Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane
If you upload my full paysite movie to pornhub, then you know as well as me if you were authorized or not. Not authorized = infringement.
|
show me one upload that is the entire movie all the way to the credits
doesn't happen people upload scenes
the fact that paysites really only showcase scenes as their weekly updates doesn't change the fact that still uploading their favorite scene
and making a free speach commentary about what their favorite scene is.
Quote:
|
At once others starts to watch, otherwise potential customers, I lose potential income. The market value of my product decrease, just like you printed money and decrease the value of a currency (not to mention loss of tax income, others employed by the revenue etc)
|
bullshit, tv broadcasters lost the potential income from re run commercials with the vcr and that was still ruled to be fair use
profits generated from extending the copyright monopoly to medium selection (you only have a right to timeshift using re runs not using a tape cassette) is not an entitled profit of a copyright
you have no right to that money, and arguing that you do is an abuse of the monopoly you have been granted.
and that is exactly what you are doing in this case
in 1972 if taped my american bandstand and put in the tape fast forward to a cool dance routine and said that "cat can really swing" that was my right under free speech of commentary. It was legal because of fair use
posting "orquestra" on my youtube channel with the statement this is my favorite quest crew routine is the modern day version of that old free speech statement.
youtube just gives me the ability to make the same free speech commentary on a larger scale.
your making the same medium limitation arguement (you have free speech in person, but not over the tubes ) as the universal made in the betamax case.
Quote:
The crime become more serious if you make money off it, which will also eliminate any criteria for fair use/share. The same with those who offer you the distribution and make money off it, if they have knowledge of the infringement, then they are part of a conspiracy.
The infringer are the one misrepresentating. In 99.99% of the cases.
|
bullshit
vcr sold for 1k each when the case was run
diamond rio made good money selling the first mp3 players
youtube just won the viacomm case
if making money automatically eliminated any criteria for fair use
None of those things would have a happened