Brazzers you scumbags is there anything ........

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • kristin
    GOO!
    • Sep 2002
    • 9768

    #101
    100 ....
    Vacares rules.

    "Usually only fat guys have the kind of knowledge and ability that Kristin has."

    Comment

    • Barefootsies
      Choice is an Illusion
      • Feb 2005
      • 42635

      #102
      Originally posted by kristin
      100 ....
      Should You Email Your Members?

      Link1 | Link2 | Link3

      Enough Said.

      "Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

      Comment

      • Jim_Gunn
        Confirmed User
        • Feb 2003
        • 5702

        #103
        Originally posted by gideongallery
        please mr skins all those extras you keep talking about to justify his fair use right are given away for free on his tour, he tells you what movies the girls show their tities. He tells you wne the nude scene starts how long it goes on OUTSIDE the scope of the clip.

        He is selling you content exploiting it to make a profit. Download the clips there is no preamble telling you any of the stuff you keep taking about it all given away for free on the tour. You could easily make the arguement that there is no need to clip the nude scene since a buyer of the dvd could simple use the info given to fast forward to the appropriate point to see the titties.


        the fact that the commentary is shorter on a tube clip doesn't change that. BTW given the back and forth comments under each clip there is in fact MORE commentary about any particular video on a tube site. So that arguement is total BS.
        It sound like you are arguing that Mr. Skin isn't a fair use either, ha ha. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. I have never seen an adult tube site with any real commentary. It's just an excuse to steal content. How could that be fair or a fair use? Here in 2009 just about every industry that our civilization has built is in the process of collapsing for a plethora of reasons, intellectual property theft being just one of many. Once again you start with a conclusion and will say anything to support your ridiculous position no matter how preposterous.

        Comment

        • Fletch XXX
          GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!!
          • Jan 2002
          • 60840

          #104
          Ive wondered how far you could get with actually doing commentary the same way those who slice mainstream sex scenes and do it.

          Somehow I bet all of you would support removing the site though and while you claim mr skin is legit, youd still want the same thing done with your porn removed from internet. Are any of thos sites even hosted in the US? If not, why not? LOL

          just a hunch though lol

          Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site?

          Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

          Comment

          • gideongallery
            Confirmed User
            • Aug 2003
            • 7082

            #105
            Originally posted by Jim_Gunn
            It sound like you are arguing that Mr. Skin isn't a fair use either, ha ha. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. I have never seen an adult tube site with any real commentary. It's just an excuse to steal content.
            http://www.tube8.com/teen/teen-fucked/9866/ (11 pages of comments)

            nope just point out that you are fabricating a difference between a tube and mr skin to come to the bogus conclusion that "it just and excuse to steal content".

            quite simple if "here is the titties in this movie" falls within the scope of commentary then

            "this is my favorite bang bros scene " does too.


            How could that be fair or a fair use? Here in 2009 just about every industry that our civilization has built is in the process of collapsing for a plethora of reasons, intellectual property theft being just one of many.
            cry baby whining simple solution provide for all the fair use rights of your customers
            the fact is simple it fair because the act says when fair use and your exclusive rights conflict fair use wins. Think it unreasonable cover the cost of providing those fair uses fully.

            Once again you start with a conclusion and will say anything to support your ridiculous position no matter how preposterous.

            says the guy who twist my words to claim "you are arguing that Mr. Skin isn't a fair use either, ha ha"

            if the rules you are making up were real then mr skin would be illegal
            and all the fair use rights in mainstream (which you have acknowledge exist) would not exist.

            that not proof that those rights don't exist in adult and fair use is "just an excuse to steal content." it proves that your rules are fabrications that have no basis in law.

            the problem is your starting with the conclusion "it just and excuse to steal content" and then ignore things like 11 pages of comments, how little mr skin is actually doing to be protected by fair use of commenting etc to keep that conclusion valid.

            “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

            Comment

            • Paul Markham
              Too old to care
              • Jun 2001
              • 52942

              #106
              Originally posted by Konda
              I am sure their designer or who ever collected the pictures for the site doesn't know who this Raven Rily is, I am sure they will remove it if you just DMCA them.
              Originally posted by TheLegacy
              Has anyone from Brazzers even stepped up with an explanation? Their reputation lately has been horrible but when it comes to money, webmasters aren't dropping them so something is working over there
              From my experience of decent designers they will ask the client to put together the images the particular design needs. Also sponsors with any brains understands that most designers are not the best at choosing images for a particular design.

              Also any affiliate who uses content from a tour needs to know the sponsor owns the content, or he's violating copyright law.

              19 times out of 20 it's the client who chooses the image, so it could be someone at Brazzers grabbed them.

              Also I have always been told that it's imperative to have any girl on the tour inside the site or you can get charge backs. Seems none of this matters to Brazzers.

              Originally posted by Qbert
              Until other programs quit sending these guys traffic and cross sales they have no reason to change.
              Originally posted by ProG
              Lots of the whales are still pushing Brazzers. It's all about the ends not the means. No one really cares what they do (or did) until the checks stop coming.
              When the Tubes first appeared a few big sites started immediately to support them in one way or another. People who look beyond next weeks paycheck would of realised that Tubes were going to hurt affiliates the worse. But no they kept sending the sites like AFF Brazzers traffic. Ir they had pulled the traffic away en mass these sites would of have to had to make a choice. Continue to support Tubes and only get the traffic coming from them in those days or drop Tubes and continue with affiliates. In the early days I doubt if the Tubes had the traffic they have now.

              Affiliates shot themselves in the foot.

              Originally posted by ladida
              LOL "affiliates". They hardly need them anyway.
              They don't now, they did when Tubes first appeared and probably for the next 6 months.

              Do affiliates learn? No way they still send traffic to sites who are stabbing them in the back and trying to close down that side of the business.



              Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
              PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

              Comment

              • Paul Markham
                Too old to care
                • Jun 2001
                • 52942

                #107
                Originally posted by SmokenCess
                all the photos are from public access. You guys don't know how the internet works.
                And you don't understand copyright laws.

                Originally posted by Horny Alf
                So who is stealing from Brazzers?? Brazzers is stealing from everyone, but why isnt anyone giving them a taste of their own medicine??
                Originally posted by Horny Alf
                So why is it that Brazzers steals from everyone and gets away with it and nobody steals from Brazzers??
                Because they have a team of lawyers protecting them from people they steal from. Who they would turn onto you for stealing their content. It's not a 2 way street.


                Originally posted by Dirty D
                They were the XBiz Affiliate Program of the Year in 2009
                Which displays the stupidity of this business. They back someone who is doing all they can to hurt their other advertisers. Great forward thinking. NOT!!

                Originally posted by Robbie
                DirtyD, as long as a company pays enough money in ads or prepaid first page spots on certain "Free" sites they will always be Program of the Year and always get the most promotion from the one or two legit free sites left. You can't blame people for making money off of them, though in the long run it's self defeating.

                I've promoted Jugg Cash since the day they opened the door. Their content is excellent. Of course as an affiliate it's impossible for me to make a sale for them now. But they could care less (and rightly so) because they've branded themselves so well and now have developed a bigger traffic network than all of the affiliates combined.

                That was just smart business for them.
                No it was not smart business and it did not need a lot of thought to realise what was going to happen, but you and Xbiz kept supporting them while they were stabbing you both in the back.

                Originally posted by Davy
                Blame it on the DVD distribution business.
                Nobody cares what happens to old DVDs. And even the newer ones don't sell anymore.
                I suspect a lot of the content comes from DVDs. The lack of watermarks on the content makes me suspect it's not mainly Internet content.



                Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
                PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

                Comment

                • chemicaleyes
                  UNSTOPPABLE
                  • Aug 2003
                  • 11569

                  #108
                  exgirlfriendfootage.com - Coming Soon!
                  No way as way, No limitation as limitation. AmeriNOC formally PhatServers

                  Comment

                  • Raf1
                    Too lazy to set a custom title
                    • Oct 2003
                    • 12117

                    #109
                    I don't think they care at all. This industry is getting sad
                    80% Revshare or 30$ PPS on $1 trials: 200 Niches = Vidz.com Galleries / FLVs / Embeds
                    3 & 5mins FLVs | RSS & Tube Feeds | Matching Thumbs | FLV Browser & Exporter | No Prechecked Xsales
                    >> Mobile Redirection Script: mobile.vidz.com also paying 80% net Lifetime << ICQ: 198-394-557

                    Comment

                    • Nautilus
                      Confirmed User
                      • Sep 2002
                      • 1631

                      #110
                      Originally posted by gideongallery
                      the safe harbor provision was put in place specifically to prevent the take down notice (new power to copyright holder) from censoring fair use.
                      No, to prevent censorship from copyright holders there is counter DMCA. Safe harbor is to prevent ISPs from getting involved in a lawsuite over things they have no direct control over and no direct benefit from.
                      .
                      .

                      FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote | 100K+ FHGs | Check recently added galleries

                      New sites | Pantyhose | Nylon | Shemale | Strapon | Lesbian | Mature/MILF | Anal | Old&Young | Gay | Feet

                      Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2)

                      Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password.

                      ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

                      Comment

                      • 2012
                        So Fucking What
                        • Jul 2006
                        • 17189

                        #111
                        it's closing time let it die http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVt6vhRAu3k
                        best host: Webair | best sponsor: Kink | best coder: 688218966 | Go Fuck Yourself

                        Comment

                        • 2012
                          So Fucking What
                          • Jul 2006
                          • 17189

                          #112
                          I've got a bodysuit that say's LEGOS on it
                          best host: Webair | best sponsor: Kink | best coder: 688218966 | Go Fuck Yourself

                          Comment

                          • gideongallery
                            Confirmed User
                            • Aug 2003
                            • 7082

                            #113
                            Originally posted by Nautilus
                            No, to prevent censorship from copyright holders there is counter DMCA. Safe harbor is to prevent ISPs from getting involved in a lawsuite over things they have no direct control over and no direct benefit from.
                            do you understand what you are saying.

                            How do you get to counter notification if the copyright holder gets sued immediately for a potential infringement.

                            you can't

                            before the DMCA the host was not involved in the lawsuit either. If you complained about copyright infringement they would say sorry we are not involved we only provide hosting get a court order and we will remove it.

                            You couldn't sue until you got proof thru a court order period. They need no protection to avoid being involved.

                            After the DMCA all you need to do to get the content down was to send a letter period. Refuse to honor that letter and you got the same liability as refusing to honor a court order in the past.

                            congress knew that if they didn't set a specific counter notification procedure and produce a period of immunity (equal to before the court order was obtained) this new automagic takedown procedure would cause censorship effect. The host is immune so long as they comply to give them BACK the immunity before court order status.

                            The immunity after counter notification is designed to give the legitimate fair use users the right to keep the doing business after a bogus complaint while they fight out right in court.

                            it a balancing act between the new rights and the abuse that new right can create. Take out any one piece and the law becomes abusive.
                            Last edited by gideongallery; 08-14-2009, 03:54 AM.

                            “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

                            Comment

                            • Robbie
                              Leaner, Meaner, Faster
                              • Aug 2002
                              • 20960

                              #114
                              Originally posted by Paul Markham
                              No it was not smart business and it did not need a lot of thought to realise what was going to happen, but you and Xbiz kept supporting them while they were stabbing you both in the back.
                              I'm not in favor of what they are doing with piracy at all. Matter of fact I directly connect that to a huge loss in my affiliate sales. It's difficult to make a sale to all the different paysites out there who don't protect their content and it's available for free everywhere.

                              But yes, what Brazzers did was indeed smart business for THEM. Not for you or me.

                              As far as any of us sitting back and saying things like you just did: "kept supporting them while they were stabbing you in the back"
                              Well think about it Mr. Markham. XBiz lives off of advertising. They are not going to tell their biggest advertiser that they will no longer accept their business.

                              And for that matter nobody in their right mind would.

                              IF Brazzers called Paul Markham today on the phone and said: "Paul we are ordering $100,000 worth of exclusive big tit content from you this month. And every month into the foreseeable future"

                              Well, if that happened...we wouldn't be seeing Paul Markham on GFY. He would be too busy making a living and "supporting" Brazzers

                              Again, I'm not condoning what they are doing. It's obvious that they are going straight for the jugular and are taking no prisoners. It's costing all of us a lot of money.

                              But to deny it's been profitable as hell for them is foolish. And to attack all the people making money with them is somewhat hypocritical. I've never "supported" Jugg Cash. Just like I've never "supported" anybody. Whenever I am paid for a service then that's what it is: a paid service. If anything, the people who are doing the paying are the one's doing the "supporting"
                              Last edited by Robbie; 08-14-2009, 07:22 AM.
                              -Robbie
                              ClaudiaMarie.Com

                              Comment

                              • Barefootsies
                                Choice is an Illusion
                                • Feb 2005
                                • 42635

                                #115
                                Originally posted by Robbie
                                IF Brazzers called Paul Markham today on the phone and said: "Paul we are ordering $100,000 worth of exclusive big tit content from you this month. And every month into the foreseeable future"

                                Well, if that happened...we wouldn't be seeing Paul Markham on GFY. He would be too busy making a living and "supporting" Brazzers
                                Should You Email Your Members?

                                Link1 | Link2 | Link3

                                Enough Said.

                                "Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

                                Comment

                                • LA Crew
                                  Confirmed User
                                  • Jan 2008
                                  • 1356

                                  #116
                                  They don't give a shit what people think and as long as the money keep comin'

                                  Comment

                                  • ljr$fv
                                    Registered User
                                    • Apr 2009
                                    • 33

                                    #117
                                    i always hear the talk about how/what brazzers is "stealing" etc.. but to me it seems SO INSANE that everyone on here talks about it, and knows about it........

                                    and what? wtf happens after that? wheres the breakdown? people just go own supporting them and promoting their programs?

                                    this takes the credibility wayyyyy the fuck out of the claims that brazzers is stealing/ruining the industry.

                                    as i understand it so far: brazzers swept the adult internet industry with pornhub-- using stolen content?

                                    someone please just come straight out and say that so i can understand!

                                    and let me tell everyone something from someone who's seen and taken part first hand- and used to profit from these situations in my wilder days: money may make a corporation invincible, but does NOT make the people invincible.
                                    ICQ: 442005855

                                    Comment

                                    • gideongallery
                                      Confirmed User
                                      • Aug 2003
                                      • 7082

                                      #118
                                      Originally posted by Robbie
                                      I'm not in favor of what they are doing with piracy at all. Matter of fact I directly connect that to a huge loss in my affiliate sales. It's difficult to make a sale to all the different paysites out there who don't protect their content and it's available for free everywhere.

                                      But yes, what Brazzers did was indeed smart business for THEM. Not for you or me.

                                      As far as any of us sitting back and saying things like you just did: "kept supporting them while they were stabbing you in the back"
                                      Well think about it Mr. Markham. XBiz lives off of advertising. They are not going to tell their biggest advertiser that they will no longer accept their business.

                                      And for that matter nobody in their right mind would.

                                      IF Brazzers called Paul Markham today on the phone and said: "Paul we are ordering $100,000 worth of exclusive big tit content from you this month. And every month into the foreseeable future"

                                      Well, if that happened...we wouldn't be seeing Paul Markham on GFY. He would be too busy making a living and "supporting" Brazzers

                                      Again, I'm not condoning what they are doing. It's obvious that they are going straight for the jugular and are taking no prisoners. It's costing all of us a lot of money.

                                      But to deny it's been profitable as hell for them is foolish. And to attack all the people making money with them is somewhat hypocritical. I've never "supported" Jugg Cash. Just like I've never "supported" anybody. Whenever I am paid for a service then that's what it is: a paid service. If anything, the people who are doing the paying are the one's doing the "supporting"
                                      wow first intelligent thing you said.

                                      now all we have to do is get you to understand that exploiting the technology can make you way more money then fighting it.

                                      “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

                                      Comment

                                      • Nautilus
                                        Confirmed User
                                        • Sep 2002
                                        • 1631

                                        #119
                                        Originally posted by gideongallery
                                        The immunity after counter notification is designed to give the legitimate fair use users the right to keep the doing business after a bogus complaint while they fight out right in court.
                                        Exactly. What you do not understand is that immunity through conter notification and immunity through the safe harbor are the two different things - the first is for users, the second is for their ISPs. Users can't claim safe harbor defence, ISPs cannot argue fair use.
                                        .
                                        .

                                        FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote | 100K+ FHGs | Check recently added galleries

                                        New sites | Pantyhose | Nylon | Shemale | Strapon | Lesbian | Mature/MILF | Anal | Old&Young | Gay | Feet

                                        Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2)

                                        Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password.

                                        ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

                                        Comment

                                        • gideongallery
                                          Confirmed User
                                          • Aug 2003
                                          • 7082

                                          #120
                                          Originally posted by Nautilus
                                          Exactly. What you do not understand is that immunity through conter notification and immunity through the safe harbor are the two different things - the first is for users, the second is for their ISPs. Users can't claim safe harbor defence, ISPs cannot argue fair use.
                                          wrong the immunity after counter notification is for the host too. after the counter notice has been filed by the fair user of content the host goes back to having full immunity for hosting the content. The act of accepting the liablity if the fair user is ruled against eliminates the liablity for the host.

                                          But the point is it an a to b to c condition.

                                          If the host is liable from the very begining (eliminate the safe harbor provision) they can only protect themselves by not hosting potentially fair use stuff. They most over step in favor of the copyright holders.

                                          Since fair use is supposed to take precedence in the case of a dispute between the two that would be reversing the fundamental bases of copyright act.

                                          You need the safe harbor so the content will be online long enough so that counter notice can extend fair use to where it needs to be.

                                          Without safe harbor parody would never have been extended by the eff to include just changing the subtitles.

                                          Bogus arguements like robbie that the only way you could use his content to make a parody music video "internet killed the porno star" (protected fair use) was to not use his content at all. (dress up in a wig and pretend to be claudia marie).

                                          the proof that it is fair (did not in and of it self cost a sale and therefore meets condition 4) would not exist without proven example of hosting happening.

                                          “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

                                          Comment

                                          • gideongallery
                                            Confirmed User
                                            • Aug 2003
                                            • 7082

                                            #121
                                            Originally posted by gideongallery
                                            wrong the immunity after counter notification is for the host too. after the counter notice has been filed by the fair user of content the host goes back to having full immunity for hosting the content. The act of accepting the liablity if the fair user is ruled against eliminates the liablity for the host.

                                            But the point is it an a to b to c condition.

                                            If the host is liable from the very begining (eliminate the safe harbor provision) they can only protect themselves by not hosting potentially fair use stuff. They most over step in favor of the copyright holders.

                                            Since fair use is supposed to take precedence in the case of a dispute between the two that would be reversing the fundamental bases of copyright act.

                                            You need the safe harbor so the content will be online long enough so that counter notice can extend fair use to where it needs to be.

                                            Without safe harbor parody would never have been extended by the eff to include just changing the subtitles.

                                            Bogus arguements like robbie that the only way you could use his content to make a parody music video "internet killed the porno star" (protected fair use) was to not use his content at all. (dress up in a wig and pretend to be claudia marie).

                                            the proof that it is fair (did not in and of it self cost a sale and therefore meets condition 4) would not exist without proven example of hosting happening.
                                            or to put it very simply

                                            if you remove the safe harbor provision from the act
                                            the only way that the host can protect themselves from the liabilty would be to censor everything that could be fair use just to be safe.


                                            no fair use content will ever get hosted.
                                            which means there will be nothing to challenge status quo of fair use
                                            which means no new fair use rights will every be established.

                                            “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

                                            Comment

                                            • teomaxxx
                                              Confirmed User
                                              • May 2003
                                              • 2737

                                              #122
                                              Originally posted by chemicaleyes
                                              exgirlfriendfootage.com - Coming Soon!
                                              so they put their site down. smart bros, thumbs up

                                              Comment

                                              • Nautilus
                                                Confirmed User
                                                • Sep 2002
                                                • 1631

                                                #123
                                                Originally posted by gideongallery
                                                or to put it very simply

                                                if you remove the safe harbor provision from the act
                                                the only way that the host can protect themselves from the liabilty would be to censor everything that could be fair use just to be safe.
                                                Yes I agree that indirectly safe harbor protects fair use too. But the main and direct protection of fair use is still counter notification.

                                                After you filed counter DMCA, you still need to prove in court that your use of copyrighted material is fair - which you will fail to do if you simply uploaded full length scene to a tube. That's why all of them call for safe harbor, not fair use defence.
                                                .
                                                .

                                                FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote | 100K+ FHGs | Check recently added galleries

                                                New sites | Pantyhose | Nylon | Shemale | Strapon | Lesbian | Mature/MILF | Anal | Old&Young | Gay | Feet

                                                Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2)

                                                Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password.

                                                ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

                                                Comment

                                                • Jet - BANNED FOR LIFE
                                                  So Fucking Banned
                                                  • Sep 2002
                                                  • 7515

                                                  #124
                                                  Originally posted by Mutt
                                                  you won't do for a buck?

                                                  http://ads.brazzers.com/ads/design4/...9-08-11_18-56/

                                                  http://www.exgirlfriendfootage.com

                                                  so now you're into the dirty little netherworld of EX-GF sites, Eric and Ice freak out when anybody mentions the two letter abbreviation which we all know makes up most of these sites so I won't type them. you just couldnt stand to watch small fries making money from that niche so you just had to jump in.

                                                  oh....... and nice of you to include Raven Riley, I'm sure she and 3xTom are thrilled to be included.

                                                  Nice site. I'm going to promote it.

                                                  Thanks for sharing.

                                                  Comment

                                                  • gideongallery
                                                    Confirmed User
                                                    • Aug 2003
                                                    • 7082

                                                    #125
                                                    Originally posted by Nautilus
                                                    Yes I agree that indirectly safe harbor protects fair use too. But the main and direct protection of fair use is still counter notification.

                                                    After you filed counter DMCA, you still need to prove in court that your use of copyrighted material is fair - which you will fail to do if you simply uploaded full length scene to a tube. That's why all of them call for safe harbor, not fair use defence.
                                                    but the point i am making and you seem to understand now is that safe harbor provision stands between the infringement and the direct protection.

                                                    If the safe harbor doesn't exist the content will not be put up so that fair use arguement can be made when legitimate.

                                                    Under that circumstance where the choice is between a cart blanc denial of fair use
                                                    and extra work of filling out a 1 page form.

                                                    i think the one page form is the better of the two
                                                    especially considering that before the DMCA you had spend thousands in court cost to get a court order to get the content taken down.

                                                    the little bitches complaining about the safe harbor provision should ask themselves if they want to go back to get court orders to get the infringement to stop.

                                                    “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

                                                    Comment

                                                    • gideongallery
                                                      Confirmed User
                                                      • Aug 2003
                                                      • 7082

                                                      #126
                                                      still want to know who natalie really is
                                                      and what program has her content

                                                      there are currently no pages that rank for the term natalie from exgirlfriendfootage.com

                                                      should be easy enough to hijack the disgruntalled surfers who signup looking for that girl and failing to find her because it was DMCA away.

                                                      “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

                                                      Comment

                                                      • Nautilus
                                                        Confirmed User
                                                        • Sep 2002
                                                        • 1631

                                                        #127
                                                        Originally posted by gideongallery
                                                        If the safe harbor doesn't exist the content will not be put up so that fair use arguement can be made when legitimate.
                                                        Well yes safe harbor just gets the host out of the way, making it a dispute between the two - a copyright holder and a publisher.

                                                        Under that circumstance where the choice is between a cart blanc denial of fair use
                                                        and extra work of filling out a 1 page form.
                                                        It's an extra work of policing dozens of thousands of sites and filing hundreds of thousands of forms - which is absolutely not sustainable burden for most copyright holders.

                                                        Something needs to be changed there, and I think that DMCA should be amended to include the difference between the ISP and the Publisher - Publishers being those who operate sites and make content immediatly availble for surfers, while ISPs being those who provide services for other sites and do not operate them (hosts, billers etc).

                                                        Publishers should not be entitled for safe harbor protection anymore, they should be held responsible for making sure that all content they publish at their sites is either licensed or fair use, no matter if they publish it themselves or allow their users to do it. While ISPs should still be protected with the safe harbor.

                                                        With that added to DMCA, it'll bring the balance back into the system - fair use is still well protected, but no more loopholes to steal intellectual property under the guise of the safe harbor, if it is no longer provided to the Publishers.
                                                        Last edited by Nautilus; 08-15-2009, 12:42 AM.
                                                        .
                                                        .

                                                        FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote | 100K+ FHGs | Check recently added galleries

                                                        New sites | Pantyhose | Nylon | Shemale | Strapon | Lesbian | Mature/MILF | Anal | Old&Young | Gay | Feet

                                                        Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2)

                                                        Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password.

                                                        ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

                                                        Comment

                                                        • gideongallery
                                                          Confirmed User
                                                          • Aug 2003
                                                          • 7082

                                                          #128
                                                          Originally posted by Nautilus
                                                          Well yes safe harbor just gets the host out of the way, making it a dispute between the two - a copyright holder and a publisher.



                                                          It's an extra work of policing dozens of thousands of sites and filing hundreds of thousands of forms - which is absolutely not sustainable burden for most copyright holders.

                                                          Something needs to be changed there, and I think that DMCA should be amended to include the difference between the ISP and the Publisher - Publishers being those who operate sites and make content immediatly availble for surfers, while ISPs being those who provide services for other sites and do not operate them (hosts, billers etc).

                                                          Publishers should not be entitled for safe harbor protection anymore, they should be held responsible for making sure that all content they publish at their sites is either licensed or fair use, no matter if they publish it themselves or allow their users to do it. While ISPs should still be protected with the safe harbor.

                                                          With that added to DMCA, it'll bring the balance back into the system - fair use is still well protected, but no more loopholes to steal intellectual property under the guise of the safe harbor, if it is no longer provided to the Publishers.
                                                          except that definition would cause the exact type of censorship that i am complaining about. tube sites would be considered publishers. which means downfall parody would never have been allowed on the tube site in the first place

                                                          The eff could never fought for and established the extension to parody that they did.

                                                          All those videos would be censored.

                                                          if you wanted to something like that you would have to add some sort of serious penalty to prevent that.

                                                          Say if you sent a takedown notice for something that was fair use you must pay 3 times the damages asked for or 3 times the income lost which ever is greater(since extending the copyright monopoly to the fair use space would be sherman anti trust violating act). If you failed to pay the fee within 24 hours of ruling all your copyrights would be put into the public domain.

                                                          that would create an insentive for publisher like youtube to defend potential fair use.

                                                          That would be more balanced then the current DMCA because two companies with deep pockets would be fighting for fair use claims, instead of users getting stomped all over (43 downfall parodies taken down) until a major user rights groups decides to take up the cause and defend what is so clearly non income losing fair use (eff downfall parody).

                                                          “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

                                                          Comment

                                                          • The Duck
                                                            Adult Content Provider
                                                            • May 2005
                                                            • 18243

                                                            #129
                                                            Originally posted by d-null
                                                            I see alot of boxxy on gfy lately
                                                            Skype Horusmaia
                                                            ICQ 41555245
                                                            Email [email protected]

                                                            Comment

                                                            • Mutt
                                                              Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                              • Sep 2002
                                                              • 34431

                                                              #130
                                                              Originally posted by The Duck
                                                              I see alot of boxxy on gfy lately
                                                              that's because GFY is always 6 months behind the rest of the world
                                                              I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

                                                              Comment

                                                              • gideongallery
                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                • Aug 2003
                                                                • 7082

                                                                #131
                                                                Originally posted by Nautilus
                                                                Well yes safe harbor just gets the host out of the way, making it a dispute between the two - a copyright holder and a publisher.



                                                                It's an extra work of policing dozens of thousands of sites and filing hundreds of thousands of forms - which is absolutely not sustainable burden for most copyright holders.

                                                                Something needs to be changed there, and I think that DMCA should be amended to include the difference between the ISP and the Publisher - Publishers being those who operate sites and make content immediatly availble for surfers, while ISPs being those who provide services for other sites and do not operate them (hosts, billers etc).

                                                                Publishers should not be entitled for safe harbor protection anymore, they should be held responsible for making sure that all content they publish at their sites is either licensed or fair use, no matter if they publish it themselves or allow their users to do it. While ISPs should still be protected with the safe harbor.

                                                                With that added to DMCA, it'll bring the balance back into the system - fair use is still well protected, but no more loopholes to steal intellectual property under the guise of the safe harbor, if it is no longer provided to the Publishers.
                                                                btw a host like mojo who lets a user post an html page with a flash video embedded would also "make content immediatly availble for surfers"

                                                                try uploading content on your domain via ftp and then see how quickly after is done you can see the web page in your browser.

                                                                So how exactly does your "make content immediatly availble for surfers" protect isp services like hosting.

                                                                “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

                                                                Comment

                                                                • gideongallery
                                                                  Confirmed User
                                                                  • Aug 2003
                                                                  • 7082

                                                                  #132
                                                                  Originally posted by Mutt
                                                                  that's because GFY is always 6 months behind the rest of the world
                                                                  especially with regards to fair use ruling

                                                                  “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

                                                                  Comment

                                                                  • Nautilus
                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                    • Sep 2002
                                                                    • 1631

                                                                    #133
                                                                    Originally posted by gideongallery
                                                                    except that definition would cause the exact type of censorship that i am complaining about. tube sites would be considered publishers. which means downfall parody would never have been allowed on the tube site in the first place
                                                                    You can still use your own host, not a public service, to post those of your parodies that push the boundaries of previously accepted fair use practices. That's still well balanced imo - you can post fair use materials that are within the commonly accepted boundaries at public service sites like youtube, and if you want to try something new that may or may not fly in court as a fair use, use your own paid webhost.

                                                                    if you wanted to something like that you would have to add some sort of serious penalty to prevent that.
                                                                    I thought courts already reward defendands with the compensation of their legal fees at the expense of plaintiff, when they find fair use defence is valid. Isn't that enough of a counter-balance?
                                                                    .
                                                                    .

                                                                    FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote | 100K+ FHGs | Check recently added galleries

                                                                    New sites | Pantyhose | Nylon | Shemale | Strapon | Lesbian | Mature/MILF | Anal | Old&Young | Gay | Feet

                                                                    Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2)

                                                                    Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password.

                                                                    ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

                                                                    Comment

                                                                    • Nautilus
                                                                      Confirmed User
                                                                      • Sep 2002
                                                                      • 1631

                                                                      #134
                                                                      Originally posted by gideongallery
                                                                      So how exactly does your "make content immediatly availble for surfers" protect isp services like hosting.
                                                                      Maybe a better definition would be operate/do not operate websites.
                                                                      .
                                                                      .

                                                                      FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote | 100K+ FHGs | Check recently added galleries

                                                                      New sites | Pantyhose | Nylon | Shemale | Strapon | Lesbian | Mature/MILF | Anal | Old&Young | Gay | Feet

                                                                      Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2)

                                                                      Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password.

                                                                      ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

                                                                      Comment

                                                                      • gideongallery
                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                        • Aug 2003
                                                                        • 7082

                                                                        #135
                                                                        Originally posted by Nautilus
                                                                        You can still use your own host, not a public service, to post those of your parodies that push the boundaries of previously accepted fair use practices. That's still well balanced imo - you can post fair use materials that are within the commonly accepted boundaries at public service sites like youtube, and if you want to try something new that may or may not fly in court as a fair use, use your own paid webhost.



                                                                        I thought courts already reward defendands with the compensation of their legal fees at the expense of plaintiff, when they find fair use defence is valid. Isn't that enough of a counter-balance?
                                                                        the problem is that in post case the person actually making the fair use doesn't make any money from that act. The 43 people who used the downfall clip to make fun of xbox live, burning man etc were doing it because they wanted to express themselves. They didn't make money from it. That is exactly why they didn't fight the takedown notices their was no monetary incentive to do so. The best they could ever get was their cost covered.

                                                                        If that burden was shifted to youtube they would have even less incentive because the proof that video was not making money would be gone. The copyright holder could argue that they are fighting to protect their ad revenue. making it more expensive to fight and more difficult to win.

                                                                        A profit (not just a cost recovery) motive strong enough to compensate for that significant addition of work would have to be put in place. 3x is what the current laws (if applied) state is the penalty and therefore that should be the minimum cost for a false takedown request.

                                                                        “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

                                                                        Comment

                                                                        • Mutt
                                                                          Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                          • Sep 2002
                                                                          • 34431

                                                                          #136
                                                                          Originally posted by Jet
                                                                          Nice site. I'm going to promote it.

                                                                          Thanks for sharing.
                                                                          it would take you 3 years just to make the minimum payout
                                                                          I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

                                                                          Comment

                                                                          • Nautilus
                                                                            Confirmed User
                                                                            • Sep 2002
                                                                            • 1631

                                                                            #137
                                                                            Originally posted by gideongallery
                                                                            the problem is that in post case the person actually making the fair use doesn't make any money from that act. The 43 people who used the downfall clip to make fun of xbox live, burning man etc were doing it because they wanted to express themselves.
                                                                            Why woudn't they express themselves within the already accepted fair use boundaries, if they only do it for fun? I believe it is only fair that only those would be pushing the boundaries of the law who feel what they do is right and really necessary, and ready to stand up for that; not just every teenager making fun of xbox at public service site.

                                                                            If those parodies are such a necessaty for the human kind, some one will make one and post it at his own site, and then battle in court it's fair use. If he wins, every teenager at public service site could do the same. If not, than not.

                                                                            I understand we should ensure some progress in fair use practices, but it doesn't have to be a speedy one, and certainly not at the expense of the entire industries collapsing.

                                                                            3x is what the current laws (if applied) state is the penalty and therefore that should be the minimum cost for a false takedown request.
                                                                            That would be $450K? Too harsh imo. Especially if this particular kind of potential fair use case have not been tried in court yet - you can hardly claim those takedown requests a "bogus" ones, since the extension of fair use have not been set yet in court for this particular case.
                                                                            .
                                                                            .

                                                                            FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote | 100K+ FHGs | Check recently added galleries

                                                                            New sites | Pantyhose | Nylon | Shemale | Strapon | Lesbian | Mature/MILF | Anal | Old&Young | Gay | Feet

                                                                            Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2)

                                                                            Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password.

                                                                            ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

                                                                            Comment

                                                                            • Agent 488
                                                                              Registered User
                                                                              • Feb 2006
                                                                              • 22511

                                                                              #138
                                                                              goddamn Brazzers you scumbags!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                                                              Comment

                                                                              • gideongallery
                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                • Aug 2003
                                                                                • 7082

                                                                                #139
                                                                                Originally posted by Nautilus
                                                                                Why woudn't they express themselves within the already accepted fair use boundaries, if they only do it for fun? I believe it is only fair that only those would be pushing the boundaries of the law who feel what they do is right and really necessary, and ready to stand up for that; not just every teenager making fun of xbox at public service site.

                                                                                If those parodies are such a necessaty for the human kind, some one will make one and post it at his own site, and then battle in court it's fair use. If he wins, every teenager at public service site could do the same. If not, than not.

                                                                                I understand we should ensure some progress in fair use practices, but it doesn't have to be a speedy one, and certainly not at the expense of the entire industries collapsing.
                                                                                so you want to reverse the priority between fair use and the exclusive rights copyright holder

                                                                                the original act said fair use should take priority, that was the agreement that every copyright holder makes to get their exclusive rights.


                                                                                That would be $450K? Too harsh imo. Especially if this particular kind of potential fair use case have not been tried in court yet - you can hardly claim those takedown requests a "bogus" ones, since the extension of fair use have not been set yet in court for this particular case.
                                                                                of course i can
                                                                                downfall producers knew that they had no proof that a single sale was being lost

                                                                                they knew that the only way you could get the content necessary to make that parody was to either buy the movie or rent it (both of which paid the artist)

                                                                                they new that request and sales for the underlying movie was increases because people would either want to make their own parody, or see what the movie was really about.

                                                                                There was no economic loss
                                                                                they knew the fair use right of parody was already explictly established
                                                                                and there was no possible way that this could be extended outside the scope of that original granted right

                                                                                But the made the bogus take down request to censor that free speach because they didn't like having their movie being made fun of.



                                                                                watch the video every single on of those points is covered by the parody. They were supposed to watch the video and only send a take down request if it truely violated their copyright.

                                                                                this was not about an unestablished fair use right that need established by the courts first
                                                                                this was about a movie company take advantage of the loop hole that makes assuming that claim of infringement is true no matter how completely unsupported by a single case law.

                                                                                parody was a right granted since the inception of the copyright act and they were taking it away using that loophole.
                                                                                so fine 10 times that amount would not be unreasonable.

                                                                                “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

                                                                                Comment

                                                                                • Nautilus
                                                                                  Confirmed User
                                                                                  • Sep 2002
                                                                                  • 1631

                                                                                  #140
                                                                                  Originally posted by gideongallery
                                                                                  the original act said fair use should take priority, that was the agreement that every copyright holder makes to get their exclusive rights.
                                                                                  Where it said fair use should take priority? Quote this part.
                                                                                  .
                                                                                  .

                                                                                  FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote | 100K+ FHGs | Check recently added galleries

                                                                                  New sites | Pantyhose | Nylon | Shemale | Strapon | Lesbian | Mature/MILF | Anal | Old&Young | Gay | Feet

                                                                                  Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2)

                                                                                  Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password.

                                                                                  ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                  • DonovanTrent
                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                    • Dec 2006
                                                                                    • 968

                                                                                    #141
                                                                                    Hitler has been brought up in this thread, the thread has now reached maturity. Congrats, thread, you're fully grown!
                                                                                    Donovan Trent

                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                    • gideongallery
                                                                                      Confirmed User
                                                                                      • Aug 2003
                                                                                      • 7082

                                                                                      #142
                                                                                      Originally posted by Nautilus
                                                                                      Where it said fair use should take priority? Quote this part.
                                                                                      once when defining the exclusive rights of the copyright holder 106

                                                                                      Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

                                                                                      and a second time when they defined the fair use rights (section 107)

                                                                                      Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
                                                                                      the first prefesses the exclusive right with requirement to recognize section 107 thru 122

                                                                                      the second explictly exclude the exclusive rights (notwithstanding ....) and explictly declared fair use as "not an infringement of copyright"

                                                                                      “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                      • BFT3K
                                                                                        Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                                        • Dec 2005
                                                                                        • 10764

                                                                                        #143
                                                                                        Originally posted by gideongallery
                                                                                        once when defining the exclusive rights of the copyright holder 106

                                                                                        and a second time when they defined the fair use rights (section 107)

                                                                                        the first prefesses the exclusive right with requirement to recognize section 107 thru 122

                                                                                        the second explictly exclude the exclusive rights (notwithstanding ....) and explictly declared fair use as "not an infringement of copyright"
                                                                                        You missed your calling! You should have become a CRIMINAL defense attorney, as you really are bending over fucking backwards to defend CRIMINALS!

                                                                                        Obviously YOU do NOT produce shit! YOUR content is not at risk, as YOU don't make content. YOUR website sales are not a concern, as you don't produce anything.

                                                                                        You could have been a key player on OJ's dream team if you had followed your criminal defending passions earlier on in your life.

                                                                                        Comment

                                                                                        • gideongallery
                                                                                          Confirmed User
                                                                                          • Aug 2003
                                                                                          • 7082

                                                                                          #144
                                                                                          Originally posted by BFT3K
                                                                                          You missed your calling! You should have become a CRIMINAL defense attorney, as you really are bending over fucking backwards to defend CRIMINALS!

                                                                                          Obviously YOU do NOT produce shit! YOUR content is not at risk, as YOU don't make content. YOUR website sales are not a concern, as you don't produce anything.

                                                                                          You could have been a key player on OJ's dream team if you had followed your criminal defending passions earlier on in your life.
                                                                                          considering that they can't be considered criminals as long as the imunity of the safe harbor provision apply i am doing no such thing.

                                                                                          You however seem to bending over backwards to try turning them into criminals to defend your outdated business model.

                                                                                          “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                          • BFT3K
                                                                                            Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                                            • Dec 2005
                                                                                            • 10764

                                                                                            #145
                                                                                            In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, a service provider who hosts content must have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, infringing activity on its network.

                                                                                            Comment

                                                                                            • Nautilus
                                                                                              Confirmed User
                                                                                              • Sep 2002
                                                                                              • 1631

                                                                                              #146
                                                                                              Originally posted by gideongallery
                                                                                              the first prefesses the exclusive right with requirement to recognize section 107 thru 122

                                                                                              the second explictly exclude the exclusive rights (notwithstanding ....) and explictly declared fair use as "not an infringement of copyright"
                                                                                              OK where it says fair use should have priority.
                                                                                              .
                                                                                              .

                                                                                              FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote | 100K+ FHGs | Check recently added galleries

                                                                                              New sites | Pantyhose | Nylon | Shemale | Strapon | Lesbian | Mature/MILF | Anal | Old&Young | Gay | Feet

                                                                                              Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2)

                                                                                              Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password.

                                                                                              ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                              • CrkMStanz
                                                                                                Confirmed User
                                                                                                • Jan 2008
                                                                                                • 517

                                                                                                #147
                                                                                                Originally posted by gideongallery
                                                                                                Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
                                                                                                so how are torrents / newsgroups / tubes (just the illegal stuff) / whatever covered by this clause in your deluded brain...

                                                                                                are they posting full un edited works for criticism?

                                                                                                comment?

                                                                                                news reporting?

                                                                                                teaching?

                                                                                                scholorship?

                                                                                                research?

                                                                                                parody?

                                                                                                anything at all? besides making sales - to profit from their fraudulant use of copyrighted works in their entirety?

                                                                                                enlighten me here - how do you use this section to justify their actions?
                                                                                                how do you equate what is being done, with what should be fair use as defined in your quote?

                                                                                                .
                                                                                                believe me - without free porn, just as many people will seek porn out on the Internet, and many more will pay if there is no free alternative, its not like sex is a fad - it can be milked much like any renewable resource - long term

                                                                                                i wasn't born with enough middle fingers - Marilyn Manson

                                                                                                Comment

                                                                                                • DonovanTrent
                                                                                                  Confirmed User
                                                                                                  • Dec 2006
                                                                                                  • 968

                                                                                                  #148
                                                                                                  Gideongallery, please post a scan (JPG or PDF is fine, your choice) of your law school diploma.
                                                                                                  Donovan Trent

                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                  • gideongallery
                                                                                                    Confirmed User
                                                                                                    • Aug 2003
                                                                                                    • 7082

                                                                                                    #149
                                                                                                    Originally posted by CrkMStanz
                                                                                                    so how are torrents / newsgroups / tubes (just the illegal stuff) / whatever covered by this clause in your deluded brain...

                                                                                                    are they posting full un edited works for criticism?

                                                                                                    comment?

                                                                                                    news reporting?

                                                                                                    teaching?

                                                                                                    scholorship?

                                                                                                    research?

                                                                                                    parody?

                                                                                                    anything at all? besides making sales - to profit from their fraudulant use of copyrighted works in their entirety?

                                                                                                    enlighten me here - how do you use this section to justify their actions?
                                                                                                    how do you equate what is being done, with what should be fair use as defined in your quote?

                                                                                                    .
                                                                                                    fair use is not frozen in time, new fair uses UNDEFINED in the original act have been established by the courts.

                                                                                                    Backup was established by the court
                                                                                                    timeshifting was established by the court
                                                                                                    formatshifting was established by the courts

                                                                                                    backup was extended to the cloud years ago
                                                                                                    timeshifting was extended to the cloud in july (supreme court decision)

                                                                                                    newer fair use rights like access shifting have been established in EU and are working their way thru the us court system.

                                                                                                    the repeated failed arguement made by RIAA and the MPAA is that network effect invalidates fair use rights. But that is as stupid a statement as saying that the video invalidates free speech. Video is just another medium, the swarm is just another medium the right stays true irregardless of the medium.

                                                                                                    “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

                                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                                    • Robbie
                                                                                                      Leaner, Meaner, Faster
                                                                                                      • Aug 2002
                                                                                                      • 20960

                                                                                                      #150
                                                                                                      Originally posted by gideongallery
                                                                                                      fair use is not frozen in time, new fair uses UNDEFINED in the original act have been established by the courts.

                                                                                                      Backup was established by the court
                                                                                                      timeshifting was established by the court
                                                                                                      formatshifting was established by the courts

                                                                                                      backup was extended to the cloud years ago
                                                                                                      timeshifting was extended to the cloud in july (supreme court decision)

                                                                                                      newer fair use rights like access shifting have been established in EU and are working their way thru the us court system.

                                                                                                      the repeated failed arguement made by RIAA and the MPAA is that network effect invalidates fair use rights. But that is as stupid a statement as saying that the video invalidates free speech. Video is just another medium, the swarm is just another medium the right stays true irregardless of the medium.
                                                                                                      Thanks Perry Mason...and yet there is this thread: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=921335

                                                                                                      That guys in jail. And oh yeah...The Pirate Bay : JAIL

                                                                                                      Weird how that is happening isn't it? I guess the judges forgot to ask Gideon "Lawyer Diploma From A Box Of CrackerJacks" Gallery about that.
                                                                                                      -Robbie
                                                                                                      ClaudiaMarie.Com

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      Working...