Fair Use was Unfairly Used in COURT. Judge hands the smack down. Gideon is in denial. - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

gideongallery · 12-10-2009, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

As usual Gideon is wrong. He's babbling about Disney.

Let's look at the movies he used as examples:
The Little Mermaid Written by Hans Christian Anderson in 1837

Well I guess he got that one right. Only it's 172 years old. That doesn't exactly fit with Gideons bullshit about copyright extension that is currently in use.

----------------------------------

Beauty And The Beast: "The story of Beauty and the Beast has been around for centuries in both written and oral form, and more recently in film and video. Many experts trace similarities back to the stories of Cupid and Psyche, Oedipus and Apuleius? The Golden Ass of the second century A.D."

Sorry gideon, that one doesn't cut it. Nobody knows who wrote it.

---------------------------------------

Snow White: "Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs was a story from the Brothers Grimm fables.

No one knows the origin."

Nobody knows who originally wrote that one Gideon.

-----------------------------------

Aladdin: "The original story of Aladdin is a Middle-Eastern folk tale. No medieval Arabic source has been traced for the tale, which was incorporated into The Book of One Thousand and One Nights by its French translator, Antoine Galland, who heard it from an Arab Syrian storyteller from Aleppo. Galland's diary (March 25, 1709) records that he met the Maronite scholar, by name Youhenna Diab ("Hanna"), who had been brought from Aleppo to Paris by Paul Lucas, a celebrated French traveller. Galland's diary also tells that his translation of "Aladdin" was made in the winter of 1709?10. It was included in his volumes ix and x of the Nights, published in 1710."

Nobody knows who originally wrote that one Gideon.

--------------------------------------

Mary Poppins: "Mary Poppins was made into a film based on the series of children's books by Walt Disney Productions in 1964. According to the 40th anniversary DVD release of the film in 2004, Walt Disney first attempted to purchase the film rights to Mary Poppins from P.L. Travers as early as 1938 but was rebuffed because Travers did not believe a film version of her books would do justice to her creation and did not want an animated cartoon based on it. Disney finally succeeded in 1961, although Travers demanded and got script approval rights."

So they DID pay the author.

--------------------------------

In other words, Gideon is full of shit again. Fucking guy thinks everything should be free and hates anybody that works hard to make a living.

Took me 3 minutes in google to find out this info and disprove ANOTHER of his lies.

except kane was arguing for a prepetual extension of copyright where you would always have to find the copyright holder and get permission before doing any deriviative work, so in all the cases where you didn't know who the real author was you couldn't use shit.

That the point idiot

go back to copying waynes world and pretending that makes you creative.

CrkMStanz · 12-10-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you don't have a right to force people to pay you again for the same right they already bought,

you spout this line a lot - I would like you to point out (or link) some legal or judicial evidence - because really - I have the right to make 'em pay a whole bunch of times if I feel like it - subscription based games do it daily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

that not a lost sale that is lost double billing.

and you follow it up with that line... but if I choose to double or triple or quadruple bill for my product - that is fully my right - if the customer doesn't like it - they can buy somewhere else? and if my TOS says I 'rent' the viewing for a 30 day period - if you don't like it - buy somewhere else - is that not exactly how the free market system we enjoy is supposed to work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

So fair uses like backup recovery and timeshifting of your content should be free market conditions subject to market conditions and pricing.

inevitably followed by that line...

all the law I've read applies to PRIVATE backup and timeshifting - I don't argue that it is provided for - we all don't like the fact that it is publically accessable - there is no need for that under the provisions of the present laws - there are perfectly acceptable alternatives that are private for you to use.

so show us all where any law gives you or anyone else the 'right' to lifetime 'viewing rights' or 'listening rights' or 'reading rights' once you have paid once.

hmmm?...

kane · 12-10-2009, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

except kane was arguing for a prepetual extension of copyright where you would always have to find the copyright holder and get permission before doing any deriviative work, so in all the cases where you didn't know who the real author was you couldn't use shit.

That the point idiot

go back to copying waynes world and pretending that makes you creative.

Actually, no I wasn't. I have been arguing that they could modify the rules so that the creator of something could have the sole copyright for a set period of time and then after that the rules lighten up. If you want to use the product for something that is non-profit like education or even your own enjoyment , you could then use the product. If you wanted to recreate it and sell it for a profit you would either have to get permission (or make a deal with) from the original holder (or their estate) or at least prove that you had made some kind of an attempt to do so. Obviously every case wont apply.

Have I said anything about copyrighting everything ever made? No.

Have I said that shit that is 1000 years old should have a copyright? No.

If you don't know who the copyright holder and have done a reasonable search (meaning if the thing is 800 years old the search could be really short, but if the product is only a few years old you could much more easily find the person) then you should be able to move forward with your project.

All I have ever argued for is that artists should have the right to control how their work is ultimately used when it comes to situations where people will use it to make money.

kane · 12-10-2009, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

what exactly about free market COMPETITION do you not understand,
if a service provider wants to give you a digital copy for free that their choice
the copyright holder should not be able to prevent that service provider from fullfill that fair use distribution of the content.

Nothing i said requires the store to give you another copy for free, just to allow someone else to do so if they want to and can find an alternative revenue stream (like advertising).

Here is what I feel.

1. If you buy a music CD from me you should be able to back it up, burn it to MP3 and make as many copies for your personal use as you want.

2. If you choose not to do that and it gets lost or damaged, that is not my problem.

3. Other companies should not be allowed to make money by supplying you with a back up of my CD. This would include a torrent site. A torrent site does not have my permission to post my music on its site. They should not be allowed to make money by putting my music up on their site and allowing you to download it. If they want to give you the music as a backup for free, no problem. But when they start to make money off of giving it to you then I have a problem.

This is not a free market venture. This is a criminal enterprise.

