Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefootsies
No asswipe. It is you who make that bullshit argument.
Paying for cable is a service. A subscription to receive a broadcast to be exact. Just because you pay to receive that service does not entitle you to copy everything, and make a profit off it. At not point do the media companies give you copyright permission of any kind.
Same with listening to the radio. Just because you receive the signal does not give you permission to record the latest songs, and then copy them, and rebroadcast or sell them.
Just because you paid to rent a movie at blockbuster does not give you the right to copy that DVD, and rebroadcast it, or make copies for others and profiteer from it.
Or even better one. I pay for a movie ticket, and I go into the theatre with a camera, and record the movie. I go home, digitize it, and rebroadcast it on torrents, tube sites, whatever because I am 'time shifting' my movie I bought for 8.95. Now I have the RIGHT to copy, and rebroadcast using youtube as my hard drive. 
Your bullshit, fucked up logic goes something like this... I rent a movie from blockbuster. I then make a copy of it. I then show it at a movie theatre nightly for 300 people because I choose a movie theater as my time shifting, back up of the movie I rented. |
so the only way you can dispute my arguement is to misrepresent it.
all your bullshit examples have one thing in common (which my timeshifting example does not) and that is that the people you are distributing to have NOT paid for the content also.
The person making the torrent file is not making money off the distribution period
just like the person recording the tv show with a vcr was not making money off the distribution. Sony made 1k from selling the devices (just like the torrent sites) but their actions were not a contributory infringement because of the fair use of time shifting.
It established quite clearly i don't need the fucking permission of the copyright holder because fair use falls outside the scope of the copyright holders' conditional monopoly.
Quote:
That is how fucked up your argument is. Now, in reading that in words, any court of law would strike down your fucked up bullshit time shifting argument.
I can't wait until they do. Then you will have to find something else to do than troll message boards trying to get people worked up. While I admit I have not read all the threads on this board, I have yet to see a threat where a single people in this industry agrees with you or your argument.
|
you mean like
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud
where the appeals court recognized that you could timeshift using a cloud
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?n.../01/20/1320242
or the ruling against one download = 1 lost sale.
i hate to tell you this (well actually i don't) but the courts are not your friends in arguement.
The politicians being bought and paid for by the RIAA is your only hope, and unfortunately for you
1. 2.2 trillion dollars of business is dependent on fair use right staying where they are
2. people are starting to realize that all the belly aching by the RIAA is an attempt to turn a conditional monopoly (as it was intended) into sherman anti-trust violating true monopoly.
which of course puts the entire arguement back into the courts hands (which are not your friends on this issue).