Fair Use was Unfairly Used in COURT. Judge hands the smack down. Gideon is in denial.

[Socks]

from: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...ict-finalized/

Judge Finalizes $675,000 RIAA Piracy Verdict, Won?t Gag Defendant

Excerpts:

"Gertner also expanded on a pretrial ruling in which she declared Tenenbaum could not render a so-called ?fair use? defense. Tenenbaum claimed that his file sharing was not counter to the Copyright Act. The act provides up to $150,000 in damages for each infringement, and the figures are left to jurors."

"In the Tenenbaum case, the judge wrote Monday that Tenenbaum?s version of fair use was ?so broad that it would swallow the copyright protections that Congress created, defying both statute and precedent.?

That ruling was a major blow to what was expected to be a key point of argument for the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, which represented Tenenbaum and is now seeking a new trial. Ahead of the summer trial, Gertner precluded the fair-use defense with a brief order without much elaboration."

[L-Pink]

Great ... And

[seeric]

interesting.

[Agent 488]

very interesting.

[BV]

it's just a matter of time

not enough profit in the "free" business model to keep everyone happy

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by seeric

interesting.

Originally Posted by Agent 488

very interesting.

very, very interesting

and to gideongallery:

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Socks

"In the Tenenbaum case, the judge wrote Monday that Tenenbaum?s version of fair use was ?so broad that it would swallow the copyright protections that Congress created, defying both statute and precedent.?

While I'm a big supporter and defender of copyright to be hoenest today's copyright laws are fucked up and are to broad themselves and need to be pared down. Can anyone actually defend the fact that a song written by Irving Berlin in 1925 is protected until 2059?

[CrkMStanz]

1 more step forward

many to go

good news

[DonovanTrent]

Originally Posted by GatorB

While I'm a big supporter and defender of copyright to be hoenest today's copyright laws are fucked up and are to broad themselves and need to be pared down. Can anyone actually defend the fact that a song written by Irving Berlin in 1925 is protected until 2059?

If Irving Berlin made some money in 1925, didn't spend it, passed it down to his heir, who didn't spend it, and it kept passing down from heir to heir unspent... at what point should that money be taken away from whatever extended heir now owns it, so it can be given out for free to anyone and everyone?

(Spare us all the political taxation replies, it's a comparative example.)

[Socks]

Gideon is still preparing his response. He's being slowed by frequent trips to the kitchen, opening and closing his fridge door, in search of an answer that's not there.

[kane]

Countdown to mentions of timeshifting the VCR.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Socks

Gideon is still preparing his response. He's being slowed by frequent trips to the kitchen, opening and closing his fridge door, in search of an answer that's not there.

He just messaged me and asked if anybody wants to buy a torrent recorder...real cheap.

And he's not too worried about this court decision because of two things:

1. He's confident that thieves will somehow prevail on appeal.

2. If they don't, he's still okay because his parents don't charge him any rent to live in the basement.

[kane]

Originally Posted by GatorB

While I'm a big supporter and defender of copyright to be hoenest today's copyright laws are fucked up and are to broad themselves and need to be pared down. Can anyone actually defend the fact that a song written by Irving Berlin in 1925 is protected until 2059?

I can.

If you built a huge nice house and passed it down to your kids who passed it down to theirs should their be an expiration date as to when your family no longer owns it and anyone who wants to can move in and live there?

He created it. His estate should be able to hold the copyright on it for as long as they want.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by Robbie

He just messaged me and asked if anybody wants to buy a torrent recorder...real cheap.

And he's not too worried about this court decision because of two things:

1. He's confident that thieves will somehow prevail on appeal.

2. If they don't, he's still okay because his parents don't charge him any rent to live in the basement.

[Robbie]

Big Michael, we still on for the shoot in Vegas?

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by BV

it's just a matter of time

not enough profit in the "free" business model to keep everyone happy

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

He just messaged me and asked if anybody wants to buy a torrent recorder...real cheap.

And he's not too worried about this court decision because of two things:

1. He's confident that thieves will somehow prevail on appeal.

2. If they don't, he's still okay because his parents don't charge him any rent to live in the basement.

lol ok that one was funny.

[KILL_FRENZY]

Originally Posted by Robbie

He just messaged me and asked if anybody wants to buy a torrent recorder...real cheap.

