Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy
gideon, you can call it whatever you want and write about why it isn't theft until your fingers bleed, but it is stealing.
It's not yours. You don't own it. You don't have the rights to it. You didn't pay for it. You can't time shift it. You're not renting it. You do not have permission to take it, and you sure as shit don't have permission to profit from it. Whatever "laws" you want to hide behind, I wipe my ass with. I'd beat your ass just the same if you stole my bike or a single video from my website.
Your silly talk is wasted on me gideon. Save your nonsense for someone else.
|
1. the submitter did pay for it
2. fair use gives them right to do things like comment, timeshift, formatshift that content, even if you don't want them too.
3. the copyright act explictly takes away your exclusive right with regards to fair use
4. which means your the one trying to break the law by demanding that all content be taken down.
Quote:
|
Of course TOS can not supersede the law. Stop being a fucking dick head. But if someone violates your TOS and you've already stated you can remove the account or submission if they do, then do it. This is not even an issue of TOS superseding the law, not even sure how it spun into that. This is about doing what your TOS was written for in the first place. Your TOS should be within the law, then you follow it. Why have it otherwise if you are not going to use it?
|
your asking NAT to remove all the content of a user irregardless of if it is covered by
copyright act defined fair use or not, simply because fill out 4 take down notices.
clearly if even 1 of those videos was in fact fair use authorized, that would have to TOS superceding the law (in this case section 107 of the copyright act) there is absolutely no way it can be anything else.
Quote:
|
Look, all of this is bullshit and everyone knows it. I'm not going to split hairs with you or Nathan over this anymore, as it doesn't resolve anything. Nathan and his company are thieves profiting from content they uploaded themselves. Users don't upload 1000s of videos, loading 4 - 5 videos a day for 2 years in a row. Yea right. It's insulting that anyone would expect us to believe they do. And you... I don't even know what you are, but I'm not going to waste any more time with you.
|
so now we are saying fuck innocent until proven guilty.
Quote:
|
We come from different places and will NEVER see eye to eye about this topic. Like I said, don't even waste your time. I won't convince you and you won't convince me.
|
again what you are just saying doesn't change my question in one little bit
assuming your right and TOS that broad should be allowed, suppose that because it a contract and the act of using the service bind you to agree to that
do you support that forced nature being used against you
if i put a clause saying that if you used my service (tube site) to view your content you agree to put all your content into the public domain.
It would do a complete end run around safe harbor provision because the only way you could identify your infringement to complain about would be to USE my tube site.
and if you used my tube site (and therefore autoagreed to the TOS) you agreed to put all your content into the public domain.
I am not arguing with you about your opinion, i am asking you if you would be willing to accept the consequence of your opinion if it was used against you
PS. the key point is that for me my opinion is consistance irregardless of weather it helps me or hurts me (neither TOS condition would be valid because it takes away a right granted by the law -- fair use right to the content vs your right to dispute complete unauthorized use of your content)