do you understand what a "subject to" clause means

use a modeling contract as an example if i were to say subject to these conditions i will pay you 1000 per shoot.

if you fail to meet those conditions do you expect to get paid.

Do you understand not withstanding clause

if i say that you have all right not withstanding resell rights
and you start reselling the content are you not in breach of licience agreement

which takes priority between the rights granted and the conditions met to get those rights (first case)

which takes priority betweens the rights granted or the rights that exist in every case even when they conflict with the previously granted rights.(second case)

I suddenly feel the urge to eat a box of CrackerJacks...I always wanted to get the cool compass that I heard of people getting as the "prize" in the box. But all I ever find is this damn fake laywers diploma...

the pirate bay was convicted of a crime that the procecution failed to prove they were even involved in
DHT was turned on in each case.

You really want to hang your entire arguement based on that one. Go ahead.

you might want to remember that sony lost lower court ruling in the betamax case and it was overturned at th supreme court level.

oh and btw it called a historical time line of precedents
timeshifting in a cloud was not established to be legal by the supreme court until after the pirate bay was convicted.

couldn't legally make the arguement until it was established could they.

I don't have an argument to hang anything on. I told you already that you should be using your intelligence and talents in something that is legitimate instead of continually trying to make money off of something that is not going to exist in it's current form for much longer.

You can keep on trying to convince yourself and whomever you think actually respects that argument on GFY that it isn't stealing and it's all going to be found to be "OK" by the courts in the future. But it's hurting too many industries and it's not going to be allowed to stand. I know you don't believe me and I couldn't care less. I just think that you actually do show some intelligence despite the ball busting I deal out to you. And you're wasting your time on something that is dead on arrival.

really i though it would have been fake marketing diploma
you know the ones that say copying wayne's world and applying it to a porn video is something that counts as creativity.

:winkwink::winkwink:

It sure does count as creativity my friend.
To quote XXXJay: "I didn't invent guitar based rock...but I perfected it."

Every renowned artist throughout history whether it was music, art, architecture, etc., has borrowed an idea or concept and then furthered it and added their own style. If you weren't so busy pretending to be Matlock you might have studied some of the Humanities in college.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
so you consider taking this type of product



and applying it to a porn video
as perfecting it. or even "borrowed an idea or concept and then furthered it"

fucking priceless. The lengths you will go to justify your expertise.

Gideongallery, you must've somehow missed my earlier post. Please post a scan (JPG or PDF is fine, your choice) of your law school diploma.

well Im glad someone voted them Affiliate program of the year so they could steal my content to make their next tour.

:1orglaugh :thumbsup

Gideongallery, please say you'll be representing yourself in court.

cassette tapes 4 life.

that would be stupid if am going to hire a qualified lawyer to educate me about these issues when creating a business plan for brandingbugs.com

if i am going to hire a lawyer to deal with the warning from my isp because i downloaded lost from bit torrent (timeshifted using a cloud before the courts actually ruled in favor of that arguement) why would i cheap out and not use the lawyer when defending my rights.

If a lawyer gave you some of the advice you spout in this thread and you paid for it, you might want to consider shopping around elsewhere for future advice. As well, if you really got some of this from a lawyer, remember that you're only getting an interpretation that they're prepared to argue in court, which could be very different than what the judge might think.

In actuality, though, I smell an armchair lawyer.

look back at my post

i mentioned the defense that i used when sympatico warned me that i was violating copyright law by downloading lost from the torrrent sites.

That arguement was posted here BEFORE (it was made long time before that post too) the timeshifting in a cloud ruling ever hit the courts. Way before that ruling was upheld by the supreme court.

i am not egotistical enough to argue i have the skills to know enough to actually do that.


my lawyers advice has a proven success record
unlike the lawyers who are so incredible incompentent that they would actually let their clients argue that none of the fair use rights established by the courts (backup, timeshifting, formatshifting) and all have the common characteristic of making a complete unabridged copy have any validity

so that they can claim that "torrents/newsgroups/tubes are to profit from their fraudulant use of copyrighted works in their entirety?"

When he start making arguements that ultimately lose out i will fire him and hire the guy across the table. Until then i think i will stick with the guy who is not completely oblivious of all the court established fair use rights.

