only 84 of the 23,322 "expendable" pirates are still potentially liable for copyright infringement - GoFuckYourself.com

gideongallery · 08-02-2011, 05:43 AM

Quote:

What was once touted as the biggest file-sharing lawsuit in history has now been decimated following a decision from the U.S. District Court of Columbia. Judge Robert Wilkins ruled that well over 99 percent of the original 23,322 alleged infringers can not be chased down by the makers of The Expendables because they fall outside of the court?s jurisdiction.

http://torrentfreak.com/23238-allege...k-free-110802/

the horror copyright holders have to obey the copyright law (and fair use) of the country of the potential "infringer".

no more forcing american laws down the throat of more enlightened countries like Canada (who has a piracy tax, and real privacy laws)

CaptainHowdy · 08-02-2011, 05:51 AM

TheDoc · 08-02-2011, 05:51 AM

Where does it say an American company can't sue a Canadian for Piracy?

That article doesn't say a Canadian can't be sued for piracy.

nextri · 08-02-2011, 05:56 AM

That's only fair.
If we had to obey every law in every country, we wouldn't be able to do anything. No american would tolerate being sued because their activity online might brake some law in Russia or China or something.

ottopottomouse · 08-02-2011, 06:07 AM

The Expendables was shit.

iamtam · 08-02-2011, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

http://torrentfreak.com/23238-allege...k-free-110802/

the horror copyright holders have to obey the copyright law (and fair use) of the country of the potential "infringer".

no more forcing american laws down the throat of more enlightened countries like Canada (who has a piracy tax, and real privacy laws)

you really need to learn. the jurisdiction is "district of columbia", not the whole country. it doesn't mean they cannot go after them, only that they need to file in the appropriate district in the us.

i love when freetards can't read.

Mutt · 08-02-2011, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Where does it say an American company can't sue a Canadian for Piracy?

That article doesn't say a Canadian can't be sued for piracy.

you can sue a Canadian in a US court, getting a Canadian court to enforce the judgement I read recently has become trickier.

gideongallery · 08-02-2011, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Where does it say an American company can't sue a Canadian for Piracy?

That article doesn't say a Canadian can't be sued for piracy.

never said that

you can sue a Canadian IN Canadian court.

what being disallowed by this ruling is suing anyone outside the home state weather that be another state, or another country doesn't matter.

gideongallery · 08-02-2011, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamtam

you really need to learn. the jurisdiction is "district of columbia", not the whole country. it doesn't mean they cannot go after them, only that they need to file in the appropriate district in the us.

i love when freetards can't read.

you do realize that no US district has jurisdiction over Canada

which means if you can't sue someone who is not in the district that would include Canada

to many of you guys have argued that copyright holders have a right to force me to fly down to California to defend myself for shit that my court system has ruled is fair use.

this case establishes again that i am right and all those idiots are wrong.

you want to sue me copyright infringement you need to show up in an Ontario court to do it.

iamtam · 08-02-2011, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you do realize that no US district has jurisdiction over Canada

which means if you can't sue someone who is not in the district that would include Canada

to many of you guys have argued that copyright holders have a right to force me to fly down to California to defend myself for shit that my court system has ruled is fair use.

this case establishes again that i am right and all those idiots are wrong.

you want to sue me copyright infringement you need to show up in an Ontario court to do it.

i understand that. but the canadians involved is a small number. it isn't like 22,000 are in canada, only a few are. the rest are just not in that courts jurisdiction.

you are such a freaking freetard. why do you even post here?

vsex · 08-02-2011, 08:10 AM

Only 1 post out of Gideon Gallery's 5938 posts have contained sane logic

SmokeyTheBear · 08-02-2011, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Where does it say an American company can't sue a Canadian for Piracy?

That article doesn't say a Canadian can't be sued for piracy.

Gideon likes to make shit up out of thin air ?

Canadians get sued by americans all the time.

96ukssob · 08-02-2011, 08:38 AM

so what they are saying is 84 of 23,322 people plead guilty the first round and everyone else pleaded innocent?

SmokeyTheBear · 08-02-2011, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

which means if you can't sue someone who is not in the district that would include Canada

it means you sue them in their district dumbass

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

my court system has ruled is fair use.

no it hasn't.. it has ruled OTHER cases are fair use.. fair use is on a case by case basis. Just because a canadian case of timmy getting hit by a car does not mean you can steal shit, you just think it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

this case establishes again that i am right and all those idiots are wrong.

sorry , your name was not mentioned , you are still an idiot.

seeandsee · 08-02-2011, 08:50 AM

that stupid movie needs to pay them a $ :D

gideongallery · 08-02-2011, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

it means you sue them in their district dumbass

which in the case of a canadian citizen in ontario would be ontario

Quote:

no it hasn't.. it has ruled OTHER cases are fair use.. fair use is on a case by case basis. Just because a canadian case of timmy getting hit by a car does not mean you can steal shit, you just think it does.

are you actually so stupid that you believe that the entire concept of legal precedent does not apply to fair use case.

Once a fair use is established it is established

pvr did not have to go to court to re-establish that they were legal just like a vcr.

gideongallery · 08-02-2011, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bossku69

so what they are saying is 84 of 23,322 people plead guilty the first round and everyone else pleaded innocent?

nope we haven't even gotten to that stage yet

that all the cases that were thrown out vs those that were allowed to continue

those 84 people still have a right to fight still with all the normal arguments ( IP address is not valid proof of a person)

epitome · 08-02-2011, 09:47 AM

I kind of feel bad for gideon. It's obvious he is too poor to afford content and spends all day trying to justify stealing it.

gideongallery · 08-02-2011, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

I kind of feel bad for gideon. It's obvious he is too poor to afford content and spends all day trying to justify stealing it.

you want to quote one single post i have ever made where i said you should get shit for free

i have defended the fair use right to timeshift content you PAID for

i have defended the right to take music that you PAID for thru a piracy tax

SmokeyTheBear · 08-02-2011, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

are you actually so stupid that you believe that the entire concept of legal precedent does not apply to fair use case.

you seem to be so stupid you think claiming something is fair use means it is legal , even though the courts have clearly not followed your Gidiot logic..

