Quote:
Originally posted by the bulldog
As I've said, subtitled/censored content isn't available for purchase. Innocent until proven guilty blah blah blah. I can't bend the space-time contium to prove that the content is stolen, to make a point with a bunch of message board hicks. The license proves that the content isn't stolen, and so far there isn't one.
For example if I posted a gallery here full of pics and someone questioned whether they were stolen or not. I should produce a license to show that they weren't stolen.
Thats what the license is for. When someone accuses someone of stolen content, they show a license. The license will prove that he owns the content. Don't have one? Then he doesn't own the content.
He'll need to produce it when Deluxe Pass, A-Pic and his host contact him. Nobody is going to shut shit down if the correct documents are produced. Its simply a matter of "yeah i've got them here they are".
If a webmaster doesn't have a license for his content....... is it stolen? YES, it is. You can't PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that content is stolen because there is no documentation to prove so. Its not like there is a "stolen content" license, that people with stolen content use. Duh. But I am 100% sure that the content is unlicensed, hence this posting.
How would you want me to prove that the content is stolen? What should I show?
Also what should eru show to show that his content isn't stolen?
|
The way I've heard it from legal types is that there are only three kinds of content you can legally use: 1) content you have explicit permission from the owner to use (e.g., by purchasing it); 2) content that you can document has been put into public domain (the owner explicitly and in writing surrenders copyright to the public domain); and 3) content which is so fuckin' way old that it couldn't possibly be copyrighted any longer. So, which category to these movies fall under? Things don't just fall into PD.