Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright

[gideongallery]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...20049908.shtml

judges need to be better educated

now i suspect some people here will praise this decision but you may want to think seriously about the consequences of setting a precedent that says that in a conflict between the first ammendment and a congress establish law, the congress establish law takes precedent.

Especially for this industry.

[Barefootsies]

Sounds like you need to relax. Cheers.

[fatfoo]

Interesting read.

The topics of copyrights, confidentiality, trademarks and business interest me.

[Serge Litehead]

good luck gideon!

[LickMyBalls]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Sounds like you need to relax. Cheers.

[L-Pink]

.

[2012]

[LickMyBalls]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

.

Great alblum... I mean torrent.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Sounds like you need to relax. Cheers.

how likely do you think this industry will stand if congress get the right to supercede the first ammendment.

public domain is the bases of a lot of free expression.

disney built their entire catalog of movies on the public domain work (snow white etc)

how much you want to bet the US government won't pull that work out of the public domain and retroactively make all the disney movies copyright infringement.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

judges need to be better educated

now i suspect some people here will praise this decision but you may want to think seriously about the consequences of setting a precedent that says that in a conflict between the first ammendment and a congress establish law, the congress establish law takes precedent.

Especially for this industry.

This IS the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Gideongallery, you are a fucking Canadian anyway. You don't have the U.S. constitution or it's amendments.
I don't see anything in the court case that IF you lived in the U.S. stops you from having free speech (you know, saying what you want to without fear of the govt.) or stopping your freedom of religion or right to assemble peaceably, or petition the govt.

Whether you think a work should only be protected by copyright for a short amount of time before a talentless vulture like you can pick it's bones for your own greed...well, that hasn't got a goddamn thing to do with the original intent of the first amendment.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Whether you think a work should only be protected by copyright for a short amount of time before a talentless vulture like you can pick it's bones for your own greed...well, that hasn't got a goddamn thing to do with the original intent of the first amendment.

Robbie you are a God with words sometimes. BRAVO


.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

disney built their entire catalog of movies on the public domain work (snow white etc)

I already showed you in an earlier thread that that statement is a complete fucking lie. YOU are a liar gideongallery.

Anybody can quickly google up Snow White and see that Snow White was a fairy tale told in many European countries for centuries. And then compiled by the Brothers Grimm in the early 1800's

It's called a TRADITIONAL fairy tale because NOBODY KNOWS WHO FIRST TOLD IT. Just like a "trad" blues isn't "public domain" either you idiot. It's considered to be something universal that just "is". What an idiot you are gideongallery.

Nothing in this court case would have affected Disney from writing their own version (which is what they did) based on a TRADITIONAL FAIRY TALE

[Trend]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I already showed you in an earlier thread that that statement is a complete fucking lie. YOU are a liar gideongallery.

Anybody can quickly google up Snow White and see that Snow White was a fairy tale told in many European countries for centuries. And then compiled by the Brothers Grimm in the early 1800's

It's called a TRADITIONAL fairy tale because NOBODY KNOWS WHO FIRST TOLD IT. Just like a "trad" blues isn't "public domain" either you idiot. It's considered to be something universal that just "is". What an idiot you are gideongallery.

Nothing in this court case would have affected Disney from writing their own version (which is what they did) based on a TRADITIONAL FAIRY TALE

Didn't realize you were such a scholar Robbie! Nice to see some facts for a change.

[CrkMStanz]

Originally Posted by Robbie

This IS the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Gideongallery, you are a fucking Canadian anyway. You don't have the U.S. constitution or it's amendments.
I don't see anything in the court case that IF you lived in the U.S. stops you from having free speech (you know, saying what you want to without fear of the govt.) or stopping your freedom of religion or right to assemble peaceably, or petition the govt.

Whether you think a work should only be protected by copyright for a short amount of time before a talentless vulture like you can pick it's bones for your own greed...well, that hasn't got a goddamn thing to do with the original intent of the first amendment.

