and like i said

if that bullshit arguement worked

you just killed the internet

because every single node in the network running tcp/ip packets represents multiple individuals conspiring to make full working copy.

by definition that how every picture, video, and line of text is spread across the internet, in tcp/ip packets.



except the only way a copyright holder could collect evidence for that crime is if they were the downloader

the downloader has a right to download it (authorized agent) which means the seeder isn't giving it to someone who doesn't have a right to it

that exactly the same situation as me loaning my betamax cassette of knight rider to a friend who had TV/VCR/NBC in his home.

the second you put a third party in the mix, the seeder no longer gives away any working copies at all, he gives 1/2 the pieces to person a and 1/2 to person b and then he is done.

The difference is the intend.
It's a hell of a lot easier to prove intend when an individual user install an application where the purpose is to only route specific types of "packages" through the internet to combine them into a complete product where the usage and/or distribution of that complete product is unlawful.

It's not by any chance compare-able to legitimate infrastructure providers. On top of that an infrastructure provider can be found guilty if they knowingly let their users / customers / agents misuse their networks.

The difference is the infrastructure providers do not know exactly what passes through, they may have an idea but the private p2p user can see exactly what passes through by looking in their client software.


That's not 100% correct, while the investigator may have the right to download the content the investigator may be able to see who your peers are to determine you are seeding it to 3rd parties or the investigator may be able to get a court order to investigate your computer based on their findings from where they can gather their evidence for a full blown case.
Besides, just because you are an investigator doesn't mean you have the rights to use a full version of what you are sharing.

Throw a 3rd person in it and it's a conspiracy, look it up.

And it's not the same as a cassette, you can lend your friend a cassette with knight rider to a friend but you cannot take a copy of your cassette and give him the original or the copy, then you duplicated and distributed the content. You are allowed to make backups of your cassette but if you let someone borrow 1 they have to take all backups too.

you just made my point for me

ever since timeshifting in a cloud has been validated by supreme court the intent of p2p user is no longer just infringement

so all of the point you made about the infrastructure provider apply to the p2p transaction

my intent is to use the swarm as a timeshifting/backup cloud, for content i paid for

the only way you can make that illegal is claim that even 1 infringement happening anywhere within the transaction invalidates all the transactions within the process

guess what same logic would have to apply to the internet, intent be damed.



again supreme court decision to allow timeshifitng in a cloud changes this again
the process is not infringing by it very nature
there are both legitimate and illegitimate actions within the very same swarm

and the seeders have NO IDEA which people in the swarm are which.

wrong tpc/ip has information in the header that tells you what is bieng passed, what they don't know is weather it infringing or non infringing,

see above.

but you do have a right to download it so that validates the transaction

except you eliminate the crime at the same time which invalidates the conspiricy too
look it up

re read the testimony of JV when the mpaa was attempting to tarriff VCR because the fair use of timeshifting went too far

everything you are saying is not allowed, was explictly complained about (along with making commercial free copies)

those rights were all established with timeshifting right in the past, stop trying to take them away from the new technology.

:1orglaugh:thumbsup

Not really no. I'm not trying to outlaw P2P / file sharing / time shiting / backup cloud or whatever new word you decide to call it. Legitimate usage I have no issues with legal use of P2P. It's not at all compare-able with the internet as a whole.

If infringements happens because of something you do your responsible.

By your logic we should outlaw roads because people are speeding on them.

P.S. I love how you say "not JUST infringement"
Cloud may not by it's nature be illegal however it can be used for illegal purposes which doesn't actually make the cloud illegal just the action itself.

Again you can drive a car but it's neither the cars or the roads fault if you commit a crime while driving.

