gideon it is more than obvious that you are NOT in this business so why are you here? Why isn't Eric banning this douchebag he's violating the rule that you must be in htis business to post here.

DUDE LMAO
OPEN COMPETITION? torrents don't produce anything, their users putting copyrighted material don't produce it and are not licensed to put it up there for free to all to download. WHAT COMPETITION? FIRST PRODUCE SOMETHING IN DEMAND, DISTRIBUTE IT FOR FREE, SOMEHOW MAGICALLY MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS then you can talk about OPEN COMPETITION and how anyone can make money producing IP for free.

YOU failed to answer that question but reserved it to twist it for you later argument. get the fuck outta here

Maybe there is a box of rocks that wants to debate this doorknob ...

I have and always will support the rights of the copyright holder. I also think there are possibly a few tweaks to existing copyright laws and rules that could make the system better. BUT, to refer to 'copyright' in general as draconian is, well, just plain ignorant, and it plainly shows one's agenda.

I realize it's a broad and multi-faceted argument, but where it pertains to, for example, people grabbing porn clips out of a members area of a pay site and then uploading them on a tube site and engaging in unauthorized use I completely and unequivocably draw the line. Bringing PVR's into the argument? Please. That's just a useless smokescreen side argument pirates use to justify their thievery and scumbaggery. A PVR only allows more convenient viewing of what TV viewers can already view via their existing cable or satellite services, which by the way they PAY FOR. Do you hear TV and movie producers crying about PVRs? No. Do you hear paysite owners and content producers complaining about tubes and unauthorized use and piracy? Damn right you do, and for good reason.

I realize you'll never give up preaching your BS Gideon, but as I've told you before man, every time you post on this subject your agenda is utterly transparent. And just as no one agreed with you 4 or 5 years ago, no one is going to agree here, and I doubt anyone's going to agree with you 5 years from now, or 10, or 50. Why? Because when someone creates some original intellectual property (which I have) you need their permission to use it and/or profit from it.

You can (and likely will) argue my entire post, but frankly what I've said to you here and in umpteen other threads like it is inarguable. And you do know that arguing against the inarguable is one more indication of insanity, right? :D

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=987596

you do realize

eric said he did his research on me a long time ago

he knows what i have done
and what i am capable of doing in terms of sales number

never said copyright law was draconian i said the changes to the laws proposed by the pro copyright are draconian

things like making you liable based only on your ip address.


you might want to look back a bit they did complain about it just as bitterly when it first came out.

http://cryptome.org/hrcw-hear.htm

at sometime in the future you guys will finally realize the put your shit on the tape solution for this problem

i have said it more then 67 times
if you respect fair use you never have a problem with piracy.

Links to anything that was actually produced by you or by your company if you have one? Please show us how your own produced content that is being fairy used without having issues with piracy. Have anything to show that you produced that is in public domain, that is not commentary or parody? Care to show it?

Make your statement credible.

so you want an example of the solution that you can copy for free.

you do realize i said

i used the torrents to timeshift tv shows i PAID for

copying anyone elses work, taking thier income, spamming it for free = 'fair use'

copying giddyboys work = bad bad man



anyone see the insanity here?



.

I don't need your example and certainly am not interested in copying it. keep that to yourself.

you are making a statement which is imo pretty dumb if you've never produced and sold anything of your own, make it at least somewhat credible by showing anything produced by yourself, otherwise what you say is simply stupid phrase used by pirate kiddies to justify copyright infringement. if you have stuff in public domain - you shouldn't have any problem showing it to more public, right?
If you can't show anything - you are simply full of shit and don't know what you are talking about. For all this time on GFY you have never even once displayed your business web site. But you love to argue about fair use and that we're all wrong for seeing piracy all over the net as something damaging rather than salvaging.


What you PAID for isn't a question. You FAIL to realize there many more freeloaders using torrents than legit users.

If you're in this business and you're against copyright then you're truly the dumbest motherfucker ever created in the entire history of dumb motherfuckers.

That article is about Patents, it doesn't say the word Copyright anywhere in the article.