Should I be able to record my favorite TV show then cut out their commercials and put my own commercials into the show then load it up on my website and let people watch it? I will only do it in the US and only with broadcast TV shows which means anyone with a TV and an antenna would have been able to get access to it. I'm just time shifting it for them. They missed it when it was on, now they can just come to my site and watch it here. I'm just using an alternative revenue stream to finance my site.

CrkMStanz · 12-10-2009, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Should I be able to record my favorite TV show then cut out their commercials and put my own commercials into the show then load it up on my website and let people watch it? I will only do it in the US and only with broadcast TV shows which means anyone with a TV and an antenna would have been able to get access to it. I'm just time shifting it for them. They missed it when it was on, now they can just come to my site and watch it here. I'm just using an alternative revenue stream to finance my site.

brilliant observation

simply brilliant

fmltube · 12-10-2009, 08:22 PM

I have to side with Gideon on this one. Copyright was never designed to provide an artist/studio with a perpetual license. The only reason copyright laws are as bad as they are now is because the studios/labels lobbied Congress to ensure they can still make money long after the original artist has passed on. Should an artist be able to pass along its royalties after their death? No because my copyright holders are the studios and labels to begin with.

Think for a moment. If an artist was not able to make enough money off of their work created 50 years ago, what is the sense of still granting a copyright? Look at modern day films and the god awful number of remakes and this is the reason copyright is bad. If copyright was enforced like our founding fathers intended, many of the movie studios would actually create more art instead of throwing shit together and trying to cash in.

It would make sense why the adult industry would argue against a lower number of copyright protection. In 14 years under the founding fathers vision, there would be no reason for the purchase of new porn because with the amount of porn out there now, you could watch porn every second for the remainder of your life and still not be able to watch everything ever produced.

The same people arguing for perpetual license will be the same ones that will bitch when the recording industry manages to charge for every time you listen to a song or every time you watch a video.

The sadder fact is all the fucking hypocrisy on this forum about tube sites and piracy when many of the videos linked here are in fact copyright infringement in itself. Or after the latest UFC someone asks for a link to watch/download it. Or like the BBC documentary link that was posted here a couple months ago for the American folks to watch it because it only aired in the UK on BBC. It just seems funny that copyrights only matter to individuals when its an infringement that hurts them.

Fact is 99% of those on this board bitching about piracy have downloaded something illegally before be it a song or a movie. Fuck, some even jerk off on the tubes to pirated material and you are just as guilty of infringement for viewing something you do not have a granted license to consume.

fmltube · 12-10-2009, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

All I have ever argued for is that artists should have the right to control how their work is ultimately used when it comes to situations where people will use it to make money.

But most artists do not have that right as of now under current copyright. Think of all the bands that sign deals, many have to transfer all ownership of copyrights to the labels. Many directors have no fucking say where their films will be distributed or how much to charge for their hard work. They get whatever the deal they signed states or whatever the labels/studio see fit to part with.

kane · 12-10-2009, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmltube

I have to side with Gideon on this one. Copyright was never designed to provide an artist/studio with a perpetual license. The only reason copyright laws are as bad as they are now is because the studios/labels lobbied Congress to ensure they can still make money long after the original artist has passed on. Should an artist be able to pass along its royalties after their death? No because my copyright holders are the studios and labels to begin with.

Not always true. If I write a book, I am the copyright holder. A book publisher might hold the rights to publish the book but that is a different contract. Sure, there are cases where someone writes something and a studio/record label or company owns it, but in many cases that is not true.

Quote:

Think for a moment. If an artist was not able to make enough money off of their work created 50 years ago, what is the sense of still granting a copyright? Look at modern day films and the god awful number of remakes and this is the reason copyright is bad. If copyright was enforced like our founding fathers intended, many of the movie studios would actually create more art instead of throwing shit together and trying to cash in.

Copyright has very little to do with the garbage that is coming out of hollywood. They do remakes because they think they have a built in audience. They feel that if it was a hit TV show then it will be a hit movie. They also think if it was once a hit movie, it will be a hit movie again. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong.

So if every book written or movie made had a copyright that expired in 14 years, how does this cause them to create better movies?

The reality is movies cost more today then every before. They demand a huge opening so they can cash in as fast as they can before the movies end up all over the internet. So if they are going to invest that kind of money they want something they can count on as a sure thing. There are a lot of very good movies made every year, just many of them don't make much money so the don't get a lot of recognition. The amount of shit coming out of hollywood has everything to do with bad choices by executives and very little to do with copyright length.

Quote:

It would make sense why the adult industry would argue against a lower number of copyright protection. In 14 years under the founding fathers vision, there would be no reason for the purchase of new porn because with the amount of porn out there now, you could watch porn every second for the remainder of your life and still not be able to watch everything ever produced.

Just because it would lack a copyright doesn't mean you could still get it free. You would have to have someone willing to distribute it for free and the will want some kind of return on their time and money investment into doing so. We are seeing this with tube sites now. There are so many movies out there that you can license a tube site could put up 15 full length DVDs every day of the year and still never run out.

Quote:

The same people arguing for perpetual license will be the same ones that will bitch when the recording industry manages to charge for every time you listen to a song or every time you watch a video.

The sadder fact is all the fucking hypocrisy on this forum about tube sites and piracy when many of the videos linked here are in fact copyright infringement in itself. Or after the latest UFC someone asks for a link to watch/download it. Or like the BBC documentary link that was posted here a couple months ago for the American folks to watch it because it only aired in the UK on BBC. It just seems funny that copyrights only matter to individuals when its an infringement that hurts them.

Fact is 99% of those on this board bitching about piracy have downloaded something illegally before be it a song or a movie. Fuck, some even jerk off on the tubes to pirated material and you are just as guilty of infringement for viewing something you do not have a granted license to consume.

I have noticed this too. It seems like sometimes people think one thing is bad and another is okay.

kane · 12-10-2009, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmltube

But most artists do not have that right as of now under current copyright. Think of all the bands that sign deals, many have to transfer all ownership of copyrights to the labels. Many directors have no fucking say where their films will be distributed or how much to charge for their hard work. They get whatever the deal they signed states or whatever the labels/studio see fit to part with.

