piracy is not stealing never was nor will it ever be stealing. If you use the criminality test for theft for copyright infringment everyone is guilty included all the people who fully licienced the content for use.

What i am saying is not only true but the only sane and logical statement. Copyright infringement is a fraud, and fraud is no more legal then theft. The difference is stating it as fraud doesn't false criminalize non criminal actions (like your misrepresentation as theft).

no thanks you may consider US the land of the free, but to many of your politicans are bought and paid for by RIAA, MPAA.

i am not the one who keeps misrepresent a fraud as theft (when you know the criminality test -- posssion without ownership makes everyone guility)

I am not the one making unfounded declarations that i am "stealing" (when you know my statements are truly unbias because i make no money from tube sites, nor lose money from tube sites)

All i want you as a copyright holder to do is respect the fair use defined by the copyright act. I don't think that is unreasonable since it was the trade off you agreed to give the government in exchange for the monopoly the us governement granted you.

At current count i have said explictly declared if that is the case sue them because that would be infringment (or some paraphrasing of that statment) 28 times already.

Your just upset because i don't misrepresent perfectly legal actions as crimes.

at current count i am 90% right so far, when i objected to the "make available" ruling you guys all told me i was wrong yet the judge who made the ruling admitted he may have been wrong


I was the only person who predicted that viacom would agree to getting only sanatised version of the logs they requested (and explained the trap that google set that forced this) while people like paul tried to argue they should have a right to use that information to sue uploaders.

it absolutely makes a difference if most are legal, because you were using it as an example of infringment. You didn't remove all the legal distributions from the list, you could not tell the difference between legal and illegal which means it is impossible for youtube to distiguish been the authorized and unauthorized distribution of copyright material.

Porn is easy to identify (see naughty bits - block content) copyright infringment is not so easy. trusting the copyright holder implictly results in thousands of parody and commentaries to be blocked.

That why the safe harbor provision as written (take down request/ response system) is good because it balances both sides rights against each other.


btw it absolutely make a difference if a majority of the content your representing as infringing is really authorized (see betamax case)

The parallel should be quite clear even to you.

See, I told you so!

Keep fighting for everybodies rights gideongallery! You're just like a modern day robin hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor!

Communism! YAY! Hooray for gideongalley and communism!

And remember as gideongallery said: "since it was the trade off you agreed to give the government in exchange for the monopoly the us governement granted you."

Funny, I don't remember ALLOWING the govt. to "grant" me any goddamn thing in respect to my work. And I don't remember agreeing to any "trade off" either.

But there you go, I'm not the expert on the law that gideongallery is.
"If you use the criminality test for theft for copyright infringment everyone is guilty included all the people who fully licienced the content for use."

So if copyright infringement were theft then I couldn't agree to let anyone ever use my content in any way? And how the hell would that be? Doesn't make any sense to me...but neither has anything you have said so far.

" i objected to the "make available" ruling you guys all told me i was wrong"
Hmmm...again I have no clue what you're talking about. But this wouldn't be the first time you have lumped me in with other people and/or mistakenly thought I said something that someone else said.

I guess you're so busy fighting against the evil porn industry by trying to bankrupt us all that sometimes the little details like who said what can slip your mind.

I understand. You are a superhero fighting for truth and justice.

ok so your don't register your copyright with the us government, your work is not covered by the copyright act.
every time you argue that you have the exclusive right because of the copyright act you agree to accept fair use because fair use is explicitly excluded from your exclusive rights.


no i said it quite clearly even those people you gave permission to use your content would be guilty of copyright infringment therefore copyright infringement != theft.


it is a progressive inductive proof, and you are trying to draw a conclusion in reverse.

your basic arguement is if what has been proven to be false is true (impossible) then ....

first year logic class should teach you that a bogus arguement.


so we are going back to the take the statement out of context so you can misrepresent it as wrong.

Read the context of the statement it was in response to your claim that

i first pointed out that this statement was blantantly false because


and then explained your reasoning for the blantant misrepresentation as

quoting those previous examples of arguements between myself and copyright holders in this community that ultimately resulted in me being proven right (as an example of me not misrepresenting perfectly legal actions as crimes) is perfectly legitimate in that context.

sorry i don't have a tardis, we can skip forward to the future when your bogus claims will be refuted by a judges ruling. i am bound by making references to past successful arguements to prove that i am right.

gideongallery..there is only one person on this forum who thinks you have been right.

That would be you...There are only a few of us left who don't have you on "Ignore" and we do it to laugh at your amateur lawyering.

Now why don't you get off of GFY and go get a job or something?

