again you show you have zero understanding what fair use is. you are using your own made up definition again. crazy people make up their own definitions if words.

Broadcasting and digital downloads are completely different.

Further explanation should not be necessary. :2 cents:

But while we're at it, and just because I have the tiniest microscopic suspicion that you're just a little eensy weensy bit out of touch with reality: please name just ONE single real-world corporation in any industry at all who employs "billions of people". :1orglaugh Hey, no one is putting words in your mouth here. You're the one who wrote it.

No? OK, I'll even take 100 million.

You know what? Fuck it, make that 10 million. 7? 6?

Five point ni... eight?

Bueller? Bueller? :1orglaugh

AFAIK the argument is:

Megaupload started to de-dupe files in order to save space. DMCA would issue takedown request on 1 links (there could be many for a single file) Megaupload would remove only that link instead of all links to that file.

Not sure where this lands him legally.

His Defense reminded me of the scene from National Lampoons Vacation, where Clark talks to Rusty about why he was in the pool with Christie Brinkley


Clark: Oh she's just a waitress. I was just ordering some fish for you and uh...
Rusty: Audrey, dad.
Clark: For you and Audrey. Swimming pool waitress...
Rusty: Do you think mom will buy it?
Clark: Good talk, son.

Yes one is legal and one is theft....

note when I wrote real world corporationS (note the S that indicates plural...as in not singular)...back to my point real world corporationS employ billions of people and pirates are in for a butt fucking what part is out of touch with reality??

It's not illegal to take something that is being offered for free. Either go back and read what was actually written (understanding should follow naturally) or accept the fact that nothing could possibly ever be free and prepare to spend the rest of your life putting a penny into a jar every time you inhale and/or exhale.

Still having trouble? I can't help you. Steal yourself a dictionary.com entry and look up the word "free", I guess. :1orglaugh


You have got to be fucking kidding me. :1orglaugh Keeping in mind that I must've read hundreds if not thousands of Paul Markham posts over the past few years, that is the weakest fucking back paddle I've ever seen. :1orglaugh

Anyway, I'll be back to toy with you landlubbing simpletons in the morning. Gotta get back to my galleon asap to feed my parrot and polish my wooden leg. :1orglaugh

I have a feeling if he just layed low without putting up mafia/drug dealer license plates, paying a ton of celebrities, driving reckless on gumball he would probably still be banking and not in jail....

you two morons make want to look up some of the court cases in canada/EU to see that EXACT logical argument being used successfully.

In fact that the reason why CRIA/MPAA/RIAA asked for the changes that are being proposed in c-11.

To change the laws so that, violating Geographic restrictions would be illegal on it own right.

Correction. It is being offered for free to a certain region with a certain license. To air in any other country you must have a license in that country. Broadcasting regulations. Again I stress that regulations are a thing that emo hippies do not have to deal with, because they live in their mothers house and do not have to work or employ people or benefit humanity in any way....I understand your self entitlement and your "being above regulations" delusions...


The weakest fucking back paddle was your attempt at assuming that I said that one corporation employs billions of people and actually trying to hold me responsible for your own stupid assumption LOL. Don't let a simple thing like illiteracy stand in the way of your ramblings. Also who gives a fuck about how many Paul Markam posts you have read and what the fuck does it have to do with your illiteracy? LOOK:

Real world corporations (PLURAL), who employ billions of people have a silly little thing called "the law" that they (PLURAL) must abide by.

How did you miss 2 plurals in one sentence? Answer: By being illiterate....

i know you can't read but project your insane fantastical world view on whatever words are in front of your eyes but i said you have a definition of fair use that isn't shared by anyone.

He should had taken the company public

A multitude of shareholders would have made things more difficult certainly.

You quoted Gideon Gallbladder and I foolishly read it. I am now dumber than when I first came into this thread, as is everyone else who read that post.

That was the opinion of the supreme court of Canada. That not my opinion that was a ruling of law.

Sure I considered it, but I wanted to watch them. Am I supposed to ignore an obvious choice which is just to download them and watch them? What's the difference between me recording them when they were on TV, ripping them to my computer and watching them there and downloading them?

See above. What's the difference? I'd be watching the same product but one way I have to spend hours recording and converting and the other I spend about 2 minutes downloading.

How is the company losing any money off of me downloading them? There is no way that I could possibly pay them for the stuff.

Paul Markham rides a T-Rex?

http://www.lifestyle-luxury.com/wp-c...x+cars+-+2.jpg

So is the stuff never available to you to buy, or is it just not available right now? There are a lot of TV shows that will air in the US, but not in other countries then eventually they release the full season on DVD and make it available to buy in other countries. Is that the case here or is it never made available to you to buy?

No you're right it is available eventually for example Game of Thrones comes on sale on the 6th of March but that's a year after it first started. Between now and then there was literally no way at all for me to watch the show, no service where I could pay for it online or anything. Even HBO.com doesn't have the option for me. I guess I could have used my computer to record it myself when it first came out and then just watched those but really what's the difference? There's still no way for me to watch it online by the way so I would have to wait till March 6th order the DVD/Bluray and then watch it then.

Look at music and iTunes it wasn't long after iTunes started that people realized it was just easier to buy on iTunes than to download illegally. There is no such thing for TV shows which really sucks.

Actually, I believe itunes sells tv episodes too. At least in the USA.

They do but only some shows, Game of Thrones is an example of one that they don't offer. I'm just saying if there was a way for me to pay for downloading then I would - I already do pay but I have to pay file lockers or Usenet providers instead of paying the people making the content. I pay $130 a month for cable and I pay $9 for Netflix so I'm not against paying for content. I don't care who is getting my money as long as I'm getting what I want for it.

It does suck that it takes that long to get it, but you can't really say that you would pay for it if you could because you can pay for it, you just have to wait a while. What you mean is there is no way for you to pay for it right now.

Waiting can suck, but what a lot of these companies do is use the hype and good reviews that a show like Game of Thrones generated when it played on HBO to build up a demand for it then in places where it didn't air they sell it on DVD and people buy it. If people download it then they likely are not going to buy it when it is available on DVD so even though the show isn't available for you to buy when it is in first run, downloading it can potentially hurt value of the show and the sales of the show.

Do you get HBO where you live and it just wasn't aired there, or is HBO not at all available?

A thief by any justification is still a thief.

.

I have HBO and it airs here but there's still no way for me to watch an episode when I want. Even HBO Go which offers it isn't available here.

Fair enough you can say I stole it but what did I steal from the company? Money? There was no way for me to pay for it. They are out nothing and even if I were going to try to pay there would be no way for me to do it.

Do you have a DVR? My cable box has a DVR built into it. I have the whole season of the show recorded (although it might be available on demand as well) and plan to watch it again before the second season starts up.

I have one of those cable boxes too I just never ended up recording it. Just saying downloading it isn't only the easiest option for me - it's the only one.

(Aside from not watching it which I don't see as an option)

I was referring to gideon ... But thanks for making my point. Freetards know they are stealing but feel the need to hide behind elaborate excuses that just make the rest of us shake our heads.

.

which is the exactly the same argument that universal made when they argued that the vcr should be illegal

you could always wait for the reruns

using your vcr cost them the ad revenue from rerun.

still doesn't explain why you believe the argument is suddenly valid now.

ummm, load of.....

http://piracypitbull.com/qwerty.gif

In all honesty a TV show I don't see as a big deal. If he has HBO and downloads the show, to me it is not different than DVRing it. The same would go if he has cable with AMC and downloads Walking Dead. It is no different than DVRing it.

When I talk about waiting for it to come out I mean if it never aired in that area or you never paid for it to begin with.

Apparently if you release a movie you have zero say on when or where it will be released. If you offer it to one, you must offer it to all . . . . or give it away.

Freetard? I'm sure I pay just as much if not more than you for TV and movies. There's no excuse - I will gladly pay if you tell me who and how to send the money.

and it only took me 3 years to explaining to get you to understand that.

except it the same principle in place zero economic damage at the time of the "infringement"

but a future economic loss (reruns in the vcr case vs future sales in that region)

you still haven't explain why you believe the future revenue (your justification) is valid in the second case.


the whole point is at the time of the infringement i changed the value of the content from zero dollars to zero dollars in both cases.

If i perform the same act when the content is available i change the value from XX dollars (it sale price) to zero dollars and of course an infringement happens


now if you said

i 100% agree that an infringement

and when you sell a car you have zero control over where that person who bought it can drive it.

i find it funny that you want to access control that no other product in the world has just because your product is content.

When you sell a car the person who PAID for it drives it away.

You are a car THEIF, big difference freetard.

.

He's innocent until proven guilty. Just like the piratebay guys :1orglaugh

right everyone who ever rides in a car pays the full purchase price of the car

there are no such things as car rental companies

and no cars have passenger seats.

That's the reality of the situation. So, do you want to bitch about it, or accept it and work out how to make the most money you can?

What the hell are you talking about now? Jeeze.

.

Come on freetards admit it, you get a rush every time you avoid paying for something.

Yes he does not convince the well informed people as who post here, or the attorneys, but ask yourself: how many people knows or understands the fine details, historically, technically and legally? Including journalists and politicians in USa and elsewhere?

This interview may convince or at least pose big doubts to the 90% of the world population, which is more relevant than such 10% who understands DMCA and web technology. He does not look delusional to everyone, show this to someone who not understands DMCA or server tech and see how many believe him.

The main point he say it is: I done same as youtube, owned by google, but while they won when got sued for the movies uploaded, I not got even sued but instead directly assaluted with an excuse (like non-existing mass destruction weapons in Iraq, he said). Why? I am not a big american company as google, I am a non-american (german) easy target with fancy cars.

So this video is not targeted to lawyers or informed and geek people, but to the rest which is the majority of the people. He may get lots of people to sympathize and sign petitions, like it happened for Assange of Wikileaks. Look in forums, how many are commenting on this interview, that's a success alone.

Megauploads and Wikileaks it is totally different, but peace guys, occupy wall street and conspiracy theorist people with fake tech and legal knowledge, it may quickly pair the two and even Iraq non-weapons fisco as a same design by USA evil empire. If these supporters will go in streets to strike "free Kim Dot Com" the TV news will talk of it so even grandma's will know and think the fat guy is cute and can't be a criminal (really he looks less a criminal then Assange, on a TV screen standpoint).

About Germany, the pirate party got the 8.9% (15 seats) in Berlin state at the 2011 political elections, and holds the 2% in countryside from 2009 elections. So that may be a million of germans who protest "free Kim Dotcom" automatically.

This interview does make me a more firm believer that the megaupload case is just a demonstration to show that SOPA is not needed and the government does not need it to enforce copyright the copyright laws when THEY WANT TO.

I don't have any use for thieves either (and even less for gideon) but I think we're starting to split hairs here.

If the only people who stole my content were ones who really had no outlet whatsoever from which to purchase it ... then, I'd be a very happy camper indeed.

Here is my belief:

Say a show like Game of Thrones never aired where you live. It never aired there because HBO doesn't even offer service to you so there is no way for you to get the service and pay to watch the show when it airs. However, several months later they are going to release the show on DVD and sell it in your area.

Under these circumstances if you choose to download it before the DVDs are available some people would make the argument that you are doing them no economic harm because it wasn't for sale so you aren't costing them a sale. I would disagree. If you download it you are a lot less likely to then buy the DVDs at a later date. If many people download it could cause the interest in the DVD in that area to be much smaller than it otherwise would be. I am not saying one download would be one lost sale, but I am saying it it likely would lead to some lost sales and therefore cause economic harm.

So it is simple. If a show airs that you never had access to during the first run, but will eventually be available on DVD (or PPV or in some way for sale) and you choose to download it even though you know it will eventually be for sale you are causing economic harm.

What part of this don't you understand? IT'S ILLEGAL.

The creator of a product has the right to sell, distribute or not as he feels fit. It's not for you to say "It wasn't available when I wanted it, so I will steal it." That's just a weak excuse for a thief. If you get traced on your IP address, I hope they fine you and you will happily pay, as you said.

No it shows the opposite. Present laws are far too slow and cumbersome to deal with this very new problem. They need to demonstrate to people like moeloubani that he can't just find an excuse for stealing. If he can't have it exactly when he wants it, how he wants it and any other reason he can dream up to steal it. It's not a defense today in court, he needs to go try it.

just like your a lot less likely to watch the rerun of an episode if you pvr'ed

Again you haven't explained why this potential loss justifies calling it infringement in one case but not in the other.

and reruns are syndicated for revenue too, so if enough people timeshifted with a vcr tv shows got cancelled

In fact that a prove fact

My Own worst enemy had rating as high as heros if you counted pvr'ed viewings

yet it got cancelled because the only ones the advertisers paid for were the live viewings.

Every fair use has cost the copyright holder money, that not the point

It if the money is from liciencing or from extending the monopoly to a medium.

If it the first the fair use is denied, if it the second it is allowed

timeshifting was about choosing reruns over betamax

formatshifting was about choosing cd over mp3

backup/recovery was about choosing buying a new original vs recording your own backup.

access shifting is again about choosing one medium over another canada vs US.

I am not talking about timeshifting. I am talking about people downloading stuff that they have never paid for.

If you do not have HBO and have not paid to see Game of Thrones then you download it you are committing copyright violation.

So if I record it myself, rip it to a file and then watch that file it's okay but if I download someone else's file that did the same thing and watch that it's wrong? Makes no sense to me.

How about this, I get AMC and download the Walking Dead but my cable provider doesn't have AMC HD. Is it bad if I download the Walking Dead in HD?

But we are talking about a brand new fair use that is just now forming by the court system

in the context of the previous fair use that were established by the court.


Again you haven't explained why this potential loss justifies calling it infringement in one case but not in the other.

answer the fucking question



and that totally depends on which country you happen to live in

In canada and parts of the EU the supreme courts have ruled that violating geographic restrictions are NOT a copyright infringement.

Access shifting has been validate in some countries

Just like the piracy tax legalizes all my music downloads the courts have established something different

I have no idea what you are talking about. What new fair use that is forming by the court system and what potential loss being infringement in one case and not another?

Oh, and I don't care about Canada or the EU, I live the USA. That is where the Megaupload trial will be and that is the law I care about.