the real danger of draconian copyright protection
 

consumer groups, individuals, business and academics all align against and basically call for the exact opposite

http://torrentfreak.com/isps-academi...lation-110711/

personally i believe this other side is equally wrong, but given the massive errosion of rights (presumption of innocents) that these new laws if there is a only a choice between the two, this one should win. Money should never trump human/civil rights.

oh gawd, what a moron.

the only information that would be blocked by copyright is stuff that should be shared at the discretion of the rights holder, not anyone else. there is no erosion of civils rights from this, any more than there is an erosion of civil rights because there are property rights in our world. it is a total misdirection by freetards who just more and more shit for free.

gideon, you are trying one of the biggest freetards around. go away.

Wow, 380 people answered, half of which were individuals.... that's almost like 99.999999999999999% of the population not giving a shit vs. 190 pirates that do.

Aaaarrrrgggghhhh! I forget me letters of Marque.

:ugone2far

copyright is a conditional monopoly there is no way shape or form you can says right holders have sole discretion to share anything.

fair use supercedes your exclusive rights

What you just said right there, misrepresenting copyright monopoly as an absolute monopoly is exactly the problem we are talking about.

BTW copyright take away normal property rights, so by definition if made absolute they violate rights (human rights).

3 trade groups are responsible for the other side of the arguement

vs 190 trade groups on this side

i love how you misrepresent that fact as if it means the rest of the population doesn't care

Fair use doesn't give full rights to anyone.... what you did right there was twist a meaning to your own benefit.

Copyright has nothing to do with normal property rights and is so impossible to violate a human right, it's not even funny. I create it, I don't even have to release it, and it makes it impossible to take away from someone else, thus impossible to be a violation of human rights.

Since you always use the term "fair use", let's look at what the copyright office has to say:

from this page: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of ?fair use.? The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: ?quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author?s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.?

Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

Where in the world do you see torrents/tubes/P2P using fair use as described above?

You mean like saying, 190 trade groups? When it's 190 ISP's, consumer protection organisations, and academics? And MANY of the ISP's did call for strict rules - however they are against being Internet Police.... not exactly the same ideals here.

And how is "majority of copyright holders and various collecting societies" 3 trade groups?

Basically... the report is shit, your twist is shit, and your understanding of copyright is shit.

They use the safe harbor crap, dmca... user uploaded (like an isp or a host that can't monitor what you do) the rule is twisted to tubes as the 'user' doing it. We know it's bullshit, 99% aren't user uploads, but to prove that you have to sue first, and that opens a can of more worms.....

Torrent wise, they figured out a way to get around the law by breaking it up, from the file to how you find/locate and download, all being split up. So it's not file sharing now... I know it is, but in defined technical terms, it's not.

:bowdown:bowdown Thank you Thank you! That perfectly illustrates the limitations of fair use and its absolute inability to protect intellectual property pirates

I'm not going to ever waste my time arguing with gideon, because he is like a guy in prison on a life sentence that spends all day in the prison library, trying desperately to find a technicality to get his case back in court without any real understanding of the law. I will say this though, and that is there is a real climate change happening in regards to piracy, and it's a matter of when, not if, the outdated piracy laws are revisited and the end comes for the vast majority of pirate sites.

There was an interesting special on 60 Minutes on CNBC about piracy last night, and I was unaware of all the new laws on the horizon. With the amount of lobbyists Hollywood, the RIAA, software companies, etc. have in Washington a change is coming. I also wasn't aware that France had passed strict piracy laws that could cause you to lose your internet and put you in jail. When the day comes that the US government decides to take a special interest in piracy it will get really interesting. They have already shown the online gambling community that they will seize domain names and bank accounts and find you and put you in prison on whatever technicality they can find, and find you in whatever shit country you are hiding. A change is coming, and it might not be today, it might not be this year, but it is coming, and all the Torrent Freak cut and paste bullshit arguments in the world can't stop it... :2 cents:

do you not understand what a subject to clause is


or a notwithstanding clause means

the first makes all your exclusive right subject to you respect fair use (section 107)

and the latter EXPLICTLY defines fair use as not an infringement

both statements exclude the copyright act exclusive rights from the scope of fair use

your selling me property (cd/dvd/video/etc) and replacing the normal rights i would have for property with licienced rights (use rights).

fair use of copyright content is the only property right based usage of content allowed under the law

seriously you trying to justify using the copyright office legal disclaimer to justify invalidating fair use uses of a technology

if i USE torrents like a VCR to timeshift shows i paid for that USE is fair use

if i USE a tube site to make the commentary

this is the coolest dance routine i have ever seen



without showing you the video that commentary is worthless

this made me chuckle...

of course most individual citizens are against copyright laws - because they don't make money from creating something worth protecting, have a too small mind to understand the consequences and find nothing wrong in downloading music and movies for free. d'uh!

That 60 Minute special was pretty interesting. What really made me sad when was when they were talking about the movie The Matrix. Right now we are getting fed bullshit remake movies, sequels, etc. because in the current climate Hollywood won't take a chance on anything that they aren't 100% sure they will get a ROI on. The Matrix was an independent script that no one understood, but producers believed in it, threw $70 million at it, and the rest is history. Now in this climate that would never happen, and the independent filmmakers are getting screwed. It really is interesting the trickle down effect piracy has...

yep, from what I posted above:

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: ?quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author?s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.?

Short excerpts etc. Not full vids and movies to be passed around and viewed freely over the interwebs. :1orglaugh

just saw the timeshifting comment. Please show me where in the copyright law it states that timeshifting is fair use......