Well, Gideongallery, truth told, when I read your posts, it all sounds like this:

blah blah blah defending stolen content blah blah blah stolen content is cool yada yada

funny thing is i keep saying

leave the tracker alone
leave the seeder alone
leave the leacher with fair use right alone
go after the leacher without fair use right

There is no way that is defending stolen content
the "theif" is the guy without fair use rights to the content, and i have no problem with everyone going after him. (i won't go into the it fraud not theft issue again just for you :winkwink::winkwink:)

you should ask yourself why think a statements which can basically summarized as only go after the people actually "stealing" constitutes "defending stolen content" in your mind.

leave britney alone.

btw this is WHY we believe differently about this issue

i believe that putting your content on tape cassettes and selling it to people when everyone else is saying the vcr is the boston strangler is creative

i believe that splitting the atom when everyone says it the smallest unit of matter is creative

i believe that doing a spike launch with napster when everyone is saying that it is the bane of the industry

copying someone elses idea and just applying it to my stuff is not creative or innovative so while you see no solution to the problem i look for and find multiple solutions to the problem. The fact is if you were to just implement 2 or 3 of the 163 mistakes that every single copyright holder is currently making you could turn torrent/tubes into the biggest money maker since the vcr.

Gideon, Robbie makes a very nice living in the adult internet game with his sites, his content and his creativity and has for a long time. There are a lot of people who have done business with him and have met him in person that can verify this. You are just some random kook with a 'private tracker' fetish which no one understands nor shares who seeks attention by posting on a message board from his parent's house. How can you pontificate and tell people what they could or should do to make more money online? It's easy to talk theory. It's a lot harder to make money as a creative person especially nowadays. If you know so much about how to monetize traffic nowadays, why don't you do it already and show us where we are all going wrong?

I can summarize even briefer than you can:

You're defending using stolen content for commercial purposes that are NOT protected under "fair use."

I surely do understand what a "subject to" clause means, and it certainly doesn't mean priority in a sense you're trying to argue.

Free speech doesn't mean free paper (free hosting) to write your speech on.

Fair use doesn't mean free paper (free hosting) to post your commentaries/parodies at.

If you're denied posting your materials you believe protected by fair use at a public service site, go on and post it at paid host which is fully covered by safe harbor and fight in court if you recieve takedown request - that's perfectly balanced imo.

If the company operating a website is now a publisher, and is fully responsible to make sure all materials are either licensed or fair use - we're not having problems anymore with piracy issues, and fair use is still protected on the same level it was before the amendments.

I think we should push for such changes in court, under the common law such things are possible - if courts will start recognize companies directly operating websites as publishers and not ISPs, that will limit the infringing activity a great deal.

That's more than possible I believe, because DMCA specifically says ISPs are those who are not in direct control of things and have no direct knowlendge of the infinging activity - so to amend this in court and to exclude publishers from ISPs lists is possible. We just need to push in the right direction, instead of using some remote accussations such as loss leader that have a little chance to fly in court.

Ok gideongallery. I guess you never heard of Michael Angelo. Or William Shakespeare. Or bring it up to more modern times...The Rolling Stones directly copied Muddy Waters and Robert Johnson and a dozen other Mississippi bluesmen. But yet there music came out original and creative and took things to another level.

10 years before them, Elvis did the same.

But I guess it wasn't creative according to you.

And aren't you the guy who was bragging about "creating" a torrent recorder? Sounds to me like you just copied a VCR and applied it to something else. Using your bullshit definition, wouldn't that mean you were just being a copycat and not creating anything at all?

I try to give you credit for some intelligence GG, and I still do. But you make it awfully difficult for me to justify that.

micheal angelo layed on his back less that 2 feet away from the ceiling yet still painted a scene that encompassed the entire ceiling. He could only see a small piece of the whole picture yet he was able to create a whole that PERFECTLY combined those parts together.

Do you not understand how different that was from every other painter at the time.


amazingly you have the gaul to equate that level of genius with you taking wayne's world skit and applying it to porn

Bravo. Thank god ego doesn't take up space because you would never fit thru any doors again.



did i ever say that the torrent recroder is innovative, i keep saying that the torrent recorder is the evolution of the vcr (technically pvr)

I keep saying that torrent swarm is the best which vcr you could ever have, since it would record every show, never fail if the power goes out and save the shows forever so you could always go back watch them whenever you wanted.

It not innovative, you don't have to creative or innovative to make a lot of money with something.

The innovative stuff i am talking about is 163 mistakes that we have identified that would allow a tv show to fully funded without having those annoying 26 commercial spots. That would make sure that torrent recorder could still provide the revenue necessary for it commercial free "broadcast" of all the shows you love to watch. That what is innovative and creative, not the torrent recorder.

