He's playing semantics and arguing about related but irrelevant points. One of the main reasons he is so hated here.

MegaUpload obviously breaking the law (from what we've seen).

He's arguing about calling it theft and people assume he's pro MU.

I don't think anybody is saying the technology is unlawful. Just as you can use VCRs to record TV shows and movies for your own use, you can likewise make digital copies for your own use.

As with the VCR, the problem arises when you share those copies with others, especially for some type of financial gain.

The law defines many different kinds of theft. The court ruled that in that particular case, the specific type of copyright infringement that defendant commited didn't fall under "simple theft" as defined by that particular statute.

A dictionary definition of theft:
1. To take wrongfully.

If you take some work you don't have permission to take, you're taking wrongfully. Therefore that's theft under the dictionary definition.

did you read the complaint

most of the smoking guns in that complaint are about as bogus as the smoking gun paul "found" against youtube.

Remember that thread, paul predicted that youtube would go down because of that evidence.

you don't prevent sony/walmart etc from selling vcr (providing the service) that can be used for both infringing and non infringing purposes you go after the actual people infringing.

You do however take down sites like thepiratebay, megaupload that can be used for both legit and infringing activity

That the fucking point

Go after the individual leachers who don't have a fair use right to the content, go after the individual uploaders who don't have a fair use right.

Treat the torrents like you treat a vcr.

in legal terms it isn't, but you still kill someone.

you shouldn't complain then. nobody banned the technology.

yes, i did, unlike you probably

once again - no one took your precious timeshifting away - just a website went down that profited from copyright infringement - run by a already twice convicted self acclaimed "Hacker".

so - what's your problem?

Funny, you have all this comprehension about law and court cases to try and justify your "time shifting" but you have no comprehension of how bets are accepted or proper use of the word "your".

It is theft.

Buy a bunch of Sudafed wholesale and sell it to who every you want and see if the state doesn't go after the provider. There are tons of examples where the provider is responsible to do it in a responsible manner.

You're a trolling free-tard idiot.

.

I am starting to think he must be getting paid to lobby webmasters for torrent sites or something.

He's not an adult webmaster. He doesn't participate in webmaster discussion. He has no other real reason to be here other than its the biggest adult webmaster for him to keep repeating his retarded rants.

He has had the same sig for years promoting a special that lasts from June to July.

.

see sig for legal content to put on your tubes :)

Yeah, he's not an adult webmaster. He's just here to continually try to prove that torrents are legit for whatever reason. Even the piratebay owners don't give a shit about torrents like this guy does.

even the torrent and free culture fanbois don't make these insane arguments. gideon has his own deranged worldview.

every person who used megaupload as legit backup just lost their backup

So yes they did. If they go after every free file locker like you keep saying they should

then we all lose the right to free network aware backup.


We have to spend more money because copyright holders are attempting to extend the monopoly into the fair use space their not allowed too.

The domain should not have gone down. because that was the equivalent of taking away the service from both the infringers and the non infringers.

That the equivalent of going after walmart for selling vcr (a specific seller of the technology) because that technology can be used for infringing purposes and walmart "knows that possible".

It's not even that complicated. They didn't go after the providers for their users sharing copyrighted work, they went after them for breaking the law themselves by actively facilitating and accepting it. If they had followed DMCA and not knowingly paid and accepted infringers then they would still be open.

The question is "Why" and "why on gfy, day in and day out"

He has to be getting paid by someone. He's just here beating his head against the wall with zero support... and he won't stop.

Anyone that wants to preach, ultimately wants a receptive audience and seeks to find one because they want to be heard above all things,.. but he stays here. He stays here making the "fair use" argument time and time again to people who really don't care, don't agree and don't support his views.

He has to be getting paid by someone.

his views are too far out even among the free culture torrent folk. i think this the last place people will still engage him. gfy is like the graveyard of ideas.