Nobody have the right to download anything they do not have the right to possess so the crime have not been invalidated




In Denmark they managed to tariff CDs, this specific part I have not looked into, however my common sense tells me that since the CD's was tariffed the purpose of the cd's was to distribute the copies hence made it legal. If they are not tariffed it means the purpose of the CDs was not to distribute copies.

yes you are you originally said



your arguement was because i give pieces of content to 1/2% of the population which doesn't have at least 1 tv i should have a right to use torrents as a timeshifting device.

even i have no control or even knowledge of which people in the swarm is infringing

instead of going after the individual without a right, your saying you should take away my right to timeshift using the swarm.

even though i bought the show

even though sharing (tape trading) was covered by the original right when it was established


idiot that your arguement not mine

i want you to only go after the speeder/ the .5% of the population which didn't buy the tv shows

leave the 99.5% of the people who did alone because their actions are nothing but the shit that the original timeshifting right allowed.


you couldn't speed if cars didn't go that fast
you couldn't speed if roads didn't exist

as you said if infringement happens because of something you do your responsible

my arguement is the exact opposite









moron the tarriff wasn't a negotiation made to grant us timeshifting rights

the right was granted by the court
they mpaa documented all the rights that court ruling gave the average consumer
and bitched that unless the government stepped in to change the law the industry of broadcast tv would die.

your trying to add conditions that courts already ruled out

conditions that the testimony proves the mpaa knew were granted (becuase they complained those "rights" would kill the indistry)

the fact that the congress told the mpaa to fuck off, doesn't invalidate any of those court granted rights.

i cant afford to download...

No I said make money on a thief. I guess you associated the thief to be all P2P users, what does that say about you ?

I'm sorry I did not fully read through your reference, I have now and this is one of the key points

The way the Cablevision system was designed, every time a consumer decided to record a given show, Cablevision would store a separate copy of that program, and each of those copies could be played back only by the consumer who recorded i

When you seed in the swarm you
1: Do not know if the user is allowed to view this copy
2: The same copy can be viewed by multiple users
3: Each consumer have not recorded their own program

On top of that, from a memorandum I have from several years ago you cannot make a copy of a tv show available to a user of a cloud (remote) DVR that was recorded previous to the user requesting it, it must be recorded AFTER the request was made and recorded for that user specifically. (this may be wrong or have changed, I do not know but that's what I would go based on)

no you did not you started posting how i did not have a right to timeshift shows i paid for because i was sharing (distributing) as well


your exact words

you point blank attacked timeshifting via a cloud


read the case moron because you making arguement that have already been ruled invalid

the arguement that public components invalidate the right was denied (they argued it wasn't good enough because it didn't have a hard line between the house and the data center)

the fact is every arguement you just made has already been invalidated in that case


secondly the highlighted person is dead wrong

you do not play the same copy

if i paused my copy it would not pause for anyone in the swarm

the court case defined the distinction between public transmission and public broadcast

making a private copy from a public transmission was ruled to be legal

that exactly what both swarm and the cablevision system does

a local copy is made, that local copy is played, only one site plays each local copy.

Thanks that's my point. You do not have the right to replicate the local copy and it's a cloud only if the cloud stored copy disappears when the seed/torrent is removed which doesn't happen.

idiot

that exactly WHY the timeshifting is legal

they don't broadcast it from the data center/cloud

it exactly because a copy is made on the local machine AND PLAYED FROM THERE

that the normal public broadcast rules don't apply

you are either the stupidest person alive

or your deliberately misrepresenting what i just said on purpose.

oh and btw in the cable vision version if the cloud version disappeared the local copy stayed around too

it wasn't auto deleted.

so your arguement is total and utter bullshit

AHA!

If it's your cloud and/or swarm you control it and it's storage.

Since you are incapable of removing the data or make modifications you can't claim it's yours hence you are sharing it. That's called piracy

Cable Vision control THEIR cloud.

You do not control "YOUR" cloud.

Figure out the difference my learning friend :)

no they don't the cloud in question included the public internet

if the courts had AGREED with fox that solution required a hard line between the house and the data center you could have made that arguement (control by cablevision)

But courts rejected that requirement


your attempted to argue a point that has already been ruled out.



That total and utter bullshit.

idiot

the timeshifting right is granted to the USER of the cable vision PVR


that user has no ownership of the cloud

it "owned" ("" since it included public internet as part of the cloud) by the service provider
cable vision.

so again if this arguement had any validity

cable vision would have lost

they didn't so that proves this arguement is total and utter bullshit too.

No, you are comparing apples and oranges.

