No retrial for The Pirate Bay

paul you are too simple, your still thinking in terms of copyright instead of breach of contract.

it a lot simpler when there is no fair use to deal with

it a lot simpler to cut off the supply of traffic to the bad torrent when you let the torrent search engines make the same amount of money (from the ads around the torrent) listing your good torrent.

and it is alot simpler to get seed density up (and with in speed, redundancy etc) when you cut off cede traffic.

Do it right you only have to do it once.

Intelligent thief, ignorant thief = thief ! Mom and Dad taught me that. My collage degree hasn't changed a thing in that regard.

>>>Winners WIN because they NEVER GIVE UP!<<<

But then it comes down to what the content is. Sure you can argue that timeshifting doesn't hurt a TV show and people will watch a repeat because they missed it the first time it aired or they will record it and watch it later. BTW when the shows are canceled the networks don't take the people who record or download the show into consideration for the ratings. Why? Because most of those people don't see the commercials. If you download the show it will have the commercials taken out of it. If you Tivo it you are most likely going to fast forward past the commercials. So you are a useless viewer to them. The networks don't care about making good TV shows. They care about making something you will watch so that they can deliver advertising to you. This is why most of them now play all of their shows in full on their websites so if you watch it there at least they still get something out of it. Sure, maybe if they changed their business model and put amazing watermarks or branding bugs or whatever in them they could make money with the downloads, but that is not how they work right now. Bottom line. If you are a fan of a show watch it live or on their website. If you don't, don't be surprised if it gets canceled. Most shows get canceled, that is just how it works.

But back to our argument. We weren't talking about TV shows. We were talking about the Wolverine movie. It seems fair use has to be considered on a case by case basis. Downloading a TV show may not hurt its potential earnings. Downloading a first run movie very well may. You could even argue that downloading a TV show could hurt its potential earnings in some markets. Here are two examples:

1. Take the show Heroes as an example. Let's say there is a country out there where this show does not air. So the people that live there download it and watch it. You would argue that is fair use and that it isn't harming the producers of the show because it isn't for sale there. But the producers are planning on syndicating the show to that country when they have enough episodes. By the time they get enough episodes ready for syndication the downloading in that country has diminished the interest so they get less for the syndication rights than they otherwise would have. They have just been damaged by the downloads. Or maybe they intend to sell the show on DVD but there are fewer sales than there would have otherwise been because everyone has seen the show. Again, all the downloads have costs them sales.

2. the wolverine movie. Say you live somewhere where the movie is not playing. You argue that the downloading it doesn't hurt the studio because it is not for sale in that area. But then a few months later it comes out on DVD and pay per view and it is available in that area. Now you have already seen it so you decide to rent/buy something else. Had you never seen it you would have bought/rented Wolverine, but you downloaded it so now you have decided that you won't see again. They just lost a sale. That is damages.

The betamax case is fine and good but you have to realize that that ruling was made during a time before cable and satellite TV, before the internet or cell phones. It was a time when most people got 4-6 channels so reruns did well and recording shows didn't hurt them because there was so little competition. Now there are 200+ channels and the internet and video games and all kinds of competition. Plus movies and TV shows are selling DVDs of their full season so I would argue that the actual findings of a case that was decided long before the current market place may need to be modified. You are always saying I am trying to take away rights that were established by this case, but it seems you want to hold onto things that may no longer be applicable with new technology. Maybe the entire law needs to be looked at again and updated for modern times. I think that is what we are going to be seeing over the next few years.

None of this changes the reality though. If you download the Wolverine movie and watch it because it is not playing anywhere near you then later on you decide not to buy/rent it because you have already seen it then they lost a sale and that lost sale is directly connected to you downloading the movie so that download damaged them and it is then not fair use.

like i said repeatedly shows are currently being timeshifted to death
it however doesn't change the fact that it doesn't matter if the times shifting device is a torrent or a pvr they both do exactly the same damage.
Torrents however had the potential to solve the problem by subsidizing the cost thru branding bugs which means in order of priority you should be trying to outlaw pvr before you go after torrents for tv shows.

