the real danger of draconian copyright protection - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Yes, we are going to end up with draconian and unreasonable laws because a handful of thieves decided to profit on the backs of artists and other productive people, while giving nothing in return. Yes, your are right, the folks stealing will most likely ruin the exchange of ideas for everyone.

that not guarrenteed

congress didn't give in to the mpaa when they demanded that they tarriff the vcr

enough people wanted that right to stay around (timeshifting) that the congress had no choice but to let it be.

responses like the one i showed you are blow back from trying to push draconian laws instead of figuiring out the economic solution to the problem.

it more likely that all filesharing for personal use will become fair use.

funny part is if you actually used a fair use friendly approach the current laws are actually too strong.

TheDoc · 07-12-2011, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

seriously you don't even recognize the sources for your own quotes

go back to the wiki article

click on the footnote link for the quote you were trying to use to justify arguing that the supreme court was wrong.

see where it leads you too.

Soooo... you you call my source wrong then use a source from mine to make your argument? Brilliant.....

Even though we aren't talking about patents, which may never be a monopoly, I'll go with it anyway.

Here, your article says: "Just because an inventor has been granted a patent does not mean that there will be a market for the patent product, and without a market there can be no monopoly."

And part of my quote said: "a monopoly can only exist in the presence of a market and the ability of an actor to manipulate the market"

Looks like it was correct after all... looks like the courts did agree with the wiki article I shared. And you're still using the term incorrectly.

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Soooo... you you call my source wrong then use a source from mine to make your argument? Brilliant.....

Even though we aren't talking about patents, which may never be a monopoly, I'll go with it anyway.

Here, your article says: "Just because an inventor has been granted a patent does not mean that there will be a market for the patent product, and without a market there can be no monopoly."

And part of my quote said: "a monopoly can only exist in the presence of a market and the ability of an actor to manipulate the market"

Looks like it was correct after all... looks like the courts did agree with the wiki article I shared. And you're still using the term incorrectly.

no moron i was pointing out the bias of the quote

the courts define a copyright/patent a "limited monopoly" for the cases they hear
this biased lawyer is deliberately ignoring scope to make his bullshit arguement

he is saying it can't be a monopoly at all because if you patent a crappy invention that no one would ever want you have no monopoly control.

but if you patent a crappy invention that no one would ever want, there not going to be anyone ripping it off either

therefore there would not be any infringement

therefore the courts could not /would not be involved.

the situation he is using to justify disqualifying the court declaration CAN"T exist for anything the courts would be involved in.

GatorB · 07-12-2011, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

idiot being pro fair use is not against copyright

Do you even know what "fair use" and "copyright" actually are? So far I have failed to see ANY indication that you do.

Quote:

maybe you should actually listen to what i am saying instead of making up your own interpretation of what i am saying.

I don't need to keep hearing you rant that 2+2=5 when I damn well know it equals 4. You just want free shit without paying.

Quote:

copyright law as it is now is pefectly fine, it doesn't need to be fixed.

If you think the 95 year copyright doesn't violate the US Constitution you are even more stupid.

Article 1 Section 8

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Ok in what fucking world is 95 years even remotely defined as "limited"?

TheDoc · 07-12-2011, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

no moron i was pointing out the bias of the quote

the courts define a copyright/patent a "limited monopoly" for the cases they hear
this biased lawyer is deliberately ignoring scope to make his bullshit arguement

he is saying it can't be a monopoly at all because if you patent a crappy invention that no one would ever want you have no monopoly control.

but if you patent a crappy invention that no one would ever want, there not going to be anyone ripping it off either

therefore there would not be any infringement

therefore the courts could not /would not be involved.

the situation he is using to justify disqualifying the court declaration CAN"T exist for anything the courts would be involved in.

Hahaha... you and your lame ass twists of stupidity. Amazing you can twist my quote, from a lawyer, that is wrong in your eyes, and you using your source, which says the same thing, and now means something totally different to you.

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Do you even know what "fair use" and "copyright" actually are? So far I have failed to see ANY indication that you do.

I don't need to keep hearing you rant that 2+2=5 when I damn well know it equals 4. You just want free shit without paying.