Killer Fail though :thumbsup


What if it's not free? What if it cost me money? Oh yeah, then it's not actually free....... wtf is this trash?

Do you have a bucket of phrases you pull this shit from?

The best part of this thread was Sally Rand totally failing to troll GideonGallery :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Fucking thieves trying to redefine the meanings to suit their purposes.

They should all go to jail.

The thing none of you get, is he is just a troll. He comes here for one reason. To wind people up about copyright and piracy.

And he is BRILLIANT at winding you all up.

We all know he's not in porn, and is nobody.

We all know he is just trolling.

We all know he comes here for attention.

And you idiots keep giving it to him.

If everyone ignored him for two weeks he'd never come back. And yes, I'd put money on that.

Yes, we are going to end up with draconian and unreasonable laws because a handful of thieves decided to profit on the backs of artists and other productive people, while giving nothing in return. Yes, your are right, the folks stealing will most likely ruin the exchange of ideas for everyone.

the problem is too many thieves got used to stealing and now think they have rights - unreal

seriously point to one quote where i said it was ok to take someone income

i said i use the torrents to timeshift content i paid for

i don't have a problem with you copying my work if you pay me for teaching it to you

i only object to taking it for free

i don't expect you to pay me twice/three times for that information once i sell it to you it your to use forever

i expect the same thing for the content i BUY.

seriously you don't even recognize the sources for your own quotes




go back to the wiki article

click on the footnote link for the quote you were trying to use to justify arguing that the supreme court was wrong.

see where it leads you too.

idiot being pro fair use is not against copyright

for god sake both the exclusive rights and fair use were defined in the same act

maybe you should actually listen to what i am saying instead of making up your own interpretation of what i am saying.

copyright law as it is now is pefectly fine, it doesn't need to be fixed

it already balanced and working IF you understand how to use it properly.

that not guarrenteed

congress didn't give in to the mpaa when they demanded that they tarriff the vcr

enough people wanted that right to stay around (timeshifting) that the congress had no choice but to let it be.

responses like the one i showed you are blow back from trying to push draconian laws instead of figuiring out the economic solution to the problem.

it more likely that all filesharing for personal use will become fair use.

funny part is if you actually used a fair use friendly approach the current laws are actually too strong.

Soooo... you you call my source wrong then use a source from mine to make your argument? Brilliant.....


Even though we aren't talking about patents, which may never be a monopoly, I'll go with it anyway.


Here, your article says: "Just because an inventor has been granted a patent does not mean that there will be a market for the patent product, and without a market there can be no monopoly."

And part of my quote said: "a monopoly can only exist in the presence of a market and the ability of an actor to manipulate the market"


Looks like it was correct after all... looks like the courts did agree with the wiki article I shared. And you're still using the term incorrectly.

no moron i was pointing out the bias of the quote

the courts define a copyright/patent a "limited monopoly" for the cases they hear
this biased lawyer is deliberately ignoring scope to make his bullshit arguement

he is saying it can't be a monopoly at all because if you patent a crappy invention that no one would ever want you have no monopoly control.

but if you patent a crappy invention that no one would ever want, there not going to be anyone ripping it off either

therefore there would not be any infringement

therefore the courts could not /would not be involved.

the situation he is using to justify disqualifying the court declaration CAN"T exist for anything the courts would be involved in.

Do you even know what "fair use" and "copyright" actually are? So far I have failed to see ANY indication that you do.

I don't need to keep hearing you rant that 2+2=5 when I damn well know it equals 4. You just want free shit without paying.

If you think the 95 year copyright doesn't violate the US Constitution you are even more stupid.

Article 1 Section 8

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Ok in what fucking world is 95 years even remotely defined as "limited"?