And that has nothing to do with copyright. It is all about the contract they signed. If they choose to give up those rights, that is their decision.

If they don't like the deal they can go elsewhere. There is no law that says you have to be allowed to make any movie you want or that you have to be allowed to record the exact album you want. You sign a contract, you have to deal with the good and bad parts of it.

fmltube · 12-10-2009, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

And that has nothing to do with copyright. It is all about the contract they signed. If they choose to give up those rights, that is their decision.

If they don't like the deal they can go elsewhere. There is no law that says you have to be allowed to make any movie you want or that you have to be allowed to record the exact album you want. You sign a contract, you have to deal with the good and bad parts of it.

Respectfully it does have everything to do with copyright. While yes it has to do with the deal as well, think for a moment. You are a band and a label wants to sign you and trasfer copyright ownership. There is no law that states you must transfer it but if you want to get signed, you are forced by the label to give up that ownership or you do not get signed.

If copyright for 14 years were enforced, it would force people to actually put some actual thought and effort into their work that should in principle raise the overall value of their product. Do you ever wonder why patents have a significantly lesser life than copyrights? It would prevent corporations from repackaging the same shit every couple years like Disney does with their vault shit. Yes it's excellent and brilliant marketing but one that will enable Disney to continue making money long after many of us are dead and gone.

kane · 12-10-2009, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmltube

Respectfully it does have everything to do with copyright. While yes it has to do with the deal as well, think for a moment. You are a band and a label wants to sign you and trasfer copyright ownership. There is no law that states you must transfer it but if you want to get signed, you are forced by the label to give up that ownership or you do not get signed.

If copyright for 14 years were enforced, it would force people to actually put some actual thought and effort into their work that should in principle raise the overall value of their product. Do you ever wonder why patents have a significantly lesser life than copyrights? It would prevent corporations from repackaging the same shit every couple years like Disney does with their vault shit. Yes it's excellent and brilliant marketing but one that will enable Disney to continue making money long after many of us are dead and gone.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. If you are a band and the record label wants you to sign over the copyright for all your work in order to get signed, you have the option of not doing that. You can pay to record your record and distribute your record yourself. You can go to a different label or a smaller label that will let you retain these rights. Not every person who signs with a big record label signs over these right, but some choose to do that in exchange for more money.

But let's look at a 14 year copyright. So you get signed by a record label and record an album when you are 25 years old. And the album tanks and the band breaks up and you get a job and move on with your life. 18 years later you are married with kids and living a normal life with a normal job and your band is just something you look back on as a fun period in your life. Then a very big band comes along and hears your song somewhere. They want to cover it. They put it on their next record and it is a huge hit. It lands in the top 10 and they sell a million downloads of it and it helps the record go triple platinum. And you lost your copyright 4 years prior to that so all you can do is be happy that someone finally heard your song even if you never see one dime from your song's success. Fair?

fmltube · 12-10-2009, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. If you are a band and the record label wants you to sign over the copyright for all your work in order to get signed, you have the option of not doing that. You can pay to record your record and distribute your record yourself. You can go to a different label or a smaller label that will let you retain these rights. Not every person who signs with a big record label signs over these right, but some choose to do that in exchange for more money.

But let's look at a 14 year copyright. So you get signed by a record label and record an album when you are 25 years old. And the album tanks and the band breaks up and you get a job and move on with your life. 18 years later you are married with kids and living a normal life with a normal job and your band is just something you look back on as a fun period in your life. Then a very big band comes along and hears your song somewhere. They want to cover it. They put it on their next record and it is a huge hit. It lands in the top 10 and they sell a million downloads of it and it helps the record go triple platinum. And you lost your copyright 4 years prior to that so all you can do is be happy that someone finally heard your song even if you never see one dime from your song's success. Fair?

Actually yes it is fair just like a company that is granted a patent that did not make any money during that 14 year period. If an artist's product is any good, they will get sales much like porn even in a bad economy. Some niches are doing good sales wise. You do realize that by having a death +70 years only forces people to have to always pay for content. If the 14 year copyright were in effect, I could merely wait 14 years to see a movie for free just like those that prefer to wait for a movie to come out on network television.

Robbie · 12-10-2009, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

except kane was arguing for a prepetual extension of copyright where you would always have to find the copyright holder and get permission before doing any deriviative work, so in all the cases where you didn't know who the real author was you couldn't use shit.

That the point idiot

go back to copying waynes world and pretending that makes you creative.

Nope, this is what YOU said IDIOT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

without the public domain as defined by the founding fathers
disney would never have been able to make 5 of their 10 grossing movies of all time

http://www.disneymovieslist.com/movies/beauty-beast.asp

http://www.disneymovieslist.com/movies/aladdin.asp

http://www.disneymovieslist.com/movi...le-mermaid.asp

http://www.disneymovieslist.com/movies/snow-white.asp

http://www.disneymovieslist.com/movies/mary-poppins.asp

and billions more if you include the merchandising, and spin offs (tv show, secondary movies theme parks etc)

hell yeah, disney proved it when they took public domain works (see above) and spun them into multi-billion dollar empire

Disney is preventing anyone from doing the same thing with their creations.

which of course would have stopped disney from building their empire, creating their new versions of classic children stories, and employing millions of people.

You served yourself AGAIN. You come on here and try to spin and spin and spin. And I just laugh at it. And this time I took just a few minutes to prove you wrong again...and you are back to spinning that to try and avoid the fact that you were WRONG. Disney did NOT do what you said and YES they did make those movies with EXACTLY what the founding fathers of MY country had in mind. I know you are an expert sitting up there in Canada in your parent's basement...but damn gideon. I guess you are starting to lose your grip as you see that your "business plan" that centered around stolen content isn't gonna work after all.

cashcows · 12-10-2009, 09:32 PM

To All of those of you that think this is unfair. It's becuase you have not created anything value yourself.

