50 antipiracy blocking laws...

Google will lose this... it's not freedom of speech at all. If they were to limit the information on how to pirate, that would be limiting free speech. And, the U.S. Courts have ruled several time that linking to pirated material is illegal. Google's lucky they don't seize the Google domain - that's normally what happens in these situations.

That's the closest you've ever been to saying something correct.

I did in fact use the word copyright to refer to a patent of design in a
hypothetical scenario.

But the basis still holds because there is no device to "copy" a corvette at this
time but if such a device did exist then it would be covered under copyright.

So you took a hypothetical and tried to make it a "literal" so in the end you're still
fucking stupid.

:1orglaugh

again moron you need to look up the difference between patent and copyright law

i can take a blue print for a house/car and USE that design to build a house/car

WITHOUT copying the design at all.

copying the design would create 2 DESIGNS (the original and the copy)

using the design would create 1 physical product and 1 design (the original)


get it moron

or was that to hard for your pea brain to understand.

What a crock of shit this thread is. OF COURSE Google is against this law. Ever heard of YouTube? If the law were to pass, Google could be liable for not millions, but billions.

Here's how it will play out: Google will lobby for changes, which they'll get. The law will be watered down, but the net effect is that certain file sharers that reward posters for uploading popular copyrighted material, will be driven out of business.

Google has absolutely no interest in protecting anything but its bottom line. They don't give a rat's ass about freedom of speech.

no you idiot

the corvette is a PHYSICAL good covered by property law

if such a device was magically created (forget the conservation of matter and energy) then property laws would have to change to meet that need.

However if we could create any physical good for free out of thin air, you would really need money anymore, and everyone could have everything they could ever want so the point of property law would be moot.

You're the moron. Look up 17 U.S.C. §102(a)(8) and §102(a)(5).

If you still think otherwise, CITE THE APPLICABLE LAW. Stop spouting your usual unsubstantiated shit. Or worse, your "proof" in the form of someone else's unsubstantiated blog article.

Carmakers routinely file for design patents, which are tangible IP, despite your statements otherwise. Certain designs may be further associated with a trademark (e.g. the Coke bottle), which do not expire unless the holder abandons the mark.

Many car replica makers have been sued to their last dime, thinking the same as you. Wanna try it?

Particularly distinctive buildings are almost always protected by a design patent, in addition to the copyrights afforded since the law was changed in 1990.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I have gideon on IGNORE. But it's still fun to watch him get BITCH slapped :1orglaugh

As per normal none of what you wrote here appears to make any sense.

How can a copyright holder stop people from doing something they choose not to do?

Honestly, what you wrote here doesn't qualify as basic English so you are going to have be a little more clear if you want me to understand what you are saying.

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-new...t-ar86840.html

:1orglaugh

OH! GideonGallery is proved wrong AGAIN!!!
Fucking priceless!

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

really want to show me one of those cases where they won damges based on COPYRIGHT law

or are you too stupid to understand this kind of stupid misrepresentation is exactly what i am talking about when i said

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

It's even more fun to do some of the slapping.

But avoid it if you are on a budget or trying to cut back on drinking because
man do you suck up some booze trying to stop the dry throat created from all
the laughter.

my god the educational system you went thru must be pathetic if you don't understand the relationship between nouns and pronouns

the pronoun for "people" is they not you moron

the only noun that you could reference in that case is copyright holder (both because of the singular nature and because you are talking the copyright holders side in this arguement)

so when i said

everyone who is not a world class moron understood that to mean

sorry your to stupid to know how pronouns are associated to respective nouns

What a dick.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

gideongallery

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

and you have just shown the difference between idiots how define their understanding of the law from press releases vs those who actually look at the cases themselves.

you might want to look at the actual case itself to see exactly what part was a copyright iinfringement, what part was a trademark infringement and what part was a patent infringement.

i will give you a hint the misappropriation (copying )of the design from the only official lliciencee was the copyright infringement.

of the three arguements this one is the weakest because they reverse engineered the design from a licienced replica.

gideongallery
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.

There are nouns and then there are unnouns.

There are nouns that we know are nouns, and there are unnouns that we know are unnouns and yet there are unnouns that we don't know about.




:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Okay, let's go back to your original post and break it down. Talk to me like I am undereducated and show off your skills here because, honestly, I can't understand what you are saying. So I will go through it sentence by sentence for you.

First sentence you wrote: "why is it so hard for you to understand that simply eliminating your "right" to stop me if i choose to do something does not represent me being entitled to do something."