I didn't realize that. I figured it was like all other videos that had that box and it was revshare for the person that posted the video. Thanks for the info, that does clear it up some.

So then let me rephrase the question. Say someone takes a song, any song, and puts it on a video with them dancing to it. There a million of these types of videos all over Youtube. Should youtube allow these videos. These people clearly do not have permission to use the song in the video, but they do. The person that uploaded the video may not be making any money directly from it, but Youtube is. Is this okay?

Truth is an absolute, it doesn't change depending on how many people believe it or not.

Am i right or am i wrong

did ruling i predicted happen, if it did i am right, if it does not then i am wrong.

when i said the judge made a mistake with the "make available" ruling i was right not because a majority believe me, but because the judge admitted he made a mistake.

The fact that the reasoning for the mistake was exactly what i said it was, means that my arguement was an intelligent rational argument, and not just a lucky guess.


when i predicted what would happen with the viacom subpoena i was right because viacom did exactly what i said they would do. (agreeing to accept sanatized user data even though the judge made no such ruling).


so far i this "armchair lawyer" is 2/2.

i think you still missing the point so i will rephrase your question into the most commercially intrusive version i can find which should be allowed.

first copyright act states

we will use the example of marie digby because within this context is represents the upper limit of what fair use allows you to do.

marie digby covers britney spears Gimme More



she stated quite clearly in the posting that
her channel header is a link to her album for sale on itunes.

now using the rules defined under the act to determine if the use is fair (and therefore automatically authorized by the copyright holder under the act)


1. commercial interest - she is using someone elses song to drive traffic directly to her channel, she is selling her album directly, she is uploading that song herself (no safe harbor) = fail

2. nature of the copyright work: it was a video which was intended to be watched, no explictly granted right to listen to 10 times so you could create your own version = fail

3. the entire song word for word = fail

4. this is the one she passes, because how much of an economic impact does marie digby's version of gimme more effect the sales for those people in the target market (those people who like the stripper pole version of the song).



Zero, zilch, nada = success

that is the pass condition which authorizes her use of the song.



now going on your example, it has less of a market impact then this version of the song, and has no direct commercial gain.

gideongallery, you should go to law school and become a lawyer bro! As soon as you turn 18 you should really have your parents try to send you to law school so you can actually learn all this shit instead of just incessantly babbling about it all the time.

That way you could go to court and defend thieves with your parsing of words. You won't win, but it would still be a good vocation for you once you get out of high school.

and you should go back to never never land where if you can get everyone to believe in what you say it becomes reality

i will stay here in the real world where the truth is the truth no matter how many people agree with you.

Yes gideongallery. I hear and I obey. You are the man. With your websites to nowhere and your vast knowledge of the laws. And you're neverending quest to defend thieves.

Again, I say: You seem to know a million ways to make money off of other people. But not ONE way to do something yourself.

I'll stay here in never never land where people actually work and make money. And you stay in your "real" world where it's all legal to steal other peoples stuff and make money with it. :)

But could you please leave GFY? Nobody here agrees with that crap. So why are you here?

Oh yeah...that's right to spread the agenda! If you keep repeating it over and over then it must be true.

Well, I did a little research and I think you might just be wrong with this. Sure the fair use stipulations you mentioned are listed on the federal government's copyright website. but nowhere on it does it say that you have to meet any specific number of those terms. So you might meet one of the terms, but not the other three (like the case you point out here) and still be in violation. Here is a quote from the site itself. "The distinction between ?fair use? and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: ?quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.? So it seems to me that fair use is primarily there for someone to use a small piece of the work for a certain purpose not to reproduce the whole work.

Look at it like this. Say I make a movie. I write it, direct and produce it. In the movie I use a Rolling Stones song. I use the whole song and I don't have permission from them to do so. I then put the movie in theaters or on DVD to make money. Like the above video I fail the first three tests. I used the whole song, I used it for monetary gain and it was something I made that I want other people to watch. However, you can argue that I am not doing financial harm to the Rolling Stones. My movie won't hurt their record sales. It won't reduce the number of concert tickets or merchandise they sell so then, by your thinking, it is fair use because I am not hurting them.

Wrong. I can guarantee you two things. First if they found out I was using the song without paying them or getting their permission before the movie was distributed I would get a C&D letter from them. If I didn't remove it they would sue me and they would win. Why? Simple. They license their music to movies, TV, commercials and other things and they make a ton of money doing so. My just using it could damage them regarding how much the can charge in the future. And I if I just use it, others would as well. If the argument is that it is a cover of the song and not the actual song, then I could cover a Stone's song and put it in my movie. I'll sing it myself. The problem is, they still own the rights to that song, not me. You can cover a song if it is made available for that by the owners, but then you have to pay them royalties. I am assuming this girl is not giving Britney any of the money she may be making from record sales.