You opinion will change when you are the artist. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR STEALING AND REDISTRIBUTING SOMEONES WORK PERIOD! And if you are doing it you are stealing from them period.

I am an author and watched one of my products go from very successful to almost nonexistent in sales partially due to piracy and file sharing.

If you are sharing it yo are preventing sales period. For example someone come to my web site wants to buy my product them googles it and some low life has put it up on some file site and that then pops in the google search. They then download it instead of buy it. This can put you out of business really fast since you are paying for traffic.

The porn industry is about to implode becuase of the same thing and lack of DRM on the films making them to easy to re-distribute them.

None of your arguments stand up no matter what they are. This guy stole and the re-distributed. If he had been smart he would have just kept the damn file for him self, or smarter how about just buy the 30 songs and save himself $625,000. No body is perfect we have all downloaded stuff at one time or another but when you start to share it back out you are competing for business at with a price of FREE and they in unfair to the people selling creating the content.

Oh and all of you people that get mad at the artists like METALLICA grow up and get a life you losers. They deserve every penny from every song, you not fans your losers go make you own music if you don't want to pay the artist.

BTW this kid is lucky he's not going to Jail!

BTW I think copyright should last as long as you have any living HEIRS period. I see no reason to have it end at all. If one persons work could support generations I have no problem with it. That would only inspire more people to create and make less poor people.

With certain new allowances for fair use. Ending copyright does not allow more creation it hampers it. Because most people want public domain to recompile and make a quick buck with little effort not to make legitimate derivative works.

kane · 12-10-2009, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmltube

Actually yes it is fair just like a company that is granted a patent that did not make any money during that 14 year period. If an artist's product is any good, they will get sales much like porn even in a bad economy. Some niches are doing good sales wise. You do realize that by having a death +70 years only forces people to have to always pay for content. If the 14 year copyright were in effect, I could merely wait 14 years to see a movie for free just like those that prefer to wait for a movie to come out on network television.

To me there is a difference between art and a product. I see a song or a movie or a book as a different thing than say, a computer or a TV or a garage door opener.

The one thing you are way off on is that if a artist's product is any good they will do well with it. You yourself spoke about how many terrible movies are being put out each year. These movies don't keep getting made if they aren't making money so clearly something doesn't have to be good to be successful, it can just be marketed well. There are a lot of very good movies made every year that never do well because the market is crowded and they don't get a good shot at finding an audience. There are many bands that don't make much money from their music but are very good. They don't have the sound of the moment or the right look so they don't get the big money put behind them. They are good, but they don't hit it big and it has nothing to do with their talent level. There are musicians right now who are scuffling in clubs writing great songs and they are playing in front of 30 people a night while Britney Spears is lip syncing in front of 25,000. Talent and a good song or movie really has a lot less to do with how successful you are than many other factors.

To me 14 years is just too short. If writing songs is your career shouldn't your copyright at least last as long as your career? IF you scuffled as a musician for 10 years then decided it wasn't working out and got a regular job then 10 years later someone records your song and hits big with it, is it such a terrible thing for you finally get some kind of pay off for the hard work you put in during that 10 years?

Also how would having the 14 year copyright stop the influx of garbage? You site Disney as always re-releasing the same stuff. You think that will change? It will just get worse. Now we have the Little Mermaid in 10 different versions, but if they lost the copyright we would still have those versions then other companies would come along and put out the Little Mermaid Christmas and another company would do Little Mermaid Hanukkah then a third company does Little Mermaid Thanksgiving and so on. Everyone with any idea could flood the market with Little Mermaid stuff. If you thought finding good movies was hard now, just wait until the market has everything that was released this year in it and everything that is now out of copyright repacked and sold again.

potter · 12-10-2009, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Should I be able to record my favorite TV show then cut out their commercials and put my own commercials into the show then load it up on my website and let people watch it? I will only do it in the US and only with broadcast TV shows which means anyone with a TV and an antenna would have been able to get access to it. I'm just time shifting it for them. They missed it when it was on, now they can just come to my site and watch it here. I'm just using an alternative revenue stream to finance my site.

Gideon, I just don't know why you argue with these people. Kane here makes a brilliant point and it all is based on making a profit off the licensed material.

I just literally don't know how you can do it. You're arguing with people who's "points" directly contradict what they are saying. It's...Uhg, I just can't even begin to understand why you bother with it. Kane's post should be a prime example of someone arguing with you on a point they don't understand as his posts directly conflict the legal definition of fair use. How can you possibly debate something with people who literally can't even comprehend what they are debating.

You are arguing with a brick wall. Plain and simple.

CrkMStanz · 12-10-2009, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by potter

Gideon, I just don't know why you argue with these people. Kane here makes a brilliant point and it all is based on making a profit off the licensed material.

I just literally don't know how you can do it. You're arguing with people who's "points" directly contradict what they are saying. It's...Uhg, I just can't even begin to understand why you bother with it. Kane's post should be a prime example of someone arguing with you on a point they don't understand as his posts directly conflict the legal definition of fair use. How can you possibly debate something with people who literally can't even comprehend what they are debating.

You are arguing with a brick wall. Plain and simple.

Wow!! you could not have missed the point of what Kane said by a larger margin

lemme try and 'splain to you

-(torrents/tubes/fileshares/forums) make cash from their own advertising being displayed around (some or a lot) stolen products
- giddyboy sez "but its INDIRECT profitz - so itz aok"
-Kane says "how about if I did (the above), would that be ok then too?" (ie posed a hypothetical parallel to see what giddyboy would think of it)
-you come in

(if you were being sarcastic I take back the 'splainin)

kane · 12-10-2009, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by potter

Gideon, I just don't know why you argue with these people. Kane here makes a brilliant point and it all is based on making a profit off the licensed material.

