| gideongallery |
08-23-2008 10:16 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
(Post 14574987)
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
|
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)
Quote:
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.
|
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.
Quote:
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.
|
exactly the point, if you have not figuired it out youtube = to the software makers and the infinging uploaders are the pirates.
Quote:
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.
|
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
Quote:
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.
|
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. |
