another hundred idiotic justifications for plain theft

even if the courts rule that access shifting is a fair use right and they therefore do have a right to distribute it.



again vcr make a complete working copy of the tv show and movie
backup make a complete working copy of the content
and formating shifting make a complete working copy of the content

and timeshifting has been recognized to be just as valid in the cloud as it was on tape cassete by the supreme court

all of those are fair uses
so stop arguing that partial copys like commentary are the only valid fair use.


but that does not represent being bound by the abuse you want copyright to give you

copyright law doesn't give me the right to create as many monopolies as i want just because i wish to in a licience, fair use prevents that

if you were sending traffic to company a as an affiliate and i taught them how to change their content to maximize their sales under the it can be shared freely world (ie setting up a private tracker properly) your rebills would go up, you would benefit from my copyrighted work.

copyright law as stated would not allow me to declare that your affilate income is mine because i want a monopoly for medium of traffic sent. (i am being nice by simply capping it at 73 times what they paid out, if you send enough traffic to exceed that limit then you can keep the money)

i need you to agree that if we share the same clients, as an agreement between us, i get to declare your work is covered by my monopoly so all your money earned is mine instead.

because the point is copyright law doesn't give me that right, just like your wrong when you claim that it does give the movie studioes that right.

copyright law doesn't give me the right to create as many monopolies as i want just because i wish to in a licience, fair use prevents that

if you were sending traffic to company a as an affiliate and i taught them how to change their content to maximize their sales under the it can be shared freely world (ie setting up a private tracker properly) your rebills would go up, you would benefit from my copyrighted work.

copyright law as stated would not allow me to declare that your affilate income is mine because i want a monopoly for medium of traffic sent. (i am being nice by simply capping it at 73 times what they paid out, if you send enough traffic to exceed that limit then you can keep the money)

i need you to agree that if we share the same clients, as an agreement between us, i get to declare your work is covered by my monopoly so all your money earned is mine instead.

because the point is copyright law doesn't give me that right, just like your wrong when you claim that it does give the movie studioes that right.

And we are off the topic once again.

I would argue making the content available worldwide on a torrent would reduce my rebills. If they can get it for free, they won't pay.

My traffic is not a form of media and therefore not covered by copyright. Traffic is a person. If I am suggesting a site to them and they join the site I get a commission. If somehow that relationship changed and I was no longer going to get a commission, I would send them to other sites that would give me a commission. You didn't create the traffic so you have no right to it therefore you cannot claim a monopoly on it.

As I said, you are all over the map. This entire discussion has been about movies, yet you insist on talking about everything but movies.

I'm done with this topic. You are free to go back to figuring out all the loopholes in the laws that allow you to take other people's content for free. You don't need to convince me.

the swarm is just a network of people so that arguement is bullshit too.

the torrent is just a pointer to the location of the copyright material on a particular machine

by that arguement it just traffic too and should be immune to copyright law

you pointing a person to a tour modified by my training would still exploit my copyright material. Your getting the sale BY USING my copyright material.

if anything torrent sites are even more indirect since they don't point to the copyright material they point to a file that tells the computer how to setup a session that creates a network that points to non working pieces of the copyright file which the computer later on puts in the right order so it would work.

and that is your choice, i am simply saying if you send traffic to someone who liciences my techniques, you give me permission to declare your sales invalid (just like want to invalidate the torrent sales of movie theaters copyright material)
because as i have repeatedly said copyright law doesn't allow me to extend my monopoly to things outside the scope of the distribution of the content (like medium, or traffic)

again the movie theaters didn't create the torrent site traffic either. In fact the very act of refusing to support the medium absolutely prevents any connection to the creation of the traffic.



your the one that is making up one rule for yourself an another for torrent sites.

your the one who claims that movie theaters should have a right to void the use of their content on medium if they want.

but that if i want to void your sale because i didn't give you permission use my techniques (my copyright material) that not allowed.


i am saying quite clearly the copyright law as currently stated makes both voiding wrong.
so the only way i could legally do the second is if you personally agree to the abuse

you said you would, now you are back peddling, trying to make up bogus justifcations that apply equally well (if not better) for the traffic sources you want to censored.

i found the print out of the report i was talking about

60 trillion a year was obtained by taking the original market size of mp3 when diamond rio was the only player, and then dividing that into current market size of all devices that use solid state disk etc.

that number is mulitiplied by the total market size if theaters were to high end video at it current price point.

the assumption being new technology would be created at the same rate, as the components of those high end projectors (RGBY etc) become commodized like the solid state disk.

which means the stuff i was talking about here (like the sale of new RGBY versions of the content) was not even included in that number.


obviously it not statistically accurate but it the best that can be done, given the fact that we don't have 1500 fair use (valid sample size) that generated technological growth.




but it 's obviously a lot more accurate then the MPAA/RIAA lost sale calculations especially when you consider that their own research (in the EU) determined that some of those lost sales would have required a person to jump on a plane and fly half way around the world to buy the product.

kane i am still waiting for permision to take your affiliate income if you send to someone who uses my advice.
Fair use prevents me from doing that so i need your permission.