It's obvious what he's doing.

http://www.motifake.com/image/demoti...1241151870.jpg

where have i said they should go after every free file locker?

they should go after those that support copyright infringing - for example through upload reward programs or not following DMCA notes

if you are a file locker and follow the laws to the letter you have nothing to be afraid of

and regarding losing their stuff: if you trust crooks with your valuable files it's your problem. it's the same as investing in the wrong company or putting your money on the wrong bank.

that's life

If illegal activities take place in a restaurant it closes. legit customers have to go eat elsewhere. shit happens.

Stop with this analogy already.

nobody went after the technology, they went after MU who was abusing the technology.

that a circular proof,

what happens if like youtube they win this fight

What happens just like youtube the damaging "evidence" is actually one half of a conversation where the fair use/ suspect nature of the infringing activities was being discussed.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...om-filings.ars

look at the complaint again, and compare the "smoking gun" to those in the youtube case.

Now imagine that every single one has the exact same contextual misrepresentation and tell me what left.


That actually what your supposed to do (innocent until proven guilty)

remember in the youtube case every single one of those damages emails were really in the context of a conversation that recognized that all copyright material was NOT automatically infringing. That fair use validated a lot of uploads. That the only way to protect both free speech and copyright was to simply obey the take down request that ACTUALLY came in and nothing more.


btw affiliate programs are not a problem, youtube case proves that they paid up loaders based on the views of their uploads too. Arguing that just because they have a rewards program doesn't mean it wrong. There is a legit reason to have, if a documentarian, an independent singer want to give their content away for free for the pay day of the rewards program they should have a right to do so (even if the content is derived but covered by the fair use exemptions -- commentary, parody, etc).

i didn't say Sony i said WALMART

i specifically used a seller of the technology in the example, which MU is quite clear is.

stop trying to misrepresent what i said.

I know he's just a clueless troll but please keep Gideon going. Each post he makes shows how little he knows about most everything.

Tards are fun to watch.

You're the ONLY person to mention Sony - everybody else was quoting that post.

I'm going to assume that you're trolling - nobody can be as willfully obtuse as you're making yourself out to be.

Megavideo => streaming current Hollywood movies that are not available on DVD yet and play 72 minutes - the rest was only available after you paid

you are allowed to speak to me again once you produced at least one single thing by yourself that is even remotely worth stealing

but you could sell yourself as board troll, you're pretty good at that. you are so dense that even I fall for it over and over again :Oh crap

That was written in 1985 which is pre internet

No. The comparison is still flawed.

MU doesn't sell the technology, MU uses the technology to sell a service... it's like if walmart turned on their vrcs and started offering copying services...in which case they would be just as liable as MU :2 cents:

gideongallery = thief

you wont find a single person on gfy who so openly and repeatedly condones stealing

avoid the cunt like the plague

a) Every person (aka idiot) who used megaupload as their legit backup would have lost their stuff anyway. MU deleted everything that was not downloaded after 90 days.

b) Why do you think you should have the "right" to free backup ? After all its not free, its just funded by another party, and that party did not agree to pay for your "right" to free back up via the theft and sale of thier intellectual property. Neither did they agree to fund the cars, yachts, and mansions owned by the people who ran MU.


So gallbladder, your argument against SOPA rested on the fact that their might be false accusations (as per any other law), and your argument for restoring Mr Dotcom to his palace and fleet of luxury cars is that you have lost the right to a free backup.

Buy an external hard drive you gormless prick. There your "rights" are restored.


:321GFY

tell that to busta rhyrmes

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...riminals.shtml

Yeah right... every millionaire artist says that shit after their money is made. Before his money is made, he was busy sucking the cocks of dead homeless people to get a contract and label behind him so he could be known and to launch his career.

You don't need a mega upload site to distribute music, you need a link on the internet and nothing more - which is what makes the very premise of the article completely retarded.


pointing out a fist full of Jews that supported the Nazi's doesn't make the Nazi's right

I dont need to tell it to Busta Rhymes I am telling it to you.

Here gallbladder I have a link for you as well......

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ive+cheap&rlz=


There are plenty to choose from in your price brackett.



:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:pimp:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

What? MU was 100% legal without a few key things they did. Nothing about their business model was illegal unless they made it so.

What are you talking about? :1orglaugh