Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefootsies
Um, actually there is homo.
Most websites have a T.O.S. that you apparently forget to read. It covers things such as downloading the material is for private use only, and it not for distribution. A torrent is a mass illegal distribution network, and anyone with a clue knows this.
Oh, but I am sure you missed that day in law school too eh?
|
nope i am just aware of the class action suit against microsoft when they tried to make the arguement they had a right to tos away fair use rights. When they demanded that we as consumers pay them $19.95 for a backup of the windows cd we bought. When they used to stamp do not make copies on the cd and in their liciening agreement.
They lost, paid out a settlement to all people who paid their extortionary pricing and changed the wording to say "do not make illegal copies"
you can verify it yourself if you have older cd copies of windows from back in the day.
But be my guess go to court and claim that while trillion dollar company like microsoft does have a right to TOS away fair use, you do.
Tell me how well that goes over.
Quote:
|
Apparently you missed EVERY DAY. Now, for that case you like to keep quoting. "Fair use" in that case did not apply to the song as infringement because the tube clip was not just a song. It was a baby dancing and in the background, you could hear part of the song playing.
|
that was a partial mistake it should have said (lenz vs universal + cablevision vs 20th century fox)
the latter established timeshifting to a cloud, and the former established a liablity for takedown notices for fair uses of content.
considering i mentioned the case multiple times in this thread already, i am surprised your jumping down my throat about a miscopy and paste. But since you now have the correct case reference i suggest you look it up.
Quote:
|
Furthermore, you are arguing with content producers who deal with enforcement of copyright, DMCA's, lawyers, and know about this shit more than you would. You are just a board troll who gets off shadow boxing, and dropping case law.
|
i deal with this issue when we dmca takedown notices for our company, we changed our policy when the lenz vs universal case came down (since it effects all fair use equally not just sampling as was the example arguement). One of us is right one of us is wrong. 4/4 is my record. and considering your arguement about TOSing away fair use i would continue to bet that i know a little bit more about this than you do.
Quote:
|
As I've said before. You do not have a collective clue what you are talking about, and with each post you reinforce this further.
|
good luck with that, i would love to see the consequence of you making these arguements in court. like i said one of us is right one of us is wrong.
And now that you can get counter sued for sending out a bad takedown request, the liability is just as great for you as it would be for me.