Furthermore on the site there is this question: " Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?"

The answer is :"Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights." Now to me this is pretty clear. Copyright is there to protect the owner of the product and allow them to control how it is reproduced or distributed. There is no mention of financial damages. Simply that the owner of the copyright should be allowed to control how their work is reproduced and distributed. If this is correct then it means that just because it doesn't damage someone doesn't mean it is protected by fair use.

The way you describe it makes it sound as if anyone can post or share anything and as long as it doesn't do any financial damage to copyright holder it falls under fair use, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems a copyright holder also has the right to say how and where their product is used. Simply uploading a video to Youtube that the copyright owner did not give you permission to post is a violation of copyright. There is no financial gain on your part. They may not suffer financial damages, but in the end the own the copyright and can say how and where the product is distributed/reproduced and if they don't want you posting it, you are in violation. Prince just did a major crackdown on Youtube and other video sites banning people from posting his videos because he wants to maintain how they are put out there.

If you simply went by the logic in your post anyone could put anything they wanted on a site and as long as the owner of the copyright couldn't prove they were being financially damaged it is considered fair use. It doesn't seem that that is the case at all.

kane, why are you wasting your time with that idiot?

wtf are you talking about? that warning that comes up, does so after USERS have flagged the content

I'm pretty much done with this thread. I just had to make one most post. . . I'm drawn to the idiocy of it all for some reason :)

kane thanks for finding that...gideongallery is convinced he can just steal any thing he wants. And opulence...that part of my reply was in conjunction with another person saying that if you put up anything that had sexually suggestive content it was instantly flagged. Not flagged the next day or something. So my comment is that IF they have a way to filter that would pretty much sum it up. Of course if there are just so many people on youtube that they instantly see, complain, and then get a vid flagged within minutes...then I would be wrong. No big deal.

ok this is the 12th time i have pointed this out, look at the list again, do you see timeshifting (reproducing the whole work for later viewing) listed anywhere in that list no yet timeshifting was a fair use as defined by the betamax case. So drawing the conclusion that fair use can only be limited to reproducing a small piece of the work can not be declared as an absolute.
my god i can't believe we are going thru this again
did you not see me explictly say
"i think you still missing the point so i will rephrase your question into the most commercially intrusive version i can find which should be allowed."

my example defines the line between what is infringing and non infringing use of copyrighted material. if you step over that line of course you are violating copyright law, that what the definition of "most commercially intrusive version means"

The funny part is you clearly define the extra step you took in your next statement
Your liciencing arguement comes into play because each song has three copyrights
1. for the lyrics
2. for the music *(score)
3. for the performance.

music industry has standard percentage (defacto liciening rates) for using such lyrics in such a performance. your example (as you so clearly pointed out) violates that liciencing agreement explictly.

No look at the example i gave marie digby is NOT selling the performance she is giving it away, the purchase price of that performance is zero dollars. if you take the standard percentage and multiply it by zero dollars what do you get. zero dollars.

in other words marie digby is fully complying with the defacto licience for the lyrics.

Since i already stated this was example "most commercially intrusive" fair use of copyright material that difference crosses the line i spelled out.


The fact is that difference is not a minor one, it like cross the line running a mile turning around and say see what i am doing way over here is illegal ( well duh).


the point you are missing is that fair use as defined by section 107 of the act is outside the scope of the exclusive rights granted by the copyright act (copyright) so none of the declarations apply to fair use.


hopefully putting the statment in size 7 font make it clear that you are misrepresenting my position
but just to be safe i will quote myself again

i will rephrase your question into the most commercially intrusive version i can find which should be allowed.

you are running a mile past the line i define, saying that because what we both agree is illegal is illegal that line really doesn't exist.

i hope you understand the logical flaw in that postulate.

Well, I'm done with this thread. My final comment will be this:

Record your 10 favorite TV shows every week. Remove the commercials then upload them to a website you run. Don't put any advertising on it, just give it away for free. Promote the site so it gets popular. Then when you get the C&D letters from the TV Studios tell them you are using their product under the fair use policy for copyright and that their ratings haven't gone down so you are not damaging them. When you are end up in court (and you will) repeat this defense and bring up rulings from Betamax which was a case from 1984 long before the internet. P2P and broadband household connections ever existed and of which the main modern ruling featuring Grokster and Morpheus stated that the makers of that software can't be sued because some of their users used it to break the law. It didn't give them free reign to copy and share what you want, it just said the software makers are not to blame. If you own a DVD duplicator and you use it to mass produce and sell pirated DVDs you are in fault, not the maker of the hardware you used. When the judge or jury finds against you and you are ordered to pay heavily to the companies whose programs you were posting realize that maybe scouring the fine print on copyright laws for loopholes isn't the best idea in the world.