If you think the 95 year copyright doesn't violate the US Constitution you are even more stupid.

Article 1 Section 8

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Ok in what fucking world is 95 years even remotely defined as "limited"?

you realize that your arguement about the time being TOO LONG is the opposite direction that everyone else is arguing

However if fair use was applied to the level i am talking about

if commentaries like this is the coolest dance routine was protected

if timeshifting/backup/recovery/format shifting is totally technology agnostic

then i don't have a problem with 95 years

there enough access thru just fair use to be balanced

although i would agree it should not be raised again 95 years is the upper limit.

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Hahaha... you and your lame ass twists of stupidity. Amazing you can twist my quote, from a lawyer, that is wrong in your eyes, and you using your source, which says the same thing, and now means something totally different to you.

you do realize that saying the source is bias is NOT using the source it arguing AGAINST the source.

I flat out said he was wrong

btw he is also wrong on another point because he ignores patent trolling like what arcadia did to this industry

a crap patent not worth the paper it printed (no market) got millions of dollars in liciencing fees because the cost of fighting it was too expensive.

It completely discredits his patents can't be a monopoly without a market because even a bogus patent with no real usefulness got money from people to afraid to fight.

thats super bad ass monopoly power, even the misrepresentation of a marketplace is enough to get money for what was a worthless piece of paper.

TheDoc · 07-12-2011, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you do realize that saying the source is bias is NOT using the source it arguing AGAINST the source.

I flat out said he was wrong

btw he is also wrong on another point because he ignores patent trolling like what arcadia did to this industry

a crap patent not worth the paper it printed (no market) got millions of dollars in liciencing fees because the cost of fighting it was too expensive.

It completely discredits his patents can't be a monopoly without a market because even a bogus patent with no real usefulness got money from people to afraid to fight.

thats super bad ass monopoly power, even the misrepresentation of a marketplace is enough to get money for what was a worthless piece of paper.

Hahahaha.... AGAIN, your source said THE EXACT SAME THING - Almost word for word - yet mine is wrong..

I really don't care about your other dribble.

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Hahahaha.... AGAIN, your source said THE EXACT SAME THING - Almost word for word - yet mine is wrong..

I really don't care about your other dribble.

1. there was no source just a counter arguement
2. it said the exact opposite

Quote:

"Just because an inventor has been granted a patent does not mean that there will be a market for the patent product, and without a market there can be no monopoly."

yet i pointed out that Acacia made millions from their worthless patent

none of the people who licience thought it was valid

they paid the money because it cost too much money to fight

that a real world example that proves you don't need a market for monopoly pricing to occur

a worthless patent with no market whatsoever was licienced to people for millions

GatorB · 07-12-2011, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you realize that your arguement about the time being TOO LONG is the opposite direction that everyone else is arguing

Nobody has disagreed with what I said.

You seem to think everything is fair use. That's the issue. You don't want to seem to acknowledge that copyright holders have the right to dictate how their content is used. You may not agree with their decisions but it's their content.

Your bullshit how torrents are the same thing as a DVR. Well guess what get a fucking DVR and you won't have to torrent or watch the motherfucking show when it's on. Or guess what most cable/satellite have ON Demand. So you can catch-up on shows you've missed. Then there sites like Hulu. Torrents are for freeloaders than don't want to pay for shit beause they work at Burger King and live at home with mom in her trailer.

GatorB · 07-12-2011, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

1. there was no source just a counter arguement
2. it said the exact opposite

yet i pointed out that Acacia made millions from their worthless patent

none of the people who licience thought it was valid

they paid the money because it cost too much money to fight

that a real world example that proves you don't need a market for monopoly pricing to occur

a worthless patent with no market whatsoever was licienced to people for millions

That was a patent issue not copyright idiot. And Congress is passing patent reform to prevent shit like that.

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 05:57 AM

pretty good for a patent that had no market (because it was totally bogus)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lensman

Playboy Enterprises has reached an agreement with Acacia to exempt it from any patent claims in the future. Additionally, Playboy is requiring Acacia to exempt all of its affiliates from patent claims, as long as it directly related to the promotion of Playboy products. The affiliate provision was a major sticking point for Playboy, and considerably delayed the agreement.

