If you think watching a download harms DVD sales, you must also believe watching on TV harms DVD sales. In which case, why do broadcasters bother showing on TV? Do they, unlike you, realize that DVD sales are actually boosted by people having seen the show already?

I didn't say that.

I said if the show was not available in your area to view, but will later be available on DVD, downloading can hurt the sale of DVDs.

Broadcasters show TV shows on TV to sell commercials. The DVD sales are just extra income.

Evidence?

Who do you think mostly buys DVDs of a particular TV show? People who haven't seen the show before or people who have?

Common sense. I know it isn't 1 download equals 1 lost sale, but you know if 1000 people download the show at least some of those people would have purchased the DVD if the download wasn't available.

I can give you two examples. Say for example I lived somewhere where I couldn't get HBO. This means I never saw Game of Thrones. I heard about it, I read about and I want to see it, but I was never able to. So then I hear it will be out on DVD. I will likely, at the least, rent it and potentially buy it. But then a friend shows me how to download it for free. Once I download it and watch there is zero percent chance of me renting or buying it. So that download just cost them money. Also, I have a friend who owns a lot of DVDs (more than 2,500). He has everything from TV shows to movies. About 2 years ago he discovered torrents. He hasn't not purchased a DVD since. Before he bought between 6-8 DVDs per month at the minimum. Since he started downloading he has bought 0.



I never said that most DVDs are sold out of market. I would guess that most TV shows sell DVDs to their fans who have seen the show already. But I am also sure that there are places in the world where certain shows don't air yet the people that live there hear about the shows online etc. So when the show is put on DVD and made available to them some of them buy it. It doesn't make up the majority, but it is sales and if those people downloaded the show before hand they potentially will buy fewer DVDs.

and if you record the episode on pvr you cause the same problem

If you invite people over to watch game of thrones you cause the same problem

If you rent a dvd in a rental store you cause the same problem

if you sell your dvd used on ebay you cause the same problem

and don't forget

if you backup your dvd it cost the copyright holder a sale too.

I have bought dvd's from seeing the film on youtube.

:1orglaugh

But none of those are illegal. If you haven't paid for the content and you download that is.

ok so why is downloading it illegal.

and don't tell me it because of some lost future sale because as you just admitted the fact that is true in all the examples i gave doesn't make any of those things illegal

what happens if you watch a film at the cinema then you download it again at home

If you didn't pay for it and you are downloading it without permission it is illegal. Since when has it not been? It is the basis of the copyright law. You yourself have argued that you only download stuff you have paid for.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

here the act want to show me the exact line of the act that says if you download without paying it is ALWAYS illegal.

The copyright act is not that absolute, it has always been a conditional monopoly that has to respect the conditions of fair use.

I just showed you the argument the Canadian supreme court used to recognize for "access shifting"

kim dot com is making the exact same argument as his defense in this interview

and he has a right to do so under the current copyright act.





yes because at the time that i said that access shifting had not been validated by the supreme court yet.

The concept that violating geographic restrictions is NOT a copyright infringement /Is fair dealing has been validated.

i still only download stuff i paid for, because there hasn't been anything i wanted to see that was geo restricted.

Again, Kim Dotcom will be tried in the US, not Canada.

Please, enlighten me. What is an example of copyright violation?

Why do people who have absolutely no knowledge of the law or the real world post displaying their ignorance?

If you rip a file, you break the law.

They often release the TV film before the DVD. It's entirely up to the content creator or owner how he monetizes his product. Not for you to find excuses to steal it, so it fits your warped sense of right and wrong. If either of you two would like to give me access to your sites so I can copy them, I will know you believe the bullshit you spout.

So if I record a show from my TV that's against the law

PING PING PING UPCOMING IRONY ALERT

Utter bollocks. I wish people with absolutely no knowledge of the law or the real world would stop posting displaying their ignorance.

:D :D :D

I don't think that is correct. They decided to take action because it's around SOPA voting, the different industries claim they can't do anything but now the government showed we can and we do it when we want. They where freezing bank accounts in different countries, shut down the website, had the house raided etc etc. Effectively they show the world, the music industry, the movie industry etc "no we do not need SOPA, look at this example".

I have to admit that I have not looked into the SOPA act itself but from the discussions it sounds like they will be able to set aside the law and process copyright infridgement the same method as terrorism is dealt with. no need for a judge or a jury.