For gods sake the torrent record is built on Open Source software, using an open source os and an open source bit torrent client. The intefrace is java fx interface (xml based). The closest thing to innovation is the remote controller with gestural movements but since you could do that with a wii remote that not innovative either.


a photocopier creates copies
people build cars/computer/etc on assembly lines you can create something and not be creative.

1. you ignored the notwithstanding clause

2. your old definition of publisher "instantly available" would make every host like mojo liable for the actions of their client

3. your new definition is already how the law works, if you can prove that the company itself uploaded the content, without believing they had a right too (ama screwing up on the licience and allowing the behavior and then bitching because it wasn't what he ment the licience to authorize) they have no safe harbor protection.


btw if the free site has all the traffic, being restricted only hosting it yourself is censorship. Just as much as saying you can make your speech but you have to make it in the jail cell where no one can hear you speak.


If no one can hear your parody, even though you have a right to create it, you are being censored.

Gideon, i bet you got beaten up a lot as a kid by the other kids. and if you still don't know why i could tell you a few reasons.

:2 cents:

nope never had a problem for two reasons

1. i trained in judo/juji so i understood the fundamentals of leverage. i only got in one fight pulled guard and took a couple of shots to the ribs while i put him out.

2. my sensi used to say "violence is the last resort of the incompetent" and i always took that statement to heart.

ok lets talk about this one case, the ad using a picture of raven riley and calling her a different name.

the beta max case shows that 4th one is the only one that is really important since sony made 1k per machine, the entire show was copied with no changes (2, 3) but it caused no directly recognized income damage. there was no lost sale.

So exactly who does taking one picture, putting it in an ad branding a completely different name cost tom a single sale.

As i pointed out with the natalie example the disgruntal users are going to go to google and search for natalie from exgirlfriendfootage.com to find her content when they don't find it in the site (after it has been dcma away)

So exactly how does it change the value of the copyrighted work, how does it cost a sale.

How about we take a different tack and just call it consumer fraud? Got a lawyerly defense for that, Matlock?

this is not Star Trek XXX!!!

this is not a black sabbath shirt

and this is definitely not a FUGAZI shirt!

Gideon, quick question.....have you ever spent your money to produce content (pics & movies) and then seen it stolen and spread around the internet - used on other peoples sites? If you've taken your hard earned money, spent it on production costs to make a movie or shoot pictures....and then watched as other companies steal your work and showcase it for free on their sites, you might have a completely different outlook on this situation :thumbsup

I'm sure he'd recognize it as being "fair use" and "timeshifting" and he would respect their "safe harbor."

you can threaten legal action all day long
 

you are not going to scare anyone.

first of all, copyright infringement laws are civil laws, not criminal laws so you can sue someone but you're not putting anyone in jail and the police arent interested in your case.

so great, you have a good lawsuit... dude is definitely ripping you off and you can PROVE it.

now, do you know who and where dude is ?
you have to be able to serve him with notification that he's being sued.
if it's a corporation, they'll have an agent to accept summons.

so great, you know the guy, you know where he lives so you were able to get him served a summons to appear in court.
you go to court

YOU WIN !! (he probably doesnt even bother to show up)

the judge awards you a million dollars !!!!!

WOOOO HOOOO

hope you didnt pay an attorney too much or you gonna be out even more money than before you started your lawsuit.

if the corporation or the dude (whichever one applicable in your case) doesnt have any attachable assets in his name, that judgement is a great piece of toilet paper.

now you can wipe your ass.

content yes, movies and pictures no
i am a coder my scripts have been shared in the past

i did respect their fair use rights, i setup a private tracker for my customers.
it solves the problem fully (well until teen revenue screwed up the precedents by going after safe harbor protected tube site on unfair business practise bases :321GFY:321GFY)

it may not work as well now as it did back then but it still a lot better that whinning and crying about how unfair the law is and hoping and praying the government will step in to save you all.

nope like i said i am not a lawyer and that "consumer fraud" issue is not something i asked my lawyer about.

however just from the wording i would suspect the consumer not a competitor would have to be the one filing the complaint.

in which case the price of the membership would be all that consumer would get back.

lol
If gideongallery isn't on the payroll of some torrent site to do this on GFY then he is missing out on a nice source of revenue.