Webmaster programs that have previously reached an agreement with Acacia include TopBucks, TrafficCashGold, PlatinumBucks, CECash, FlyntDigital, and more.

Agreement Reached: PlayboyCash webmasters are not liable to Acacia for patents.

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

That was a patent issue not copyright idiot. And Congress is passing patent reform to prevent shit like that.

except the doc was using that PATENT article to argue that the supreme court declaration that copyright is a "limited monoploy" is wrong

Quote:

The United States Supreme Court frequently refers to a patent as providing a "limited monopoly." This is not, however, appropriate usage of the term monopoly in the economic sense. In fact, intellectual property protection cannot properly be thought of as providing an economic monopoly, at least in part, because a monopoly can only exist in the presence of a market and the ability of an actor to manipulate the market to a point where higher than competitive prices are able to be maintained, which is something that is rarely achievable by an owner of intellectual property.

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?p=18275153#post18275153

TheDoc · 07-12-2011, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

1. there was no source just a counter arguement
2. it said the exact opposite

yet i pointed out that Acacia made millions from their worthless patent

none of the people who licience thought it was valid

they paid the money because it cost too much money to fight

that a real world example that proves you don't need a market for monopoly pricing to occur

a worthless patent with no market whatsoever was licienced to people for millions

Here's what you don't seem to understand.... idiot.

The only person talking this topic twist, is you... first because you've twisted it so far off what was actually being talked about, it's just pathetic. Then secondly, because this actual topic you're discussing right now, is exactly what I said, what was quoted/shared and you're refuting with... exactly what was said anyway.

Dude... I don't know of you smoke pot, crack, or maybe you drink. But I suggest you clean up, your brain is in backwards.

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Here's what you don't seem to understand.... idiot.

The only person talking this topic twist, is you... first because you've twisted it so far off what was actually being talked about, it's just pathetic. Then secondly, because this actual topic you're discussing right now, is exactly what I said, what was quoted/shared and you're refuting with... exactly what was said anyway.

Dude... I don't know of you smoke pot, crack, or maybe you drink. But I suggest you clean up, your brain is in backwards.

i quoted a copyright case (betamax case ) to point out they supreme court declared copyright to be a monopoly 20 times.

you quoted from wikipedia about patents to argue that my copyright is a monopoly statement.

you were the one who moved off copyright to patent.

I just proved that it was totally wrong two ways

1. by proving that no infringement could occur in a no market situation
2. proving that even when no one wants or even believes that the patent is valid people will licience it to avoid the court cost

if you want to parallel that back to copyright it not that hard

ask all the people who simply paid the settlement cost even though they didn't download anything just because it cost more to fight then to settle.

ie the dead guy who was sent a demand letter because his ip address downloaded copyright material after he was dead. (open wifi in dead guys apartment)

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Then secondly, because this actual topic you're discussing right now, is exactly what I said, what was quoted/shared and you're refuting with... exactly what was said anyway.

Dude... I don't know of you smoke pot, crack, or maybe you drink. But I suggest you clean up, your brain is in backwards.

seriously how can you not see that it actually the exact opposite

Quote:

intellectual property protection cannot properly be thought of as providing an economic monopoly, at least in part, because a monopoly can only exist in the presence of a market and the ability of an actor to manipulate the market to a point where higher than competitive prices are able to be maintained, which is something that is rarely achievable by an owner of intellectual property.

i gave you an example of a patent with NO MARKET(because no one believed it was valid) and got people to pay millons of dollars for something that was worth nothing (higher then competitive prices).

seriously that the exact opposite

your quote says it can't be done

i just gave you an example of how it WAS done.

TheDoc · 07-12-2011, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

i quoted a copyright case (betamax case ) to point out they supreme court declared copyright to be a monopoly 20 times.

you quoted from wikipedia about patents to argue that my copyright is a monopoly statement.

you were the one who moved off copyright to patent.