Brilliant, Thanx Robbie



and Giddyboy....

publicly posting someone elses work in its entirety (and unabridged) is also not fair use no matter what the medium is (VCR tape or Cloud or anywhere else) - so just quit defending it.

you give Canadians a bad name

[mynameisjim]

Who are all these pro piracy people fighting against?

Is it the evil record companies who dare to charge a whopping .99 cents for a song someone spent hours and hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to record?

Or are they fighting against the evil movie studios who dare to charge you $5 to stream an HD movie that cost $200 million to make directly to your TV set?

If I was being raped by the music and movie industry the way the oil companies rape me I could see it. But I just don't get this fight against the record and movie industry. Are they really that evil? Their prices seem more than fair to me.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

Who are all these pro piracy people fighting against?

Guys like gideon are fighting against having to pay for entertainment or someone else's property they use for profit. Period.


.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I already showed you in an earlier thread that that statement is a complete fucking lie. YOU are a liar gideongallery.

Anybody can quickly google up Snow White and see that Snow White was a fairy tale told in many European countries for centuries. And then compiled by the Brothers Grimm in the early 1800's

It's called a TRADITIONAL fairy tale because NOBODY KNOWS WHO FIRST TOLD IT. Just like a "trad" blues isn't "public domain" either you idiot. It's considered to be something universal that just "is". What an idiot you are gideongallery.

Nothing in this court case would have affected Disney from writing their own version (which is what they did) based on a TRADITIONAL FAIRY TALE

actually it the reverse, in that arguement i proved that disney used the brothers grimm version of snow white as the bases. (public link admitting such)

you tried desperately to make your bogus arguement about traditional fair tale but could not produce a single shred of proof that they used any "alternative" source.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

actually it the reverse, in that arguement i proved that disney used the brothers grimm version of snow white as the bases. (public link admitting such)

you tried desperately to make your bogus arguement about traditional fair tale but could not produce a single shred of proof that they used any "alternative" source.

oh and then you went on to try and argue that because the story existed before grimm that somehow that allowed disney to take grimm story as a bases, until i pointed out if that were true that "rule" would have to apply to all disney adaptions too

the only reason that disney was allowed to do what they did was because grimm adaption was in the public domain.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

Brilliant, Thanx Robbie



and Giddyboy....

publicly posting someone elses work in its entirety (and unabridged) is also not fair use no matter what the medium is (VCR tape or Cloud or anywhere else) - so just quit defending it.

you give Canadians a bad name

the supreme court of the united states says your wrong.

[Don Pueblo]

fuck you toolbag

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Don Pueblo

fuck you toolbag

You know, I wrote all that shit to gideongallery. Made sure to research every bit of it to make sure I was correct.

And then Don Pueblo comes along and just blows away all my work with that beautiful sentence to gideongallery!

Don Pueblo, you my friend are absolutely brilliant. And gideongallery you are a toolbag!

[Nicky]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

This pic is never gonna die

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Robbie

You know, I wrote all that shit to gideongallery. Made sure to research every bit of it to make sure I was correct.

And then Don Pueblo comes along and just blows away all my work with that beautiful sentence to gideongallery!

Don Pueblo, you my friend are absolutely brilliant. And gideongallery you are a toolbag!

so in all your research you missed the fact that grim amalgam was the only Schneewittchen fair tale that featured the elements of "the magic mirror and the seven dwarfs" (even though wikipedia stated that too)

not only that you missed all the references in the press where disney admitted that snow white was "modern retelling of the classic brothers grimm fairy tale that fun for the whole family"

well i guess that what can be expected from someone who does nothing more then change pizza hut etc to internal product placement and claim he is creative for doing such a rip off.

[gideongallery]

If you have any respect at all for the core notion of copyright -- which was originally supposed to be about getting more works into the public domain -- the idea that you can then take works back out of the public domain is downright ludicrous

you might want to go back and look at the original congressional transcripts for the copyright act

the entire arguement for granting the exclusive right was to create an insentive to create the work in the first place to that there would be more work in the public domain when the term of the copyright expired.

