Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
you keep trying to make the arguement that the courts made their decision based on characteristics that did not EXIST at the time they made the decision.
Digital copies did not exist at that time, and the court did not have a time machine to look into the future and see that technology comming
The effectiveness of BETAMAX VCR was 3-5% degrade over the VTR that were being sold to tv stations to broadcast tv shows at the station level.
The court case in question did not make the distinction you are making because they were unaware of the technology you are aware off. The declared "time shifting" as a valid fair use right adding it to those rights that were explicitly granted by the act itself.
The best quality recording i can now make using the VCR's current day counterpart (DVD RECORDER or PVR) is the same or better quality than i can get with torrent site.
and just like the VCR in the betamax case i can use torrents for the legitimate fair use of "Time shifting" or for the illegal act of piracy. The difference is weather i owned a right to view the content in question.
|
Actually, you are the one making assumptions. In legal terms, when deal with a "again the law except in these cases" the exception must be clearly spelled out. All of the exception in the Betamax case apply to PERSONAL USE, not widespread redistribution.
VCR, DVR... these are all personal use, personal time shift materials. The rights granted under Betamax don't include reselling or large scale sharing of materials. You are implying rights that the court very specifically didn't grant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
but you are again ignoring that information that explains how to make a bomb
is also not an innocent piece of information. IT can be used to KILL PEOPLE
the information is protected by first amendment and by copyright law. SO again why do you have a right to violate their first ammendment rights when the government does not have a right to violate the first ammendment rights of bomb making books/webpages. |
Wrong again. The content itself isn't important from the standpoint of what it shows. The source is. If someone took a magazine article on how to build a bomb and put it on a website without permission from the copyright holder, they are in violation. If someone writes down a new post based on things they learned from reading that article in others, and describes it in their own way, they are not violating copyright.
The question is what the torrents / P2P files / networks offer. it isn't a question of is the content legal (ie, porn vs CP) but rather do you have the rights to distribute it. You really are confused on all this, I can tell.
You have the right to talk about how to make bombs. You have the right to make a bomb making website. You don't have the right to distribute someone else's copyrighted movie about how to make a bomb.