I just proved that it was totally wrong two ways

1. by proving that no infringement could occur in a no market situation
2. proving that even when no one wants or even believes that the patent is valid people will licience it to avoid the court cost

if you want to parallel that back to copyright it not that hard

ask all the people who simply paid the settlement cost even though they didn't download anything just because it cost more to fight then to settle.

ie the dead guy who was sent a demand letter because his ip address downloaded copyright material after he was dead. (open wifi in dead guys apartment)

What a load of shit.... betamax now? My wiki title about monopolies? Your brain is fried man.... lay off the drugs.

TheDoc · 07-12-2011, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

seriously how can you not see that it actually the exact opposite

i gave you an example of a patent with NO MARKET(because no one believed it was valid) and got people to pay millons of dollars for something that was worth nothing (higher then competitive prices).

seriously that the exact opposite

your quote says it can't be done

i just gave you an example of how it WAS done.

Drugs.... lay off them.

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

What a load of shit.... betamax now? My wiki title about monopolies? Your brain is fried man.... lay off the drugs.

exact quotes doc

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

the supreme court explictly declared copyright to be a monopoly 20 times in the betamax case

you might want to look at the case before you try and argue that copyright is not a monopoly.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/464/417/case.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

gideongallery.... the shit just keeps spewing from you.

The United States Supreme Court frequently refers to a patent as providing a "limited monopoly." This is not, however, appropriate usage of the term monopoly in the economic sense. In fact, intellectual property protection cannot properly be thought of as providing an economic monopoly, at least in part, because a monopoly can only exist in the presence of a market and the ability of an actor to manipulate the market to a point where higher than competitive prices are able to be maintained, which is something that is rarely achievable by an owner of intellectual property.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelle...poly_privilege

nuff said

TheDoc · 07-12-2011, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

exact quotes doc

nuff said

Wow... so you're talking to VGeorgie about Betamax and that jumps to our conversion?

You really will twist shit to stupid ways... Truly, lay off the drugs.

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Wow... so you're talking to VGeorgie about Betamax and that jumps to our conversion?

You really will twist shit to stupid ways... Truly, lay off the drugs.

no you jumped into that conversation

Vgeorgie said

Quote:

While the term "monopoly" is sometimes used to describe the rights holder's ability to restrict republication, the term is biased because the rights holder is the natural and bona fide legal owner of any creative output. There isn't a "monopoly" for any government to give, because governments can't give rights that are inalienable in the first place, only observe them.

i responded with

Quote:

the supreme court explictly declared copyright to be a monopoly 20 times in the betamax case

you might want to look at the case before you try and argue that copyright is not a monopoly [conferred by the government].

Quote:

"The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors."

http://supreme.justia.com/us/464/417/case.html

you jumped in to try and backup VGeorgie with

Quote:

gideongallery.... the shit just keeps spewing from you.

The United States Supreme Court frequently refers to a patent as providing a "limited monopoly." This is not, however, appropriate usage of the term monopoly in the economic sense. In fact, intellectual property protection cannot properly be thought of as providing an economic monopoly, at least in part, because a monopoly can only exist in the presence of a market and the ability of an actor to manipulate the market to a point where higher than competitive prices are able to be maintained, which is something that is rarely achievable by an owner of intellectual property.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelle...poly_privilege

sorry man but i think your projecting your own drug problem on me

i actually remember the conversation thread

magicmike · 07-12-2011, 08:51 AM

Why do people waste their time arguing with Gideon idiot still, his pro piracy leanings will have no effect on copyright laws that are coming.

The US economy is still pretty shitty, and the lost jobs and tax dollars that are disappearing because of copyright issues will trump anything else.

Serge Litehead · 07-12-2011, 09:08 AM

Gideon doesn't see a problem with piracy and torrents in particular
Gideon doesn't produce anything on his own

which basically means he is useless troll who is arguing for the sake of arguing.

he knows damn well is if calls his cable company and asks if he can backup all his favorite cable shows on torrents they are not going to be happy about it, because it will allow anyone else without subscription to see these shows which goes far away from fair use that he is trying to defend. that's the issue he conveniently ignores that there is no FAIR USE associated with piracy.