I just literally don't know how you can do it. You're arguing with people who's "points" directly contradict what they are saying. It's...Uhg, I just can't even begin to understand why you bother with it. Kane's post should be a prime example of someone arguing with you on a point they don't understand as his posts directly conflict the legal definition of fair use. How can you possibly debate something with people who literally can't even comprehend what they are debating.

You are arguing with a brick wall. Plain and simple.

I was using this as an example of a torrent site which posts all kinds of copyrighted materials.

A torrent site has links to TV shows that have had the commercials edited out of them (not by the studio, but the person that recorded them) then the torrent site puts advertising on their site to make money from the people who come to that site to download the shows.

How is that different than if I just splice in my own commercials? I won't put any ads on my site, you can just come and download the shows for free, but Gideon thinks people should be allowed to help people get fair use access to content and they should be allowed to develop alternative revenue streams while doing it.

I'm not charging, I'm just giving people what they have the right to have, only I have developed an alternative revenue stream. Just like a torrent site does with its banner ads.

gideongallery · 12-10-2009, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

you spout this line a lot - I would like you to point out (or link) some legal or judicial evidence - because really - I have the right to make 'em pay a whole bunch of times if I feel like it - subscription based games do it daily.

but your paying for the live interaction, the continued opperation so that a completely bullshit analogy and you know it.
IT not static content, it the live interact you are paying for, and oh yea if you cancel your subscription to WOW you can still play it offline so even on that point your arguement is BULLSHIT.

Quote:

and you follow it up with that line... but if I choose to double or triple or quadruple bill for my product - that is fully my right - if the customer doesn't like it - they can buy somewhere else? and if my TOS says I 'rent' the viewing for a 30 day period - if you don't like it - buy somewhere else - is that not exactly how the free market system we enjoy is supposed to work?

you can't TOS away fair use, you agreed to them to get exclusive rights as a copyright holder, if you don't honor them you are in breach of your agreement with the government don't have those exclusive rights anymore.

Quote:

inevitably followed by that line...

all the law I've read applies to PRIVATE backup and timeshifting - I don't argue that it is provided for - we all don't like the fact that it is publically accessable - there is no need for that under the provisions of the present laws - there are perfectly acceptable alternatives that are private for you to use.

so show us all where any law gives you or anyone else the 'right' to lifetime 'viewing rights' or 'listening rights' or 'reading rights' once you have paid once.

hmmm?...

well i have pointed out those laws to you specifically multiple times, the supreme court just recognized timeshifting in a cloud (and yes a portion of that cloud was the public internet)
so the only reason your not aware of those case is becuase you chose to ignore those cases.

gideongallery · 12-10-2009, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I was using this as an example of a torrent site which posts all kinds of copyrighted materials.

A torrent site has links to TV shows that have had the commercials edited out of them (not by the studio, but the person that recorded them) then the torrent site puts advertising on their site to make money from the people who come to that site to download the shows.

How is that different than if I just splice in my own commercials? I won't put any ads on my site, you can just come and download the shows for free, but Gideon thinks people should be allowed to help people get fair use access to content and they should be allowed to develop alternative revenue streams while doing it.

I'm not charging, I'm just giving people what they have the right to have, only I have developed an alternative revenue stream. Just like a torrent site does with its banner ads.

look up public broadcast vs public transmission to make a private copy for viewing

i already address that issue in a previous thread i will not rehash it here

secondly
assuming you didn't mean violating the public broadcast restriction and simply distribute comercial laid video via the exact same method it would not work because of the free market
if you have a choice of downloading a file which wastes your hard drive space with useless comercials or a clean copy which would you download
since popularity is a virtue, it would make that download slower , and more difficult to finish.

i

gideongallery · 12-10-2009, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You served yourself AGAIN. You come on here and try to spin and spin and spin. And I just laugh at it. And this time I took just a few minutes to prove you wrong again...and you are back to spinning that to try and avoid the fact that you were WRONG. Disney did NOT do what you said and YES they did make those movies with EXACTLY what the founding fathers of MY country had in mind. I know you are an expert sitting up there in Canada in your parent's basement...but damn gideon. I guess you are starting to lose your grip as you see that your "business plan" that centered around stolen content isn't gonna work after all.

disney did not take the origial cupidena myth and create there own original story

they took the derived work of the story of hans christian anderson (along with snow white, sleeping beauty and dozens of other stories) to make their stories.

The fact that stories can be traced back to the ancient greeks doesn't change the fact they used the Derived version HCA

IT also doesn't change the fact that the currently it impossible to do that same thing with disney property of micky mouse, even fan fiction feature that characters is considered illegal
and each time a copyright is just about to expire , they just change the law and tack on another 20 years, creating a situation where we will never be able to do what disney built their empire on (taking public domain content and deriving an new interpretion) with their properties.

the really funny part is your own statement contridict yourself since your basically arguing that disney has a right to keep copyright (in revolving perpetuity) on their beauty and the beast, because the original beauty and the beast was derivied from greek metholody story of cupid.

had the law exist in it current form when HCA wrote his version disney would not have had the right to build then empire they did.

gideongallery · 12-10-2009, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. If you are a band and the record label wants you to sign over the copyright for all your work in order to get signed, you have the option of not doing that. You can pay to record your record and distribute your record yourself. You can go to a different label or a smaller label that will let you retain these rights. Not every person who signs with a big record label signs over these right, but some choose to do that in exchange for more money.

But let's look at a 14 year copyright. So you get signed by a record label and record an album when you are 25 years old. And the album tanks and the band breaks up and you get a job and move on with your life. 18 years later you are married with kids and living a normal life with a normal job and your band is just something you look back on as a fun period in your life. Then a very big band comes along and hears your song somewhere. They want to cover it. They put it on their next record and it is a huge hit. It lands in the top 10 and they sell a million downloads of it and it helps the record go triple platinum. And you lost your copyright 4 years prior to that so all you can do is be happy that someone finally heard your song even if you never see one dime from your song's success. Fair?

in a word yes
because that what you agreed to get the sherman anti trust violating monopoly on that distribution of that work for 14 years.

kane · 12-10-2009, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

in a word yes
because that what you agreed to get the sherman anti trust violating monopoly on that distribution of that work for 14 years.

