Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks
Alex.. you obviously know as I do that their whole argument is pieced together from the bits of legislation and rulings that they can work around. The entire intent is piracy, not backups not anything else. As you said, it is probably the worst backup possible.
|
and this exactly the problem with your position, everyone is stealing from you, you test the law to maximize your profits even though you know infringement does not exist for fair use.
Not only does the law say that explicitly but i quoted you interpretation from the betamax case. Yet you keep trying to claim some of the exclusive rights that are granted to you under section 106.
both of you have repeatedly arguement that i can't aquire exact copy of the original content i got WITH MY LICIENCE TO VIEW but neither of you have produced a single case law that explicitly makes such a statement.
Quote:
More legislation will be required, or judges that have the balls to say right is right, wrong is wrong. Instead of being wide sweeping in their judgements, it would be nice for them to say.... hey.. it's a VCR.. if you record at home and don't share or distribute your fine.. otherwise.. you are fucked.
Hey.. P2P, or torrents or anything. Don't work with copyrighted materials. You can't give them to anyone else. If you want to put your word document up, fine.. but don't share something you didn't create or that the creator has not given you right to share.
|
you have complete control over the rights you grant when you originally supply the content, using technology like DRM you can create a file that can only be played X times
that could only be played as long as your membership last
That can only be played on certain devices or computers.
whatever right to view you sell me is what right to view i have.
so if you give me an unlimited right to view, allow me to watch it as many times as i want, on as many devices i want then that is the right i have bought.
Quote:
Gideon, this is not a case of forcing extra revenue by reselling. That would be like going to Ford and telling them that their warranty was bullshit and they owe you a new part for your car because it either wore out, you lost it, etc, etc. Why should Ford not have the right to charge you again? Are they now on the hook to you permanently?
The problem with what we are talking about is that the productions/creations have useful lives which can reach infinity. Why should you have access to something that you misplaced, lost, destroyed, etc?? That in my book is your problem and not mine. You are twisting the law to suit your purposes (as you will surely say that I am)....
You must understand that copyright is not a sale of anything and you sound stupid saying it. A license is a right to use content ya dumb fuck.
|
I was the one who pointed out that you are not selling the content you are selling a right to view, and giving away the content that necessary for that right to view.
When you compare your liciencing rights a purchased item it not valid because your not actually selling a physical item.
The key point is what rights did you sell me when you sold me the video, remember the DRM that apply explictly define that scope. If you don't want to right to continuing to view the content forever then DRM the content to enforce those rights.
Quote:
Copy-right.... the right to copy under these circumstances. You apparently live in a world where we take what is listed and work around it to satisfy your need to never have to do anything for yourself again and abstain from responsiblity and accoutability. It's due to you and others that the laws keep getting tighter and tighter and tighter. You act like my 12 year old and 6 year old by saying... well, you never told me that this was against the rules. Common sense doesn't work with you, just lines in the sand.
Congratulations. You are forcing the lines in the sand to keep moving in the direction of more and more controls because people feel like stealing. Way to go winner. You must be so proud to have accomplished something.
|
This is the main problem, i have never said don't go after the theives, the people who have not bought a right to the content and are gaining access without paying deserve to be charged. I fully support the actions of this case, and the judgement that was served BECAUSE SHE WAS SHARING CONTENT SHE NEVER BOUGHT A RIGHT TOO, and she had the gaul to claim it as fair use.
You can't have fair use rights to content you don't have a right too.
The reality is if all the people in the swarm were people who owned a right to the content , there would be no piracy, there would be no infringement of your content. And the SWARM would be nothing but a backup/ recovery of the content WE HAD BOUGHT A RIGHT TO VIEW.