And he's not too worried about this court decision because of two things:

1. He's confident that thieves will somehow prevail on appeal.

2. If they don't, he's still okay because his parents don't charge him any rent to live in the basement.

Good one

[SmokeyTheBear]

gideon won't be suprised as he said he knows the outcome of every court case before it happens

[BradM]

gideon doesn't make the law. he IS the law

[Martin]

I heard gideon beat up chuck norris once.

[Socks]

He must be doing extended chores.

Perhaps he's grounded.

Or worse, his parents have taken his internet away.

[Darkland]

How odd that the Pirate King Gideon Gallery is strangely silent on this news and avoiding this thread like the plague.

Aaarrggghhhh... Shiver me timbers.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by Darkland

How odd that the Pirate King Gideon Gallery is strangely silent on this news and avoiding this thread like the plague.

Aaarrggghhhh... Shiver me timbers.

Originally Posted by Martin

I heard gideon beat up chuck norris once.

Ok, that's pushing it a little too far... Nobody can beat up Chuck Norris. NOBODY!

[woj]

Originally Posted by Robbie

He just messaged me and asked if anybody wants to buy a torrent recorder...real cheap.

And he's not too worried about this court decision because of two things:

1. He's confident that thieves will somehow prevail on appeal.

2. If they don't, he's still okay because his parents don't charge him any rent to live in the basement.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Socks

from: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...ict-finalized/

Judge Finalizes $675,000 RIAA Piracy Verdict, Won?t Gag Defendant

Excerpts:

"Gertner also expanded on a pretrial ruling in which she declared Tenenbaum could not render a so-called ?fair use? defense. Tenenbaum claimed that his file sharing was not counter to the Copyright Act. The act provides up to $150,000 in damages for each infringement, and the figures are left to jurors."

"In the Tenenbaum case, the judge wrote Monday that Tenenbaum?s version of fair use was ?so broad that it would swallow the copyright protections that Congress created, defying both statute and precedent.?

That ruling was a major blow to what was expected to be a key point of argument for the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, which represented Tenenbaum and is now seeking a new trial. Ahead of the summer trial, Gertner precluded the fair-use defense with a brief order without much elaboration."

you do realize that this is the guy trying to argue that filesharing for personal use should automatically be fair use. And even i said that was way to much. fair use extended to that level is insane



That would basically mean if it was out there you could get it for free, WITHOUT ever paying for it.

the arguement i have repeatedly made was for not paying for a song/video twice. once you bought the right to view, you should have the right to use any technology to timeshift/backup/recover that content for a later viewing.

this ruling however does not stop him from attempting to argue that his actions were protected by the fair use already defined by the court.

and as i have repeatedly pointed out in the case of bit torrent (which only gives out pieces of the file) and the current ruling in the RPVR case he still has a lot on the table to argue in favor of.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by DonovanTrent

If Irving Berlin made some money in 1925, didn't spend it, passed it down to his heir, who didn't spend it, and it kept passing down from heir to heir unspent... at what point should that money be taken away from whatever extended heir now owns it, so it can be given out for free to anyone and everyone?

(Spare us all the political taxation replies, it's a comparative example.)

not the same thing the concept of copyright is temporary monopoly so that artist have an insentive to create new work, the work must go into the public domain so that other people can create new derivative work from that in the future

it is not a comparitive example becuase your trying to compare a one time accumulation of an asset that is held to a prepetual income stream.

a real comparision would be expecting to keep getting your salary after you dead and buried.

[L-Pink]

.....


.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by DonovanTrent

If Irving Berlin made some money in 1925, didn't spend it, passed it down to his heir, who didn't spend it, and it kept passing down from heir to heir unspent... at what point should that money be taken away from whatever extended heir now owns it, so it can be given out for free to anyone and everyone?

(Spare us all the political taxation replies, it's a comparative example.)

You do realize that our founding fathers never meant copyright to be perpetual. In fact back then it was 14 years. So yes at some point you were expected to let everyone have your shit for free. So using your logic their heirs of Bach should be getting royalty checks and people should have to ask permission to play his music. Shakspere's hiers should get royalty checks even though they guy has been dead nearly 400 years?

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by kane

I can.