So the money aspect aside think of it this way.

Neil Young has been around for a long time and has written some amazing songs. His entire career he has refused to allow his songs to be used in commercials or as a musical endorsement of a product. He recorded an iconic song called Cortez the Killer in 1975. So if you want to limit copyright to 14 years then that song should now be in the public domain. So if things were this way, Young, while still alive and actively recording, could turn on the TV one day and see Cortez The Killer being used in a shoe commercial. And this should be allowed?

kane · 12-10-2009, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

look up public broadcast vs public transmission to make a private copy for viewing

i already address that issue in a previous thread i will not rehash it here

secondly
assuming you didn't mean violating the public broadcast restriction and simply distribute comercial laid video via the exact same method it would not work because of the free market
if you have a choice of downloading a file which wastes your hard drive space with useless comercials or a clean copy which would you download
since popularity is a virtue, it would make that download slower , and more difficult to finish.

i

never mind if the free market wouldn't embrace it. Should I be allowed to do it? All I want to do is record a show off my TV, cut out their commercials and put in some of my own, then load it up on a torrent site for people to download. Maybe people will find out it has commercials and not download it, maybe they still will, that isn't the question. Should I be allowed to do this? that is the question.

Robbie · 12-10-2009, 11:43 PM

gideon...it's all happening just like we told you it would.

You can keep timeshifting your bullshit in a cloud all day long and it won't matter. The Courts only interpret CURRENT law. Guess what? Your piracy buddies are causing the laws to be changed.

You've had a good old time coming on GFY and laughing at adult webmasters and content producers for a couple of years now while you babbled on about revenue streams that don't exist and that YOU can't make happen. Just your crazed theories.

And now everyone but you sees the end of your fantasyland but you. Hope you had a good time trolling everyone and laughing at hard working folks. Cause at the end of all this bullshit, we will still be working and creating, while you will just be looking for the next free handout.

gideongallery · 12-10-2009, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

never mind if the free market wouldn't embrace it. Should I be allowed to do it? All I want to do is record a show off my TV, cut out their commercials and put in some of my own, then load it up on a torrent site for people to download. Maybe people will find out it has commercials and not download it, maybe they still will, that isn't the question. Should I be allowed to do this? that is the question.

ok so let just make sure we are clear about your fabricated situation

even if thoses commercials were left in place, the content producer would not have been paid
putting your own commercials would not get you any money either (see above)
such a file would be rejected by the free market, and therefore die a miserable death

so basically should you have a right to waste your time in a pointless excersise that will gain you no income and cost the copyright holder no income

sure why not
you want to be stupid go ahead.

now if the copyright holders were getting paid for that distribution, then it would be a different story.

kane · 12-11-2009, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

ok so let just make sure we are clear about your fabricated situation

even if thoses commercials were left in place, the content producer would not have been paid
putting your own commercials would not get you any money either (see above)
such a file would be rejected by the free market, and therefore die a miserable death

so basically should you have a right to waste your time in a pointless excersise that will gain you no income and cost the copyright holder no income

sure why not
you want to be stupid go ahead.

now if the copyright holders were getting paid for that distribution, then it would be a different story.

But I would get paid. What if I could guarantee the people that buy those commercials a certain number of downloads? I might not make a lot of money, but I could make some. So I presell the commercial space and I focus on shows that have a smaller following so I won't be competing against a ton of seeders.

On a torrent site the content producer doesn't get paid, but that doesn't stop the site from making money by linking to their content.

So like is good. Fair use means that if it is floating around in the airwaves I can pretty much do as I please with it and make some money and be untouchable.

Kick ass!

gideongallery · 12-11-2009, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

But I would get paid. What if I could guarantee the people that buy those commercials a certain number of downloads? I might not make a lot of money, but I could make some. So I presell the commercial space and I focus on shows that have a smaller following so I won't be competing against a ton of seeders.

On a torrent site the content producer doesn't get paid, but that doesn't stop the site from making money by linking to their content.

So like is good. Fair use means that if it is floating around in the airwaves I can pretty much do as I please with it and make some money and be untouchable.

Kick ass!

interesting how you deliberately ignore key parts of the statment to always come to your bogus arguements

now if the copyright holders were getting paid for that distribution, then it would be a different story.

in your magical world where, no one puts up a commercial free version, where somehow it so small that this would never happen but you could still get enough downloads to make money from putting your own commercials, the actual copyright holder would have first dibs on that income.

They could usurp that revenue stream by putting up their own commercial included version and legitimately demand that your commercial include one be taken down.

becuase your actions would establish the income stream that the law requires them to have first crack at

now if they give up that first crack then it a free for all because that is income they choose not to take and as a result represents no lost sale (because of that choice)

kane · 12-11-2009, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

interesting how you deliberately ignore key parts of the statment to always come to your bogus arguements

now if the copyright holders were getting paid for that distribution, then it would be a different story.

in your magical world where, no one puts up a commercial free version, where somehow it so small that this would never happen but you could still get enough downloads to make money from putting your own commercials, the actual copyright holder would have first dibs on that income.

They could usurp that revenue stream by putting up their own commercial included version and legitimately demand that your commercial include one be taken down.

becuase your actions would establish the income stream that the law requires them to have first crack at

now if they give up that first crack then it a free for all because that is income they choose not to take and as a result represents no lost sale (because of that choice)

So why don't they do this to torrent sites that are listing their commercial free programs and selling advertising to the site? By your logic then the network should be due a portion of the income that site is making.

