or to put it very simply

if you remove the safe harbor provision from the act
the only way that the host can protect themselves from the liabilty would be to censor everything that could be fair use just to be safe.


no fair use content will ever get hosted.
which means there will be nothing to challenge status quo of fair use
which means no new fair use rights will every be established.

so they put their site down. smart bros, thumbs up :1orglaugh

Yes I agree that indirectly safe harbor protects fair use too. But the main and direct protection of fair use is still counter notification.

After you filed counter DMCA, you still need to prove in court that your use of copyrighted material is fair - which you will fail to do if you simply uploaded full length scene to a tube. That's why all of them call for safe harbor, not fair use defence.

Nice site. I'm going to promote it.

Thanks for sharing.

but the point i am making and you seem to understand now is that safe harbor provision stands between the infringement and the direct protection.

If the safe harbor doesn't exist the content will not be put up so that fair use arguement can be made when legitimate.

Under that circumstance where the choice is between a cart blanc denial of fair use
and extra work of filling out a 1 page form.

i think the one page form is the better of the two
especially considering that before the DMCA you had spend thousands in court cost to get a court order to get the content taken down.

the little bitches complaining about the safe harbor provision should ask themselves if they want to go back to get court orders to get the infringement to stop.

still want to know who natalie really is
and what program has her content

there are currently no pages that rank for the term natalie from exgirlfriendfootage.com

should be easy enough to hijack the disgruntalled surfers who signup looking for that girl and failing to find her because it was DMCA away.

Well yes safe harbor just gets the host out of the way, making it a dispute between the two - a copyright holder and a publisher.

It's an extra work of policing dozens of thousands of sites and filing hundreds of thousands of forms - which is absolutely not sustainable burden for most copyright holders.

Something needs to be changed there, and I think that DMCA should be amended to include the difference between the ISP and the Publisher - Publishers being those who operate sites and make content immediatly availble for surfers, while ISPs being those who provide services for other sites and do not operate them (hosts, billers etc).

Publishers should not be entitled for safe harbor protection anymore, they should be held responsible for making sure that all content they publish at their sites is either licensed or fair use, no matter if they publish it themselves or allow their users to do it. While ISPs should still be protected with the safe harbor.

With that added to DMCA, it'll bring the balance back into the system - fair use is still well protected, but no more loopholes to steal intellectual property under the guise of the safe harbor, if it is no longer provided to the Publishers.

except that definition would cause the exact type of censorship that i am complaining about. tube sites would be considered publishers. which means downfall parody would never have been allowed on the tube site in the first place

The eff could never fought for and established the extension to parody that they did.

All those videos would be censored.

if you wanted to something like that you would have to add some sort of serious penalty to prevent that.

Say if you sent a takedown notice for something that was fair use you must pay 3 times the damages asked for or 3 times the income lost which ever is greater(since extending the copyright monopoly to the fair use space would be sherman anti trust violating act). If you failed to pay the fee within 24 hours of ruling all your copyrights would be put into the public domain.

that would create an insentive for publisher like youtube to defend potential fair use.

That would be more balanced then the current DMCA because two companies with deep pockets would be fighting for fair use claims, instead of users getting stomped all over (43 downfall parodies taken down) until a major user rights groups decides to take up the cause and defend what is so clearly non income losing fair use (eff downfall parody).

I see alot of boxxy on gfy lately :)

that's because GFY is always 6 months behind the rest of the world

btw a host like mojo who lets a user post an html page with a flash video embedded would also "make content immediatly availble for surfers"

try uploading content on your domain via ftp and then see how quickly after is done you can see the web page in your browser.

So how exactly does your "make content immediatly availble for surfers" protect isp services like hosting.

especially with regards to fair use ruling :winkwink:

You can still use your own host, not a public service, to post those of your parodies that push the boundaries of previously accepted fair use practices. That's still well balanced imo - you can post fair use materials that are within the commonly accepted boundaries at public service sites like youtube, and if you want to try something new that may or may not fly in court as a fair use, use your own paid webhost.

I thought courts already reward defendands with the compensation of their legal fees at the expense of plaintiff, when they find fair use defence is valid. Isn't that enough of a counter-balance?

Maybe a better definition would be operate/do not operate websites.

the problem is that in post case the person actually making the fair use doesn't make any money from that act. The 43 people who used the downfall clip to make fun of xbox live, burning man etc were doing it because they wanted to express themselves. They didn't make money from it. That is exactly why they didn't fight the takedown notices their was no monetary incentive to do so. The best they could ever get was their cost covered.

If that burden was shifted to youtube they would have even less incentive because the proof that video was not making money would be gone. The copyright holder could argue that they are fighting to protect their ad revenue. making it more expensive to fight and more difficult to win.