I'm sure that his posts are sources of laughter at piracy sites worldwide when he comes over here and stirs the hornets nest. :1orglaugh

Have fun whiile you can gideongallery. But in the last few months it's been JAIL for a few pirates. You're communist dreamworld is crashing down. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

But I have to admit I enjoy laughing at you. You really think you know what's going to happen and have consulted with a "lawyer"

Riiiiggghhht. I don't think you've ever hired a lawyer in your life.

Reality is that nobody in adult is going to change what is happening. No judge is going to be sympathetic to a guy in the porn biz anyway. Hell, if I went to legal battle over it...they'd probably find some way to throw me in jail. :1orglaugh

But the same can't be said for the other things being pirated. You know change is coming. Which is why you make these insane postings and ramblings about "clouds" and "safe harbor" and "private trackers"

The law isn't clear yet. It isn't in synch with the internet. You can babble about Supreme Court rulings on "clouds" and anything else you want. But in reality there have been NO such rulings. You are just interpreting old rulings to read the way you want to.

Just like a fanatic reads the Bible and interprets it to fit their view.

Soon the law will be changed to get rid of this gray area. And then we will see. Maybe you are right and I'll end up mowing your lawn and washing your car. And you'll have Bill Gates as your butler, and Hollywood movie studio heads will tend your garden.

But somehow I think that the amount of money and the impact this is having on an already hurt worldwide economy is going to prevail. The current situation is a travesty against hard working people and IS stealing. Double talk all you want. Hide all you want and hope that a VCR ruling from decades ago really will be the final say.

well i am surprise you think i am so intelligent that i would get so many ruling right.

side by side every time we have argued about a legal point i have been right and you have been wrong.

you believed that parody required me to dress up in a wig and pretend to be claudia marie
i said it would apply to something as simple as changing the sound track to the song "internet killed the porno star" or in the case of your wife "legal flabby and old " (parody of snows song legal tender and fine).
eff successfully got a change in subtitles to be explictly recognized as parody.

i tell you it because a lawyer tells me so, you think it because i am some type of super genius.

have to agree with this no porn company is ever going successfully get the copyright laws extended in the way you want them too.


i have provided you direct links to the ruling so only a complete moron would claim there is no such ruling.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud
i suggest you actually read the ruling to see before you claim it doesn't exist.


again that was the exact same arguement that the mpaa made when the vcr won the right to exist.
The laws had to change because it would be the death of the industry if they didn't
Those evil device had to be outlawed, stopped at the border

yet the porn industry (real creativity not your copycat creativity) put the stuff on the tapes and sold it. The mainstream industry copied that innovation and home viewing market became the greatest source of revenue ever.

As one of those people who actually comes up with innovative ideas, i am sure you will copy those ideas too. remember you were saying that mainstream type product placement would never work in porn until you "creatively" :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh came up with the idea to copy wayne's world.

Gideon just go on believing that. Not once in that Supreme Court ruling did I see the word "cloud" or "digital media" or "internet" Because it didn't exist.

You're still just double talking. Sorry buddy, but you're still just something for people to laugh at. I've tried to give you some good advice, but obviously you are hellbent on riding the bit torrent train all the way down to the ground. Enjoy yourself gideongallery. I've seen so many just like you come and go.

I spit out my coffee...Damn that is redneck funny. I think you mean Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni

Or maybe Mikey to you....

Just an aside to anyone reading this thread and thinking that they may base their future actions on the "legal advice" in this thread...

Legal advice obtained from an online forum is ALWAYS worth the price you paid for it. :thumbsup

your right that it hasn't been explictly defined for a swarm but the collection of computer equipment accessible from the internet (definition of a cloud) does apply for a swarm on a technical basis.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup

so your arguments are 'technically' right... kinda delusional

yup - that does a lot for you credibility here

oh.... wait



.

I love it when I get quoted. :)

Goddamn! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I didn't even realize I had done that! lol

"And, finally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Cablevision was engaging in unauthorized public performances. The way the Cablevision system was designed, every time a consumer decided to record a given show, Cablevision would store a separate copy of that program, and each of those copies could be played back only by the consumer who recorded it. The plaintiffs urged the court to hold that if 1000 copies of the season finale of Desperate Housewives are played back in 1000 households, that's a public performance. The court instead correctly concluded that each of those copies is playable in only one household, which means that we're talking about 1000 private viewings, not a public performance."

If that "cloud" is a publicly accessed torrent tracker, that would consitute public performace and is an infingement.