[LickMyBalls]

gideongallery sounds like Allen Parker or Gary Fung of isohunt.com.

[SpongeBub]

Isn't that a picture of Polish Aristocrat? And what ever happened to him?

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so in all your research you missed the fact that grim amalgam was the only Schneewittchen fair tale that featured the elements of "the magic mirror and the seven dwarfs" (even though wikipedia stated that too)

not only that you missed all the references in the press where disney admitted that snow white was "modern retelling of the classic brothers grimm fairy tale that fun for the whole family"

well i guess that what can be expected from someone who does nothing more then change pizza hut etc to internal product placement and claim he is creative for doing such a rip off.

I already owned you on this and proved you are a liar. It's called a TRADITIONAL FAIRYTALE. Just like a 12 bar blues is a trad blues. Next you'll be claiming that any movie that has Santa Claus in it is making money off of "public domain"

Just admit that you are stupid and don't even understand what the First Amendment is and I'll let you off the hook. Otherwise you have to understand that just as Don Pueblo said it: You are a toolbag. So fuck off.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I already showed you in an earlier thread that that statement is a complete fucking lie. YOU are a liar gideongallery.

Anybody can quickly google up Snow White and see that Snow White was a fairy tale told in many European countries for centuries. And then compiled by the Brothers Grimm in the early 1800's

It's called a TRADITIONAL fairy tale because NOBODY KNOWS WHO FIRST TOLD IT. Just like a "trad" blues isn't "public domain" either you idiot. It's considered to be something universal that just "is". What an idiot you are gideongallery.

Nothing in this court case would have affected Disney from writing their own version (which is what they did) based on a TRADITIONAL FAIRY TALE

People knew who wrote Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland. Disney has in fact made BILLIONS off of works because copyright had run out. Now they are the biggest reason why copyright has essentially become perpetual. Which by the way is a violation of the Constitution. Why the Supreme Court doesn't think so is beyond me.

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

By continually extending copyright it makes it perpetual which is against the constiution.

Since when is 95 years even logically considered "limited times"? When our founding fathers were around copyright was 14 years. HUGE difference between 14 and 95 years. Honeslty do I have to wait until 2085 to make a copy of Windows 3.0 without violating copyright? See how fucking stupid that is?

Do you know songs written by Irving Berlin in 1924 are protected until 2059? Why? Because works by individuals are protected for 70 years after they die and he had the gall to live to be 101 and thus didn't die until 1989. Does ANYONE need their works protected for 135 years? Imagine if stuff written in 1876 were still under copyright? Seriously do Irving Berlin's great-great-great-great grandkids have some kind special right to keep his work off of public domain because their ancestor they never met did something?

Essentially NOTHING created after 1923 will EVER be "public domain". God forbid someone in 2022 decides to use Steamboat Willy without having to ask Disney.

FACT: If you haven't made any money off your shit after 50 years then tough shit and you suck. The fact is 50 years is PLENTY of time for you to make money. After that it should be public domain.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by GatorB

People knew who wrote Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland. Disney has in fact made BILLIONS off of works because copyright had run out.

GODDAMN you motherfuckers need to learn to use Google before you say stupid untrue shit.
This took me all of five seconds to find:

"Peter Pan is a 1953 American animated film produced by Walt Disney and based on the play Peter Pan, or The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up by J. M. Barrie.
Walt Disney had been trying to buy the film rights to Barrie's play since 1935. He finally received them four years later, after he came to an arrangement with Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, to whom Barrie had bequeathed the rights to the play. His studio started the story development and character designs in the early-1940s"

Fuck. How much does it take for you goddamn gideongallery lovers to start talking FACT instead of what's in your delusional minds.

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by GatorB

People knew who wrote Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland. Disney has in fact made BILLIONS off of works because copyright had run out. Now they are the biggest reason why copyright has essentially become perpetual. Which by the way is a violation of the Constitution. Why the Supreme Court doesn't think so is beyond me.

