RIAA lawsuits bite them in the ass as artist sue record companies same infringements

[gideongallery]

http://www.thestar.com/business/arti...r-infringement

time for a nelson pic

[Agent 488]

everyone reads torrent freak. who gives a fuck man. get a blog.

[gideongallery]

i find it funny that the record companies while arguing that torrent sites should seek out the copyright owner and get authorization before posting a single torrent

have an internal policy of just creating an ever growing list of infringment to handle later

[dav3]

awesome to see the artists fight back against these greedy bastards.

[CrkMStanz]

Excellent news...

hope they pay

not only because its the right thing to do

but...

"The class action seeks the option of statutory damages for each infringement. At $20,000 per infringement, potential liability exceeds $60 billion.

These numbers may sound outrageous, yet they are based on the same rules that led the recording industry to claim a single file sharer is liable for millions in damages."

it will legitimize this proactive assult and penalty vs. the pirates.

and the industry will pay just to get the legal precedent.

60 billion is chump change compared to what they will reap after the 'investment in legal precedence'

thanx giddyboy

[tiger]

That is some funny shit.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

Excellent news...

hope they pay

not only because its the right thing to do

but...



it will legitimize this proactive assult and penalty vs. the pirates.

and the industry will pay just to get the legal precedent.

60 billion is chump change compared to what they will reap after the 'investment in legal precedence'

thanx giddyboy

giving up doesn't create a legal precedent, that overrights peoples rights who choose to fight for them.

remember unlike everyone who is sharing content without profit directly from it (every file sharer) the record companies were SELLING the artists songs without permission.
that difference alone will prevent it from being a precedent in their favor.


It interesting because if they don't completely roll over, any arguement that it is to difficult to find the copyright holder to pay them IS going to be a legal precedent that every torrent site can use to justify their current model.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

giving up doesn't create a legal precedent, that overrights peoples rights who choose to fight for them.

remember unlike everyone who is sharing content without profit directly from it (every file sharer) the record companies were SELLING the artists songs without permission.
that difference alone will prevent it from being a precedent in their favor.


It interesting because if they don't completely roll over, any arguement that it is to difficult to find the copyright holder to pay them IS going to be a legal precedent that every torrent site can use to justify their current model.

Or maybe not. The record labels are selling the artist's music and not paying them for it. The torrent sites are providing it for free and selling advertising on the website. So a torrent site can't argue that they can't find the copyright holder and pay them a royalty because they have never paid out a royalty and don't sell individual songs or albums.

They are both ripping the artists off, they are just going it in a different way.

For a torrent site to argue that they were trying to contact the copyright holders and pay them but couldn't do so would mean that they would have to show that they were taking a portion of their profits and giving it to copyright holders to begin with and that isn't happening.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

Or maybe not. The record labels are selling the artist's music and not paying them for it. The torrent sites are providing it for free and selling advertising on the website. So a torrent site can't argue that they can't find the copyright holder and pay them a royalty because they have never paid out a royalty and don't sell individual songs or albums.

you completely missed the point
the record companies are saying it not a burden to establish copyright and pay liciencing fees BEFORE post a single file

while at the same time NOT doing that themselves.

IF they argue against paying out the full damages (which is easily 100k times 60 billion because MG counted 1 infringement per record of pending, not 1 infringement per sale) they PROVE ABSOLUTELY that request is an unfair burden.

They are both ripping the artists off, they are just going it in a different way.

except the torrent sites can argue that their service is fair use, while the record companies by selling the content DIRECTLY can't

For a torrent site to argue that they were trying to contact the copyright holders and pay them but couldn't do so would mean that they would have to show that they were taking a portion of their profits and giving it to copyright holders to begin with and that isn't happening.

never said they would argue they "Trying" to contact the copyright holders, just that the burden to require them too is unfair.

See above point.

the only way that the CRIA/RIAA are going to avoid proving that point is to roll over and pay out what would translate into trillion dollars in judgement. If they fight at all, they prove the point that the torrent sites have been repeatedly saying. That the safe harbor takedown process is good enough already.

Anything more would be abusive.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you completely missed the point
the record companies are saying it not a burden to establish copyright and pay liciencing fees BEFORE post a single file

while at the same time NOT doing that themselves.