A profit (not just a cost recovery) motive strong enough to compensate for that significant addition of work would have to be put in place. 3x is what the current laws (if applied) state is the penalty and therefore that should be the minimum cost for a false takedown request.

it would take you 3 years just to make the minimum payout

Why woudn't they express themselves within the already accepted fair use boundaries, if they only do it for fun? I believe it is only fair that only those would be pushing the boundaries of the law who feel what they do is right and really necessary, and ready to stand up for that; not just every teenager making fun of xbox at public service site.

If those parodies are such a necessaty for the human kind, some one will make one and post it at his own site, and then battle in court it's fair use. If he wins, every teenager at public service site could do the same. If not, than not.

I understand we should ensure some progress in fair use practices, but it doesn't have to be a speedy one, and certainly not at the expense of the entire industries collapsing.

That would be $450K? Too harsh imo. Especially if this particular kind of potential fair use case have not been tried in court yet - you can hardly claim those takedown requests a "bogus" ones, since the extension of fair use have not been set yet in court for this particular case.

goddamn Brazzers you scumbags!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so you want to reverse the priority between fair use and the exclusive rights copyright holder

the original act said fair use should take priority, that was the agreement that every copyright holder makes to get their exclusive rights.


of course i can
downfall producers knew that they had no proof that a single sale was being lost

they knew that the only way you could get the content necessary to make that parody was to either buy the movie or rent it (both of which paid the artist)

they new that request and sales for the underlying movie was increases because people would either want to make their own parody, or see what the movie was really about.

There was no economic loss
they knew the fair use right of parody was already explictly established
and there was no possible way that this could be extended outside the scope of that original granted right

But the made the bogus take down request to censor that free speach because they didn't like having their movie being made fun of.



watch the video every single on of those points is covered by the parody. They were supposed to watch the video and only send a take down request if it truely violated their copyright.

this was not about an unestablished fair use right that need established by the courts first
this was about a movie company take advantage of the loop hole that makes assuming that claim of infringement is true no matter how completely unsupported by a single case law.

parody was a right granted since the inception of the copyright act and they were taking it away using that loophole.
so fine 10 times that amount would not be unreasonable.

Where it said fair use should take priority? Quote this part.

Hitler has been brought up in this thread, the thread has now reached maturity. Congrats, thread, you're fully grown!

once when defining the exclusive rights of the copyright holder 106


and a second time when they defined the fair use rights (section 107)

the first prefesses the exclusive right with requirement to recognize section 107 thru 122

the second explictly exclude the exclusive rights (notwithstanding ....) and explictly declared fair use as "not an infringement of copyright"

You missed your calling! You should have become a CRIMINAL defense attorney, as you really are bending over fucking backwards to defend CRIMINALS!

Obviously YOU do NOT produce shit! YOUR content is not at risk, as YOU don't make content. YOUR website sales are not a concern, as you don't produce anything.

You could have been a key player on OJ's dream team if you had followed your criminal defending passions earlier on in your life.

considering that they can't be considered criminals as long as the imunity of the safe harbor provision apply i am doing no such thing.

You however seem to bending over backwards to try turning them into criminals to defend your outdated business model.

In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, a service provider who hosts content must have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, infringing activity on its network.

OK where it says fair use should have priority.

so how are torrents / newsgroups / tubes (just the illegal stuff) / whatever covered by this clause in your deluded brain...

are they posting full un edited works for criticism?

comment?

news reporting?

teaching?

scholorship?

research?

parody?

anything at all? besides making sales - to profit from their fraudulant use of copyrighted works in their entirety?

enlighten me here - how do you use this section to justify their actions?
how do you equate what is being done, with what should be fair use as defined in your quote?

.

Gideongallery, please post a scan (JPG or PDF is fine, your choice) of your law school diploma.

fair use is not frozen in time, new fair uses UNDEFINED in the original act have been established by the courts.

Backup was established by the court
timeshifting was established by the court
formatshifting was established by the courts

backup was extended to the cloud years ago
timeshifting was extended to the cloud in july (supreme court decision)

newer fair use rights like access shifting have been established in EU and are working their way thru the us court system.

the repeated failed arguement made by RIAA and the MPAA is that network effect invalidates fair use rights. But that is as stupid a statement as saying that the video invalidates free speech. Video is just another medium, the swarm is just another medium the right stays true irregardless of the medium.

Thanks Perry Mason...and yet there is this thread: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=921335

That guys in jail. And oh yeah...The Pirate Bay : JAIL

Weird how that is happening isn't it? I guess the judges forgot to ask Gideon "Lawyer Diploma From A Box Of CrackerJacks" Gallery about that.

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.