The problem is that you can't because the betamax case legalized timeshifting, it made gave the pvr the right to exist unhindered by copyright infringement and once granted that right can not be taken away even though we now know that it does cause economic damage.


the point is that the marketing fundamentals have not changed, people who see the movie in the theaters also buy and rent the movie when it comes out on dvd. Tell the truth do own a dvd of a movie that you have watched in the theaters. how about buying dvd of tv shows that aired on tv.

I own boxed sets of 24 and alias. I own tons of movies that i have seen in theaters
there is tons of evidence that the secondary viewing is not restricted to only those people who have not seen the first viewing. If secondary purchase can happen because of the first viewing (because the movie was so good that you want to buy the dvd for your collection) as from not viewing (i will get it when it on dvd instead) then at best the access shifted viewing is agnostic to secondary sale.


but the point is that is just speculation (see above about agnostic to the secondary viewing) and what you need is cold hard proof when this becomes challenged in court.

Without licensing of the content thru bit torrent there will be no way to track it

which means the burden of proof will fall on the fair use right. Sometime in the future we may find that (just like timeshifting) it does in fact cause economic damage, but when that happens it will to late. The way the law works is that the exclusive rights do not exist for fair use.

Which means for the scope of fair use the content is public domain. Once in the public domain it can not be made private again. It is a one way trip.

Demanding fair and balanced liciencing is the only way to stop access shifting from happening.

I think I own about 10 DVD movies and all of them are movies I have seen in the theater beforehand. I have never purchased a TV show on DVD. For me the reason is simple. If I have seen...I have seen it and I would rather watch something new. I do understand that there are people who are different and will buy a ton of dvds of movies they have seen and will buy dvds of tv shows they have seen.



So basically you are saying that once a movie plays in a theater somewhere it now becomes public domain?

which proves the point i was making seeing the movie in the theater first didn't stop you from buying the dvd

access shifting a cam would simply fill that unfilled viewing slot (be equal to seeing it in the theater) if the movie was good enough then you would buy the dvd.

what exactly of "for the scope of fair use" prequalifier do you not understand.

Your mind is like a school child. You offer a wager and/or business proposal but you offer no tangible benefit to Robbie. People on gfy will not agree to pay you money unless possibly if they will get some tangible benefits. "Learning a lesson" or "winning the debate" is not enough benefit.

No one here will accept your "wager" because it only benefits you. The only thing I can imagine which Robbie will get is a "lesson". But he does not need you to give him a lesson about torrents. If Robbie or anyone else here, wants to experiment with torrents, he can hire an employee under his control and keep full rights to what the employee produces.

Idiot.

Learn the backstory before you jump in the middle of a discussion you don't understand.

Robbie keeps challenging gideon to make money on torrents using adult content.

Gideon replies that he doesn't want to, because there's twice as much competition for a far smaller amount of traffic, than the projects he's working on, and it makes no sense to take a pay cut just to prove a point to a bunch of idiots on a message board.

Therefore, if Robbie is going to continue to challenge Gideon to do this, Gideon wants to be compensated for his time. The "wager" aspect of the deal, is that Robbie only has to pay if Gideon is right and Robbie is wrong.

mmmmkay?

I guess not much. The way you word things it sounds like any use of any thing can be fair use.

Let me give you an exact example and see what you think of it.

Say movie comes out and is released in new york and los angeles. A lot of smaller independent movies do this to test the market. I read about the movie and think I want to see it, but I don't live anywhere near those places. So I download it. Then a month or so later the movie gets a wider release. I see it is playing in a theater near me, but I have already seen it so I am not going to go see it again. Had it not been available for download I would have never seen it so I would now be going to see it. Is my download fair use?

