Quote:
Originally Posted by CrkMStanz
heh gideon
did some reading on 'fair-use', domestically, and the international applications thereof
I can see I have a whole lot more reading to do - and I will, so this is my last post in this thread. But i'm going to get an education on this so we shall meet again 
I totally grant you that the 'cases' that you oft quote from are indeed present - you don't seem to acknowledge the numerous 'other examples' that dispute almost all that you say, and you don't explain why the examples you DO cite, don't actually apply to the current state of 'internet mass file sharing' but to a case that is quite dissimilar.
but from what I have read so far, I will leave you with this....
till we meet again ...  |
go back and re read my previous statements
i have complained about many of those ruling
arguing that they should/would be overturned because of those fundamental flaws in the logic of the arguement
so far i have been right every single time
hopefully i will be right about all of the outstanding cases as well
virtually every win can be traced back to the use of the mgm studios inc vs grokster ruling (directly or indirectly) as a basis.
under that ruling the justices refused to consider the fair use right of access shifting because the sharer was giving away a complete working copy of the file (comitting an infringement) so even if the downloader had a fair use right to the content (access shifting) the transaction would still be infringing.
the fundamental flaw is what happens when the seeder doesn't give anyone a complete working copy of the file. When the attempt to play the content the seeder gives you results in a non working file.
the logic is that the refusal to consider fair use has to be lifted an the arguement has to be made.
The problem is that no one has attempted to use that arguement yet, probably because they think it is cheaper to simply argue that they are like google and should be protected because they are just a search engine.