IF they argue against paying out the full damages (which is easily 100k times 60 billion because MG counted 1 infringement per record of pending, not 1 infringement per sale) they PROVE ABSOLUTELY that request is an unfair burden.

I am willing to bet that there are people who had these promotional discs made and sold who did get paid. For example if they used a big name, popular artists they probably paid them because that person is hot and has a legal team on retainer. If they use an older artists or someone who is not nearly as big they probably screw them over and they don't pay them because they think they can get away with it. They will argue that it was a burden finding some of these artists and if they show that some were paid while others were not they may be able say that they tried, but couldn't find them with reasonable effort.

except the torrent sites can argue that their service is fair use, while the record companies by selling the content DIRECTLY can't

I'm not going to get into this for the umpteenth time, but you and I both know that most of the people downloading music from torrent sites just want something for free. That isn't fair use, that is copyright violation.

never said they would argue they "Trying" to contact the copyright holders, just that the burden to require them too is unfair.

See above point.

the only way that the CRIA/RIAA are going to avoid proving that point is to roll over and pay out what would translate into trillion dollars in judgement. If they fight at all, they prove the point that the torrent sites have been repeatedly saying. That the safe harbor takedown process is good enough already.

Anything more would be abusive.

This goes back to my first point. If the record label can prove that they did pay some people and that they at least made a token effort to contact some other people they might be able to say it was an honest mistake (of course it is bullshit, but they might get away with it). If that is the case the the torrent site can't use that defense because they have never even made a token effort to contact artists and give them royalties.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

I am willing to bet that there are people who had these promotional discs made and sold who did get paid. For example if they used a big name, popular artists they probably paid them because that person is hot and has a legal team on retainer. If they use an older artists or someone who is not nearly as big they probably screw them over and they don't pay them because they think they can get away with it. They will argue that it was a burden finding some of these artists and if they show that some were paid while others were not they may be able say that they tried, but couldn't find them with reasonable effort.

1. the record companies know they don't have the right to the songs
2. they put it on a list
3. and decide to settle up with the artist later if they can find them
4. when artist (or their heir) complain about it they don't pull the work, they keep selling it

i would say that an order of magnitude worse then the we will take it down if you file a valid DMCA complaint way

which means if they can get away with it by making a token attempt to find the artist they will open a giant loophole for every torrent site to walk thru.

I'm not going to get into this for the umpteenth time, but you and I both know that most of the people downloading music from torrent sites just want something for free. That isn't fair use, that is copyright violation.

this is canada, where we pay a piracy tax on recorded media to pay artist for piracy
where the supreme court has ruled that three conditions of a contract has been met for legitimizing "piracy" (offer acceptance, consideration)

so your statement is total fucking bullshit.

This goes back to my first point. If the record label can prove that they did pay some people and that they at least made a token effort to contact some other people they might be able to say it was an honest mistake (of course it is bullshit, but they might get away with it). If that is the case the the torrent site can't use that defense because they have never even made a token effort to contact artists and give them royalties.

see above about how much more of an abuse the record companies actions are

if they get away with it with a bullshit arguement that it was an honest mistake, how long do you think it will be before a torrent site start making the same "Token effort" to get out of the liablity.

remember that this record company can't hide behind the arguement that they are providing fair use services (backup recovery, timeshifting, access shifting) because they
were actually selling the content directly on cd (commercially bought and therefore exempt from the piracy tax).


this is a bad case for the RIAA/CRIA they are damed if they win / and damed if they lose.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

1. the record companies know they don't have the right to the songs
2. they put it on a list
3. and decide to settle up with the artist later if they can find them
4. when artist (or their heir) complain about it they don't pull the work, they keep selling it

i would say that an order of magnitude worse then the we will take it down if you file a valid DMCA complaint way

which means if they can get away with it by making a token attempt to find the artist they will open a giant loophole for every torrent site to walk thru.



this is canada, where we pay a piracy tax on recorded media to pay artist for piracy
where the supreme court has ruled that three conditions of a contract has been met for legitimizing "piracy" (offer acceptance, consideration)

so your statement is total fucking bullshit.





see above about how much more of an abuse the record companies actions are

if they get away with it with a bullshit arguement that it was an honest mistake, how long do you think it will be before a torrent site start making the same "Token effort" to get out of the liablity.

remember that this record company can't hide behind the arguement that they are providing fair use services (backup recovery, timeshifting, access shifting) because they
were actually selling the content directly on cd (commercially bought and therefore exempt from the piracy tax).


this is a bad case for the RIAA/CRIA they are damed if they win / and damed if they lose.