You'll loose for not being able to control your time-shifted content, it's storage and who may access it. I never at any point said there had to be a direct link nor that the internet couldn't be used

Cablevision designed THEIR platform to let THEIR customer, the time-shifter, control their cloud which is why they did not need to license the stored data for distribution.

That's the difference between you and cablevision, that invalidates several of your previous arguments.

Unless you have something new to say I'll let you have the final answer in your next reply, your just running in circles :thumbsup

i am running in circles because you making up insanely stupid statements to justify your bogus position

now your arguing that you can only get fair use rights from a single corporate entity

well that bullshit and you know it

dozens of open source cd rippers exist
dozens of dvd rippers exist

dozens of open source pvr exist

those plateforms are designed to provide fair use services (the last being timeshifting) without a corporate structure defining it use

the same is true for a swarm, it just the open platform (think open source) version of the fair use right

fact is it all legal because fair use is a blanket exemption to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder

read the copyright act no where does it mandate control, or even a single responsible party PERIOD.

the exclusive rights of the copyright holder exist not withstanding fair use

for fair use there is no exclusive rights, it is effectively public domain for that scope.

btw moron what exactly about the statement


do you not understand

the cable vision client only has control over the local copy

exactly the same as the swarm.

I'll write it slowly this time so it'll be easier for you to comprehend.

If your bringing nothing new to the table I'll just let you go on with your rampage.

Rambling on how dvd rippers and fair usage justifies your file sharing and now starting to call it public domain goes beyond me.

when your right from the very begining and your arguing with an idiot who keeps dancing around desperately to justify his position you have to keep going back to the same point

the court case proves my point so i keep going back too it.

you originally said
i pointed out that was insanely stupid because

1. seeder never gives away a complete working copy of the file,
2. .5% of the swarm wouldn't have a right to the content and
3. tcp/ip packets work on the same practise

so if you made the seeding of pieces to .5 % who didn't have a right voided the entire fair use right, you just destroyed the internet because copyright infringement happens because of tcp/ip too.

you have been dancing around making up more excuses to try and justify your bogus idea of copyright

now your trying to claim that you need control over the content in the swarm to have a fair use right.

that lack of control voids fair use

no where in the definition of fair use is control defined as a requrement

it the most insane arguement because your actually going against the very wording of the copyright act.


nowhere whatsoever does it say anything about any type of personal control being required for a fair use to exist.

nowhere whatsoever does it say that it must be private for the fair use to exist

if it meets those 4 conditions PERIOD it fair use

and using the cloud to move the viewing time for content you purchased from monday to tuesday (timeshfiting using the cloud0 meets those 4 conditions to the exact same degree as using a vcr to move the viewing from monday to tuesday.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh AND microsoft!

That's hilarious!

P.S. you just admitted the infringement

Are you going to defend yourself in court if you get sued or are you going to fight it together with microsoft who incorporated the tcp/ip protocols making it possible and the us government who build the internet? Sounds like they are equal partners in this

GideonGallery - You are fighting a losing battle. I've seen Due argue with phone support over a $5 charge for 3 hours because it entertained him.

ok smart guy then explain your positiion then

the supreme court explictly ruled in this case

that making a private copy from a Public transmission was still entitled to fair use protection based on the use of that private copy

how exactly is the transmission public if as you claim it only fair use if it controled by a single company.
By definition a single company controling it would make it private.

I think he is arguing that with this case if you tell the DVR to record a show it makes a copy of that show and only you have access to it Only you can play it thus it is a private copy.

If you seed a show via torrent you are sharing that copy with many other people therefore it is no longer private.

except that private copy is transmitted over the PUBLIC internet from the data center

this was the hard line arguement that was denied

the private local copy is made from the public transmission

it is not a public broadcast just because the transmission is public

you just reverse the very ruling of this case

the local copy i get from the PUBLIC swarm is just as PUBLIC internet

a bit by bit packet sniffer and the transmit to address is all i need to take an unauthorized copy from cablevision system.

that person not the timeshifter/cablevision is responsible

if cablevision only had the right if they perfectly prevented any unauthorized access they would have won the case.


so again i will ask the question

Really ? So now your file sharing is OK because you can package sniff the data otherwise from cablevision ?