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

By continually extending copyright it makes it perpetual which is against the constiution.

Since when is 95 years even logically considered "limited times"? When our founding fathers were around copyright was 14 years. HUGE difference between 14 and 95 years. Honeslty do I have to wait until 2085 to make a copy of Windows 3.0 without violating copyright? See how fucking stupid that is?

Do you know songs written by Irving Berlin in 1924 are protected until 2059? Why? Because works by individuals are protected for 70 years after they die and he had the gall to live to be 101 and thus didn't die until 1989. Does ANYONE need their works protected for 135 years? Imagine if stuff written in 1876 were still under copyright? Seriously do Irving Berlin's great-great-great-great grandkids have some kind special right to keep his work off of public domain because their ancestor they never met did something?

Essentially NOTHING created after 1923 will EVER be "public domain". God forbid someone in 2022 decides to use Steamboat Willy without having to ask Disney.

FACT: If you haven't made any money off your shit after 50 years then tough shit and you suck. The fact is 50 years is PLENTY of time for you to make money. After that it should be public domain.

what a load of balls, so you are saying if you die then its fair game for people to leach off your hard work? Have children and then think about how you'd like to have them provided for if anything happens to you?

As an example that we all should be able to understand, you have a successful site,making tons of cash and you have decided that your children should be able to continue it ater you ar gone but the second you snuff it, the site is free to be ripped off by all and sundry. thats not really fair is it?

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

what a load of balls, so you are saying if you die then its fair game for people to leach off your hard work? Have children and then think about how you'd like to have them provided for if anything happens to you?

As an example that we all should be able to understand, you have a successful site,making tons of cash and you have decided that your children should be able to continue it ater you ar gone but the second you snuff it, the site is free to be ripped off by all and sundry. thats not really fair is it?

Well, look at what he said...the grandchildren of Irving Berlin should NOT have any right to monetize their grandfathers work because they didn't do anything to earn it.

Yet, in the same breath the insinuation is made that the gideongalleries of the world SHOULD be able to monetize it. Even though they didn't do anything to earn it either!

So yeah, if a person works their entire lives and wants to leave something for his family that he loves...too bad! Instead all of his musical works should belong to GideonGallery and GatorB

Of course, if gideon or gator were the ones who actually DID something and wanted to leave that legacy to their children and grandchildren and their families...I think they might feel slightly different.

But that's just me. I'm sure if my name were Karl Marx I would feel more like the gideongallery types of this world.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Well, look at what he said...the grandchildren of Irving Berlin should NOT have any right to monetize their grandfathers work because they didn't do anything to earn it.

Yet, in the same breath the insinuation is made that the gideongalleries of the world SHOULD be able to monetize it. Even though they didn't do anything to earn it either!

no he is not
he is saying those kids should not have a right to PREVENT people from monetizing the work.

the kids could still make money from the work, they could sell it themselves from their own domain for example.

the point of public domain is that everyone should have an equal right make money from the work

So yeah, if a person works their entire lives and wants to leave something for his family that he loves...too bad! Instead all of his musical works should belong to GideonGallery and GatorB

Of course, if gideon or gator were the ones who actually DID something and wanted to leave that legacy to their children and grandchildren and their families...I think they might feel slightly different.

But that's just me. I'm sure if my name were Karl Marx I would feel more like the gideongallery types of this world.

funny
how you are the one argueing for a government granted monopoly and accusing me of being marxist.

henry ford didn't need a monopoly on car production to make money. he could compete against different companies who used his IP for the horseless carriage against him.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

funny
how you are the one argueing for a government granted monopoly and accusing me of being marxist.

henry ford didn't need a monopoly on car production to make money. he could compete against different companies who used his IP for the horseless carriage against him.

You idiot.
Number one...I'm not asking for "government granted" anything! The govt. doesn't create ANYTHING. Kinda like you.

