only 84 of the 23,322 "expendable" pirates are still potentially liable for copyright infringement
 

http://torrentfreak.com/23238-allege...k-free-110802/

the horror copyright holders have to obey the copyright law (and fair use) of the country of the potential "infringer".

no more forcing american laws down the throat of more enlightened countries like Canada (who has a piracy tax, and real privacy laws)

Where does it say an American company can't sue a Canadian for Piracy?

That article doesn't say a Canadian can't be sued for piracy.

That's only fair.
If we had to obey every law in every country, we wouldn't be able to do anything. No american would tolerate being sued because their activity online might brake some law in Russia or China or something.

The Expendables was shit.

you really need to learn. the jurisdiction is "district of columbia", not the whole country. it doesn't mean they cannot go after them, only that they need to file in the appropriate district in the us.

i love when freetards can't read.

you can sue a Canadian in a US court, getting a Canadian court to enforce the judgement I read recently has become trickier.

never said that

you can sue a Canadian IN Canadian court.

what being disallowed by this ruling is suing anyone outside the home state weather that be another state, or another country doesn't matter.

you do realize that no US district has jurisdiction over Canada

which means if you can't sue someone who is not in the district that would include Canada

to many of you guys have argued that copyright holders have a right to force me to fly down to California to defend myself for shit that my court system has ruled is fair use.

this case establishes again that i am right and all those idiots are wrong.

you want to sue me copyright infringement you need to show up in an Ontario court to do it.

i understand that. but the canadians involved is a small number. it isn't like 22,000 are in canada, only a few are. the rest are just not in that courts jurisdiction.

you are such a freaking freetard. why do you even post here?

Only 1 post out of Gideon Gallery's 5938 posts have contained sane logic :1orglaugh

Gideon likes to make shit up out of thin air ?

Canadians get sued by americans all the time.

so what they are saying is 84 of 23,322 people plead guilty the first round and everyone else pleaded innocent?

it means you sue them in their district dumbass

no it hasn't.. it has ruled OTHER cases are fair use.. fair use is on a case by case basis. Just because a canadian case of timmy getting hit by a car does not mean you can steal shit, you just think it does.
sorry , your name was not mentioned , you are still an idiot.

that stupid movie needs to pay them a $ :D

which in the case of a canadian citizen in ontario would be ontario

are you actually so stupid that you believe that the entire concept of legal precedent does not apply to fair use case.


Once a fair use is established it is established

pvr did not have to go to court to re-establish that they were legal just like a vcr.

nope we haven't even gotten to that stage yet

that all the cases that were thrown out vs those that were allowed to continue

those 84 people still have a right to fight still with all the normal arguments ( IP address is not valid proof of a person)

I kind of feel bad for gideon. It's obvious he is too poor to afford content and spends all day trying to justify stealing it.

you want to quote one single post i have ever made where i said you should get shit for free

i have defended the fair use right to timeshift content you PAID for

i have defended the right to take music that you PAID for thru a piracy tax

you seem to be so stupid you think claiming something is fair use means it is legal , even though the courts have clearly not followed your Gidiot logic..

The courts have time and time again REJECTED fair use defenses. You seem to think calling something "fair use" makes it legal. It doesn't.. Perhaps you need to go look up legal precedent..

only under the exact same scenario.. fair use in the courts is on a case by case basis.. if you could establish your fair use is EXACTLY like another legal case THEN and ONLY then can legal precedent be used as a deciding factor.. thus your betamax excuse for theft is just a fart in the wind that only you can smell the shit..

name one of my legal predictions that have been wrong
you can't because it has never happened yet.

bullshit when a court case establishes a right it defines the scope, it does not say only when it EXACTLY the same it defines the scope in the ruling.

the limits on those established fair use must be argued in the court case.

for example in the 20th century vs cable vision case 20th century argued that fair use of time-shifting for personal use should be excluded because cable vision time-shifted over the PUBLIC cloud. They argued that this limitation of fair use was legitimate because public broadcasts were explicitly defined as infringing within the act.

the appeal court over ruled this (and the supreme court upheld) that it was a public TRANSITION not a public BROADCAST so the fair use still applied.

by doing so they completely eliminated the BS it not fair use because it public argument you guys keep trying to make because it not weather it a public or not it weather it a PUBLIC BROADCAST or not that defines it legality

your actually arguing the reverse which is not the case

I saw your mom on the planet of the apes trailer.

.

btw a pvr and a vcr are radically different

pvr allowed 100s of hours of content to be recorded and kept in perfect quality for months if not years

pvr allowed you to record multiple shows at the same time

they significantly advanced the commercial skipping ability of recorders

if as you say it needs to be EXACTLY the same the fact that you can timeshift two+ shows from the exact same hour would have been more than enough to drag the PVR makers back thru the court system back to the supreme court.

The precedent applied because the PVR followed the defined rules of timeshifting

moving the personal viewing of a tv show paid for /granted from day 1 to day 2.