If you built a huge nice house and passed it down to your kids who passed it down to theirs should their be an expiration date as to when your family no longer owns it and anyone who wants to can move in and live there?

He created it. His estate should be able to hold the copyright on it for as long as they want.

bad example because the founding fathers never made a law saying you have to give up your house after a certain set of years. They DID in fact make copyright time LIMITED.

US Constitution Article One Section 8 clause 8.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

So we went from

Copyright Act of 1790 - established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with 14-year renewal

Of course now we have

Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 - extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years

Expect an extension of copyright even more within the next 10 years since Disney's copyright on Steamboat Willie runs out in 2021. Hell they might as well fuck over the American people by declaring "public domain" dead. Since that's where it's obviously headed.

[kane]

Originally Posted by GatorB

bad example because the founding fathers never made a law saying you have to give up your house after a certain set of years. They DID in fact make copyright time LIMITED.

US Constitution Article One Section 8 clause 8.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

So we went from

Copyright Act of 1790 - established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with 14-year renewal

Of course now we have

Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 - extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years

Expect an extension of copyright even more within the next 10 years since Disney's copyright on Steamboat Willie runs out in 2021. Hell they might as well fuck over the American people by declaring "public domain" dead. Since that's where it's obviously headed.

This is one that I disagree with the founding fathers on. Say you write a mind blowing piece of music that will be studied for generations to come. They can still study it, they can still perform it and it is still around to promote and progress music if it is still under copyright.

But let me ask you this. Would the world be a better, more artistic place if Steamboat Willie were in the public domain?

Maybe they could modify it so that after a certain number of years the original creator still controls the copyright, but with less actual control. For example someone could put your book on a website for anyone to read or upload your music to a website for anyone to listen too as long as they weren't trying to sell it or make a profit off of it. This would allow anyone who wants to use these works for personal knowledge or education or even just for personal enjoyment to do so, but it would keep someone form mass publishing your book again and making money off it without you or your estate getting a fair cut.

[DonovanTrent]

Originally Posted by GatorB

You do realize that our founding fathers never meant copyright to be perpetual. In fact back then it was 14 years. So yes at some point you were expected to let everyone have your shit for free. So using your logic their heirs of Bach should be getting royalty checks and people should have to ask permission to play his music. Shakspere's hiers should get royalty checks even though they guy has been dead nearly 400 years?

No, there was no grandfathering when the lifetime of a copyright was extended. And Shakespeare was around before the US. Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

1 more step forward

many to go

good news

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by DonovanTrent

No, there was no grandfathering when the lifetime of a copyright was extended. And Shakespeare was around before the US. Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.

So who cares. If your point of view is that copyright should be forever then it's unfair to those people. Also so only US citizen should be allowed to have copyright protection? I'm not sure about you but my ethics and morals extend to ALL humans not just those that share my nationality.

Any you never addressed the issue that is UNCONSTITUIONAL to have perpetual copyright.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

This is one that I disagree with the founding fathers on. Say you write a mind blowing piece of music that will be studied for generations to come. They can still study it, they can still perform it and it is still around to promote and progress music if it is still under copyright.

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)

But let me ask you this. Would the world be a better, more artistic place if Steamboat Willie were in the public domain?

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.

Maybe they could modify it so that after a certain number of years the original creator still controls the copyright, but with less actual control. For example someone could put your book on a website for anyone to read or upload your music to a website for anyone to listen too as long as they weren't trying to sell it or make a profit off of it. This would allow anyone who wants to use these works for personal knowledge or education or even just for personal enjoyment to do so, but it would keep someone form mass publishing your book again and making money off it without you or your estate getting a fair cut.

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

the way it was originally designed to be is the way it should be. a set limited time where you control everything commercial and then a free market so that new variations can be expressed for commercial gain.

[Mutt]

wow - first good point i've ever seen gideon make. as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Mutt

wow - first good point i've ever seen gideon make. as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

ah it the same point i have always been making

monopoly control for commercial, if you step over the line into censorship, or exclusion when no sale is lost, that should always be open to free market competition.

Since fair use always falls in that space, fair use service providers should always free market competition.

[CaptainHowdy]

I don't understand.........

[kane]

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.

the way it was originally designed to be is the way it should be. a set limited time where you control everything commercial and then a free market so that new variations can be expressed for commercial gain.

Fair point.