Hahaha... you and your lame ass twists of stupidity. Amazing you can twist my quote, from a lawyer, that is wrong in your eyes, and you using your source, which says the same thing, and now means something totally different to you. :1orglaugh

you realize that your arguement about the time being TOO LONG is the opposite direction that everyone else is arguing

However if fair use was applied to the level i am talking about

if commentaries like this is the coolest dance routine was protected

if timeshifting/backup/recovery/format shifting is totally technology agnostic

then i don't have a problem with 95 years

there enough access thru just fair use to be balanced

although i would agree it should not be raised again 95 years is the upper limit.

you do realize that saying the source is bias is NOT using the source it arguing AGAINST the source.

I flat out said he was wrong

btw he is also wrong on another point because he ignores patent trolling like what arcadia did to this industry

a crap patent not worth the paper it printed (no market) got millions of dollars in liciencing fees because the cost of fighting it was too expensive.

It completely discredits his patents can't be a monopoly without a market because even a bogus patent with no real usefulness got money from people to afraid to fight.

thats super bad ass monopoly power, even the misrepresentation of a marketplace is enough to get money for what was a worthless piece of paper.

Hahahaha.... AGAIN, your source said THE EXACT SAME THING - Almost word for word - yet mine is wrong.. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I really don't care about your other dribble.

1. there was no source just a counter arguement
2. it said the exact opposite

yet i pointed out that Acacia made millions from their worthless patent

none of the people who licience thought it was valid

they paid the money because it cost too much money to fight

that a real world example that proves you don't need a market for monopoly pricing to occur

a worthless patent with no market whatsoever was licienced to people for millions

Nobody has disagreed with what I said.

You seem to think everything is fair use. That's the issue. You don't want to seem to acknowledge that copyright holders have the right to dictate how their content is used. You may not agree with their decisions but it's their content.

Your bullshit how torrents are the same thing as a DVR. Well guess what get a fucking DVR and you won't have to torrent or watch the motherfucking show when it's on. Or guess what most cable/satellite have ON Demand. So you can catch-up on shows you've missed. Then there sites like Hulu. Torrents are for freeloaders than don't want to pay for shit beause they work at Burger King and live at home with mom in her trailer.

That was a patent issue not copyright idiot. And Congress is passing patent reform to prevent shit like that.

pretty good for a patent that had no market (because it was totally bogus)


Agreement Reached: PlayboyCash webmasters are not liable to Acacia for patents.

except the doc was using that PATENT article to argue that the supreme court declaration that copyright is a "limited monoploy" is wrong


https://gfy.com/showthread.php?p=18275153#post18275153

Here's what you don't seem to understand.... idiot.

The only person talking this topic twist, is you... first because you've twisted it so far off what was actually being talked about, it's just pathetic. Then secondly, because this actual topic you're discussing right now, is exactly what I said, what was quoted/shared and you're refuting with... exactly what was said anyway.

Dude... I don't know of you smoke pot, crack, or maybe you drink. But I suggest you clean up, your brain is in backwards.

i quoted a copyright case (betamax case ) to point out they supreme court declared copyright to be a monopoly 20 times.

you quoted from wikipedia about patents to argue that my copyright is a monopoly statement.

you were the one who moved off copyright to patent.

I just proved that it was totally wrong two ways

1. by proving that no infringement could occur in a no market situation
2. proving that even when no one wants or even believes that the patent is valid people will licience it to avoid the court cost


if you want to parallel that back to copyright it not that hard

ask all the people who simply paid the settlement cost even though they didn't download anything just because it cost more to fight then to settle.

ie the dead guy who was sent a demand letter because his ip address downloaded copyright material after he was dead. (open wifi in dead guys apartment)

seriously how can you not see that it actually the exact opposite



i gave you an example of a patent with NO MARKET(because no one believed it was valid) and got people to pay millons of dollars for something that was worth nothing (higher then competitive prices).

seriously that the exact opposite

your quote says it can't be done

i just gave you an example of how it WAS done.

What a load of shit.... betamax now? My wiki title about monopolies? Your brain is fried man.... lay off the drugs.

Drugs.... lay off them.

exact quotes doc


nuff said

Wow... so you're talking to VGeorgie about Betamax and that jumps to our conversion?

You really will twist shit to stupid ways... Truly, lay off the drugs.