TheDoc · 07-12-2011, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

no you jumped into that conversation

Vgeorgie said

i responded with

you jumped in to try and backup VGeorgie with

sorry man but i think your projecting your own drug problem on me

i actually remember the conversation thread

Actually... my reply was based on OUR conversion, my first reply to you in this thread pointed out that you "twist a meaning to your own benefit" - which you also talked about monopolies in.

And just like my reply back with the wiki, with the point to show you're spewing more bullshit, to twist the bullshit to your own meanings. Which.... you then proceeded to argue with the same thing it says. After that point it's just your dumb ass trying to twist in new shit to prove some point nobody gives a shit about.

That's the off topic, stupid twist, you took... that's what I pointed out in my first reply, other replies, and above.

Damn you're thick.

Agent 488 · 07-12-2011, 09:22 AM

you have no idea how fair use actually is defined - both in dictionary and legal senses - and that is the foundation of your whole theory, thus it is pointless debating your structurally flawed theory.

a waste of time.

Serge Litehead · 07-12-2011, 09:35 AM

hey Agent, welcome back! BTC didn't crash like you predicted with mtgox being hacked a while ago ;)

VGeorgie · 07-12-2011, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

copyright is the exclusive right granted to the creator by section 106 of copyright act.

other laws like the DMCA etc are not a copyright, they are the laws that govern the inforcement of a copyright.

You understand little of what you write. I deal with copyright every day.

No government can confer the rights of ownership to a creative work. It is a natural, inalienable right. They can only confer a protection for copyright, and provide for civil and criminal penalties for infringers. You fail, or do not wish, to understand this simple premise.

When a court or any other legal body uses the term "monopoly" they do so in a framework that assumes those reading the decisions understand the use of terms. You don't, so you use a broad general-purpose dictionary definition; that is, as a coercive or stifling limitation. It's clear to any reasonable person reading a judgment of the court that for copyright their intention is to describe an exclusivity benefiting the public in a way that encourages ongoing creative output.

Your misunderstanding of copyright is only second to a complete failure to grasp the fair use doctrine. You believe copyright establishes what is and what isn't fair use. It doesn't. As a legal doctrine it comes from case law and precedent. Until clear cut fair use is established for a VERY SPECIFIC CASE, you cannot claim it, and anything else is infringement. You want to be judge and jury, conjuring extraneous legal conclusions to whatever poorly educated argument you wish to make.

Finally, in the interests of your education, or lack thereof, DMCA is a copyright law, enacted in response to WIPO treaty, and *amends* Title 17. It's all the same law, so don't be stupid. DMCA further criminalizes the circumvention of anti-copy processes.

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Actually... my reply was based on OUR conversion, my first reply to you in this thread pointed out that you "twist a meaning to your own benefit" - which you also talked about monopolies in.

And just like my reply back with the wiki, with the point to show you're spewing more bullshit, to twist the bullshit to your own meanings. Which.... you then proceeded to argue with the same thing it says. After that point it's just your dumb ass trying to twist in new shit to prove some point nobody gives a shit about.

That's the off topic, stupid twist, you took... that's what I pointed out in my first reply, other replies, and above.

Damn you're thick.

so producing a concrete example that explictly proves your wiki reference is wrong is BS

lol

you do realize that a circular proof right

your arguement is bs because i disagree with it
i present an arguement
you present a concrete example that proves my arguement false
but because you are disagreeing with my completely false arguement your proof is bs.

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

You understand little of what you write. I deal with copyright every day.

No government can confer the rights of ownership to a creative work. It is a natural, inalienable right. They can only confer a protection for copyright, and provide for civil and criminal penalties for infringers. You fail, or do not wish, to understand this simple premise.

When a court or any other legal body uses the term "monopoly" they do so in a framework that assumes those reading the decisions understand the use of terms. You don't, so you use a broad general-purpose dictionary definition; that is, as a coercive or stifling limitation. It's clear to any reasonable person reading a judgment of the court that for copyright their intention is to describe an exclusivity benefiting the public in a way that encourages ongoing creative output.