Could they not have used these ideas and struck a deal with the copyright owners and given them a small commission? Think Lord of the Rings. I know the books are not in the public domain, but they were able to use that idea and created three great movies that made over a billion dollars at the box office. I would guess Disney could get with whoever owned the copyright of Snow White (or whatever story they were going to do) and cut a deal with them that would let them develop the movie and share some of the profits down the road.

[Agent 488]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

[CrkMStanz]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

ah it the same point i have always been making

monopoly control for commercial, if you step over the line into censorship, or exclusion when no sale is lost, that should always be open to free market competition.

Since fair use always falls in that space, fair use service providers should always free market competition.

So....

just concerning everyone who markets their digital goods on the internet (adult paysites - membership only - no DVD or other distribution) - globally - does it mean that ANY copy that is made and distributed IS a lost sale?

being that their marketplace is the internet and all the illegal distribution is done via the internet... aren't they all lost sales?

just throwing that out there...

[BV]

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.

the way it was originally designed to be is the way it should be. a set limited time where you control everything commercial and then a free market so that new variations can be expressed for commercial gain.

the "set limit of time" for pRon must be as soon as it's ripped from the members area and posted to a illegal tube

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

So....

just concerning everyone who markets their digital goods on the internet (adult paysites - membership only - no DVD or other distribution) - globally - does it mean that ANY copy that is made and distributed IS a lost sale?

being that their marketplace is the internet and all the illegal distribution is done via the internet... aren't they all lost sales?

just throwing that out there...

no only distribution to a NON paying customer,

you don't have a right to force people to pay you again for the same right they already bought, that not a lost sale that is lost double billing. So fair uses like backup recovery and timeshifting of your content should be free market conditions subject to market conditions and pricing.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

no only distribution to a NON paying customer,

you don't have a right to force people to pay you again for the same right they already bought, that not a lost sale that is lost double billing. So fair uses like backup recovery and timeshifting of your content should be free market conditions subject to market conditions and pricing.

I curious your thoughts on this.

Say you buy a music CD at the store. You never back it up you just keep it in your car and play it when you drive. You are careless with it and eventually it gets so scratched up that it is no longer playable. Should you then be able to go online and download that CD as a form of backup recovery?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

Fair point.

Could they not have used these ideas and struck a deal with the copyright owners and given them a small commission? Think Lord of the Rings. I know the books are not in the public domain, but they were able to use that idea and created three great movies that made over a billion dollars at the box office. I would guess Disney could get with whoever owned the copyright of Snow White (or whatever story they were going to do) and cut a deal with them that would let them develop the movie and share some of the profits down the road.

you don't have a god given right to a monopoly, the government gave you a temporary monopoly as an insentive to creating the works. It was supposed to be only strong enough to allow you to recover your costs + reasonable profit.
prepetual monopoly are always a bad thing, in fact their are laws against it specifically because of that fact.

such a change to copyright would result in exactly that type of sherman anti trust violating monopoly.

you basically arguing for sherman anti trust law not to apply to copyright, to take away the balancing condition (limited time/fair use) that was put in place to make the granting of that monopoly in the public good.

It sort of funny that copyright lobbiest argue they are pro business when they are arguing against a free market, and in favor or a government granted monopoly.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

I curious your thoughts on this.

Say you buy a music CD at the store. You never back it up you just keep it in your car and play it when you drive. You are careless with it and eventually it gets so scratched up that it is no longer playable. Should you then be able to go online and download that CD as a form of backup recovery?

yes

you should also be allowed to borrow a friends copy to burn a replacement

[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.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

yes

you should also be allowed to borrow a friends copy to burn a replacement

Now would you say the same about a book. If I go buy a book and when I am halfway through it I lose it or it gets destroyed should I be able to go back to the book store and get another as long as I have my receipt?

What if they have it on e book. So I buy a regular book, but lose it, should they be required to give me a digital copy as a replacement (that way they don't have to take a book off the shelf)?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

Now would you say the same about a book. If I go buy a book and when I am halfway through it I lose it or it gets destroyed should I be able to go back to the book store and get another as long as I have my receipt?

What if they have it on e book. So I buy a regular book, but lose it, should they be required to give me a digital copy as a replacement (that way they don't have to take a book off the shelf)?

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).