Sooo.... as I said, fair use does not give full rights to anyone.

No, I'm not selling you property, I'm selling you a copy - that is not a hard good, but you do have the legal right to turn into one, but does not give you the right to mass reproduce and profit from.

Yeah... I can twist shit to mean what I like at random times as well, it's easy to follow in your foot steps.

In the end, money will win, and dumb asses who don't understand that will be locked up.


:2 cents:

i read exactly the same in an interview with the screenwriter of Pirates of the Carribean - they rather invest 100+ million USD in the 5th sequel of something than risking 20 or 30 million on making a movie from a spec script.

unless of course you are Chris Mallick and have "enough" money to finance your own movie :winkwink:

You keep going on with the "fair use" thing, but you obviously have no idea what it is.

It boils down to people that have no talent to create will be in favor of things being free. People that actually "make stuff" will somehow magically receive income to keep creating art, in your utopian idea of what society should be.

that was one scene from an entire tv show
just enough to make the commentary valid

one tiny part that by definition is an excerpt




right here

http://supreme.justia.com/us/464/417/case.html

unless your going back to that bullshit only the fair uses defined in the act are legal

by ignoring the fact that the act also defines the rules they must follow to create new fair uses via the court system.

well your not doing a very good job since you just made my point

if i bought any other hard good property rights would in fact give me the right to sell
rework it, reproduce it and profit from it.

for me not to have that right as you say, copyright law has to take it away.

because those three trade groups represent the movie, tv, and music industry

they however are still the minority since for every content creator their is there are hundreds of regular people

Anyone can create and distribute their own stuff for free if they like. Just don't tell others how they should do it and don't distribute other's copyrighted material for free or for your own gain trying to justify it with some human/civil rights bullshit. And everything will be fine.

Fair use cases are viewed on a case by case basis, therefore one cases outcome is not necessarily the next's.

"You" might deem it a portion in your particular case but will a judge?

And what about the commentary? "this is the coolest dance routine i have ever seen"

The rationale of commentary rule is that the public reaps benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material.


Are the public "reaping" a benefit from that ?

Great, so very specifically this relates to Free television/VTR's:

The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i.e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works. The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home satisfies this standard of noninfringing uses both because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such time-shifting for their programs and because the District Court's findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use. Pp. 442-456.

So explain to me how this relates to Movies etc that are passed around freely on torrents and P2P's, yet have never been shown on the free airwaves.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

FREETARD is the perfect word to describe gideongallery and all the other thieves!

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhAHA!

someone who has never seen quest crew perform is getting to see something "cool"

that a public benefit

if they diagree and can present something cooler

i could be exposed to something cool

never said it did

reread what i said

when you criminalize the entire technology rather then go after only the infringers you take away my rights.

Man, would I not want to be relying on that as my defense.

We aren't talking about buying the rights to anything..... of course if you OWNED the actual rights you could what you want, DUH!

But you don't get those rights when you buy a win 7 cd or my content... at all, at any level. You CAN NOT resell it for profit and good fucking luck trying. Easily a 1000x court cases, ALL OVER THE WORLD that prove that.

Yeah, your twist is just as lame as the rest and means nothing...

exactly my point. everyone can give away stuff for free if he likes, even he worked years for it. but if a copyright exists, it has to be protected.

exactly the point i am making

copyright takes away normal property rights from the sale of an item

and replaces themm with Licience /use rights


that the second time you made my point for me again

your not doing a good job or arguing with me.

While I'm a firm believer in copyright I do believe that current rules are extreme. No thanks to Disney. 95 years( for coporations ) or 70 years after the death of the creator? No doubt Disney will soon be pushing congress to extend that 95 years even longer since Steamboat Willie's copyright currently runs out in 2022. Current copyright law actually violates the US Constitution but unfortunatley the Congress, many Presidents and Supreme Court feel otherwise even though it's plain as day. What's ironic Disney built his empire on making movies based on works that fell out of copyright. If the same copyright laws now applied then over half his movies never would have been made.

No, that's the point you're twisting, not making... and as I said, it does NOT take away from property rights.

NOBODY IS SELLING YOU THE RIGHTS - They are NOT automatically granted rights, EVER. You have NEVER been able to reproduce and sell for profit ANYTHING you purchase, EVER - and you will NEVER be allowed to do so, if it's copyrighted.

Resell the one thing, yes - Reclaim as YOUR ownership, for legal sale, HELL NO!

And that is NOT a violation of any right, period, not even slightly twisted - NO rights were granted and it's impossible that they are violated WHEN YOU HAVE NONE!

Stop twisting this shit to pure stupidity, it's pathetic and lame.


And to use your game... all your doing is proving my point by you continuing to twist your own stupidity.

please remember youre a fucking gimp with the legal experience of astro boy

Pardon me, Gideongallery but you are too stupid for words.

By your rationale every piece of intellectual property from which the authors earn a living should be GIVEN to the public under your rather odd definition of fair use.

H"Human/civl rights" my ass!

No one has the right to steal anybody else's stuff except in the rather starnge world in which you live.

wow third time

let me make it simple for you

if i bought a chair i could break it up, it could rebuild it, it could rent it, i could sell, i could even build copies of it

property rights give me those rights

if i buy a cd even though i own that particular media (property rights) i don't have any of the normal property rights (rent it, sell it, copy it, breakup/rebuild it)
because copyright takes those right away from me, and gives them exclusively to the copyright holder to assign with a LICIENCE.

AS i said from the very begining

copyright takes away normal property rights and replaces them with Licience/USE rights.