Second...Henry Ford didn't have a monopoly on car production. But he goddamn sure owned FORD. Just like Irving Berlin doesn't have a monopoly on music. But he damn sure owns HIS music.

You are completely retarded gideongallery. You have no idea what you are even typing. Your intelligence level is very, very low my friend. You keep babbling on and on about subjects that you are ignorant of.

Don't you understand that all these "facts" that you find on bit torrent forums are highly biased towards your point of view (stealing)?

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Fuck. How much does it take for you goddamn gideongallery lovers to start talking FACT instead of what's in your delusional minds.

Ok first I'm not a gideongalley lover. I do respect copyright and I am against torrents and illegal downloading and the "timeshifting" excuse is bullshit. That does not mean however that copyright laws are not out of whack and have been for a longtime. Seriously if you think 135 years for a copyright is somehow fair or reasonable or "limited times" as the Constiution says then you're crazy. Back in the 70's copyright was a maximum of 56 years. I'm not so sure what was wrong with that? If I made something today frankly I'm expecting to make money TODAY not 56 years from now. WTF do I care WTF happens when I'm 97? Hell I'll probably be dead by then. And hopefully my son who will 71 by then would have found away to make living besides waiting for me to die so he can live of off my work I did half a century before.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Well, look at what he said...the grandchildren of Irving Berlin should NOT have any right to monetize their grandfathers work because they didn't do anything to earn it.

I believe I said great great great great grandkids. And no I don't believe I have any kind of special right to something one of my ancestors that was born 175 years before me did.

So yeah, if a person works their entire lives and wants to leave something for his family that he loves...too bad! Instead all of his musical works should belong to GideonGallery and GatorB

It's called PUBLIC DOMAIN. You probably taken advantage of it all the time. Hypocrite. Do you sing happy birthday at bithday parites? Do you send a royalty check to the peopl that wrote that song? No you don't. So you are violating your own principals.

Of course, if gideon or gator were the ones who actually DID something and wanted to leave that legacy to their children and grandchildren and their families...I think they might feel slightly different.

But that's just me. I'm sure if my name were Karl Marx I would feel more like the gideongallery types of this world.

Listen TURD don't put me in the same catagory as Gideon and nope sorry you do not get to pass your works onto your family perpetually. Perhaps you should READ the Constitution. WTF do you think PUBLIC DOMAIN is? Do you not believe in the US Constitution or not? If not I suggest moving out of the US.

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;

Which part of LIMITED TIMES is too hard for you to grasp?

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

[Fletch XXX]

Timeshifting is not illegal, people do it every single day with TIVo etc... and court case says it is in fact legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting

The legality of time-shifting programming in the United States was proven by a landmark court case of Universal Studios versus Sony Corporation (Sony v. Universal, or the "Betamax case"). In 1979, Universal sued Sony, claiming its timed recording capability amounted to "copyright infringement". Sony argued that the advent of its Betamax video recorder in 1976 did not violate the copyright of the owners of shows which the device recorded. A district court found that noncommercial home use recording was considered fair use and ruled in favor of Sony. In appeals, the United States Court of Appeals reversed this decision in 1981 giving the edge to Universal, but the Supreme Court of the United States reversed it yet again in 1984, and found in favor of Sony 5-4. The majority decision held that time shifting was a fair use, represented no substantial harm to the copyright holder, and would not contribute to a diminished marketplace for its product.

If timeshifting was illegal TIVo would be long gone.

[Don Pueblo]

gideon has wasted hours upon hours of trying to convince people of something that can't be justified. period. not only is he a dicksucking toolbag, he's stupid for wasting his time too.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

henry ford didn't need a monopoly on car production to make money. he could compete against different companies who used his IP for the horseless carriage against him.

Ford did not invent the horseless carriage.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by GatorB

It's called PUBLIC DOMAIN. You probably taken advantage of it all the time. Hypocrite. Do you sing happy birthday at bithday parites? Do you send a royalty check to the peopl that wrote that song? No you don't. So you are violating your own principals.[/url]

No I'm not.
I DO sing Happy Birthday at birthday parties. I also sing a lot of other songs at different times as well as whistle and hum them.