The courts have time and time again REJECTED fair use defenses. You seem to think calling something "fair use" makes it legal. It doesn't.. Perhaps you need to go look up legal precedent..

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Once a fair use is established it is established

only under the exact same scenario.. fair use in the courts is on a case by case basis.. if you could establish your fair use is EXACTLY like another legal case THEN and ONLY then can legal precedent be used as a deciding factor.. thus your betamax excuse for theft is just a fart in the wind that only you can smell the shit..

gideongallery · 08-02-2011, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

you seem to be so stupid you think claiming something is fair use means it is legal , even though the courts have clearly not followed your Gidiot logic..

The courts have time and time again REJECTED fair use defenses. You seem to think calling something "fair use" makes it legal. It doesn't.. Perhaps you need to go look up legal precedent..

name one of my legal predictions that have been wrong
you can't because it has never happened yet.

Quote:

only under the exact same scenario.. fair use in the courts is on a case by case basis.. if you could establish your fair use is EXACTLY like another legal case THEN and ONLY then can legal precedent be used as a deciding factor.. thus your betamax excuse for theft is just a fart in the wind that only you can smell the shit..

bullshit when a court case establishes a right it defines the scope, it does not say only when it EXACTLY the same it defines the scope in the ruling.

the limits on those established fair use must be argued in the court case.

for example in the 20th century vs cable vision case 20th century argued that fair use of time-shifting for personal use should be excluded because cable vision time-shifted over the PUBLIC cloud. They argued that this limitation of fair use was legitimate because public broadcasts were explicitly defined as infringing within the act.

the appeal court over ruled this (and the supreme court upheld) that it was a public TRANSITION not a public BROADCAST so the fair use still applied.

by doing so they completely eliminated the BS it not fair use because it public argument you guys keep trying to make because it not weather it a public or not it weather it a PUBLIC BROADCAST or not that defines it legality

your actually arguing the reverse which is not the case

L-Pink · 08-02-2011, 12:39 PM

I saw your mom on the planet of the apes trailer.

.

gideongallery · 08-02-2011, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

only under the exact same scenario.. fair use in the courts is on a case by case basis.. if you could establish your fair use is EXACTLY like another legal case THEN and ONLY then can legal precedent be used as a deciding factor.. thus your betamax excuse for theft is just a fart in the wind that only you can smell the shit..

btw a pvr and a vcr are radically different

pvr allowed 100s of hours of content to be recorded and kept in perfect quality for months if not years

pvr allowed you to record multiple shows at the same time

they significantly advanced the commercial skipping ability of recorders

if as you say it needs to be EXACTLY the same the fact that you can timeshift two+ shows from the exact same hour would have been more than enough to drag the PVR makers back thru the court system back to the supreme court.

The precedent applied because the PVR followed the defined rules of timeshifting

moving the personal viewing of a tv show paid for /granted from day 1 to day 2.

08-02-2011, 05:51 AM	#2
CaptainHowdy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Happy in the dark. Posts: 92,999	__________________ FLASH SALE INSANITY! deal with a 100% Trusted Seller Buy Traffic Spots on a High-Quality Network 1 Year or Lifetime — That’s Right, Until the Internet Explodes!

08-02-2011, 05:51 AM	#3
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	Where does it say an American company can't sue a Canadian for Piracy? That article doesn't say a Canadian can't be sued for piracy. __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation Last edited by TheDoc; 08-02-2011 at 05:53 AM..

08-02-2011, 05:56 AM	#4
nextri Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 1,661	That's only fair. If we had to obey every law in every country, we wouldn't be able to do anything. No american would tolerate being sued because their activity online might brake some law in Russia or China or something. __________________ DivaTraffic - Traffic for Models Last edited by nextri; 08-02-2011 at 05:58 AM..

08-02-2011, 06:07 AM	#5
ottopottomouse She is ugly, bad luck. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 13,177	The Expendables was shit. __________________ ↑ see post ↑ 13101

08-02-2011, 08:10 AM	#11
vsex Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: East and West Coast Beaches Posts: 1,277	Only 1 post out of Gideon Gallery's 5938 posts have contained sane logic __________________ VSEX.COM AFFILIATES [email protected] New Model Signup Most realistic thing ever written on GFY: Shap: "Solidarity is nice in theory but this industry has proven time and time again it can not stand together. The best advice I can give you is to do what is best for you with both your short term and long term goals in mind."

08-02-2011, 08:38 AM	#13
96ukssob So Fucking Banananananas Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: If I was in your ass you'd know it Posts: 12,991	so what they are saying is 84 of 23,322 people plead guilty the first round and everyone else pleaded innocent? __________________ Email: Clicky on Me

08-02-2011, 08:50 AM	#15
seeandsee Check SIG! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Europe (Skype: gojkoas) Posts: 50,945	that stupid movie needs to pay them a $ :D __________________ BUY MY SIG - 50$/Year Contact here

08-02-2011, 09:47 AM	#18
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,158	I kind of feel bad for gideon. It's obvious he is too poor to afford content and spends all day trying to justify stealing it.

08-02-2011, 12:39 PM	#22
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,152	I saw your mom on the planet of the apes trailer. .