuck, nowhere downloading it because he can't buy it I should retain that right and if there are companies out there that are helping to facilitate the distribution of my content against my will I should be allowed to protect myself against them.
|
we are not forcing the content producer to distribute on that network, we are simply taking way the right to PREVENT it from being distributed on that network. Their is a huge fundamental difference the first makes the content producer incur the cost of such a push, while the second allows any competitor who is willing to incure the cost take up the responsiblity that the content producer is abdicating.
Quote:
|
Universal fought the VCR and lost and it was a good ruling by the court. Still, there was no ruling that forced universal to distribute its content via video tape and if someone decided to somehow make bootleg copies of their movies on video tape and sell then they would go after them. No different with torrents. If I make a movie and it ends up online against my will and people who I don't want to have access to it are downloading it, I should be able to go after those people and the people that help facilitate that theft.
|
In hindsight that ruling was a bad ruling 5/6 tv shows that were cancelled were timeshifted to death. Shows like Terminator:SCC/MOWE have like 2-3 times as many people PVRing/torrenting it then watching it live. The show is going to be cancelled for that reason.
it like our little back and forth in the radio head thread
Quote:
you question is a complete misrepresentation of the situation.
the fact is the contracts don't explictly prevent the large scale gifting of their music by the artist. The technology to do that did not exist at the time so of course the record companies didn't realize the problem that it would cause.
this means the agreement allows the artist to authorize the non commercial distribution of their music. So basically your asking the artist (to act responsibly) by giving up a right they currently have, that has promotional value to them, so the record company who has already taken 90% and can still make good money thru commercial liciencing can make even more money.
Cry me a fucking river.
|
the betamax case gave us the right to timeshifting because at the time they did not precieve this problem of timeshifting a show to death. But once the right is given you have to live with the consequences of that granted right. Had universal been smart figuired out a way to monetize the timeshifted viewers (ie got product placement early, established some sort of data collection of timeshifted viewings) then the shows would be subsidized from income comming from timeshifting. But because they pushed it thru the courts they created this situation.
Quote:
Your statement is the exact definition of someone with entitlement issues. Your statement is basically saying that as long as you don't harm a content producer monetarily then you should just be allowed to take whatever you want as long as it isn't available to you to buy. When I was growing up there was a lot of things I wanted. Some of those things I couldn't afford and some of those things were just not available to me because of where I lived. Guess what my mom told me? She told me tough luck, in life you can't always have every little thing you desire. You seem to think differently. I go back to my previous statement. If I don't want someone is Spain seeing my movie, that should be up to me. It doesn't matter if the my doing that costs me money, it is my money to lose. Just because someone in Spain may want to see my movie doesn't mean they are entitled to see it.
Think of it like this. Maybe if the show Heroes is not shown in certain countries the studio that produces Heroes doesn't want the people in that country downloading the show because they are planning to eventually sell them the show on DVD in that country. this goes back to the original statement. If the show was not available to you on TV or cable and you are downloading it, you are not using torrents as a VCR and according to pirate bay's estimates that could be as many as 91% of the people downloading. I'm sure the number isn't near that high because I know a lot of these shows get broadcast globally, but I would be willing to bet it is a pretty decent amount of the people.
|
This is your artist act fair arguement all over again.
Spain grant you a monopoly for the distribution of your content because they it creates an insentive for you to produce content that is consumed by their public. When you uses that monopoly deny access for non monetary reason (because i want too) then you are violating the entire context of the agreement. Now if the government had screwed up (like the record companies) and actually granted you that level of control i would fully support your arguement, but they didn't they explictly wrapped your exclusive rights with fair use (non commercial infringing).
You are trying to argue in favor of using the BENEFIT of the agreement to violate your RESPONSIBLITY of the agreement. When the courts make a fair use decision it basically the equivalent of ruling the contract null and void for the scope where you abdicated your RESPONSIBLITY.
In your example you are abdicating your responsiblity to Spanish population today for the currently non existent but potential future income.
What i can never understand is why so many clueless copyright holders keep holding these absurd positions when the courts have time and time again proven they will simply revoke the monopoly (for that scope) open up the doors to competition and force you to lose your competitive advantage and the potential future revenue your trying to protect.
A better solution would be to come up with a solution that protects the future potential income (even just partially) without abdicating your current responsiblity(branding bugged bit torrent distributed content) , because that would at least keep the monopoly power you have intact.