Look at it like this though. There are many movies I have gone and seen and never purchased the dvd or rented. There are many movies I have rented that I never went and saw in the theater as well. A good example. This last week I was sick so I caught up on a bunch of movies I hadn't yet seen. I watched Slumdog Millionaire, The Reader, The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button and Revolutionary Road. All of these are movies I had never seen, but heard good things about so I rented them. Had I downloaded those movies I wouldn't have rented them, I would have rented something else that I wouldn't have already seen. So had I downloaded The Reader I would have skipped renting it and instead rented something else and The Reader loses a sale because I downloaded it. Is that not damages to the company that produced/distributed The Reader?

And what does Robbie get if Robbie is right? nothing?

It is a one-sided wager, which is why I believe Gideon has the mind of a school child. He thinks about himself and cares little about other people.

Robbie was challenging Gideon but the "wager" was Gideon's idea.

if robbie is right, he gets to shut me up complete by proving once and for all i don't know what i am talking about

if he is wrong
robbie get a very important benefit from this "wager" the knowledge to fix a MISTAKE
that he doesn't even know he is making.

A mistake that is turning what should be an increasing income flow into a downward spiraling flow.

if anything the bet is one sided in robbie favor
he wins either way
i only win if i am right.

i am assuming that you are talking about after access shifting becomes a fair use right since this would not be covered by any existing fair use and you are not confessing that the ONLY reason you didn't go see it in the theater was because you downloaded it.

That being said yes but only for the 1 month period where it was not available locally.

The problem with your analogy is that you are absolutely blaming the downloading for the lost sale, when it at best is partially responsible. It just as likely that you didn't see it in the theater because while the movie played to the snooty taste in NY and LA it doesn't play in pitsburg. under that condition the access shifting (and judging for yourself) would have had the same effect as a review by a local film critic telling you the truth about how the movie sucks.

Going back to the vcr case and the timeshifting right, the courts recognized the fair use even though plantiff suspected that it would cause lower rerun viewings.

In otherwords you can blame the fair use "infringement" (in quotes because it is not actually an infringement) sole for the lost sale when other factors have a more deterministic effect.(weather the reviews were valid or not).


of course the copyright holders could stop access shifting from being established because of this ambiguious deterministic effect by simple getting ahead of the ball and dropping the unreasonable staggered liciencing release the movie in the theaters, on the internet on dvd at the same time, and let the channel distribution capacity fill the regional void. competition between channels would keep prices reasonable and expand the revenue streams of the actual content producers (all though the middle men distributers would get squeezed).

because he's lying. if he could do what he was claiming... he would be changing the world and making millions. but he can't. that's the whole reason for imposing unrealistic conditions... because at the end of the day, he has nothing to offer but a flawed VCR analogy and a world of people that actually produce things that disagree with him.

damn their fucked

gideon, if they know about the distribution on their own website or server, don't you think they are obligated to stop it and report it? Or should they ignore it, and make money off advertising?

ok good point let me answer that with a question

http://news.aol.com/article/virtual-porn/544064
a man was convicted of distributing kiddie porn because he stuck a face of kiddie on a nude models body.

he had to buy the nude content from someone
now that you know that content can be used in this way do you have an obligation to stop it, or should you ignore it and make money off of selling it.

My analogy fits because as i have repeatedly pointed out the same swarm that is used for a legitimate purpose (fair use) is used for infringement (non fair use).

Likewise your content sale could be used for a legitimate purpose (free speech- sexual enjoyment of adults) and an illegitimate purpose (to produce kiddie porn).

my answer is a 100% consistent in both case
punish only the person who is actually committing the infringement.

is yours ?

gideon, my question was not about "infringement" of the cp content, virtual or not, and the potential use/abuse, but if they are obligated to stop it and report it, if they know their website or server is used for that purpose? Yes or no?

And if they ignore it, shouldn't they also be punished?

This is not a technical or legal question, but establishment of morality.

if you ever get arrested , dont let yourself be your own lawyer or at the very least hide the dictionary from the judge .

but you know as well i do that you are deliberately making a false analogy

your talking a small subset where you absolutely know that it is cp, it can't be "not cp" and trying to draw an analogy where it can both be infringing and non infringing within the same swarm

When i say yes they should be convicted it doesn't change the fact that analogy doesn't fit what we are talking about.

