Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
Wrong. See this is where you make a very major mistake. You don't buy the rights to the shows. You buy the right to legally view the shows if and when they are presented, and to record (on DVR or VCR) one channel at a time and perhaps the right to watch another one while it is recording.
You don't have the rights to the shows. You cannot redistribute them. You cannot republish them. You cannot resell them. You cannot make copies of them beyond what I mentioned above.
|
you missed one very important one, i do have a right to redistribute to people who have said viewing rights.
If you were correct and i did not have such a right then TV Stations would have won the right to force VCR to encode something in the beginning of recorded shows that would have prevented them from playing in another VCR.
THEY DID NOT.
IF power went out in my house and my vcr did not tape my favorite show, i had a right to get a copy fo that show from a friend.
When i upload to the swarm that is exactly the right i am using because as i have said before everyone who is illegally participating will get sued or cut off.
Quote:
When you go to a movie theater and pay to watch a movie, it is the same thing. You have RESTRICTED RIGHTS based on what you are paying for. In a movie, you have the right to a single seat, single viewing. You cannot invite your friend in for free, you cannot run a camcorder to record the movie, and having bought a ticket to the movie in theater doesn't mean you can go to your local bestbuy and take a copy for free when it comes out.
Restricted rights. You pay a certain amount to have certain rights.
|
exactly my point
i paid for a certain level of rights, if i did not have those rights the ruling in the betamax case would not have been as such.
DRM, movie theaters, restricted use access are all legitimate, the BETAMAX case respects the right
Quote:
It may be that an injunction prohibiting the sale of VTR's would harm the interests of copyright holders who have no objection to others making copies of their programs. But such concerns should and would be taken into account in fashioning an appropriate remedy once liability has been found. Remedies may well be available that would not interfere with authorized time-shifting at all ... Sony may be able, for example, to build a VTR that enables broadcasters to scramble the signal of individual programs and "jam" the unauthorized recording of them....
|
The key to why this was the desenting position instead of the majority is that the technology in question must be implemented for the copyright holder to claim that they are so limiting rights. The end user must agree to that limitation of right to gain access to the content.
Quote:
Going after the seeders are good. It doesn't matter if she had the rights or not (doesn't matter if she downloaded the songs or copied them from her own CD, that isn't the issue at hand).
|
sure it is that why the RIAA tried to prove that she aquired the songs from the P2P network
Quote:
Going after the seeders is particularly useful in two ways, first the obvious deterrent factor to the general public, who may realize that their internet usage isn't exactly anonymous like they think, and also that with a number of these cases showing that the P2P network is an integral part of and a required part of the violation, that those types of sites can be more actively pursued in a legal sense.
I would thnk that there is potential here to show that foreign bases P2Ps would be breaking US law in the US, and as such, be liable.
This court decision is the tip of a very large iceberg indeed, and it must have you and your torrent buddies shitting your collective pants thinking of the implications.
|
you may want to make that arguement all you want but the problem is that your artificial expansion of copyright law would create a situation where the .torrent file would be entitled to the same protection as your copyright material.
Quote:
since the torrent file does not contain any copyright material and doesn't contain any trade secrets should it be protected by the copyright laws as well
I can write books telling people how to do illegal things( like making bombs), i can write software that can potentially be used to do illegal things(like cracking dvd encryption). All of those are protected by both copyright law and first ammendment rights. If your right and your copyright allows control of distribution of your work, doesn't the torrent creator have the same right to protect his copyright.
Wouldn't you be violating his copyright to protect your own WHEN YOU CAN PERFECTLY PROTECT YOUR COPYRIGHT by going after the SEEDERS DIRECTLY.
Your arguement about how strong your copyright protection is flawed because you seem to want to ignore "fair use" the problem is even if i seed the point (which i am only doing to make the point because your assessment about the lack of power of "fair use" is dead wrong) then the .torrent file should be entitled to the same incontrovertible protection as well.
your arguement is flawed because if you are correct about how perfect your protection is targeting the .torrent files is violation of their copyright
And if you are wrong it then "fair use" prevents you from targeting the .torrent file as well.
|