Damages of $1.9 million could backfire on music industry

you are so totally clueless it unbelieveable

you should be ashamed to be a canadian you have so little knowledge about your home country

the ruling was so widely publized that it appeared on american news sites like cnet/zdnet msn home page.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html

hilights from your link - 'news' article circa.2004 about a case and 1 Judge



So... one judges ruling does not 'make it legal' (and doesn't address the Tax issue)
This whole article uses the word 'appeared' quite often





From a legal expert

Philip B. Kerr is a Canadian lawyer, patent and trademark agent, and a partner in the firm of Kerr & Nadeau, whose law practice is restricted to patent, trademark, copyright and computer law. He was called to the bar in 1986.


http://users.trytel.com/~pbkerr/copyright.html






From Canadian Law

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc...l=50&length=50


pay close attention to this section


E-Z version from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_copyright_law

there is nowhere in the LAW that states filesharing is legal (not even 'apparently')

make NO mistake - the judge disallowed the 'attempt to get ISP personal info on suspected infringers' because of PRIVACY issues - not on the merit of the attempt, or lack of merit, and privacy laws in canada are tough to get around.
the judge did NOT make filesharing 'apparently' legal - it stopped an attempt to get personal information

when it finally comes down to 'The Law' after personal identifying info is given up, the bastard theives will go down in flames

and yes... I have read every single bit of what I have linked

and I'll take my interpretations from places OTHER than cNet


I think maybe you should be a little ashamed at YOUR lack of Canadian knowledge

( ... cNet.com ... )

tell me again how clueless "I" am...

I wish I could timeshift this Taco Bell I had for lunch.

Don't get the argument here guys. It's the same shit over and over. Some people are capable of making money on their own abilities and some people have to make it off others. We all know who is who here.

You left out the third option that our pal gideon fits: "Unable to make money either way"

Here's your answer Gideon...

I personally find very little on television worth much except for some HBO and Showtime original series. And even those are only good for a mildly enjoyable interlude at the end of the day when a person is winding down.

Unlike you...I have no need to "timeshift" a movie or television show that I have already viewed. And on the rare occasion that I might miss an episode of True Blood or Dexter, it turns out that HBO and Showtime both have FREE Video On Demand so you can catch it whenever you want AND I also have a DVR with my cable box.

So no, I just don't see why I would ever need to first record the show, then NOT watch it...but instead take the time to turn it into a bit torrent. THEN upload it. THEN at some undetermined time in the future, download it and watch it.

Sounds like going around my asshole to get to my balls.

Your arguments are so damn stupid Gideon. Get a life...on second thought...don't! I love reading you making a jackass out of yourself over and over.

you need to go back to grade school because your reading and comprehension level is quite low.

from the side bar of related articles

http://news.cnet.com/Canada-deems-P2...html?tag=mncol
copyright board rules that downloading from a "peer to peer network" was recognized as "Private copying is the subject of Part VIII of Canada's Copyright Act"

http://cpcc.ca/english/privCopKey.htm

CRIA appealed that ruling to the supreme court and lost.

this judge ruled that uploading based on that ruling

however since i repeatedly said (including in this thread)

your "maybe" stuff is not incompatible with what i said.

Even so this ruling is currently the highest court ruling on the issue, until it is over turned by a higher court it is in fact how the law is interpreted on the issue. downloading is legal (unrefutably) and uploading is legal (for now).





http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc...orbo-ga:l_VIII

it helps when you read the entire act instead of just the part that defines what a copyright is.

Little hint fair use is not in the copyright definition part either
but it is in the act

IDIOT

do you believe that canada has year round snow
and we all live in igloos and eat whale blubber.
like the stupidest of americans too.

well
1. my cable box free VOD only shows the current season, and sometimes only the last couple of episodes
2. 1 would rather use the 15/month/tv to lease a new server for myself than give it to the cable company for an inferior timeshifting device (one that stops working/loses settings when the power goes out for example)
3. i don't record the show then upload it to download it., i just download it. The cloud (swarm) is my source for the timeshifted content, it just like your local pvr hard drive is the source for YOUR timeshifted tv show. Both are NOT the original source of the broadcast, and are therefore both are only legal because of the timeshifting ruling.

i suspect the 3 point misrepresentation of what i have repeatedly said is another "kids driving around in a van stealing wifi" style misrepresentation. Because otherwise you have the reading and comprehension level of a 3rd grader.

btw robbie don't think i noticed that you simple dodged the question to avoid exposing that you were making another "kids stealing a military van to drive around and steal wifi" misrepresentation of what i was saying about backup.

simply put for stuff that does not need to be confidential/uniqueness and multi redundant swarm of interconnected people who use each other as potential available source for recovery, is and will always be the most cost effective form of backup.

