funny steve
your stalker bullshit is the exact reason i can't do that

The only thing that absolutely proves your stalker "claim" is total Bull shit is the fact that i refuse to be in the same country as "raimi miller"

you admit your stalker claims were a total fabrication and not only with i show up to next years internext but i will present a "fair use" complient solution with statistics from the mainstream proving its viablity for content producers.

Self-admitted pirate. Someone ban this fucking tool.

wrong again steve o
the company tracks down the ip address of torrent users and send "fair use" complient termination request to isps.

IT identifies ip address via the arin database.

I wrote some of the code to specifically do this.

unlike solutions like trying the poison the torrent swarm, which can be tracked and blocked, the process we follow just looks like another average downloader/seeder.


the torrent will not disappear/ the swarm will not disappear but the offending users will.

Then the torrent site owners should take the necessary steps to insure that the 'backups' are legit... If they can't mind their store properly, then they shouldn't have it open...

Copyright law says you are permitted to make one backup of the 'purchased' media.

When you join an adult site, you aren't purchasing media.. you're purchasing a membership. You can't back up a membership.

A membership that gives you the ability to view or download movies/videos, is not the same as purchasing those movies/videos.

Didn't follow this thread, sorry if it's been asked before, but is anyone going to record this roundtable discussion in video or audio? I'd like to hear what's said, but I won't be able to attend Internext this year because my baby is coming any day now.. Had to pass on a free trip even..

View of the CEA - Digital Download Conference

Frequency of Paying to Download Content*

Pictures 3%
Games 6%
Computing Software 26%
Information or Reports 2%
Audio files 6%
Sound files 2%
Video clips/movies 4%
Electronic books 23%

*Among online adults who HAVE downloaded each type of content


Torrent/warez sites are for cheap broke thief's.

I see that you have a history of ripping off names that don't belong to you.

Spanked by Mattel?
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ns/1024381.htm

"Respondent contends that Complainant’s United States trademark registrations are irrelevant because Respondent is a Canadian resident. Respondent further argues that the BARBIE mark is generic."

Hy A1R3k - still waiting for your ICQ when you have a moment.

quantum, can you get me 342166669 i had icq crash and i tried searching for you and you're not there anymore.

thanks.

so basically gideon is saying that 1% of the people who visit torrent sites are responsible for uploading all the content to them? since 99% of them never paid for access to adult materials, where did it come from? i really do want to understand this.

Is he related to minusonebit?

That not what i said

While the registration was relevant (berne convention) the US laws that presumptively assigned protent power were not

That the canadian supreme court had explicitly ruled that barbie as a name (Surname and prenom) was not an infringement of "barbie" trademark. (you can see the court case with the media creation date proving that they were submitted before the decision )
I presented that case as well as the new york supreme court explicitly ruled that mattel did not have a right to bring a case against a canadian citizen (barbiesshop.com) and would have to refile under canadian law.


The generic reference was in the context of mattel trying attaching any word to the trademark term "barbie" was an infringing use of their trademark
and me point out that this was a false ruling because while sony (Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Kil, D2000-1409) was a unique term with no other meaning then what sony defined it as, while barbie was generic in that it had multiple means (including the name of the barbie creator's daughter) outside the scope of the trademark.

The only reason this right was given to mattel in the previous case was because the arbitrator misrepresented the prima facie clause as

when the law actually states

which in this case would be toys and toy accessories.

This misrepresentation granted the protent power (which the supreme court of canada explictly said the barbie trademark did not have) to an generic trademark which was only presumptively unique because of a severe scope limitation.

I even went on to prove this ruling to be false by combining pointing out that when i combined Klaus with barbie to get Klaus Barbie, i created a term that had no connection to the barbie trademark because the "butcher of lyons" had significant meaning before the barbie doll was even created. (thereby proving that you DID NOT get an infringing term EVERY TIME you combined a term with the barbie trademark-- unlike sony did not exist at all until it sony corporation was incorporated)


That arbitrator chose to misrepresent my claim to cover up the in

Peter Jerie v. Agelos Destounis when he over extended the US Lanham act by applying the "constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof" outside the jurisdiction of the US law. (violating the new york case i referenced)

and that previous arbitrators were so incompetent that they did not know the basic premise of the trademark act.


The bad faith reference (Microsoft Corp. v. Horner, D2002-0029 ) was equally invalid because microsoft (like sony) was a coined term and David Einhorn chose to ignore my objections that " Pfizer, viagra and microsoft were unique terms just like sony and therefore not applicable to generic trademark." (when mattel try and use those other cases to claime the same rights as the sony case falsely gave them) and can independently proven to be complete false because when the trademark office was faced with the same situation

• Contains the barbie trademark
• was related to pornography
• whose claim was based on a "name and likeness" assignment of rights

not only did they recognize that the trademark was not an infringement but actually granted them the full scope limited presumptive uniqueness rights (see barbie griffen)

I was afraid that some unethical scum back abuse that misrepresentation of what i said to pretend i was an idiot so incredible stupid that " i honestly believed trademark law does not apply to me at all just because i am a canadian"

BTW you might want check out the case he referenced to justify violating my soverign rights as a canadian citizen when he applied a misrepresentation of a US law (in direct violation of US court ruling). (http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ons/932344.htm)
in that case it was only the REGISTRATION DATE of the trademark which was extended. The arbitrator still recognized all of the disputes based on the respondants home country (india) and only discregarded them they were proven to be false under INDIAN LAW.

proving delusion of trademark in india

when the respondent claimed
did not override indian law with US law instead only rejected it based on proof that this was a misrepresentation of class 16 and class 42 of INDIAN LAW

it is quite clear that this ruling did not justify OVERWRITING canadian law with US law but only recognized the extension of the trademark for protection UNDER Canadian law. Which is exactly what i actually asked for.

oh and if you check the canadian supreme court decision you will notice that case also recognized the REGISTRATION DATE of the US trademark for scope protection under CANADIAN LAW.

nope i am saying that given the current laws even if 99 peers were illegally downloading the content (never bought a right to the content) and only 1 person was downloading the content under fair use (time shifting, formating shifting etc) the majority of the torrent transactions would be legal.

because Seeding to the swarm does not meet the minimum conditions of the "make available" ruling because as a seeder (even the original seeder) is never giving away a working copy of the file(fair use transient cache). since a peer both seeds and leaches 50% of the transactions is non infringing.

If even one person has a fair use right to download (time shifting, format shifting, recovery).

While you have every right to go after the 99 people who are "stealing" your content (which is what my companies services does) given how you are choosing to stack the panel i am pretty sure no one will advocate that "fair use complient" solution instead it will be an arguement of going after the torrent sites completely and thereby denying the seeder his fair use right of backup and the previous customers their fair use right to download (time shifting, format shifting, recovery).

ok then explain the betamax ruling
tv was a subscription service at that time.
when i pay my cable bill today i am currently buying a subscription to tv shows. Which grants me the ability to view (watch tv) or download (record to vcr/pvr/tivo) if the law was actually written the way you are claiming then all of these saving technologies would be illegal. The supreme court ruled in favor of sony in the betamax case.

Change the law to match what you are saying restrict back up rights only to hard purchased media and you kill 365 billion dollars of the 2.2 trillion fair use marketplace