Oh that's right. Because the torrent sites aren't directly profiting from listing these shows. I forgot.

gideongallery · 12-11-2009, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

So why don't they do this to torrent sites that are listing their commercial free programs and selling advertising to the site? By your logic then the network should be due a portion of the income that site is making.

Oh that's right. Because the torrent sites aren't directly profiting from listing these shows. I forgot.

you finally got there is a difference between directly profiting from infringement and indirectly profiting from infringement

selling advertising that is within the video itself couples the revenue DIRECTLY to the content since they will only see those ads if they download the video

providing a swarm based backup solution and selling advertisers space around the pages that provide (which people will see weather they download or don't download the video) is indirectly profiting from copyright infringement.

there is a huge difference between the two, sony admitted in their manual that their device could be to infringe on copyright, and even that did not justify stopping the sale of the vcr.

kane · 12-11-2009, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you finally got there is a difference between directly profiting from infringement and indirectly profiting from infringement

selling advertising that is within the video itself couples the revenue DIRECTLY to the content since they will only see those ads if they download the video

providing a swarm based backup solution and selling advertisers space around the pages that provide (which people will see weather they download or don't download the video) is indirectly profiting from copyright infringement.

there is a huge difference between the two, sony admitted in their manual that their device could be to infringe on copyright, and even that did not justify stopping the sale of the vcr.

Actually, I was being sarcastic. There is no real difference between them and we both know it.

Joshua G · 12-11-2009, 06:53 AM

Pointless thread. Copyright is dead.

except for the rich, who can afford lawyers & supeenas & settlements, for them copyright is only 95% dead.

when someone breaks a law, like robbing a store, the law is there in minutes. People go directly to jail.

Someone posts a video, swipes a design, image etc. there is no "copyright enforcement." nobody goes to jail in minutes. there is a 99.999999% chance nothing will happen to you. The web is an ocean of data that crosses borders & copyright law has varying relevance. & that relevance is only useful to the wealthy, who can afford to use the law.

But even when the rich defend their copyright, it provides zero chilling effect to the world of file sharers & content thieves. The web is a fucking free for all.

Be happy if you can still make any living wage selling content online.

gideongallery · 12-11-2009, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Actually, I was being sarcastic. There is no real difference between them and we both know it.

that makes you a world class moron because their is a huge difference

if there was no real difference then devices like vcr which admitted that they could be used to infringe on copyright in their manuals would be illegal because the profits they generated from the indirect infringement would give them the same liablity as if they were directly profiting from infringement.

the fact that they are not proves absolutely there is huge difference.

CrkMStanz · 12-11-2009, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

but your paying for the live interaction, the continued opperation so that a completely bullshit analogy and you know it.
IT not static content, it the live interact you are paying for, and oh yea if you cancel your subscription to WOW you can still play it offline so even on that point your arguement is BULLSHIT.

WoW (pun intented) - you should have checked the game you reference out, before you attempt to guess how it works.

Adult web site has interactive content, forums, chat (group or 1 on 1), live feeds, can all be considered for 'live interaction'
WoW - MMO - yup on the live interaction.

Adult web site - contiues operation thru revenue
WoW - continues operations thru revenue

Adult web site - not static content (well, some are - but the free market will treat them accordingly)
WoW - not static content

Adult web site - has a product being offered for sale on a monthly pay basis
WoW - has a product being offered for sale on a monthly pay basis

Adult web site - when you stop paying you no longer have access to the site
WoW - when you stop paying you no longer have access to the game (I do not know where you got the idea that you could play it off-line, Even the 'private' servers require that you play online, and Blizzard/Activision shuts them down as soon as they are discovered. There is no solo-play option)

so seems they are the same and my observations are not quite the bullshit you claim it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you can't TOS away fair use, you agreed to them to get exclusive rights as a copyright holder, if you don't honor them you are in breach of your agreement with the government don't have those exclusive rights anymore.

I cant TOS away your fair use to do a PRIVATE backup, nor your right to do a parody, nor your use in educational or research pursuits, nor anything that is provided for in the law - I can however, TOS anything else I want. (note the word private)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

well i have pointed out those laws to you specifically multiple times, the supreme court just recognized timeshifting in a cloud (and yes a portion of that cloud was the public internet)
so the only reason your not aware of those case is becuase you chose to ignore those cases.

recognizing the extenuating circumstances of one case does not legitimize what is actually going on.

and you still don't answer the question - where, in ANY law, constitution, amendment, ruling...etc... that says I do not have the right to bill a customer a second (third, fourth...) time for my product. Just because you don't like it does not mean that I have 'no right to...'

A-CTA is coming

and you are going to suck on it hard!

gideongallery · 12-11-2009, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

Adult web site - when you stop paying you no longer have access to the site
WoW - when you stop paying you no longer have access to the game (I do not know where you got the idea that you could play it off-line, Even the 'private' servers require that you play online, and Blizzard/Activision shuts them down as soon as they are discovered. There is no solo-play option)

so seems they are the same and my observations are not quite the bullshit you claim it is.

ok i misspoke i was talking about offline as in not on their pay subscription servers

i have played wow on private servers for years.

Blizzard keeps people comming back you updating and giving new value thru regular expansions.
It nto just selling the same old shit repeated.
as for comparing it to watching porn videos once i download them i am free to watch them as many times as i want without paying monthly fees for that.

Secondly if live interaction of your forums was adequate to satisfy the member then you don't need protection from copyright, that live interaction is not protected by copyright, it doesn't need to be because it can't be copied.

the only reason you are bitching about requiring the laws to change is because you know your live interaction is a joke compared to blizards
they update more frequently and the network effect of all the people you can play with compounds the value of the site.

Quote:

I cant TOS away your fair use to do a PRIVATE backup, nor your right to do a parody, nor your use in educational or research pursuits, nor anything that is provided for in the law - I can however, TOS anything else I want. (note the word private)

bullshit you don't get to decide which fair uses you have to respect, you agree to respect them all period. pretending that the law says only private backups are covered doesn't make it true.