What I DO NOT DO is put up a website with "happy birthday" recorded on it and surround it with dating and cam site pre-paid ads. Nor do I try to sell the sheet music to Happy Birthday at a store. I do NOT monetize the song "Happy Birthday" in any way at all.

Now stop acting stupid. I just whistled Happy Birthday sitting here right now. NO, I'm not "taking advantage" of "public domain" by doing that.

What kind of thinking are you doing anyway?

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

Timeshifting is not illegal, people do it every single day with TIVo etc... and court case says it is in fact legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting

The legality of time-shifting programming in the United States was proven by a landmark court case of Universal Studios versus Sony Corporation (Sony v. Universal, or the "Betamax case"). In 1979, Universal sued Sony, claiming its timed recording capability amounted to "copyright infringement". Sony argued that the advent of its Betamax video recorder in 1976 did not violate the copyright of the owners of shows which the device recorded. A district court found that noncommercial home use recording was considered fair use and ruled in favor of Sony. In appeals, the United States Court of Appeals reversed this decision in 1981 giving the edge to Universal, but the Supreme Court of the United States reversed it yet again in 1984, and found in favor of Sony 5-4. The majority decision held that time shifting was a fair use, represented no substantial harm to the copyright holder, and would not contribute to a diminished marketplace for its product.

If timeshifting was illegal TIVo would be long gone.

You are absolutely right. But gideongallery equates that with torrent sites to steal every movie, song, and software on the planet and put companies out of business and cost people their jobs. Timeshifting for personal use is absolutely okay. Hiding behind "timeshifting" to steal is bullshit.

[bronco67]

Is there anyone thats actually ever created something that wants lax copyright laws? I can't imagine that.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Robbie

No I'm not.
I DO sing Happy Birthday at birthday parties. I also sing a lot of other songs at different times as well as whistle and hum them.

What I DO NOT DO is put up a website with "happy birthday" recorded on it and surround it with dating and cam site pre-paid ads. Nor do I try to sell the sheet music to Happy Birthday at a store. I do NOT monetize the song "Happy Birthday" in any way at all.

Now stop acting stupid. I just whistled Happy Birthday sitting here right now. NO, I'm not "taking advantage" of "public domain" by doing that.

What kind of thinking are you doing anyway?

You may not have noticed, but GatorB is not very bright. You might want to touch on commercial vs personal use.

[CrkMStanz]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

Timeshifting is not illegal, people do it every single day with TIVo etc... and court case says it is in fact legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting

The legality of time-shifting programming in the United States was proven by a landmark court case of Universal Studios versus Sony Corporation (Sony v. Universal, or the "Betamax case"). In 1979, Universal sued Sony, claiming its timed recording capability amounted to "copyright infringement". Sony argued that the advent of its Betamax video recorder in 1976 did not violate the copyright of the owners of shows which the device recorded. A district court found that noncommercial home use recording was considered fair use and ruled in favor of Sony. In appeals, the United States Court of Appeals reversed this decision in 1981 giving the edge to Universal, but the Supreme Court of the United States reversed it yet again in 1984, and found in favor of Sony 5-4. The majority decision held that time shifting was a fair use, represented no substantial harm to the copyright holder, and would not contribute to a diminished marketplace for its product.

If timeshifting was illegal TIVo would be long gone.

timeshifting - as dealt with by the supreme court in this ruling - assumed that the TIVo was a 'private' timeshift. And as such I fully agree with and endorse it.

sticking it in a 'cloud , torrent, fileshare site... etc' (ie, a PUBLIC place) is not what they were considering or even envisioned.

