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

Wrong. Whatever you and Doc were going to do would have been between the two of you. He may have posted results, but it would have only been numbers, not the technicalities of what was going on.




You are right. I didn't remember it correctly so I went back and found it. https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17330347&postcount=198 this is the original post from about 11 months ago where you claim you had just taught 30 different people and you went on to explain how you wanted to get classes as big as 1500 people so you can make bank for only working 1 week per month. How has that worked out? You are paranoid that Robbie and I would steal your formula if you worked with TheDoc, but you are willing to give that formula to 1500 people and hope that they can use it to make money which you will get a royalty on and hope they don't screw you out of.

But then recently you claimed you were the only one doing what you are doing and you are staying under the radar. You can't be both. You can't be under the radar and the lone wolf yet teaching 1500 people the techniques. So which is is? I think we know.

BTW if you had taken the deal and worked with TheDoc and you were able to do 100 sales per day right now you would be a multi-millionaire.



Your problem is that you don't debate, you talk at. You never EVER accept that you might not be 100% correct in a situation. You often don't win debates with evidence, you simply wear other people out. That is annoying, it's not effective. You jump all over the place and if you can't win on one point you will go to another and another and another until eventually you forget what you were even debating about.

Here is a little tip. If you want to learn how to debate people you don't call them morons or idiots or racists. The second you start calling people names you start to lose credibility.

if i changed the content to make product placement for porn to be possible all you would need to do to copy it is look at the content

if i changed his tours so that they were piracy friendly all you would have to do do is look at the tour

the techniques could be copied from the changes so yes i would lose control

unfortunatly your cycle is close to tv shows which will be the real big money maker



1. the cycle for musicians is different then porn videos
2. i haven't gotton to the 1500 class level yet
3. when i do secrecy will be replaced with critical mass

i suggest you go back and read the thread because i already said that.



the one that works for mucisians may have similarities to the one that works for porn VIDEOS but it not exactly the same

i can teach the one that cycle for musicians

and keep the porn video cycle secret.

as long as you don't know exactly which musicians i a teaching you their hidden in the forrest of unsigned musicians.



seriously
http://www.wunjopress.com/images/Sof...le%20Black.jpg

your the guy who just argued that the appeals court ruled in favor of the exact same arguement that lost at the original trial because they had better experts at the appeal.

sorry but people so clueless about the way the law works that they would make those kinds of stupid statements are who i am arguing with.

moron is not name calling it an accurate title for those type of people.

Product placement in porn in a micro income stream, even with piracy, tubes, and 10's of million internet views, on a porn video - it's worth shit! And it has a cost, being that nobody is knocking our doors down to advertise them, we have to go hire someone to go get them, someone in that industry, someone that's going to cost.

And a piracy friendly tour? Hahaha.... :1orglaugh

Nobody would copy it... we want to convert better, not get a shit ton of crap traffic that requires the most craziest ass filtering ever to pull sales out of it. Then to normal adult traffic those features would be useless.

Overall, I'll put money down that your ideas wouldn't make more than a few extra grand a month.

a few grand a month per scene is nothing to laugh at especially if the individual changes take you less then 15 minutes.

You might find a few people willing to spend a few grand, a few times... but it will dry up fast & you sure as hell wont find one for every scene. Either way it's still going to cost money to find those people & people want stats/data, a pitch, ie: more money, time, investment if you want real money. They aren't just going to come to you, so the reality is, it's a few hundred bucks a scene, at best..

Like I said a micro income... and for micro incomes to work, you need staff to grow and maintain them, so you can stack them up, so it's actually worth the time put into them.

It's not going to hold your business over or pay for scenes.

i heard similar complaints from the musicians i taught this stuff too

they were all to small to get product placement money and it would be too much work for them to do it. yada yada yada

they were wrong and so are you.


if you truely understand how the system of product placement works the money is not small and it not hard to get at all.

Who said small? Big to small, it's the same micro money.... and it like that musician, they aren't finding the product placement companies, they pay someone else, the studio/production company or someone else, to do it all, find them, hire them, contract them, and then the musician gets paid - a micro amount.

Other than I've actually done it in our Industry and talked with those that have and know how tough it is and how little it brings in... AND I understand it has actual costs and I don't pretend like mainstream and music are different industries or taboo, when they aren't.... and porn is.

Getting your brand trashed through the Christian community is far far far far far far far far far more damaging than anything all of porn combined together could bring that brand to replace it.

It's funny to watch you pretend like you have a clue... dance away, dance away.

Usa ok!!

Again, nobody even needs to know what site you are promoting or how you are doing it. If we were to find it we would have to go searching for it and if it were really making 100+ sales per day I have a feeling TheDoc isn't going be posting the URL everywhere he goes.

The internet is a big place, there are plenty of places to hide and keep what you are doing to yourself.












the one that works for mucisians may have similarities to the one that works for porn VIDEOS but it not exactly the same

i can teach the one that cycle for musicians

and keep the porn video cycle secret.

as long as you don't know exactly which musicians i a teaching you their hidden in the forrest of unsigned musicians.[/QUOTE]


I did and it sounded a lot to me like you have a pipe dream that will likely never get off the ground.




Clearly you don't understand what I am saying. My point was that every day in this country lawsuits are lost and the losers file an appeal. At the appeal they do something differently than they did at the original trial and they appeal goes in their favor. I don't know what they did differently, I just threw out a few different thoughts. Whatever it was, it worked.

But here is the problem with you. You will not cede a single point. In the Extreme Associates case you can't even accept that they won their initial court case only to then later lose the appeal.

By definition Win means: A successful result in a contest, conflict, bet, or other endeavor; a victory. So if you go into a court case seeking to have the case thrown out and that is the result you get, you have won. You were victorious. You can't even allow yourself to see that reality.

As for he name calling. You are the one who claims to be trying to change an entire industry. You are the one who says that you are here to learn how to overcome objections so you can learn from them and overcome them before they ever come up so that you can identify winning arguments,yet most of your points start off with MORON, IDIOT etc.

I'm not trying to tell you how to live your life. I don't care about you. I think you are nothing more than an egotistical, self-entitled pirate who likes to wrap themselves in the flag of fair use crusader or free speech advocate or whatever you are masquerading as this week. But in my life I have done plenty of business with people and I know if I were to have called them a moron because they didn't understand what I was saying they would have kicked my ass out the door.

you can't guarrentee that

it one single site, that a hell of a lot harder to hide then just spreading out the success amoung a hundred different accounts

he was giving me 50% only he wanted me to be the only affiliate that no better than a standard affiliate deal.

the docs offer didn't have any upside (it the same amount i could get thru 100 different accounts) and a huge downside risk.

it was only worth it if he did all the grunt work out his half (ie moved the people who would have submitted galleries to tgp to submitting tube videos)

then the amount of money would have been way more than a standard affiliate deal.


but the point is the REASON why they won defines the scope of the ruling

your using this "whatever" to argue that it had nothing to do with the distinction between public transmission and public broadcast.


to argue my scope definition is wrong because you say this "whatever" reason actually exists.

moron i never said they didn't win at the lower court level

i said they didn't win the CASE

it not weather they won it WHAT they won

your saying that a win on a motion to dismiss is equal to winning a case

in this case a win of the case would have double jeapordy protection so you could be tried at all for the crime again

a win on the motion to dismiss means that it can be appealed and the case can continue

There is a huge difference between those two wins

The fact is the supreme court never hears trials, there was absolutely no way shape or form they only hear appeals (using the strict rules for an appeal)

there is no possible way that extreme associates could ever ask the supreme court to hear their case. which means they never made such a request, which also means your reason for not hearing it is totally bogus as well.


the only issue to ajudicate was the motion to dismiss, the supreme court decision to not hear the case at all was strongest form of agreement that could ever be voiced with the appeal court ruling

if even 1 judge believed there was outstanding issues with the ruling, one judge believed that a single issue need to be clarified, the supreme court accepts the case

that the way it works.

it works doesn't how many times have you said you don't know why you argue with me

your doing the research for me.

your still trying to argue that win in a case is equal to win on a motion to dismiss

that arguement is like saying that a if you bet on a basketball game and your favorite team wins at football you should get paid just because they exist within the same city

the win on one battle does not automatically win the war.

and the difference between a motion to dismiss that can be overturned on appeal

and a win on the entire case, which has double jeapordy protection is and will aways be completely different.

even though both are "wins"

[QUOTE=gideongallery;18218225]


No, what I am saying is a win is a win is a win. If two teams are scheduled to play a game and one doesn't show up, the one that did show up wins. It isn't the same kind of win as if they had actually beaten them on the field, but they still get the win.

Whether the extreme associates won because the case was thrown out (their desired result) or whether it went to trail and they won via a jury ruling doesn't matter. A win is a win and no matter the outcome there was going to be an appeal.

Had they won via a jury ruling the appeal might have been harder to win, but it doesn't change the fact that the won the first round of the fight.

In the end does it really matter? You are so lost in the details of everything that I can't imagine how you actually enjoy life. When you bang a chick do you go through a 48 point checklist with her as foreplay?

Either way I'm done. Mid-year resolution will be to no longer bother you in your threads.

ask the guys serving the jail time weather they would be in jail because yout only one a motion to dismiss or if they would rather be out free because they actually won their case

there is a huge difference between the two.
the jail time is the difference.

absolutely not if you win the case and get aquitted the prosecution can't appeal that win

look it up

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

this was why i was shocked when you claimed the won the case and it got overturned on appeal

that an impossiblity under the double jeopardy rules.

you keep making that promise you never seem to stick with it.