How about you answer my question

Now that you know your content can be use to make illegal cp, don't you think you have an obligated to stop it (by stop selling porn)and report it (by turning yourself in when your content is used)? Or should you ignore it, and keep make money off selling porn?



like i said my answer is exactly the same every time convict only the person guilty of infringement.

i think the point you are missing gideon is the overall picture.

There will always be legal loopholes that may appear to make an unlawfull act lawfull. at the end of the day if the consensus thinks it should be illegal it will be.

Pretty much everyone will agree the majority of content found/used on torrents is stolen and used illegally. that makes pbay complicit in the minds of the majority.

heres the big glaring difference. the majority of a pornsites customer base/profit , is not from people using their product illegally. the majority use of pb is to download something that is indeed being watched/used illegally, you may not agree but the majority of people would agree, hence the problem

i love this rational, fuck the law, fuck the facts their guilty because i want them to be guilty

backup
timeshifting
format shifting
all 100% legal if you just include timeshifting alone it more than 50% legal

the big picture is the exact opposite of what you are claiming it is.

1. survey after survey amoung the masses comes back with the popular statement that filesharing for personal use should not be legal (which is the service pb provides)

If majority rules you lose on that arguement

2. under the current laws (where you don't ignore fair use) a majority of the pirate bays actions is non infringing.

so you lose on that arguement again

3. in the example i have given you the person who sold the content which WAS used in making the Kiddie porn would get convicted.

The current case failed to tell the difference between me using the torrents as a vcr and someone else who used it to infringe. Treating both as illegal under the law (when the "loophole" makes them quite different).

then question arises..

can time-shifting, access-shifting, format-shifting be legally prohibited or restricted with in a particular licence? and only be available for a restricted use in a specific place or medium?

that saying can i use a licience who true power is granted by the government to breach the fundamental condition of the agreement with that government.

The answer is obviously no.

are you saying that if I create intellectual property I cannot restrict its usage as an author? I cannot prohibit someone from schooting my painting for news reporting and I cannot prohibit anyone from a research on a software licensed to a single entity and I canot prohibit playing my movie only in a small private theater only although whole world buzzes about it?

are you talking about liciencing away fair use rights or restricting it usage as the author

complete and absolute control is not the opposite of no right to restrict, there is a huge grey area inbetween which will call the right to restrict within limits (in the case of copyright that direct commercial enterprise).

You are once again pre-supposing something that isn't true.
I am in control of my paysite. Claudia-Marie.Com continues to grow because I can now put out a new update and keep it under control as opposed to my entire members area instantly showing up on torrents.

THAT is what hurt me 6 months ago Gideon.

Once I got it under control our sales rose again.

But as an affiliate of over 400 different programs for the last 13 years (which by the way is REAL world marketing and trumps your "testing") I have watched all of the sales there trickle down to almost NOTHING. And the rebills are falling so fast for all of those programs that it's insane.

And when I attend our industries conventions I have the owners of those programs coming up to me and asking me about how to stop the piracy because it is killing them.

The only "downward spiral" I am seeing is my loss of affiliate revenue. Down from over $560,000 last year to a stats remote forecast of $314,000 this year.

My friend that is reality. And the one common factor that all of those paysites have?
Their shit is EVERYWHERE for free on torrents and tube sites.

You can double talk all day long and "test" your "theories" as much as you like.

I have 13 years of real world experience and the real stats to back up what I'm saying.

You have nothing but talk. And that's why you aren't making any money with torrents. Because unless you OWN a torrent site and monetize it through the traffic (pre-paid ads), you can NOT make money. At least not make money selling a product that's already on the torrent site for free.

Where the hell did you learn to do business and marketing from anyway? A child can figure out that a person isn't going to buy something that they just watched for free.

I love reading your double talk babbling insanity gideon. Don't ever change.