I think if Sony HAD envisioned it and had their lawyers guide the ruling so that the ruling would emphasize the difference between public and private timeshifting.... then everyone would be a lot happier today.

just my

[nikki99]

I farted

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

timeshifting - as dealt with by the supreme court in this ruling - assumed that the TIVo was a 'private' timeshift. And as such I fully agree with and endorse it.

sticking it in a 'cloud , torrent, fileshare site... etc' (ie, a PUBLIC place) is not what they were considering or even envisioned.

I think if Sony HAD envisioned it and had their lawyers guide the ruling so that the ruling would emphasize the difference between public and private timeshifting.... then everyone would be a lot happier today.

just my

except everything you just argued was invalidated by the supreme court last year

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud

the supreme court just upheld this decision

The plaintiffs urged the court to hold that if 1000 copies of the season finale of Desperate Housewives are played back in 1000 households, that's a public performance. The court instead correctly concluded that each of those copies is playable in only one household, which means that we're talking about 1000 private viewings, not a public performance.

public transmission != public broadcast

and you can publically transmit something that is used legally for private viewing.

read the case law before talking out of your ass.

[CrkMStanz]

nice try Giddyboy

The Cablevision copy is not available to the general public

as usual - you try and use an example that does not address the subject

the cloud/torrent/fileshare thing allows anyone to access it

Cablevision plan = PRIVATE backup/timeshifting and should be allowed
cloud... et.al. = PUBLIC backup/timeshifting and should not be allowed

why can't you tell the difference?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

nice try Giddyboy

The Cablevision copy is not available to the general public

as usual - you try and use an example that does not address the subject

the cloud/torrent/fileshare thing allows anyone to access it

Cablevision plan = PRIVATE backup/timeshifting and should be allowed
cloud... et.al. = PUBLIC backup/timeshifting and should not be allowed

why can't you tell the difference?

read the case again no where did it say anything about keeping the data private was necessary for cablevision to be allowed to do what they were doing

the cloud in the spec included the public internet as well.

the only key point that is relevent is that public transmission (some of which is thru the public internet) is not public broadcast.

i had this arguement before with Nautilus when i first talked about this case and when thru all the details there, i am not going to waste my time doing it again in another thread.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...a+cloud&page=4


http://gofuckyourself.com/showthread...s-cloud&page=2

read the full thread and then come back and talk.

[fris]

gideon i would think someone in the industry would want better laws to deal with tube sites, but it seems you want people to be able to steal without any action being done

[kane]

It seems to me that copyright could find a legitimate middle ground somewhere.

For example.

You grant a work of art - lets just use a book as an example - a copyright for a period of time. Again for example's sake we will say 50 years. So you write book and you own the copyright on the book for 50 years. After that 50 years is up the copyright becomes semi-public domain. What I mean is that you still control the copyright in terms of making money from the work, but when it comes to educational, scientific or artistic study the work is in public domain.

This way if a publisher wants to create a special 50th anniversary edition of the book and put it out in stores, you still get paid. But if a school wants to use the book as a learning tool, you don't get paid. If a school wants to put on a play based on your book, you don't get paid, but if a movie company wants to make a movie of your book you do.

This would allow those who had legitimate educational interests in the book the ability to access and use it without cost, but those who wanted to make money off of it would still have deal with the original copyright owner.

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by kane

It seems to me that copyright could find a legitimate middle ground somewhere.

For example.

You grant a work of art - lets just use a book as an example - a copyright for a period of time. Again for example's sake we will say 50 years. So you write book and you own the copyright on the book for 50 years. After that 50 years is up the copyright becomes semi-public domain. What I mean is that you still control the copyright in terms of making money from the work, but when it comes to educational, scientific or artistic study the work is in public domain.

This way if a publisher wants to create a special 50th anniversary edition of the book and put it out in stores, you still get paid. But if a school wants to use the book as a learning tool, you don't get paid. If a school wants to put on a play based on your book, you don't get paid, but if a movie company wants to make a movie of your book you do.

This would allow those who had legitimate educational interests in the book the ability to access and use it without cost, but those who wanted to make money off of it would still have deal with the original copyright owner.

That seems reasonable to me!