Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
As per normal you have constructed sentences here that make no sense so I have no idea what you are talking about.
No, I am arguing that I should be able to sue for damage and force them to remove my movie from their site. They don't have the right to distribute it and that is what they are doing.
|
even if the courts rule that access shifting is a fair use right and they therefore do have a right to distribute it.
Quote:
|
Because the reality of the world and market doesn't create these violent spikes in the price that you imagine so you need to make them up in order to make a point. Fair use exists and many people/companies use it in the way it was intended to be used. Companies like local news and shows like The Daily Shoe used fair use in a fair and accurate way. Companies that want to take my entire movie and allow people to download it in torrent from their website are not.
|
again vcr make a complete working copy of the tv show and movie
backup make a complete working copy of the content
and formating shifting make a complete working copy of the content
and timeshifting has been recognized to be just as valid in the cloud as it was on tape cassete by the supreme court
all of those are fair uses
so stop arguing that partial copys like commentary are the only valid fair use.
Quote:
Below I will answer your questions once again responding to each one exactly as you have asked them.
Here, again, are the answers to your questions:
if you work for a company
- I work for myself.
if they choose to employee
- I assume you mean if they choose to employ me, which, of course I do choose to employ myself.
if they choose to buy from you
- Well, I don't really sell anything to myself.
they must pay 73 times as much as for my instructions as everyone else
-I don't need your instructions so I wouldn't be buying them. If, for some reason, I did I would buy them from someone else. You say yourself that you are going to charge 73 times as much as everyone else does. That means everyone else but you is cheaper. I would go with everyone else.
they can either pay that cost or fire you/cut their business deals with you.
-Again, I can't really fire myself.
|
but that does not represent being bound by the abuse you want copyright to give you
copyright law doesn't give me the right to create as many monopolies as i want just because i wish to in a licience, fair use prevents that
if you were sending traffic to company a as an affiliate and i taught them how to change their content to maximize their sales under the it can be shared freely world (ie setting up a private tracker properly) your rebills would go up, you would benefit from my copyrighted work.
copyright law as stated would not allow me to declare that your affilate income is mine because i want a monopoly for medium of traffic sent. (i am being nice by simply capping it at 73 times what they paid out, if you send enough traffic to exceed that limit then you can keep the money)
i need you to agree that if we share the same clients, as an agreement between us, i get to declare your work is covered by my monopoly so all your money earned is mine instead.
because the point is copyright law doesn't give me that right, just like your wrong when you claim that it does give the movie studioes that right.