That itself is a very dangerous path to take since you start undermining the basic human rights. I don't think that Megaupload is going to get convicted unless they show proof that they where acting with the intend to commit copyright infringement. That is going to be the turning point in this case, if the DA fails to validate this suspicious then megaupload is going to be off the hook, if they are not going to get convicted very likely SOPA is dead because the government can go out and say "look, you said this and we where fighting for you and we lost, we lost because you are wrong. We cannot pass this bill". With the elections coming up I think megaupload is a tool to be used as an example that SOPA can't be passed without rewriting the laws and so on, Obama need their contributions so they are starting now with this so they can start their negotiations with the movie / music industries and secure the funding for their 2012 election campaigns.

Having the government paying 100-200 million in settlements to megaupload in the end may be a way cheaper that the alternatives they have (which includes not getting campaign contributions for the 2012 election)

Then again, I'm a person who like to complicate things and speculate more on motives and strategies rather than just accepting the first simple reason. Had I had the budgets available and the resources the same ways as the government

I would probably select the same targets as they obviously know megaupload have a very strong defense with multiple legal memorandums backed by top law firms who have to take the case and protect Kim even if he can't pay, the law firm is liable for any wrong advice given in a memorandum if he followed the instructions given inside it

P.S. no I don't agree to copyright infringement and theft I'm just giving my 2 cents on what I know about the law not considering any victims

seriously what about the statment
do you not understand.

sure taking content that has a market value NOW for without paying

for example

downloading a dvd that is available in your region that you have never bought

making up definitions of words and phrases again? how do you expect someone to understand you?

gideongallery...

do you know what I find amusing about you, except for your half knowledge of english and how the world works? This:

I used to live in the conditions you speak of. There was no copyright. You could copy the newest films, music, software and put up a card board box and sell it in front of a police station nobody would give a fuck. Your dream basically LOL.

The problem?

Well it only lead to monopoly. You see all the smaller artists and the not so successful ones went under right away. No profit= find new job. All the big artists were forced to work for TV stations for pennies + with the vacuum created with the vanishing of the old stars came instant TV "just add water" stars and ALL under the complete monopoly of the TV stations. One of these new "stars" lives in my street in a 200$/month apartment and takes the bus to work just to demonstrate how good your model is.

You once posted a thread "if you cant compete with free you cant compete period", being your usual half knowledge half educated self, you did not take in to account that authors are not traffic wizards and internet gurus so they can't really fight for traffic and "compete" with shit. The title of your thread should have been "If you can't compete with free you are not a traffic guru who can make $ inspite of thieves and free loading fucktards."

No copyright = monopoly, end of story. This is a real life example not some second hand toilet paper gideon theory.

It happened in music, all the music stars were forced to sign humiliating contracts with the TV stations because this is all the money they could get, their shit was being sold free on the streets, concerts don't make enough money and they cost a lot.

This happened in film, all the quality production went under right away because nobody went to the theaters because you could get the movie for pennies on the street...so all the new movies were super low budget super crap TV releases that could not be pirated simply because they had no value at all...

This happened in literature, you could not sell a book because photocopies were cheaper, it was so ridiculous at one time you could buy jamie olivers cook book printed 4 pages in one to save paper LOL...nobody published books during this period....

This happened in medicine...no copyright means cheap knock offs...

This happened with food....ever tried millka chocholate with 2 L-s?

This happned with clothes...domestic brands were demolished by fake china crap...

But the most important effect is that it all lead to a complete devaluation of many profitable industries that employed 100.000s of people. It rewarded the rich and powerful media giants. For what? So that cheap shit guy fawkes mask wearing gideons could enjoy free porn in their mommas basement.


How amusing is it to me that you fight against monopoly LOL but you are in fact fighting for it. :1orglaugh

Can you imagine how amusing you are to me? You champion a cause that you can not even theoretically achieve with your solution. You are fighting cancer with tobacco LOL. You are monopolies best friend and you do not realize it at all...

You redefine the meaning of the word loser. Go get some english lessons at least then people will think you invested some time in something instead of half assing your way through life....

the problem is we live in a new age.

lets face it, people for years have copied films on such as vhs.

i am not sure the goverments bothered too much.

today we see films copied in high volume.

the problem today is that for new generations its the norm. its the norm to get porn free on tube sites. its the norm to see films free too.

on top of this films are as stasted in the interview launched different times, so they may first be seen in the usa then a few weeks later in the uk.this means the gap between showing in the usa and uk does give pirates the advantage to give it away.

the other problem is cost.

i worked in a uk cinima and know that the cinima that charges the most will get the film. often its a split basis. ie, week one it may be 90/10 split (90% going to the film firm). but each week this goes down so after a few weeks it could be 20/80 split (20% going to the film firm and 80% to the cinima). so as weeks go on the cinioma can make more cash even with fewer people.

so the film companies give the flm to the cinimas who charge most as they make more cash that way. so now we have cinimas charging £10 a person if not more. So a family of 5 could cost over £50. The reality is that people cannot afford that. Most simply now hang on till the dvd/blu ray is out.

All this pushes people to see the pirate film.

on top of this not all the films are that good.

the interview was actually good and interesting

I hope he uses the access shifting and fair use defense. That is basically him admitting he did it, but that he did it under certain circumstances. It is like admitting you killed someone, but that you did it in sell-defense or because you were temporarily insane.

If nothing else, his using this defense will provide established U.S. case law one way or the other on these topics.

Of course I have a feeling this will not make it to trial. I think one of his buddies will roll over on him and agree to testify against him in exchange for a reduced sentence and in the face of that Kim will cut himself some kind of deal.

copyright law has existed since before america was a colony so that entire statement is bullshit and you know it.

you may have lived in a country where copyright law has not been enforced but there is no way you lived in a country where the copyright law didn't exist

That being said, that not what i am arguing for

I clearly said that if the content is provided for a medium and you take it without paying for it that was infringement.


and this proves how much of a moron you are

you don't understand the market at all

want proof look at wil Wheaton that guy admitted explicitly he was technologically clueless in his book just a geek.

Yet he released his blog post/speeches under CC-SA -NC
so what happened his fans from star trek were allowed to record and post his speeches on their youtube/twitter etc accounts

They did the work of getting him traffic, he just talked about shit.

he talked about gaming, and he got invited to gaming conventions to talk about games

he talked about poker and he got invited to play in major celebrity tournaments.

he talked about his favourite shows and he got invited to play an evil version of himself on that shows.

other people did all the "work" for him.


except your real world example is completely unverifiable while mine are all verifiable

wil wheaton

jonathan coulton

http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2012/01/21/megaupload/




so artist got screwed because copyright didn't exist 200 years before they were born

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

that screw job your talking about happened when copyright was in it full effect.

and that why many artist are contemplating revoking their copyright assignment to get around that abuse.

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

and of course the record companies are trying their best to screw the artist out of that right.



again copyright law has existed since before america was even colonized

so everything your complaining about happened under copyright law



ditto


reread what i said in the you can't compete with free thread

every single one of your examples has a viable competition method

in fact most actually do follow at least one of them

that why those markets have not collapsed, and in fact are profiting greatly.


only if your a moron who doesn't know that copyright law has existed since before the country was even an idea.

Who is too stupid to realize that all the problems you attribute to a lack of copyright actually existed because of copyright.


right says the guy so stupid that he didn't realize that releasing your content under CC-SA crowd sources all the traffic work for you.

Well if your that stupid of course your not going to see the solution.

If you make problems that don't even exist into insurmountable problems of course nothing is going to work.


and you need to actually learn how to read a history book.

and this just proves how stupid you are

you don't even understand the situation that he is under

1. he can get rid of all the charges for copyright infringement for any country that has validated access shifting, because you can't facilitate copyright infringement if act isn't even an infringement

2. then he can argue that same rules should apply in the US.

3. if he loses then he will argue it impossible to tell the difference between the legit access shifting (countries that grant that right to their citizens vs US) so the removing access only was the maximum he could do. And since that was an option under the safe harbour he is still protected by the blanket immunity of the DMCA.

the government is going to be forced to prove that
1. there is a perfect way of providing the service to the legit people and not violating the rights of the infringed copyright holders
2. that mega upload was aware of that perfect solution and choose not to implement it
3. the laws required they implement those solutions.

he doesn't have to admit to any liability to make a fair use defence.



maybe but i don't see him accepting a deal unless it clear cut against him

For the millionth time. This case will be tried in the U.S. We do not have access shifting. He can get rid the of the charges for the few countries that do and reduce the count, but he still will face all counts in the U.S.

It is his right to make this argument, but as I said before by doing this he is admitting to doing things he claims he hasn't done. By making this argument he is saying, "We let people copy files because we felt access shifting applied to them." If it is ruled that access shifting doesn't apply he is fucked. He can't suddenly then say, "Well, we didn't really do it." Once he argued that they did it under the guise of access shifting.

Geo IP blocking has existed for years. He could easily block access to countries that don't allow access shifting and his problem is solved.

Supposedly the government has emails where Kim and the other guys in his crew admit that they know they are doing illegal stuff and they don't care. If that is the case he is fucked and the government will have an easy time proving him guilty.






I still think he will cut a deal. If the emails and evidence exists that shows the people operating the site knew they were breaking the law and didn't care and one or more of his buddies is willing to testify that Kim knew the law was being broken and did nothing about it, he is fucked. Short of actually convincing the jury that access shifting should exist in the U.S. or that this was some kind of convoluted fair use situation he is almost certain to be found guilty. If his choice is to face potentially 50 years in jail or cut a deal and serve a few years and pay a hefty fine he likely will take the deal.

not if the safe harbor provision still applies

the law says you must remove the file OR block access it the service providers choice.

youtube does not delete the file, they simply block access.






bullshit he doesn't have to claim access shift only, he didn't do that in the interview

he did a laundry list

backup, recover, access shifting, he could also include time shifting and format shifting.

.




what if a Canadian is traveling to the United states

you would be denying him his right to access shift just because not in canada

What about all the other fair use right, backup recovery ...
once he has it uploaded in one region (canada)ab ility to get it back would be covered by the other fair uses.



right the email exist where they admit they are guilty, exist and they didn't destroy it

oh and the government didn't bother to put that evidence in the brief we have already seen.





Your missing the possibility that blocking access is enough given the fair uses support (backup/recovery/access shifting/time shifting/format shifting) to qualify for the safe harbor provision

remember the law give the service provider the choice

you tube doesn't delete the uploaded file they simply block access

if you have to delete the file instead of simply blocking access then every online back would be worthless because if your password got hacked the only way they could avoid copyright infringement charges was to wipe out your backup.

What country is that?

I'm not going debate you, that is pointless. Clearly you should contact his defense team because you have it all figured out.

I guess we will eventually see what happens.

All I know is this. When the U.S. Government is after your ass, you typically don't win.

Ex-Yugoslavia

@gideongallery

They actually did not exist. I know your guy fawkes mask makes you all knowing in your imaginary world but in ex communism there were no such laws that covered new media such as tape, vhs, cd , cinema... there were little laws that regulated even private business so there was no legal ground on which they could sue somebody as a private entity.

Thank you for pointing out that copyright laws have existed in other countries for centuries, you truly have a talent for pointing out the obvious. I really really really did not know this before you told me LOL you must be really desperate to bow down so low and present this as a valid point against me LOL

What I wrote actually happened and you can squirm around it all you want it is factual reality: it lead to monopoly everywhere...I have no need to prove something to you that I saw happen with my own eyes...who gives a shit if you don't believe LOL

As for your wheaton example it is bullshit. You are assuming every artist has a friend base that will bring in millions of free clicks and lead to whatever LOL... how fucking retarded do you have to be to believe in this? For fucks sake theres pro bloggers on this forum with 1000s of websites who can't make a buck let alone a living with this free traffic shit and you actually present this as a viable form of income for hundreds of thousands of non-tech savvy artists? LOL what kind of pills are you on?

SOPA/ACTA/Whatever is coming :thumbsup everything you stand for will be turned in to toilet paper and stains will be made! :thumbsup

anybody have his naked photos?

Why are people glorifying that moron?

wheaton started his "web campaign" at the all time low in his career.

he wasn't even getting booked to do star trek conventions any more

he was contemplating giving up acting and going back to school to get another career.


it was so fucking bad that the link on a wil wheaton fan site only got him 384 people.

it was nothing

most bands who play in dives on the weekend can build a fan base to that level.

as to the tech savvy required

5 day crash course is all it takes to learn all the tech you need.


that the point of my services, i make it simple 4-10 step processes and i do all the work to make sure those processes keep working.

when technology changes i make changes to the system in the background so that the process just stays the same.

Because they love all the free shit he provided them with.

Megaporn was a little irritating, and I do not mind that one is done for.
Anyone here who would object that probably is not trying to sell memberships to porn sites, and is certainly not respecting content shooters.

just my 2 cents, he is not a hero or a pioneer. He was just taking advantage of it. Unfortunately by taking his ass down nothing is actually going to get solved per direct.

gideongallery logic:

If one guy wins the lottery, then every guy will win the lottery! Lottery is a sustainable business model! Look at all the examples:

bullshitlink1
bullshitlink2
bullshitlink3....

SO IT MUST BE TRUE! :1orglaugh



shiiiiiiiiit gideon go st8 ahead and ignore factual reality: pro bloggers with 1000-s of websites are going broke....will weaton has millions of people who know him for fucks sake he was a star in only the most successful TV show OF ALL TIME :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh







ok you got me sold! you are a genius! tell me first: what do you drive? Ill answer this for you:

Scenario 1) Gideon posts a pic of his ferrarri or lambo or just makes a huge "GIDEON" with cash and shuts me the fuck up and makes me join his miracle program even if i have to beg...

Scenario2) If you do not post proof of $$$$$ its simply because you do not have $$$$$ and what ever "excuse" you give is just very very amusing...

come on "playa" post some $$$$$ shots????

no?

youre gonna give lame excuses arent you? :thumbsup