A fact that is absolutely proven by the episodes of dr who that the bbc traditional backup methodology lost, and were only recovered because of the swarm.

A "time shifting device"

You are PRICELESS


I can just imagine you sitting in your parent's basement with your Star Trek outfit on writing all this inane b.s.

Maybe if you stopped watching so much television and actually did something you might get laid and all of this constant worry about torrents would go away for you.

In that other thread you said that you just basically wouldn't prove your point by buying some content and starting a porn site and using tubes and torrents to make hundreds of thousands of dollars (like you always tell US to do), because it wasn't worth your time.

And yet you spend countless hours of time on GFY trying to interpret law (with your cracker jacks box lawyer degree) and trying to defend the theft of hard working people's livelihoods.

Weird isn't it? But no stranger I suppose than the fact that you...supposedly a MAN...are all worried about entire seasons of your favorite soap opera.



I love you gideon. You are the easiest laugh of the day. Guaranteed everytime.

the "swarm"



Goddamnit Gideon...I am ACTUALLY on the floor laughing.

You are a freaking GEEK!

Please go to a bar right now. Order a beer. Not a glass of milk or a soda. And then get yourself a hooker (no woman that isn't paid is gonna fuck a dork like you) and get LAID.

You need it bad. Just please don't chop the hooker into little pieces and try to upload the "bit torrent" of her for a "time shift" in the "swarm"

"timeshifting device is a simpler way of saying "video tape recorder, video cassette recorder, personal video recorder , digital video recorder, media vault , media extender, seedbox, torrent recorder swarmstream player or 20 other names" for devices that allow you to move the viewing time of a show from day x to day y.

it a recognized term in the industry since the first PVR replaced the VCR and then need a term that clearly defined it should be protected by the same legal precedents.

if a 38 year old kid like myself should be aware of that an "old man" like yourself should know that.


bit torrent was invented in 2000 and the swarm was a key term in the original design
it almost 10 years old, even my dad who has long since retired doesn't consider 10 year old technology "GEEKie"

How old are you grandpa that 10 year old technology terms are GEEK terms.

I had never heard those terms and still wouldn't have heard them if not for you. I don't acquaint myself wth terminology associated with stealing. But I'm sure you know all the cool b.s., doubletalk geek-speak associated with anything and everything to do with stealing.

My abdominal muscles are actually hurting from laughing at you! I haven't laughed this much since the last time I dropped blotter acid.

you gotta be kidding me - you link an even older article ( cnet.com ) as 'further proof' - which includes quotable sections like...

please take careful not of the BOLDED part - slapping it up on a torrent available to millions is not personal use and the actual article deals in 'apparantly's' and contradicts its own sensational headline - nice try on the follow up...
( cNet.com )

again - what you link specifically states

again - torrents are NOT private copying - a PRIVATE copy is NOT publically accessable - you shoot yourself in the foot AGAIN


your interpretation skills are lacking

ok - thats gonna take some reading and i am assuming you are addressing the 'Tax' issue

however a quick browse shows...

so - if i understand it (and i may not yet) it states you have to be a CANADIAN (or equivilent) to benefit - as I stated earlier.... so - another shot to your foot. I shall endeavour to digest this link further

I shall assume you took a quick look in the mirror when you said that, just before you typed...
you really are a tool if you haven't figured out that I AM CANADIAN (always was and always will be)

so nice FAIL on the insult



oh - and as far as your 'FAIR USE' goes...this still applies...



and I'll throw in ....
http://library.concordia.ca/help/copyright/?guid=fdvsfu

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing

(you DO know that it is referred to as 'Fair DEALING' in Canada and not 'Fair USE' don't ya?)

and as well - with all the reading I have done on Fair Use/Dealing it provides for 'Private' and 'Personal' backups and copies and all interpretations state that 'no - we won't be prosecuting you if you tape knightrider for your Mom)

Torrents/Clouds/P2P networks ALL hand out the copies to millions of people - they most certainly do not get protection under these acts.


PERSONAL/PRIVATE use is NOT equal to mass global sharing


(fuck - no way to TLDR this)

liberating information is a proxy for his libido. you might as well ask a man to stop trying to put his dick in a pussy.

or man ass whatevs.

damn straight , i only want the pork in pork'n'beans but i want to pay bean prices


maybe the artist wants full album price for the 3 songs and the rest was just for free

not that i care really. have a good night gfy.

How about the idiots who only buy the single that they heard on the radio were subsidizing the rest of the album, where the artists could more freely express themselves without making every single song a "hit record".