I already explained the difference in how it's recorded, distributed and stored. I never said any data had to be with a specific corporate or private entity to be considered a private copy.

It doesn't matter in the end since you focus on the theory and ideology for the general usage which doesn't legalize the actual usage.

You may also want to look into the law of agency as your swarm could be considered your agents since you claim they provide you private storage, if it could be determined that you with common sense would realize it's not the case or that it's in other ways being abused in ways you should be aware of it could be ruled that you adopted the act of your agent so strict liability could be enforced.

And really, what would a judge say if you claim in front of him "it's no different than if I used a package sniffer to get my copy that way"

Your arguments are based on ideology and several unsupported facts or speculations (0.005% unauthorized usage is an outrages statement) which is why there is no real reason to undermine that statement. I think it's more interesting just to point out new ways to fight your "case"

If I was the person fighting these cases my goal would be to take settlements when I can and if people fight I'd aim for personal bankruptcy of the individual to set out examples to make future settlements easier.

and i never said that you did

we are talking about the PUBLIC transmission not the private copy

again the judege ruled and the supreme court upheld


the public internet is the public transmission part of the cablevision cloud

the swarm is the public transmission part of torrent cloud.

you argued that second public transmission invalidates the fair use right because of a lack of control

the same lack of control exists in the cable vision public transmission based on the very design of tcp/ip.

you keep dodging the question because you know it proves your wrong

1. It wasn't the supreme court that ruled in the Cablevision case, at least not according to the article you linked in this thread it was 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. According to this story the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

2. The way I read and understand the case here is why it was a success for Cablevision. When you push the record button on your remote the system makes a single copy of the program you want to record. They saw that as being no different that a person pressing the record button on a VCR. That the storage device was in a remote location made no difference. The reason for this is that there was no human interaction needed in the process. You press record, the system records your show. When you go to watch it it plays back that same show. It is just you and technology and not other humans are involved.

With the bit torrent swarm that is not the case. Many humans have to be involved. For you to back up your favorite show/movie or whatever to the swarm the other users have to, at the very least, seek out a torrent file, download that file, open that file with their bit torrent client and possibly then tell their client where to store the downloaded data. So there is much human interaction needed. Your backup cannot exist without the interaction of others.

3. These others are getting copies of the show/movie from your recorded copy, not their own. The case itself says if 1000 people record the same show the system makes 1000 copies of that show. If they all play them back at the same time it is then 1000 private viewings. If you are seeding a show and sharing it with the swarm you could end up with 1000's of people all getting copies of a show that they themselves did not record. They are all watching the same person's copy which could be looked upon as a public viewing.

That's a pretty good summary, + user cannot "record" a show from the past, he'll have to wait for the rerun + if user hit record half way through a show user will record only half the show.

Now that this is said again we will start over blaming the structure of tcp/ip, then caching. dvd-rippers, then some betamax cassettes etc etc etc

We can also get into some arguments the data is PUT INTO the cloud by the user or the data is FETCHED by the cloud by the cloud (ie the cloud download it), in theory it could be a good argument however since a user will be capable of exiting the cloud, when he exited the cloud he is just "an individual", at this point the cloud provided a copy of it's data. If the cloud is just a cloud without an owner (will the cloud remain if the original seeder exit? ) it's a conspiracy case if the cloud vanishes when the "owner" exit I'd look more into the law of agency as the cloud would be an agent acting on behalf of the seeder

And just for the reference Cablevision is not doing a public transmission on the public internet, cablevision is doing a private transmission (user is authenticated through his playback device) on a public network (the internet)

In reality we are going through the same arguments over an dover again and I have yet to see anything that could make the technology guilty of a crime and I doubt it's going to change in this thread. :thumbsup

In the UK, you can record TV on a DVR, but the HDD has to be formatted by the DVR and is only playbackable (is that a word? it is now) on the device that recorded it.