Your misunderstanding of copyright is only second to a complete failure to grasp the fair use doctrine. You believe copyright establishes what is and what isn't fair use. It doesn't. As a legal doctrine it comes from case law and precedent. Until clear cut fair use is established for a VERY SPECIFIC CASE, you cannot claim it, and anything else is infringement. You want to be judge and jury, conjuring extraneous legal conclusions to whatever poorly educated argument you wish to make.

Finally, in the interests of your education, or lack thereof, DMCA is a copyright law, enacted in response to WIPO treaty, and *amends* Title 17. It's all the same law, so don't be stupid. DMCA further criminalizes the circumvention of anti-copy processes.

seriously you really need to hire a better lawyer

your confusing the right to free speech with the monopoly control of the copyright act

section 106 of the act does not recognize an already established control, it GIVES IT

it limits it with a subject to clause (fair use included)

section 107 defines explictly a collection fair use and DEFINES the rules that court must use to establish new fair uses.

ONCE estabished those fair use exist they are not a case by case issue.

PVR did not have to back into court to re-establish the timeshifting right all over again.

IF they apply may be but in those cases copyright holder must make a compelling arguement against it

see cablevision vs 20th century fox lower court decision

when that "compelling arguement" is invalidated by the appeal court and the supreme court one more limit (public transmission) disappears for all arguement against fair use.

Redrob · 07-12-2011, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Currently, illegally streaming a copyrighted piece of audio or video is a misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail. The proposed bill, however, would make illegal streaming a felony punishable by up to five years in jail.

Link to Article.

Join the others on the Group W bench.........

marlboroack · 07-12-2011, 01:08 PM

I just read every single post on this thread and really have nothing to say to this!

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Link to Article.

Join the others on the Group W bench.........

you do realize your linking to an article driving people to sign a petition against thw bill right

it sort of funny given your hopes this bill will pass

Robbie · 07-12-2011, 01:39 PM

Why doesn't Eric ban this piece of shit? He is not in our business. He has never contributed ONE business thread EVER. The guys at PussyCash say he's never sent a sale. WHY is he on a business board? To piss people off and have them leave for the xbiz board (where he is NOT allowed)?

PiracyPitbull · 07-12-2011, 01:44 PM

Stop feeding the troll.....seriously

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Why doesn't Eric ban this piece of shit? He is not in our business. He has never contributed ONE business thread EVER. The guys at PussyCash say he's never sent a sale. WHY is he on a business board? To piss people off and have them leave for the xbiz board (where he is NOT allowed)?

want to bet

if i have sent them a sale you put all your content into the public domain

if i have not i leave forever.

Serge Litehead · 07-12-2011, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

want to bet

if i have sent them a sale you put all your content into the public domain

if i have not i leave forever.

did you make PussyCash to put some content in public domain before you sent a sale their way? isn't your strategy? =)

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holograph

did you make PussyCash to put some content in public domain before you sent a sale their way? isn't your strategy? =)

sent pass tense

If i send a sale now i lose the bet

just giving robbie what he wants (assuming he is telling the truth)

of course if he is a lying sack of shit he will never take that bet.

Serge Litehead · 07-12-2011, 02:26 PM

dude, you are too wrapped up in your mind.. you can't even get and answer simple/joking question. i did not ask anything about your stupid bet offer.

reread what I wrote, or you are completely lost case. no offence

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holograph

dude, you are too wrapped up in your mind.. you can't even get and answer simple/joking question. i did not ask anything about your stupid bet offer.

reread what I wrote, or you are completely lost case. no offence

Quote:

did you make PussyCash to put some content in public domain before you sent a sale their way? isn't your strategy? =)

you might want to rephrase the question then because it make no sense.

Serge Litehead · 07-12-2011, 02:40 PM

it makes a very good sense given your posting history on GFY with demands of people to put their content in public domain if you get to do business with them.

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holograph

it makes a very good sense given your posting history on GFY with demands of people to put their content in public domain if you get to do business with them.

i could demand a million dollars but then i would have to attempt to collect

given the dmca wording and an acceptance of the bet

everyone in the world would be able to post his shit everywhere and point to that acceptance as proof they thought the work was public domain.

as a counter notice to the takedown it would be an automatic win.

no fight, no trying to get the money.

it a perfect bet since i could simply take his content and never worry about copyright infringement issues.

