Weasels will always bend and twist words around in order to justify and support some form of piracy - even when they know and fully understand its wrong and illegal.

And while they're defending piracy in one form or another to satisfy their own self-interests, you'll never see them offering viable or alternative solutions to MPAA or any other punitive option currently available to content producers.

When all the bullshit doubletalk evaporates at the end of the day...its still illegal.

That's good news. Down with those bad sites. :thumbsup

first of all the mpaa is been going way over board in the last little while

a majority of the 15 million dollar judgement is for lost season 1 downloads

1. they are using the most expensive way to aquire the content as cost allocation (dvd sales)
2. they are treating the 99.5% of cable tv subscriber who are really only using the torrents as a VCR (to timeshift their viewing right) as infringers

what they are trying to do is artifically extend their monopoly in primary distribution into the fair use time shifting distribution that they are supposed to compete equally.

Actually what he is describing isn't illegal.

Mass online file sharing IS illegal, but making a copy of a song or a movie for a friend isn't. Neither is recording a movie off of TV or a song off of the radio.

The RIAA sued to stop cassette recorders, and the MPAA sued to stop VCR's, making the argument you are making. The courts ruled that the proper use of those devices wasn't illegal.

Napster tried to use that same argument and lost....but that doesn't mean what TheDoc is talking about is now illegal.

You are completely and totally wrong.

Oh my. I love armchair lawyers.
Making a copy 'for a friend' - is illegal.
Recording off the radio - is illegal.
Copying shows from the TV - illegal.

There are, of course, grey areas, and exceptions, mainly concerning intent - but all of your examples are illegal.

you are so wrong i suggest you read the beta max case again

the fundamental problem with all you pro- MPAA guys is that you are buying into the misrepresentation that copyright violations are theft. They are not, in reality they are an act of fraud (misrepresenting having purchased a right to view) becuase the way copyright law works is that i am not buying the content i am buying the right to view the content.

If i were buying the content i would have a right to sell the content (giving up my right to use at the same time) just like i can do when i buy a car, a bike, a house etc.

The misrepresentation is made by the MPAA because they are attempting to squash fair use rights that currently exist under the law.

of the three examples you claimed are illegal only one is potentially illegal and that is making a copy for a friend. and that is only illegal if the "friend" has not bought or been given a right to view/use by the copyright holder or only of his appointed agents.

So giving my friend a copy of my windows xp to replace the fix his machine (which was bought with windows xp pre-loaded) would be legal (because he is not fraudlently claiming a right to use because he bought a right to use) while giving it to a friend who bought a mac and wants to dual boot would be illegal.

fair use is easy to understand when you properly represent copyright infringement as a fraud and stop misrepresenting it as theft.

Oh you hate armchair lawyers?

Then please share with us where you received your law degree from, along with when you passed the bar exam and your bar number and state please.

If recording a show from the TV is illegal then why hasn't Tivo been sued out of business?

If recording a song from the radio is illegal then why is Sony allowed to make a product that contains a radio and cassette and in some cases cd recorder, along with printed instructions for how to record a song off the radio?

That's about as logical as suing Toyota because a car of their design was used in a hit and run. :2 cents:

Yeah, but the recording industry DID sue Sony over Betamax and lost. So that shows you how logical some of their arguments are.

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear where you got your law degree from and your bar number and state.

kthxbye

actually is was not the recording industry that sued Sony over their Betamax VTR (what vcr were called in the case) but UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=464&page=417

i would suggest that anyone who honestly "believes" that recording a tv show is illegal should read the case law at the url provided above. Justice Stevens explictly stated it recording a tv show for personal consumption at a later time (time shifting) was NOT an infringement of the exclusive rights granted by the copyright act.

Posting #11 (and #1?) seem so important that this is a bump for the folks who have been away during this three day weekend (and who might have some comments/input about the situation.

dave

Last bump, just in case some folks are just now returning to their computers from family holiday weekend trips.

dave