under the current legal system an explict declaration that they will not here the case is a declaration that the ruling was exactly on point

there isn't even need for a decenting oppinion or limiting condition (see below)

and guess what the original case had these issue as well and it still lost at the lower court level

the arguement that won and was reversed was the concept of public transmission being equal to public broadcast

this is what got reversed by the AC

it the validation that if you make a private copy from a public transmission it is entitled to fair use protection depending on the use of that private copy.

remember it not fair system it fair use.

please the cablevision os does that for the customer

and i can just as easily get the same level of hands off interaction by using the rss feed function of utorrent

subscribing to my favorite shows from tv related torrent tracker

like tvtorrents.com

that a straw man arguement at best and a completely bogus misrepresentation of the fact

those issue were considered irrelevent by the lower court ruling

the issue that defined weather it was infringement or not was the public transmission being considered equal to public broadcast

and that ruling was reversed by the appeals court.


bullshit

you don't play anything from the swarm

if i pause my playing it doesn't stop for anyone else
if i fast forward it doesn't fast forward for anyone else

if it stops it doesn't stop for anyone else
you play from your local private copy ONLY

the transmission of the data to the client side is thru a public medium for both examples

cablevision thru the internet

me thru the swarm.

again the key part of the ruling was that making a private copy from a public transmission is still allowed to have fair use protection.


your ignoring the rights granted by the court case (in this case the right to make a private copy from a public transmission) just like you ignored the rights granted by the original (in that case the right to make a commercial free personal copy) to make up rules that don't really exist.

your doing the same thing you did before with your official timeshifting vs swarm arguement in the other thread.

have you ever used a torrent before

the original seeder doesn't have to stay connected for the swarm to exist

once he/she has distributed 100% of the pieces the swarm is active even if the original seeder drops out

the data from the prespective of the swarm is redundant copy of those non working pieces.


that the stupidest statemet you have made so far

1. if that what they were doing then they would never have lost in the first place because there wouldn't have even been a public transmission to confuse with a public broadcast

2. the appeals court would have ruled that making a private copy from a public transmission is allowed because they would not be making a public transmission only a private one.

3. end points being private doesn't change the transmission between those two end points (in fact the private nature of the end points is exactly what making a private copy from a PUBLIC transmission is talking about)

4. you can't make a private transmission over a public protocol, using a public medium even a VPN is a virtual private network, a simulation of a private network, not a real private network.



well if you completely make up bullshit to make your point of course your never going to see anything that changes your mind.

if your going to go so far as completely ignore the fact control was never defined anywere in the fair use statute to claim that control is necessary to have fair use

of course your never going to see the legality of the technology

but the simple fact is if the techology was illegal on it spec (which is what your always sharing arguement is) then the techology as a whole would be shut down

see the morpheous case.

it hasn't happened and that proves your wrong.

And another interesting fact:

The brief also argues that the Second Circuit was well-reasoned. Since the Second Circuit found that the playback of programs from the remote DVR wasn?t a ?public performance,? the plaintiffs argued that this opened the door to all video-on-demand services also falling outside the realm of copyright. Again, the Solicitor General counters that this is an unfounded concern. Since the court limited its holding to situations where a unique copy was made with each recording, and where only the individual who made the recording could watch it, the business model of VOD would not be undermined if the opinion stood.

Sounds like your torrents is awfully similar to a VOD service? What makes you confident that your torrents could not be defined as being a VOD service ?

because VOD services are a broadcast based system, you are playing the stream, it a one to one stream but it still a stream. The model control is dependent on it being a stream otherwise it would not be on demand.


you don't make a private copy and don't play from that private copy.


that the exact difference this court case established when it defined public transmission as different then public broadcast.


even so the ruling could not cover all VOD anyway since the fair use of timeshifting requires you to have paid/given the right to the content in the first place. so even if someone came up with some sort of private copy version of VOD it still would do nothing but allow people who BOUGHT the content to gain access to the content they paid for at a later date.

that statement is wrong btw

the person who recorded it is not the only person who can watch the content

the person who recorded it

any member of the house hold

and anyone those people decide to show the video too also have access to that content

however that exactly the same rights we have always had with the vcr from the very begining of the service some 24 years ago.