Robbie · 07-12-2011, 03:43 PM

Again...Eric why is this guy here? Are you deliberately trying to piss off the few remaining people?
He's not in this business and he's never contributed to the community in any way at all. Just endless pro-piracy trolling.

He has nothing to offer anyone here (or anywhere else from what I can tell of his character). If I wanted to talk to pro-piracy surfers who live with their mommy and daddy I would talk to high school boys.

gideongallery · 07-12-2011, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Again...Eric why is this guy here? Are you deliberately trying to piss off the few remaining people?
He's not in this business and he's never contributed to the community in any way at all. Just endless pro-piracy trolling.

He has nothing to offer anyone here (or anywhere else from what I can tell of his character). If I wanted to talk to pro-piracy surfers who live with their mommy and daddy I would talk to high school boys.

really your crying to eric when you can get rid of me by simply accepting the bet

CrkMStanz · 07-12-2011, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

The thing none of you get, is he is just a troll. He comes here for one reason. To wind people up about copyright and piracy.

And he is BRILLIANT at winding you all up.

We all know he's not in porn, and is nobody.

We all know he is just trolling.

We all know he comes here for attention.

And you idiots keep giving it to him.

If everyone ignored him for two weeks he'd never come back. And yes, I'd put money on that.

I'm going with this one

(dammit, this is going to cut my postcount by ~96%)

this shall be my last response to giddyboy

If you are a troll then - Well Trolled! you stayed perfectly in character for a long time now -

for fooling me

If you are not a troll - then... well, I am sad for you - in sooo many ways - and

because... well, just because

and for good measure

.

*************************
@robbie - maybe Eric IS the troll

... should think about that.

(please don't ban me!!!)

.

billywatson · 07-12-2011, 05:12 PM

As producers of media, we create "files" from nothing, with costs being incurred. As producers, we own these files -- same as a baker owns the cookies he just made.

When people don't pay for our files (I don't give a fuck what you call it -- "file sharing" or "pirating" or whatever) it's stealing.

Having an employee stand outside of the cookie store handing out free cookie samples is one thing; having millions of people replicate and distribute our product without paying a thing for them is what's gonna put us all out of business.

gideongallery · 07-13-2011, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billywatson

As producers of media, we create "files" from nothing, with costs being incurred. As producers, we own these files -- same as a baker owns the cookies he just made.

When people don't pay for our files (I don't give a fuck what you call it -- "file sharing" or "pirating" or whatever) it's stealing.

Having an employee stand outside of the cookie store handing out free cookie samples is one thing; having millions of people replicate and distribute our product without paying a thing for them is what's gonna put us all out of business.

you realize that the guy buying the baker's cookie can do whatever he wants to do with that cookie after he bought

If he wants to use the cookie to discover the recipe and make millions of copies he can

copyright don't follow normal property rights so you should stop using property right terms to define infringement (stealing).

because the action your describing would not be considered stealing in your analogy.

Zorgman · 07-13-2011, 03:12 AM

When producers stop making work I would love to hear what they fucking say then.
Maybe someone should take bank records because it's "INFORMATION" too.

gideongallery · 07-13-2011, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zorgman

When producers stop making work I would love to hear what they fucking say then.
Maybe someone should take bank records because it's "INFORMATION" too.

more people are producing more content every day

the every day joes are producing shit now and posting it on youtube

the we have to stop piracy because it going to kill all content production arguement is total bullshit arguement

you have 95 years to make back your production cost, you don't have to fuck over fair uses to do it in 1 month.

TheDoc · 07-13-2011, 06:07 AM

What's up with all the trolling the troll posts... you guys trollin or what?

gideongallery · 07-13-2011, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

What's up with all the trolling the troll posts... you guys trollin or what?

yeah i know especially given the fact that all robbie has to do to get rid of me

Quote:

want to bet

if i have sent them a sale you put all your content into the public domain

if i have not i leave forever.

it not like he is a lying sack of shit or something.

