Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyMischief
You are really out of it. So here's what you're saying. I write a book. Someone goes and photocopies the whole book, and hands out free copies to everyone. What you're saying is that's NOT copyright infringement because the person is not making money off it? BS, because even if the person distributing the work is not making money, the person who CREATED the work is still LOSING money, therefore still able to sue.
I think you WISH things were the way you say it is, but perhaps you should ask a lawyer instead of assuming.
|
no that is not what i am saying
i am simply pointing out that significant difference between my timeshifting example (timeshifting content that i paid for) and the barefooties bullshit misrepresentation of what i was waying (infringement that cause economic harm).
you are doing the same thing. however you are ignoring a different pre-condition to make your bullshit analogy (the fact that in my example i bought a right to the content).
It is significant because as it has been repeatedly proven timeshifting does cause economic harm too.
My own worst enemy got tivoed to death because none of those potential ad views are counted/paid for either.
It doesn't matter because it is paid for by the timeshifter and the contract/licience(cable bill) does not/can not explictly require the watching of commercials (without violating anti-trust law)