I see this case ending one of two ways and neither are good for torrent sites or their users.

1. The record companies settle with the artists. They agree to pay those on the list whatever they are owed plus legal fees and maybe a little bit more.

If that is how it ends then these same copyright holders can go after torrent sites and say that they are using their copyrighted materials to make a profit and are not paying them for it. The torrent site will try to hide behind a safe harbor/fair use defense and we will finally get some kind of ruling about this.

2. The record labels lose and have to pay up. I don't think the final amount would be 60 billion, because something like that would be held up in court for years and years and years.

But let's just say that it ends up being that amount. Now we have basically a second legal president for the $20,000 per track argument. There were individuals who have been hit for that amount and now the record companies themselves have been hit for that amount. So the labels can now go after more people with a blanket number. If they find you are sharing songs on the network they hit you for 20K a song. They could, technically, also go after the torrent site for that amount. If you are linking to a torrent of a song they could argue that this is distributing that song and hit you for 20k for every song listed on your site. Doesn't mean they will win that much, but it could shut a lot of sites down.

They could try to force the torrent sites to prove just how many of their users are using these torrents for fair use and how many are just downloading it and sharing it because they want it for free.

[_Richard_]

haha this is hilarious

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

I see this case ending one of two ways and neither are good for torrent sites or their users.

1. The record companies settle with the artists. They agree to pay those on the list whatever they are owed plus legal fees and maybe a little bit more.

If that is how it ends then these same copyright holders can go after torrent sites and say that they are using their copyrighted materials to make a profit and are not paying them for it. The torrent site will try to hide behind a safe harbor/fair use defense and we will finally get some kind of ruling about this.

but they could do that right now anyway, in fact before it came to light that record companies were basically screwing the artist too, the Record companies could claim it was easy to find and get permission BEFORE allowing the content post

now this case will absolutely prove it not reasonable to expect that. Every appeal every claim that this is ok results in another case that can be used in the next defense.

That would all have to gotten thru BEFORE you could ever deal with the fair use defence.

2. The record labels lose and have to pay up. I don't think the final amount would be 60 billion, because something like that would be held up in court for years and years and years.

exactly and every arguement that they successfully make to justify not paying out the full amount could also be copied by the torrent sites.

But let's just say that it ends up being that amount. Now we have basically a second legal president for the $20,000 per track argument. There were individuals who have been hit for that amount and now the record companies themselves have been hit for that amount. So the labels can now go after more people with a blanket number. If they find you are sharing songs on the network they hit you for 20K a song. They could, technically, also go after the torrent site for that amount. If you are linking to a torrent of a song they could argue that this is distributing that song and hit you for 20k for every song listed on your site. Doesn't mean they will win that much, but it could shut a lot of sites down.

no they can't because fair use can and does exempt many of these behaviors, fair use does not exist for this case.
So this case can never set the precedent that 20k is justified for non commercial (peer to peer sharing) becuase even if they win all that amount the peer to peer sharer can say, that doesn't apply to us because i am not selling the goods at all. and that his a huge difference.

Even the torrent sites are not DIRECTLY profiting from the copyright infringement, like the record companies in this case.

This case can only add legal "loopholes" for torrent sites and peer to peer shares.

They could try to force the torrent sites to prove just how many of their users are using these torrents for fair use and how many are just downloading it and sharing it because they want it for free.

never happen based on this case, there is no way you can justify adding that level of proof based on a case where the company is making money DIRECTLY from the infringement, to what is at best making money INDIRECTLY from the infringement.

nothing set in favor of the copyright holders can apply because fo the huge massive difference between DIRECTLY profiting from the infringement and INDIRECTLY profiting from the infringement.

The indirect nature means that the torrent site can't know when they are making money from infringement, fair use, or fully licienced distribution

while the record company is 100% aware that all revenue is made from the infringement.

The torrent sites will always have that extra "excuse"
however any ruling in favor of the record company that will "Excuse" their direct infringement would be allowed to applied to any indirect infringement as well. becuase quite simply it justified or excused the infringement.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Even the torrent sites are not DIRECTLY profiting from the copyright infringement, like the record companies in this case.