You are mistaken if you believe you have a legal right to make unlimited backup copies, unlimited timeshifted copies, and unlimited format shifted copies of copyright protected material, everywhere in the world.

If you are describing some particular country where there are no legal restrictions on making backups,timeshifts,format shifts, then please specify which country.

but that not what you are doing with the torrents
when i download a tv show i am only downloading 1 copy. everyone is doing that
we are just getting it from different sources that happens to be interconnected.

if you added up all the people who copy a tv show to the hard drive in their pvr (regular timeshifting) i am 100% sure the total number is greater those people who are using the torrents to do the exact same thing (remote timeshifting).

nobody talks about tv shows here except gideon, this industry is not in the tv business. these examples do not justify what is going on on torrents and how it hurts businesses.

i would say $200k + is a significant downward spiral
the point is would that spiral exist if i could show you a way to keep making sales even though the "shit is everywhere for free".

i have the same right to timeshift content from your paysite subscription as i do from my cable subscription

I have the same right to backup content from your paysite subscription as i do from my cable subscription.

agreed,
no body gives you a right distribute it for any other future "possible" shiftings by others; you cannot do that on presumption they might have the same rights as you.

and we still have a problem with torrents and tubes, even by your numbers there is a substantial leek in profits of those whose content is being used and posted on such sites with out author's consent.

Yes it is a significant downward spiral of sales to OTHER sites. Not my own.
My sales stabilized and then began rising again after I stopped the out of control theft and placement of my members area on every tube and torrent site.

In other words genius...once I stopped my shit being everywhere for free...sales rose. Every paysite that I promote that does have their shit everywhere for free, sales have dropped like a stone.

I don't know how else to explain this to you gideon. It should be obvious. But since it's not to you, I am telling you real world statistics before my very eyes in stats remote. But even then you refuse to see it.

Just like you said earlier:
That was the most ironic and honest thing you've ever said here on GFY.

the amount of people who purchase something first than use torrents to "timeshit" it are microscopic, if they exist at all.

it's all played out tv shows, over 50% of it anyway as gideon said.

btw the traffic may be bigger for "tv shows" only because of so many sweet nice rips in so many format versions, that they may out download other categories.

That's not what he is saying.

Look at it like taxes. I could hire an accountant to build a whole network of shell companies, non profit companies, off shore accounts, and other devices so I don't have to pay any taxes. Technically, I may be able to barely prove it is all legal, but there is no doubt the whole intention was to circumvent the law. Enough people do this and the government changes those laws to close the loophole.

That's very similar to what you are doing here. You are using semantics, terms that are very new and don't yet have a universal definition and concepts that are not fully developed in order to circumvent a law that has not yet caught up with technology.

Did you even read what I wrote? I did not use the word "torrent" or "tv show". Please reply specifically to what I wrote. If you do not wish to reply specifically to what I wrote, then why do you quote my text? Do you want to have a discussion or you just want to preach?

I will post it again in case you forgot to read it.

You are mistaken if you believe you have a legal right to make unlimited backup copies, unlimited timeshifted copies, and unlimited format shifted copies of copyright protected material, everywhere in the world.

If you are describing some particular country where there are no legal restrictions on making backups,timeshifts,format shifts, then please specify which country.

he did`nt read it well...

This is a key point. I hear a lot of people argue that this is how it should be done. That a movie should be released in theaters, on DVD, on pay per view and paid download all on the same day. This way anyone anywhere could see it when they wanted and in what format they wanted and the movie would make more money.

For some movies that might be true. A movie like The Dark Knight or Transformers that has a huge built in audience and is immune to critics reviews could do huge business that way. Would it be more than it would end up being using the traditional marketing means of releasing it into different formats over time? Maybe and maybe not.

However there are a lot of movies that would simply fail using this method. Take for example the movie I used in the previous theory. A movie get released in NY and LA and it gets really good reviews and it does good business. They then decide to move it out to a wider release. So over the next 3-5 weeks they move it into major markets around the country. And it preforms well. It continues to get good reviews and sell a good amount of tickets so they continue to release it and within another 3 weeks it is playing nationwide in many theaters. It does really well overall so 4-5 months later when it comes out on DVD it gets a large release and has built up a lot of word of mouth so it sells well on DVD and rents well on DVD and pay per view. That performance will directly effect how much they then get for the sale to premium cable like HBO or Showtime and regular cable and broadcast TV. So the slow roll out really helped this movie build momentum.

If you released it in every format on day one it may have done some business, but it would have been harder for them to build up the word of mouth. The marketplace is crowded and there is a very good chance that instead of building up a good word of mouth and turning that into a lot of business the movie would have been lost in the crowd and just become another title on the shelf.

But that is not what you are doing with rapidshare when I download a porn video. I am only downloading 1 copy. everyone is doing that we are just getting it from different sources that happens to be interconnected in space and time.

if you added up all the people who download a porno video to the hard drive from a members area (regular location shifting) i am 100% sure the total number is greater those people who are using rapidshare to do the exact same thing (remote location shifting).

This is a fascinating statement to me. You have been arguing all through this thread about access shifting this and access shifting that, yet here you seem to say that access shifting is not actually a fair use right.

So which is it? Is access shifting a fair use right or are you completely operating on the ideal that some day access shifting will be a fair use right?

your locking down the content denying people their fair use right of backup. You may think that the best solution but there are two things
1. your customer over time are getting pissed off with your
2. the courts are clarifying more and more that right is justified

that is going to come to a head it two possible ways
some of the porn guys will finally wake up and learn how to do branding bugs and watermarks right, generate the same results while fully respecting fair use rights and eat you alive.

2. one of your customer will finally get so pissed off at you that they will not only rip your stuff but fight you thru the courts. If the lenz vs universal case comes down the way it looks like it will that will be a very expensive battle. (rememeber that $900/seed now imageing 900/former customer).

i suspect it will be number 2 because to many people are clueless listening to you rather than simply testing out the differences between doing watermarks wrong (today) and doing them right (like tv) and seeing it themselves.

please i can make as many redundant backups of files i want. How many companies do you know that don't have an offsite backup for content on their network. No sys admain worth his salt would risk a fire in the business completely shutting down all operation

go check your copyright act their isn't one country in the world that explictly limits the number of backup you are allowed to make. No limit is the closest thing to unlimited you are going to get.

Selling access to protected content has it's own legal issues, cracking the content is criminal. American, Canadian, International laws respect this. Screw copyright, screw all the other crap.. The rules totally change. DRM is a good thing for porn, online 'information', scripts/software/programs, limited access/features, etc.

It's not good for people that want to change it, duplicate, backup or "own in hand." this is why Music, DVD's, TV and so on don't do well on DRM. But they do great on demand, without owning it, backing it up, etc.

DRM helps many people make money it just isn't the solution for everyone.



People do not NEED to download the content, they only want to watch it "on demand." Even you said this.

If your tour has the same streaming material as your members area, it offers no downloads, it never says it has downloads, the members will not expect downloads.

They expect what is sold to them and nothing more. If DRM was "the killer" you think it is AEBN wouldn't be the money machine for producers and webmasters, the biggest of them all, that they are.

canada does not have a law that explictly prohibits breaking drm,bypassing drm for fair use purposes is legal in canada. The us is the only country right now that makes breaking drm in and of itself a violation.

That being said groups like the EFF are trying to get those stupid laws changed/challenged as unconstitutional or sherman anti trust violating in nature.
Their current cause against apples restrictions about jail breaking iphones and competing storefronts for iphone apps are two such examples. If they successfully make the arguement that such unilateral criminilization is anti competitive then it should disappear too.

http://ideas.4brad.com/hitler-tries-dmca-takedown

it depends on which country you are talking about
some countries have ruled that 1 download != lost sale (infringement), establishing the clear difference between infringement when a sale is actually lost and when no sale is lost. others have not yet.

within this thread we shifted between US (when you talked about LA and NY) and sweden (EU) so of course the context of access shifting changed.