I'm not going to argue this, but this isn't really correct. It means that they chose not to hear it. It doesn't mean that the agree with it fully nor does it mean that they have ruled on it. Several times in this thread in very large letters you have said the "Supreme Court has ruled" when in reality they haven't ruled on shit.

There was an obscenity case a few years back where the defendant won during the initial case then lost on appeal. They asked the Supreme Court to hear the case and were turned down. Why? Because the court felt that there were still other processes that could be handled at a lower court, not because they agreed with the ruling.



You will come unglued here and honestly I don't care, but I think you are just talking out your ass here. To me the way the ruling sounds it went through simply because 1 person can make 1 recording of a show and watch it back and it involves nobody else. It doesn't say that someone else can make a recording of the show and then make me a copy of it. It seems like that would be a public broadcast. I am all for cable companies being allowed to use a could of servers as remote DVRs, but that doesn't give me the right to then redistribute whatever I record.

I see using the bit torrent swarm as a form of distribution. I know you say it isn't because you are just giving away parts of the information and not all of it, but to me that is simply semantics that will one day be ironed out in legal rulings and laws. You're distributing something to other people and if you aren't giving it all to them you are conspiring with others to distribute it. There are plenty of other ways to back up your content for free without giving copies of it to other people.

In the end when it comes to TV shows I don't really care. So long as the person downloading the show had access to that show originally I don't see the big deal. Where it burns me is with movies and music because I am convinced that most of those users are pirates trading stuff they have no right to own or distribute.

link please because that seems to violate the concept of double jeapordy and due process (getting found guilty of a crime at the appeal process, not a new trial)

then why did they not win on the original case ?

that arguement was made at the very beginning

why did they have to address the difference between a public transmission and a public broadcast if the 1 to 1 relationship was the winning arguement ?

Here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...eme_Associates

The case is against Extreme Associates. When the case first when to trial the defendants successfully argued that since the transactions took place online the right to privacy prevailed here so since a person has the right to own and view these materials the company had the right to sell them. Obviously this is an over simple explanation, but it is the basis of what happened.

The judge sided with Extreme Associates and dropped the charges.

The Federal government appealed the ruling. The appeals court reversed the ruling.

Extreme Associates then petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. They denied to hear it and a new trial date was set. The two main people involved ultimately ended up pleading guilty to certain charges in an effort just to end this.

BTW I never said they were found innocent in trial then found guilty on appeal. Those are your words not mine. I simply said that the appeals court overturned the lower courts decision and that kind of thing happens all the time.

I'm need to go to bed but I'm not tired so thought I'd read a few of gideon's post ...... always works ......................................

.

Because they were able to successfully argue that if 1000 people record a show and all of them play it back simultaneously that is 1000 private viewings not a public broadcast which is what the opposition had been arguing.

The original broadcast of the show by the studio/network is a public broadcast, your recording and viewing of the recording is a private viewing.

This is how the legal system works. If you don't get the ruling you want you appeal and sometimes you get what you want on appeal.

you said they won the case not made a successful motion to dismiss

winning the case is being found not guilty
winning a motion to dismiss is arguing that the case should not even start

ok so we are going back to the "i will just totally misrepresent the facts that back up your arguement to make my bogus arguement" again.


they didn't win the case

1. they sucessfully made a motion to dismiss based on a constitutional arguement (therefore the trial never happened)
2. the government appealed that motion to dismiss and won (therefore the trial was back on
3. the supreme court agreeing completely with the appeals court that the laws was constitutionally valid refused to hear the case at all upholding the appeals court reversal

nothing about that case justifies the arguement
the trial was allowed to continue because the supreme court agreed with the appeal court ruling that the law in question was in fact constitutionally valid (rightfully so since privacy does not grant right of possession, just right to not have your possessions searched)

which is exactly the point i made orginally

They argued that the case should not be brought because of the right to privacy. The judge agreed with them. The judge dropped the charges against. This means they WON the case. Are you so stupid you can't see that? If two teams show up to play a game and one of them leaves the field before it stars, the other team wins.

They achieved what they set out to achieve. The government disagreed with the ruling and appealed. That doesn't mean they didn't win.