The ruling you're reffering to only applies to a company that made their private storage, which only a customer who uploaded this video can access.

If rapidshare only allowed those users who uploaded to access thier files, using username and password, that would be much less of a problem - mainstream would still probably sue, but we'd surely be OK with it.

Tube sites are even more of an unauthorized public performance, which is not covered by fair use.

1. Yes I did because it changes nothing - it does not entitle "fair users" with a free hosting of their files too.

Never the document you quoted set a priority for fair use over the rights of copyright holders, simply because it is not logical to set such priorities. Fair use of copyrighted materials can not exist if there's no copyrighted work to use fairly - thus if fair use gets priority which harms copyright holders, it would harm the whole fair use segment too.

2. Old definition was already dismissed in the course of our discussion, why are you still reffering to it. New definition "operate/do not operate" websites I believe is absolutely correct and clearly defines the difference between an ISP and a Publisher.

Mojo host provides a hosting platform but doesn't operate any of the sites they host, thus they're entitled to safe harbor protection; while Google operates Youtube and should be fully responsible for what appears at their site, no matter if they uploaded themselves of their users did it.

3. No it does not how the law works as of now, because sites who're actually publishers are trying to claim they're ISPs and should be protected by safe harbor (see Google vs Viacom). They're trying to push for "blaim it all on users" approach, while as publishers they should be responsible for what their users do too.

As to your "fee websites have all the traffic" argument, it doesn't applies to the current situation - fee websites do not have all the traffic, and a very large portion of their traffic consists of users sent from other websites; which is especially obvious in the case of YouTube. You posted that Hitler parody as an embed from Youtube while you could as well posted it at your own host and embed from there, or simply post a link to this video here in this thread, your parody would still get exposure. It would get some additional exposure at Youtube of course, but you should not be entitled by law to this free additional exposure.

The court instead correctly concluded that each of theise copies is playable in only one household, which means we're talking about 1000 private viewings, not a public performance.

the copy i download from the swarm is playable from my household not in yours, you have to create your own private copy to play it in your household. torrents meet that condition.

BTW your trying to argue that shared point of access automatically invalidates the fair use right. However SMS (shared image of the os and software for backup) are legal. A right granted to one fair use, has to be granted to all, because quite simple all fair use are equal under the law.





but you don't see such restrictions explictly listed in that ruling. You don't see an override to the shared point ruling for SMS server. The best you can say is that it might be illegal, not that it is.

the winner will be who has more precedents supporting it when all the cases are EXPLICTLY referenced.

so far every win by the copyright side, only happens when they explictly ignore such rules so none of those count.


why, are you playing from the stream, or the private copy that is being buffered to your computer.
try pausing a video wait for the red bar to go across the entire timeline and then disconnect from the internet (disconnect from the broadcast). See if you can still play it.

sure it does, the first says that for you to get your exclusive right you must honor fair use

the second says fair use exist EVEN though the previous clause give you "exclusive" rights.


you have no exclusive rights unless you honor fair use, and even if you claim those exclusive rights they don't stop fair use. That by definition sets fair use above your exclusive rights. Only a complete moron would not see that.


what about a free host like angel fire would they be considered a publisher because they put ads around the content, or a host becaue they allow user to do the uploading.

IF the ads are what make them a publisher then your establishing publisher status to an automatic action of a machine. Again every host could be extended to that extreme so you are in the same boat.

if you are not then youtube is still covered.

if the arguement is between free and paid then you have a serious problem because you are talking about censorship.

suppose the government were to implement a 10,000% tax on porn sales on the internet
(way less than the infinite price increase you want to apply free-> paid)

would you say that was ok. since raising the price is not a violation of your free speech rights or would you cry bloody murder.

Considering that your trade organization fought 25% industry specific tax as censorship i would bet you would cry bloody murder.


what are you smoking, youtube is a nexus point. people go to youtube find stuff to embed. if embedding happened just naturally, aol videos would be bigger because they have acces to a big licienced content block. People would magically find those videos and embedd them all.

if i were to host the video myself how would a make sure people would find my video to embedd if i was denied access to the nexus. i would have to buy the clicks at 15 cent each.

So i would have to buy my free speach rights for thousands of dollars.

again should the government be allowed to charge porn sites for subsidization that they provide to all internet business. Select the industry out alone to pay a 10,000% tax so they foot infrastructure bills or would that be censorship.

Think about that the next time you say that fair use must PAY to be heard.