To me the fair use law is pretty obvious. It seems to be meant to allow people to use clips or portions of a work to critique, educate, parody, explain or clarify something. It doesn't mean you have the right to distribute someone else's programing without their permission just because you aren't causing them obvious damages.

I'm heading to bed. Clearly we will have to agree to disagree. You feel you are right and people can use the fine print in the laws to do with content as the please and I think otherwise. In the end I think the Youtube case will be pretty landmark and will define this argument once and for all. If the ruling is in Viacoms favor it will cripple Youtube and force it to either shut down or completely revamp. A ruling against Youtube would also effect many other lesser known video sites. A ruling four Youtube will pretty much verify that the internet really is like the wild west and you can do pretty much whatever you want with whatever you want whenever you want with no worries.

Until they state in court how they can easily filter a porn movie and not a pirated News item, music video or other other mediums. The moment they the "safe harbor" defense they open it up to the plaintiffs lawyer to ask them in detail, in front of a jury, how they filter one content 100% and if they did not would turn them into a porn site and another type of content, that brings in their traffic they need to survive, they are clueless and totally unable to filter.

Yes I agree with you about the safe harbor, the problem is they clearly only try to really filter what they want to. Once they start filtering they are in control of the content to some degree. Then it's down to a lawyer to expose them and a jury to decide.

As for not being able to distinguish between "authorized and unauthorized distribution of copyright material" here you show your true lack of common sense.

You are clearly clueless about copyright laws and have no idea what a lawyer will make you look like in a court of law. I have dealt with both. Trust me Youtube will have a lot of explaining to do. If they lose this one the lawyers will see why it was lost and go after them again. Like the anti smoking lawyers did. They will learn where the case was weak and strengthen it and return to court and try again.

And try again, because when you're suing companies as rich as Google it's worth it to keep going back.

I agree with you. The idea that the DMCA laws and "safe harbor" are meant to allow people to grab and use it as they wish is fine, until that someone has to stand in the witness box and explain it to a jury. Or prove that it was uploaded by other users. Yes if you say that 1000 pirated movies that bring in your traffic were all uploaded by completely independent people for their own joy of sharing you might have to prove it to a jury.

30 years ago I was giving evidence in a non criminal case and the lawyer for the plaintiff was doing his best to twist everything I said and make me prove what I was saying was fact.

Then if you claim to have the ability to control one type of content, while not being able to do anything about another type. Again the lawyer may ask "WHY?" Then you have to come up with very convincing statements and still be not in control of the content on your site.

That is going to take a lot of explaining.

ok i finally have time again to deal with this

so Say that you are right and that absolute worst case happens for google

That would be they have a software that scans thru for skin and flags the video for individual review by a REAL LIVE Person PAID for by GOOGLE. it still would not make one bit of difference to the case.

Assuming this was the evidence found and viacom lawyers asked google to explain why they could not do the same thing for copyrighted material.

Google tech would answer something like this

the betamax case is still being used today 24 years after it was first established to defend new technological implementations of "timeshifting". The ruling says that "timeshifting" is not an infringement, and therefore there is nothing to contribute to (ergo no contributory infringement of copyright material)

the case was recently referenced in a case on august 4,2008 (20th century fox v cablevision)
in which they recognized the right to use a cloud as a timeshifting device (which should also help all torrent sites since the swarm is really a distributed cloud)


re read the ruling , the judges did not reverse fair use, they simply said the each fair use that Grokster and Morpheus (access shifting) were defining was 1:1 association with a copyright infringement. Therefore the courts refused to even consider if access shifting was a fair use right (since it was irrelevant). Grokster and Morpheus did not argue they were fulfilling an existing fair use right, that why the lost.

As i have predicted the fair use right of access shifting would have to be established by a technology which does not have a 1:1 relationship between illegal copying and "access shifting" . Torrents which break the file into pieces and never distribute the entire file to any new machine, breaks that 1:1 relationship.
exactly the point, if you have not figuired it out youtube = to the software makers and the infinging uploaders are the pirates.

i already use torrent sites to back up my favorite tv shows, i will defend that right
and now that the appeals court has explictly declared that copyright holders must consider fair use when sending out take down requests, and can face civil liablities under the act for failing to do so

actually a ruling for youtube will only maintain the balance between the rights of copyright holders and the fair use rights of the general public.