I think you are saying that taking away my right to stop you from doing something does not then entitle you to do it. Correct?

Second sentence: "just because i can do something legally doesn't entitle me to benefit if it is not provided."
Makes no sense. If what is not provided?

Third sentence: "And there is nothing to stop as the copyright holder from fullfilling that need and collecting the revenue that the pirates are currently getting."

While this sentence is a mess, it appears you are saying that the copyright holders could provide the same service that the pirating sites are and gain the revenue from it themselves. If this is true, you are technically correct. The difference is that copyright holders might want you to prove that you have purchased the content before they allow you do download your backup copy from them.

Last sentence: "all we are talking about is eliminating the "Right" to stop people from doing it IF you choose not to."

This, again, makes no sense. You want to eliminate the right to stop people from doing what if you choose not to? Does this not fall under the category of piss poor educational systems you just bashed me for? You said yourself: the pronoun for "people" is they not you moron yet now you are using YOU where it appears you should be using THEY.

But grammar aside. All of this is bunch of Gideon mumbo jumbo. Just answer my basic question. I was in high school in the 1980's. During that time I purchased dozens of music cassettes. Over the years they have all been lost, destroyed, worn out etc. Can I now just download the digital version of the album since I have already owned it?

You haven't read shit about this court case... copyright, patents? Hahahahahaaha - You're so full of shit.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you previously said that was a patent.

My bad.




PS: Why would the "official lliciencee" need a license if there was no copyright?

:error

Dang..... no more lies from Gideon? Bummer.

sorry what exactly about the statement do you not understand

the copyright "infringement" complaint is an attempt to invalidate reverse engineering using copyright law

it will lose.

they might win on the other arguements which are at least potentially valid.

Shut up.... shut up..... shut up!

It was NOT a copyright infringement complaint, YOU HAVEN'T READ THE COURT CASE....throughout this thread you've done nothing but pull bullshit out of your ass... and lies.

How about this.... YOU actually read the case and stop pretending you read anything but the press release.

Then you might pull some facts out of your ass that are correct.

gideongallery

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

yes there is a difference between being entitled to do something (which would include me having the right to force you to do things i need you to do fulfill that right) and having a privilege to do something (where i can do it as long as i don't force you do something)

again i am not forcing the copyright holder to give me the music for free, i am not restricted from recovering the music IF someone provides it to me for free.

and your point is

fair use of a pirate site is a byproduct of the copyright holder not providing the recovery service to their CUSTOMERS.

you don't have a recovery right to content you have never bought.

let me get this straight

i point out you(kane) misrepresented what i said because you misassociated the pronoun "you" to "people" instead of "copyright holder" like the rules of grammer required you (kane) to do.

and now your arguing that it doesn't make since if you continue to make the misassociation.

really simple solution

stop making the pronoun mismatch

you = copyright holder

they = people

do a simple word substitution and then read the statement again

or simple read the clarification i already spelled out for you already

yes conditionally

1. if you can find it
2. if you have the records to prove you bought it.

i have been right every single time i have made a court case prediction

if you want to believe that because i am some sort of super genius who can pull the right answer "out of his ass"

go ahead

i will tell you the truth it because i actually read the cases instead of just the press releases.

First, I never said prediction - I'm talking about the b.s. facts you think you know about the case.

Your prediction is wrong because your facts are pulled out of your ass. This is not a copyright or patent case, at all.... it's a trademark and unfair business case.

Finally, this is all I wanted to know. So then why no just do this. Make it so that sites like the Pirate Bay which give access to copyrighted materials are forced to make their users register and prove that they have the right to that content?

You yourself argue that most of the torrent traffic is people using it legally so they shouldn't lose any traffic, they are just making people prove they have the right to it. Then if there is any question by the copyright holder about who is downloading their content it is easily solved.

So in your file cabinet would you look under "Donny and Marie" or "The Osmonds" to get your Tower Records receipt for your favorite album?

Double post ?

ok then

If a copyright violating site make one "mistake" - or hell, 10 million "mistakes" its perfectly ok to just 'take down' their 'mistake' (but ONLY if they are caught) and carry on profiting from all their 'other mistakes' - you are saying that they should be completely protected?

but

If a copyright holder makes ONE mistake - they lose everything??


how about we make this at least a little bit equal?

:321GFY

.

:(

Why did you do this to me?

WHY??????

Why do you keep boasting about who you have on ignore? Do you think GG gives a shit? Are you trying to annoy him?

I really don't get it.

It's simple. Robbie actually thinks so highly of himself that he considers punishment to be on his ignore list.

I too am on Robbie's ignore list, which means since I can not possibly be appreciated by the creator of all things Adult, I probably don't exist. I'm not actually posting this now.

Reminds me of British newspapers running the headline "Europe Cut Off!" when Nazi Uboats were causing havok in the channel.

because this would violate the privacy rights of the customers

your talking about a company outside the sales process having to confirm your buying habits to grant you access

that is totally and completely different then company who makes the sales just having a login that still gives you access to the content you paid for.

you have already given the company who is making the sale your private information so there is no privacy right violation in having that company provide the fair use right






as long as the copyright holders are willing to pay for the cost of that extra verification

including the 10k per privacy violation that it would have to have
no problem

of course just having them provide the life time free access to content for backup and recovery rights without violating my privacy right would of course be the better solution

if they can't afford it or don't want to
well ann. access to the content on the pirate bay gives me my fair use rights and retains my privacy rights too.

your talking about making the host liable for other peoples posting

that the mistake your talking about.

DMCA allows a censoring of content based on a simple form letter

no court order /no proof of infringement/ no weighing if the action is fair use

content is down

it may come back up if the person want to dispute it (and accept the huge legal penalty if they are wrong)



because it a choice

they could simply use the old takedown process and avoid the liablity

it simple use the new uber takedown process for the shit you are 100% certain is infringing

use the less effective slower process for the shit your not 100% certain.

The best solution would be if the most developed countries accepted laws forcing file sharing companies to control and accept only the content uploaders have licenses to. This would mean the end to the illegal uploads while keeping "freedom".

Everyone should be responsible for the content that is on his website :2 cents:

If they can force site owners to only use 2257 compliant content and control it, why not force them to publish legal licensed files only?

There's no such thing as copyright protection.....unless you go to court and spend thousands of dollars trying to enforce your rights. And most people never do that.

this case is interesting because it attempts to use copyright/patent law to invaidate reverse engineering that why it crossed my desk.


the complaint in the case include an arguement about copyright infringement

it includes a patent claim

it include a trademark claim

it includes and unfair business practise claim

the "news" site that latched on to the copyright infringement part of that complaint.

the copyright part is not going to hold water it bogus, but that doesn't stop the lawyers from putting it in the complaint, and until a judge rules it will be part of the case.

the patent is iffy (again trying to disqualify reverse engineering)


the trademark and unfair business practise claim is the one with teeth

but the point i was making was idiots like blackmonster/robbie who get their law "news" from press release based new reporting sites

wouldn't realize that only valid part of the case would be the trademark and unfair business practice part. so they used it as proof that copyright law apply to physical goods (totally wrong btw).


the case is a squeeze play

to get out from the patent/copyright infringement part mongoose will have to prove that the reverse engineering generated the design specs

if they point out the differences to justify the position (normal process in such a case)

those differences will be used as proof of trademark/UFB (your diluting the brand by using an inferior version and representing it as a replica of our brand)

it very cool case legally

you just killed the documentary/parody industry

you might want to tell weird al

http://alyankovic.wordpress.com/the-gaga-saga/

and micheal moore they don't have a right to express themselves any more.

WTF is this crap? It includes a patent claim it includes copyright? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Other than, doing a search in the court filing for the word copyright or patent returns ZERO results while the word trademark returns 21 results.

I truly don't get why you just continue to lie... it just makes you look pathetic by this point.

you made the same arguement about me not reading the JH case too

believe what you want it doesn't matter

your statemement still confirms exactly the point i was making

blackmonster/robbie were both wrong copyright law has nothing to do with this case

weather it bogus complaint within the filing (body, not header only) or it never existed (your claim) it doesn't matter

the proof that i am wrong is total BS.

Then I must have been right about that case.

I believe the facts.... that you're talking out of your ass about a case that you have zero clue about. You called blackmonster and robbie out for only reading the article, when YOU did the exact same thing - then proceeded to talk smack like you had a clue about it. hahahaha

I've got the the entire complaint in front of me, all 17 pages of it, exactly what they're being sued for down to the fine detail.

The proof that you're right is total bullshit, the proof that you're wrong, full of shit, and lie out of your ass, is 100% factual.

But I'll let you continue to attempt to worm your way out of this one, it's rather entertaining.

And you guys wonder why there is no good music these days and Hollywood keeps churning out crappy movies.

CP is always a crime but fair use is never CP :2 cents: