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.

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?