Quote:

recognizing the extenuating circumstances of one case does not legitimize what is actually going on.

and you still don't answer the question - where, in ANY law, constitution, amendment, ruling...etc... that says I do not have the right to bill a customer a second (third, fourth...) time for my product. Just because you don't like it does not mean that I have 'no right to...'

A-CTA is coming

and you are going to suck on it hard!

you don't have a right to bill your customer a second or third time, you have the ability to do so, they likewise have the ability and the right to use any fair use backup to avoid that double and triple billing.

Rights have to be explictly codified , so the fact that now explictly said you don't have the right doesn't make your ability to do so a right.

you have "no right to " stop me from using any backup /recovery tool i want (including the torrents ) to recover the content i bought from you.

you have no right to force me to use inferior backup, (private backup only)
you have no right to force me to buy backup rights from you

all of those were explictly spelled out when the copyright act explictly said that the exclusive right apply NOT WITHSTANDING fair use.

12-10-2009, 09:32 PM	#64
cashcows Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Las Vegas/L.A. Posts: 327	To All of those of you that think this is unfair. It's becuase you have not created anything value yourself. You opinion will change when you are the artist. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR STEALING AND REDISTRIBUTING SOMEONES WORK PERIOD! And if you are doing it you are stealing from them period. I am an author and watched one of my products go from very successful to almost nonexistent in sales partially due to piracy and file sharing. If you are sharing it yo are preventing sales period. For example someone come to my web site wants to buy my product them googles it and some low life has put it up on some file site and that then pops in the google search. They then download it instead of buy it. This can put you out of business really fast since you are paying for traffic. The porn industry is about to implode becuase of the same thing and lack of DRM on the films making them to easy to re-distribute them. None of your arguments stand up no matter what they are. This guy stole and the re-distributed. If he had been smart he would have just kept the damn file for him self, or smarter how about just buy the 30 songs and save himself $625,000. No body is perfect we have all downloaded stuff at one time or another but when you start to share it back out you are competing for business at with a price of FREE and they in unfair to the people selling creating the content. Oh and all of you people that get mad at the artists like METALLICA grow up and get a life you losers. They deserve every penny from every song, you not fans your losers go make you own music if you don't want to pay the artist. BTW this kid is lucky he's not going to Jail! BTW I think copyright should last as long as you have any living HEIRS period. I see no reason to have it end at all. If one persons work could support generations I have no problem with it. That would only inspire more people to create and make less poor people. With certain new allowances for fair use. Ending copyright does not allow more creation it hampers it. Because most people want public domain to recompile and make a quick buck with little effort not to make legitimate derivative works. __________________ PM me for custom Photoshoots or Erotic Art for your site. Click here to see Some of my work! Last edited by cashcows; 12-10-2009 at 09:36 PM..

12-10-2009, 11:43 PM	#75
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	gideon...it's all happening just like we told you it would. You can keep timeshifting your bullshit in a cloud all day long and it won't matter. The Courts only interpret CURRENT law. Guess what? Your piracy buddies are causing the laws to be changed. You've had a good old time coming on GFY and laughing at adult webmasters and content producers for a couple of years now while you babbled on about revenue streams that don't exist and that YOU can't make happen. Just your crazed theories. And now everyone but you sees the end of your fantasyland but you. Hope you had a good time trolling everyone and laughing at hard working folks. Cause at the end of all this bullshit, we will still be working and creating, while you will just be looking for the next free handout. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

12-10-2009, 08:22 PM	#56
fmltube So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 886	I have to side with Gideon on this one. Copyright was never designed to provide an artist/studio with a perpetual license. The only reason copyright laws are as bad as they are now is because the studios/labels lobbied Congress to ensure they can still make money long after the original artist has passed on. Should an artist be able to pass along its royalties after their death? No because my copyright holders are the studios and labels to begin with. Think for a moment. If an artist was not able to make enough money off of their work created 50 years ago, what is the sense of still granting a copyright? Look at modern day films and the god awful number of remakes and this is the reason copyright is bad. If copyright was enforced like our founding fathers intended, many of the movie studios would actually create more art instead of throwing shit together and trying to cash in. It would make sense why the adult industry would argue against a lower number of copyright protection. In 14 years under the founding fathers vision, there would be no reason for the purchase of new porn because with the amount of porn out there now, you could watch porn every second for the remainder of your life and still not be able to watch everything ever produced. The same people arguing for perpetual license will be the same ones that will bitch when the recording industry manages to charge for every time you listen to a song or every time you watch a video. The sadder fact is all the fucking hypocrisy on this forum about tube sites and piracy when many of the videos linked here are in fact copyright infringement in itself. Or after the latest UFC someone asks for a link to watch/download it. Or like the BBC documentary link that was posted here a couple months ago for the American folks to watch it because it only aired in the UK on BBC. It just seems funny that copyrights only matter to individuals when its an infringement that hurts them. Fact is 99% of those on this board bitching about piracy have downloaded something illegally before be it a song or a movie. Fuck, some even jerk off on the tubes to pirated material and you are just as guilty of infringement for viewing something you do not have a granted license to consume.

12-11-2009, 06:53 AM	#82
Joshua G dumb libs love censorship Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,198	Pointless thread. Copyright is dead. except for the rich, who can afford lawyers & supeenas & settlements, for them copyright is only 95% dead. when someone breaks a law, like robbing a store, the law is there in minutes. People go directly to jail. Someone posts a video, swipes a design, image etc. there is no "copyright enforcement." nobody goes to jail in minutes. there is a 99.999999% chance nothing will happen to you. The web is an ocean of data that crosses borders & copyright law has varying relevance. & that relevance is only useful to the wealthy, who can afford to use the law. But even when the rich defend their copyright, it provides zero chilling effect to the world of file sharers & content thieves. The web is a fucking free for all. Be happy if you can still make any living wage selling content online.