No. The Supreme Court stated that the lower courts should handle this not them. They may have agreed with some of the ruling, but the petition to the Supreme Court was filed before the second trial even started. The Supreme Court wanted that lower court to do its job and rule in this case. That never happened because before the case got going the defendants cut a plea deal.

But once again Gideon we are arguing semantics. I don't know why I waste my time in here. I could be using this time to create content that you and your pirate friends can plot to steal then use the technicalities of the law to justify.

Here is what I really wonder: Why do you care what we think? Why are you here? About a year ago when the whole debacle with The Doc went down you explained how you would never accept The Docs offer because even if you were the one sending all the traffic because making a couple million per year was not enough to justify your efforts. You explained how you hold classes and each week you teach 10 different people how to use your techniques to monetize their content via torrents. For this you get $5,000 plus a royalty for life. By my calculations this means you should have made about $50K per week for the last year, assume you took a couple of weeks off that means you brought in about $2.5 million just in fees not counting the royalties. You should be rolling in cash. If I had a deal going that made me a couple of million per year the last thing I would be doing is getting on a webmaster board and trying to convince a bunch of sharks to look into the legitimacy of the technology and yet here you are.

But then, of course, the reality sets in. Not too long ago you claimed you are the only one doing what you are doing and you are staying under the radar. Obviously you are selling your formula for $5,000 per person if you are the only one doing it and you are staying under the radar.

So which is it? Are you the mogul who banks $50K+ per week teaching classes or are you just the guy that we all think you are which is to say you are living in your mom's basement, working a shitty day job and downloading until it makes you orgasm at night all the while plotting on how someday you will use this technology to rule the world?

but you still didn't answer the question

why did they lose the first time they made that arguement

but win the second

appeals court doesn't simply say your wrong, you have to make a convincing arguement that the decision was wrong

if it wasn't the distinction between a public transmission and a public broadcast exactly what was that convincing arguement (not made in the original trial),

I don't know. But they did. maybe they presented the information in a different way. Maybe they had a better expert. Maybe they had more detailed presentation. Every day in this country appeals courts overrule lower court rulings.This is nothing new.

so being found not guilty is exactly the same win as getting a motion to dismiss

ok smart guy then why didn't double jeapordy apply to this win

why was the government allowed to start another trial against them

because the case never started they just won a motion to dismiss
double jeapordy didn't apply because the case didn't happen

the ruling had to deal with weather or not the trial was allowed to start

EA win said it shouldn't




the appeal court win said it should

the supreme court agreed with the appeal court

That WHY it was sent back to the lower court to START the trial that was MISTAKENLY stopped.

seriously do you even know how the appeal court works.


so your arguement is that the win had nothing to do with the distinction between public transmission and public broadcast

but because they had better experts (which can't be presented at the appeal court level) or more detailed presentation (which can't happen because the trial doesn't happen again in front of the appeal court).

hell even if you watch some law tv shows you should know that
your not allowed to present new evidence, you don't retry the case, you simply argue (with very strict time limits) how the ruling is mistaken.

public transmission vs public broadcast was that arguement.

Look, I don't give a fuck. I really don't. I am only curious about why you are here? Please answer my previous question. Why do you bother? Clearly you are not changing anyone's minds so what is your end game?

doc deal was publically available robbie and you guys could watch what i did and simply steal it without paying me a penny.

i could do the same thing any time spread it out amoung a hundred affiliate accounts make exactly the same money and keep it a secret and make both money i am making for selling the advice and the affiliate level commission doc was offering.


i never said 10 per week
i never said week in week out

it bigger classes spread out
there is a lot of prep to get those rooms filled
and a good portion of the up front fees are spent on building the components necessary to make the nashian equilibriums to work.

that being said the 10% royalties are nice, and they are growing every year.

btw i am not the only person splitting the money for this.


because this arguements help me make better training

when i prove your arguement are bullshit (maybe they had better experts at the appeal) i can bypass the arguement completely by addressing the objections in advance

abraham lincoln did that when he was a practicing lawyer he argued both sides of the case in front of the jury, he just did a better job on his side.

your stupidity helps me identify the winning arguements.

and i don't have to worry about the arguement costing me a sale