You have to put the crack pipe down. You have said some whacked out stuff in the past and you always make good arguments, but this is dead WRONG!

Let me explain it:

Guy builds torrent site.
Guy fills torrent site with a bunch of torrents to all kinds of music.
People start coming to the site because it has free music on it.
Site gets popular.
Guy sells advertising or puts some kind of advertising on the site.
Guy makes money from said advertising.
Guy profits DIRECTLY from copyright infringement.

Every person who visits a torrent site to download music is not covered by fair use. Even if half of them are that means half of them are not that means half of the income from that site is derived from copyright infringement.

Now here is where you explain to me how torrents work and DMCA and you can't kill a technology because some people use it for illegal purposes and someone somewhere in Canada paid an extra 6 cents on a blank CD they bought which means you can download all the music you want for free and another guy can't get to a record store and doesn't have a credit card so he can't use Itunes or something similar so he has no choice but to get his music from the torrent sites and really every use anyone could ever come up with for downloading music off the torrent site is actually covered by fair use.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

You have to put the crack pipe down. You have said some whacked out stuff in the past and you always make good arguments, but this is dead WRONG!

Let me explain it:

Guy builds torrent site.
Guy fills torrent site with a bunch of torrents to all kinds of music.
People start coming to the site because it has free music on it.
Site gets popular.
Guy sells advertising or puts some kind of advertising on the site.
Guy makes money from said advertising.
Guy profits DIRECTLY from copyright infringement.

it funny but you just proved my point with your next statement

Every person who visits a torrent site to download music is not covered by fair use. Even if half of them are that means half of them are not that means half of the income from that site is derived from copyright infringement.

the key difference in this case is that 100% of the list is infringement, there is no fair use that can make it 50% legitimate

which means they know every single sale made is made without the authorization of the copyright holder BEFORE the sale is made.

Converse the torrent site has no way of know which person is using the torrents for recovery and which are committing copyright infringement until after the person connects to torrent and downloads the file.

Now here is where you explain to me how torrents work and DMCA and you can't kill a technology because some people use it for illegal purposes and someone somewhere in Canada paid an extra 6 cents on a blank CD they bought which means you can download all the music you want for free and another guy can't get to a record store and doesn't have a credit card so he can't use Itunes or something similar so he has no choice but to get his music from the torrent sites and really every use anyone could ever come up with for downloading music off the torrent site is actually covered by fair use.

well you did explain it already so i don't have too.
however i noticed you mixed in something that was not fair use to try and justify invalidating what is fair use

i have highlight the bogus part, of course i have done that multiple times before for you and you keep doing it so either your an idiot with a reading and comprehension level of 2nd grader or your are deliberately doing it to try and make your bogus point.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

You have to put the crack pipe down. You have said some whacked out stuff in the past and you always make good arguments, but this is dead WRONG!

Let me explain it:

Guy builds torrent site.
Guy fills torrent site with a bunch of torrents to all kinds of music.
People start coming to the site because it has free music on it.
Site gets popular.
Guy sells advertising or puts some kind of advertising on the site.
Guy makes money from said advertising.
Guy profits DIRECTLY from copyright infringement.

except the guy makes the exact same money per view weather the music is uploaded by a pirate or by the artist themselves

The advertising revenue is per page view, it doesn't care if the page view comes from pirated copy or the authorized copy



compare that
record company puts copyright material on cd
record company sells cd to consumer

every dollar made is directly linked to the infringement

your own statement proves that it indirect they get the money from the advertisers,
that revenue exists weather the page in question is infringing or non infringing.

oh and btw the indirect nature is what made the vcr legal too
vcr at the time could be used for two purposed to copy stuff illegally (the manual actually warned against that)
or to timeshift content you paid for

the fact that some of the potential use was infringing didn't make the technology illegal
nor did it require them to put some sort of check before they sold the device to make sure it was not used for the illegal purpose.
Such an act would a have completely prevented timeshifting (how could you tell what i was going to do with it when i got home)

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by Agent 488

everyone reads torrent freak. who gives a fuck man. get a blog.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

except the guy makes the exact same money per view weather the music is uploaded by a pirate or by the artist themselves