07-12-2011, 08:51 AM	#122
magicmike Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: JustPorno Posts: 2,384	Why do people waste their time arguing with Gideon idiot still, his pro piracy leanings will have no effect on copyright laws that are coming. The US economy is still pretty shitty, and the lost jobs and tax dollars that are disappearing because of copyright issues will trump anything else. __________________ Just Porno with both classic and mobile porn versions. Gay Porn Our mega gay site tranny porn

07-12-2011, 09:08 AM	#123
Serge Litehead Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Behind the scenes Posts: 5,190	Gideon doesn't see a problem with piracy and torrents in particular Gideon doesn't produce anything on his own which basically means he is useless troll who is arguing for the sake of arguing. he knows damn well is if calls his cable company and asks if he can backup all his favorite cable shows on torrents they are not going to be happy about it, because it will allow anyone else without subscription to see these shows which goes far away from fair use that he is trying to defend. that's the issue he conveniently ignores that there is no FAIR USE associated with piracy. __________________ SilverCrocodile.com Adult web design since '05

07-12-2011, 09:35 AM	#126
Serge Litehead Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Behind the scenes Posts: 5,190	hey Agent, welcome back! BTC didn't crash like you predicted with mtgox being hacked a while ago ;) __________________ SilverCrocodile.com Adult web design since '05

07-12-2011, 01:39 PM	#133
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,958	Why doesn't Eric ban this piece of shit? He is not in our business. He has never contributed ONE business thread EVER. The guys at PussyCash say he's never sent a sale. WHY is he on a business board? To piss people off and have them leave for the xbiz board (where he is NOT allowed)? __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

07-12-2011, 01:44 PM	#134
PiracyPitbull Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 583	Stop feeding the troll.....seriously __________________ http://www.piracypitbull.com

07-12-2011, 09:22 AM	#125
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	you have no idea how fair use actually is defined - both in dictionary and legal senses - and that is the foundation of your whole theory, thus it is pointless debating your structurally flawed theory. a waste of time.

07-12-2011, 01:08 PM	#131
marlboroack So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ☣ Posts: 9,327	I just read every single post on this thread and really have nothing to say to this!

07-12-2011, 02:26 PM	#138
Serge Litehead Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Behind the scenes Posts: 5,190	dude, you are too wrapped up in your mind.. you can't even get and answer simple/joking question. i did not ask anything about your stupid bet offer. reread what I wrote, or you are completely lost case. no offence __________________ SilverCrocodile.com Adult web design since '05

07-12-2011, 02:40 PM	#140
Serge Litehead Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Behind the scenes Posts: 5,190	it makes a very good sense given your posting history on GFY with demands of people to put their content in public domain if you get to do business with them. __________________ SilverCrocodile.com Adult web design since '05

07-12-2011, 03:43 PM	#142
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,958	Again...Eric why is this guy here? Are you deliberately trying to piss off the few remaining people? He's not in this business and he's never contributed to the community in any way at all. Just endless pro-piracy trolling. He has nothing to offer anyone here (or anywhere else from what I can tell of his character). If I wanted to talk to pro-piracy surfers who live with their mommy and daddy I would talk to high school boys. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

07-12-2011, 05:12 PM	#145
billywatson Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The Valley o' Smut. Posts: 3,279	As producers of media, we create "files" from nothing, with costs being incurred. As producers, we own these files -- same as a baker owns the cookies he just made. When people don't pay for our files (I don't give a fuck what you call it -- "file sharing" or "pirating" or whatever) it's stealing. Having an employee stand outside of the cookie store handing out free cookie samples is one thing; having millions of people replicate and distribute our product without paying a thing for them is what's gonna put us all out of business. __________________ We're Fabulous! PROTECT YOUR CONTENT on Twitter I Shoot Porn.

07-13-2011, 03:12 AM	#147
Zorgman Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 6,103	When producers stop making work I would love to hear what they fucking say then. Maybe someone should take bank records because it's "INFORMATION" too. __________________ ---

07-13-2011, 06:07 AM	#149
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	What's up with all the trolling the troll posts... you guys trollin or what? __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation