i think you completely missed this part

it only if the choice is between making file sharing fair use, and a complete violation of civil rights (presumption of innocents, privacy) that this choice should be taken

there is a middle ground

respect fair use completely and make money on what is left.

yes, because 99% of torrents are used to timeshift only those things which were originally aired and watched for free :1orglaugh oh man, you are purposely clueless. The old bury your head in the sand defense. If a technology is used mainly to pirate shit, taking it away doesn't take away your rights, you just have to go buy a VTR. Bam! Problem Solved!

you actually more dense than i ever thought is possible...

yes, you can build chairs as much as you want. but if the design of the chair you bought is patented, you can not build identical chairs and sell them. try that and end up like all the chinese copycats who get their their trade show booths raided and confiscated

and.......???????

A digital copy of something is NOT a fucking chair. If I sell my chair I no longer have use of that chair. If I want to sit in a chair I am required to buy another chair. If I copy a CD to my hard drive then sell that CD I'm still getting use of that music. The two things are not even closely related.

OMFG people just stop arguing with gideongallery and yes Ma Dalton that includes you too :)

do you believe using a pvr to record cable tv is illegal

the betamax case was established way back when only 3 stations shared the air ways

as new models (cable, ppv etc) came about timeshifting right expanded to include that

it not 99% but it up to 53%

stop trying to hold back the technological changes, you have to include all of the airing i paid for when i paid my cable bill not just the crappy stations i can get with rabbit years.

seriously you don't see how this proves the point about copyright holders holding bakc innovation

53% use it like an unlimited hard drive pvr that records every show and never fails and you actually argue we should go backwards to 24 year old technology.

ok, great, and you have proof to back that claim up i'm sure. 53% of people on torrents and P2P are only using it to timeshift content they already paid for or could have watched for free on broadcast networks. Right? They did a poll and everyone was perfectly honest, right? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

they used the same stat method that people prosecuting filesharer they connected to the swarm and logged the ip address as a count.

they subscribed to all the rss feeds from portal pages

if those numbers are inaccurate in means every filesharing case ever is total BS too.


as for already paid for not sure

but that not the point

we didn't outlaw the VCR just because people can daisy chain them together and make bootleg copies of movies

they went after the infringer only.

Ok, so these lawsuits going after the infringer is ok by you then, right?

yeah, usually i am the one calling people stupid for argueing with him. :helpme

but i have to give him that: he's good at making people upset

Total top 100 TPB list
http://thepiratebay.org/top/all

featuring roughly over 30 TV shows (yes I know it's not the percentage of d/ls), who needs cable when you can watch latest for free - this is mentality of people. this mentality is also proven here in adult just by looking at falling signup ratios to paysites and majority of traffic hanging out at largest free tube sites.

I said it before and I say it again, your over 50% legit use of torrents number is pulled out of your incompetent ignorant behind. You are too blind to see what torrents are really used for. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FAIR USE no matter how hard you want to justify that.

And we can all see how far that has gotten him in life! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I've watched him brag about how he could make millions with the "new revenue stream" of piracy for the last couple of years. And yet...he's made NOTHING. And that includes when TheDoc agreed to do provide everything for him. He IMMEDIATELY backpedaled and never sent TheDoc an email.

Fucking hilarious! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
He's all talk and no action...unless by "action" you mean stealing shit off the internet! :1orglaugh

do you know how many tv show only bit torrent site there are
tvtorrents.com
eztv.it

did you look at the list

a single episode of true blood out ranks everything on the site

yes, but there again, how many people downloading it, have an HBO subscription and are just downloading it because they missed it and don't have a VTR? My guess, not many.

as long as they don't violate those people privacy

or go forward with a settlement letter based just on ip address

or honeypot content to trick people into infringing.

or the 1/2 a dozen other bullshit things they do currently

fucku i can make large fonts too

IS TRUE BLOOD SHOW ON FREE PUBLIC NETWORK? get it?

why would average Joe subscribe to cable if YOU are making it avaliable to watch for him for FREE ONLINE?
ANSWER THIS ONE QUESTION

BINGO. It's a bunch of freeloading pieces of shit like gideongallery who did not PAY for an HBO subscription.

There is absolutely NO reason for a single episode of True Blood to be on a torrent site. HBO themselves offer all the episodes for FREE on video on demand with your normal subscription to HBO

The people downloading True Blood episodes are no different than the other THIEVES downloading porn.
But gideongallery is so accustomed to stealing everything online and never paying that he thinks it's normal.

You are a disgrace gideongallery. You should be ashamed of yourself for being such a parasite on society.

and all you have to do is identify those people without violating the privacy rights of people like myself who subscribe to every station we download

and you can sue them.

as long as they don't violate those people privacy

=> you steal my stuff, your privacy does mean nothing to me


or go forward with a settlement letter based just on ip address

=> we all know that this is just a lame excuse that only judges buy that have no clue of modern technology


or honeypot content to trick people into infringing.

=> then we should also close all banks cause they trick people into bank robbery?

do you even know what a honeypot is

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1025...light=honeypot

are seriously trying to defend people pulling this shit.

well hbo canada on demand only allows you watch the last couple of episodes

so the torrents still act as an unlimited hard drive for people who prefer to wait for the season to end and watch the episodes back to back.

i actually do know - i have been offered to make money from that and declined. but that doesnt change the fact that 99.9% of people downloading stuff for free from torrents, p2p or whereever have no legit reason to do so - no matter who put the content there. and you know that. and if you don't, you are either extremely naive or stupid

Call your cable company and ask them if it's OK to put a backup of your copy of True Blood making it available to the whole world for free so you can time-shift it at your convenience, and see how quickly they cancel your subscription.

Third time to show your stupidity on the subject? That I agree with...

None of what you said is a right at all. Rights can't take away from another person, and if you duplicate/resell what I own, you're taking away from me to give to yourself - ie: not a right.

Civil rights, don't take away from me to ensure others have the equal right - that's a right.

Property, has no rights, an object can't be granted a right, but I can transfer my rights, but normally we grant permission for you to use it. If you wanted the legal rights to do whatever you want with it, you have to fully by the "entire" ownership of it, so I have no rights to it. It takes my permission, they are MY rights until I give them to you and nobody gives you those rights - they give you permission.

Education done for the day... you're so far out of your league on this, as usual... it's pathetic.

That's because HBO has given on-demand PERMISSION (not rights). They didn't just rip it, take it, and offer it... and it's not a backup, of any kind. At that HBO and On-D are DRM protected, making a medium change, CRIMINAL - even in Canada.

You always get this wrong in the details. Copyright is a set of laws that provide for civil and criminal recourse against piracy, for which in exchange the holder allows the government to permit non-significant copying and reuse, in very narrow and well documented cases.

While the term "monopoly" is sometimes used to describe the rights holder's ability to restrict republication, the term is biased because the rights holder is the natural and bona fide legal owner of any creative output. There isn't a "monopoly" for any government to give, because governments can't give rights that are inalienable in the first place, only observe them. This includes rights of ownership to creative endeavor.

Fair use does NOT supercede an exclusive right. Time and again you get this wrong. For one thing, the onus of establishing fair use is up to the defendant in a case, and most copyright cases are settled, leaving only minimal case law to go from. And even case law is narrowly constructed by the courts.

You'll often hear or read about a "three note" fair use exemption for sampling, or a 30 second fair use exemption for mechanical reproduction. None of it is accurate or true. Relying on bogus legal advise regarding fair use is an idiot's game.

Fair use is a doctrine that establishes a give-and-take between the government providing civil and criminal recourse against infringement, and the interests of the people. A rights holder still has the ability to license works instead of, or in addition to, filing for copyright protection (something can be both licensed AND copyrighted). A rights holder can apply restrictions to copying that in themselves (given DMCA and similar EU laws) subject an infringer to liability if the restrictions are circumvented.

the right to own property is a UN recognized human right


copyright is not a recognized Human right.


look it up

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1025...right& page=2

ah we don't have an anti circumvention clause in our copyright act

Yeah, we know, this was said above....

It does not grant you rights or any permissions, above that ownership. You own the DVD, you do not own the rights or permission to duplicate and resell it as the original, that's not the actual property, the property is the single dvd.

This isn't an anti circumvention clause or anything related.... DRM protects MANY things in Canada, none of which you've ever dealt with in your life, other than probably removing some movies/songs protection for your personal use, which in Canada is allowed - but it DOES NOT give you permission to profit from it. ~ Yeah, you have no idea.

copyright is the exclusive right granted to the creator by section 106 of copyright act.

other laws like the DMCA etc are not a copyright, they are the laws that govern the inforcement of a copyright.



the supreme court explictly declared copyright to be a monopoly 20 times in the betamax case

you might want to look at the case before you try and argue that copyright is not a monopoly.


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

seriously read the copyright act

because you don't know what your talking about

unlike a chair where i have all those rights automatically

the reason i need to get permission is because copyright takes away those automatic rights

and replaces them with licienced rights.

The only reason that taking away of rights is not a violation of my human right is because for the scope of fair use those normal property rights exist.

for the scope of commentary i am allowed to distribute other peoples content (ask micheal moore)

and i can do it even if the copyright holder doesn't want me to do it.

gideongallery.... the shit just keeps spewing from you.

The United States Supreme Court frequently refers to a patent as providing a "limited monopoly." This is not, however, appropriate usage of the term monopoly in the economic sense. In fact, intellectual property protection cannot properly be thought of as providing an economic monopoly, at least in part, because a monopoly can only exist in the presence of a market and the ability of an actor to manipulate the market to a point where higher than competitive prices are able to be maintained, which is something that is rarely achievable by an owner of intellectual property.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelle...poly_privilege

Odd, if it was automatic then ownership would be implied, but it's not.. I can set terms of ownership and your agreement, ANY, way I wish, period - that's MY right and YOUR right to refuse or accept it.

Ownership is NOT automatic, the right to own property, does NOT grant your permission to do shit with it - your right is to own it, PERIOD!

And courts all over the world disagree with you, oh and MM gave permission...

A DVR is not the same thing as using a torrent.

really want to point me to one furniture store in the world where i have to sign a licencing agreement to buy a chair

wow a pro intellectual property says that court definition isn't right

http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/06/deb...opoly/id=9538/

considering that one of the questions asked was

by definition copyright allows you to raise the price from market defined price of free to something greater than free.

The fact that digital goods gravitate to free may be a justification for having the monopoly

but it most certainly does not allow you ignore the fact that you are in fact charging a price higher than what open competition would cause the price to be (free).

Dumbfuck.

The furniture store is a LICENSED dealer for the distributor/manufacturer which in turn may own the design or may be paying royalites to the designer.

Your use of the British "licenCing" tells me that you probably come from one of he socialist nations, so why don't you take your fucking Commie ass back home?