The advertising revenue is per page view, it doesn't care if the page view comes from pirated copy or the authorized copy



compare that
record company puts copyright material on cd
record company sells cd to consumer

every dollar made is directly linked to the infringement

your own statement proves that it indirect they get the money from the advertisers,
that revenue exists weather the page in question is infringing or non infringing.

oh and btw the indirect nature is what made the vcr legal too
vcr at the time could be used for two purposed to copy stuff illegally (the manual actually warned against that)
or to timeshift content you paid for

the fact that some of the potential use was infringing didn't make the technology illegal
nor did it require them to put some sort of check before they sold the device to make sure it was not used for the illegal purpose.
Such an act would a have completely prevented timeshifting (how could you tell what i was going to do with it when i got home)

You said that torrent sites don't make money directly off of copyright infringement. I simply was pointing out the truth. You can chase it around with all the double talk you want, but if you put a link on a site to a copyrighted material without permission to do so and someone downloads that music that doesn't have the right to do so you just aided someone in committing copyright infringement. If you are selling advertising on a site that aids people in copyright infringement you are DIRECTLY profiting from it.


That is it. Torrent sites are DIRECTLY profiting off of copyright infringement. It might not be 100% of the profit that they make, but they are profiting off of it.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

except the guy makes the exact same money per view weather the music is uploaded by a pirate or by the artist themselves

The advertising revenue is per page view, it doesn't care if the page view comes from pirated copy or the authorized copy



compare that
record company puts copyright material on cd
record company sells cd to consumer

every dollar made is directly linked to the infringement

your own statement proves that it indirect they get the money from the advertisers,
that revenue exists weather the page in question is infringing or non infringing.

oh and btw the indirect nature is what made the vcr legal too
vcr at the time could be used for two purposed to copy stuff illegally (the manual actually warned against that)
or to timeshift content you paid for

the fact that some of the potential use was infringing didn't make the technology illegal
nor did it require them to put some sort of check before they sold the device to make sure it was not used for the illegal purpose.
Such an act would a have completely prevented timeshifting (how could you tell what i was going to do with it when i got home)

I guess we will see with Mininova how much of their traffic was for illegal/pirated stuff. They are putting up only stuff they have the rights to distribute. let's see how far their traffic and profits dip. According to Alexa they have lost about 43% of their traffic in just the last 7 days. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/mininova.org

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

You said that torrent sites don't make money directly off of copyright infringement. I simply was pointing out the truth. You can chase it around with all the double talk you want, but if you put a link on a site to a copyrighted material without permission to do so and someone downloads that music that doesn't have the right to do so you just aided someone in committing copyright infringement. If you are selling advertising on a site that aids people in copyright infringement you are DIRECTLY profiting from it.


That is it. Torrent sites are DIRECTLY profiting off of copyright infringement. It might not be 100% of the profit that they make, but they are profiting off of it.

no you moron that INDIRECTLY profiting from it

A->B would be directly profiting as in i sell you infringing copyright material you give me money

A->B ->C would be be INDIRECTLY that being i provide a service which allows people to POTENTIALLY infringe on copyright, i get money from the independent third party advertisers.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

I guess we will see with Mininova how much of their traffic was for illegal/pirated stuff. They are putting up only stuff they have the rights to distribute. let's see how far their traffic and profits dip. According to Alexa they have lost about 43% of their traffic in just the last 7 days. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/mininova.org

unless it drops to absolute zero my point is still valid

[MaDalton]

i still don't get why people argue with gideon

[kane]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i still don't get why people argue with gideon

Me either.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i still don't get why people argue with gideon

Originally Posted by kane

Me either.

I stopped a long time ago.


.

[D Ghost]

they need to pay up, they're always screwing artists over

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i still don't get why people argue with gideon

what i don't understand is how some people are so stupid that they don't even know the difference between directly and indirectly

that should have been taught in the 3rd grade.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

what i don't understand is how some people are so stupid that they don't even know the difference between directly and indirectly

that should have been taught in the 3rd grade.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

what i don't understand is how some people are so stupid that they don't even know the difference between directly and indirectly

that should have been taught in the 3rd grade.

Dude it is pretty simple. If the traffic is coming to your site because you have copyrighted materials linked on your site and you are selling advertising to monetize that traffic you are directly making money off of letting people download copyrighted materials. You can spin it anyway you want but you are making money directly from it.

Look at it like this.

If you have a porn paysite you are making money directly from porn.

If you run a tube site where you give the porn away for free, but you advertise dating sites, you are still making money directly from porn. No porn on the site means no traffic to the site means no income.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

Dude it is pretty simple. If the traffic is coming to your site because you have copyrighted materials linked on your site and you are selling advertising to monetize that traffic you are directly making money off of letting people download copyrighted materials. You can spin it anyway you want but you are making money directly from it.

Look at it like this.

If you have a porn paysite you are making money directly from porn.

If you run a tube site where you give the porn away for free, but you advertise dating sites, you are still making money directly from porn. No porn on the site means no traffic to the site means no income.

you have the reading an comprehension level of 2nd grader max

just because the revenue can ultimately be traced back to the infringement (assuming 100% infringement to be consistent with the 100% infringement in this case) that does NOT make it DIRECTLY related.

you are applying the definition of an INDIRECT transaction to the definition of a direct transaction even though the are the exact opposite.

Definition of indirect

1. not in a direct course or path; deviating from a straight line; roundabout: an indirect course in sailing.
2. coming or resulting otherwise than directly or immediately, as effects or consequences: an indirect advantage.
3. not direct in action or procedure: His methods are indirect but not dishonest.
4. not straightforward; devious; deceitful: He is known as a shady, indirect fellow.
5. not direct in bearing, application, force, etc.: indirect evidence.

definition of direct

1. in a direct line, way, or manner; straight: The path leads directly to the lake.
2. at once; without delay; immediately: Do that directly.
3. shortly; soon: They will be here directly.
4. exactly; precisely: directly opposite the store.
5. without intervening space; next in order: The truck was parked directly behind my car.

your definition fails on both ends
it can not be direct because the "traffic generated" is both an intervening space in the process, a divider in the next in order, and a delay in the income flow. (fails to be direct)

Conversly it meets all the conditions opposite points in the definition of indirectly. (see above since they are opposites it just the reverse of the point i just made) (is indirect)

you really need to pick up a dictionary once in a while,
this is the copyright is theft vs fraud all over again, however at an even more elementary level (3rd grade reading and comprehension level).

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you have the reading an comprehension level of 2nd grader max

just because the revenue can ultimately be traced back to the infringement (assuming 100% infringement to be consistent with the 100% infringement in this case) that does NOT make it DIRECTLY related.

you are applying the definition of an INDIRECT transaction to the definition of a direct transaction even though the are the exact opposite.

Definition of indirect


definition of direct


your definition fails on both ends
it can not be direct because the "traffic generated" is both an intervening space in the process, a divider in the next in order, and a delay in the income flow. (fails to be direct)

Conversly it meets all the conditions opposite points in the definition of indirectly. (see above since they are opposites it just the reverse of the point i just made) (is indirect)

you really need to pick up a dictionary once in a while,
this is the copyright is theft vs fraud all over again, however at an even more elementary level (3rd grade reading and comprehension level).

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I see it like this.

Definition of Direct:
1. in a direct line, way, or manner; straight: The path leads directly to the lake.

So: Site has copyrighted materials on it that they do not have permission to post ----> people visit site to get access to said materials ----> Site builds traffic and sells/displays advertising ---->profit.

The path from copyrighted materials appearing on their site leads directly to dollars in their hand.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I see it like this.

Definition of Direct:
1. in a direct line, way, or manner; straight: The path leads directly to the lake.

So: Site has copyrighted materials on it that they do not have permission to post ----> people visit site to get access to said materials ----> Site builds traffic and sells/displays advertising ---->profit.

The path from copyrighted materials appearing on their site leads directly to dollars in their hand.

so your idea of a valid definition is to cherry pick one of the conditions and ignore all the other failures like having intervening spaces (----> people visit site to get access to said materials ----> Site builds traffic and sells/displays advertising ---->) or has a delay (people visit site to get access to said materials ----> Site builds traffic and sells/displays advertising ---->)

if you definition was in any way shape or form right you would be able to give an example of INDIRECTLY profiting from copyright infringement that is completely different and could not be misrepresented as a straight line (by ignoring the forked conditions on that path like you just did)