I've collected albums for years, because I like a lot of those songs that aren't "good" because they weren't popular. It's not all just filler.

Perhaps one of the funniest parts about Gideon is that he's this big pirate supposedly, but uses the lamest method of piracy in these torrent sites, full of self-ripped virus prone garbage. In the scene we had a name for these people - lamers.

I mean at least pirate well Gideon. Get yourself an account at http://www.giganews.com and download till your balls are empty. No more waiting 2 weeks to watch something, imagine that?

I can't believe you didn't figure that out with all your searching. And the newsgroups pre-date the WWW.

what exactly about the statement



but downloading from a swarm is
that is exactly what i am doing i am taking the bits from the swarm and reconstructing them into a copy on my machine in my home.


again

so it doesn't amtter if the publically accessible swarm is infringing in nature, the personal copying rights still apply.

That the fundamental point you are deliberately ignoring.



i suggest you find the transcript of the first articles ruling and read thru it.
If you were to take your interpretation invalidate the previous supreme court ruling that downloading was legal because you are effectively saying that both uploading and downloading are illegal all the times (the entire transaction is illegal) even though sometimes (between two canadian citizens) it is perfectly legal (because my copy is legal either because i bought it or it was exempt personal copy and your have a right to make a copy irregardless if the source is legal or not).

This judge basically ruled that uploading (under specific conditions) was an agnostic behavior and it was the downloading that determined infringement/non infringement.

I suggest you download the transcript from that case and read it thru completely. There are 6 case precedents that have to be put together to come to the conclusion that uploading is non infringing in canada. But it doesn't matter what those precedents are the ruling has been made, and has still not been overturned by a higher court.

It is currently the 100% true that uploading to a swarm is 100% legal. Because the highest court ruling on the issue says exactly that.


absolutely not
" as the case may be, whether by treaty, convention, agreement or law, benefits substantially equivalent to those conferred by this Part"

i suggest you look up the berne convention or hire a good lawyer to explain it to you.

good luck finding a country that matter (produces music) and is not a member of the union covered by the convention.

i have already said you should be ashamed about being a canadian and not knowing such things about your own countries laws. You are making statement so fundamentally lacking in knowledge about our country exactly like the stupid americans who think we live in igloos eat whale blubber and have 365 days of winter.

again even if you did not read thru the entire transcript the court has ruled that uploading is not infringing.

Common sense tells you that there is only one way downloading can be legal is if uploading is agnostic when determining legality/illegality.

The downloading behavior has to be the deciding factor.

I am not going to waste my time arguing with you especially when you choose to deliberately ignore statements like

but no matter what you say the fact is clear the current highest court ruling on the issue has said that uploading is non infringing. IT doesn't matter what i think the law should be, it doesn't matter what you interpret the law to mean. The absolute fact is until this ruling is overturned by a higher court, uploading is non infringing in canada.

BTW i suggest you hire a lawyer with lexus nexus access to get you the transcript from the case and read thru it yourself. It is a very logical arguement why uploading has to agnostic in the case of technologies like bit torrent.

i don't know where you are getting your tv shows, but with swarm player i only have to 17seconds to buffer enough content to watch a show straight thru.

and if i decide not to watch it until the next day, a 1 hour show downloads in 22 minutes.

so every show even on monday (to many show on that night) everything is done when i wake up in the morning.

That is just some sad ass shit. Sad.

Please take my advice and get some kind of life gideon. You watch too much t.v. when you're not busy trying to be an armchair lawyer/excuse maker for thievery.

i watch significantly less than the average

mondays just happen to have all my favorite shows

i just don't watch them on monday

heroes
mowe
chuck
boston legal
big bang theory
2.5 men
...

rest of the week is crap
with maybe 1 show a day max that is any good.

that the whole point of timeshifting instead of watching the crap that airs reqularly on day 2 you watch something from day 1 you really want to watch.

I thought I was the only one who did that with pork'n beans.

And your right, there is no "set" price for one song. The artist can charge as much
or little as they like for a song. And yes, most artist know that only 3 songs on the
album will be "big" but they are filling the album to try and give more anyway.
And I have found many songs that I liked better than the "big" hit that way.

Back in the day when people bought 45rpm records there was two sides.
Side A was the hit, but man did I have a lot of 45's that never got side A played
again after I played side B. Side B was my hit song.

if that were the case then record companies wouldn't have anything to complain about when you shared the other 7 songs.



so your trying to justify forcing you to pay for 10 songs because you might discover you like the other non hit songs.

if the artist wanted to "give more anyway" why would they just release the 3 hits on a cd and give away all the other songs for free download on the internet.

Especially if as STB says the full price was for the 3 songs and the rest were just there for free.