Fuck off you cheap cunt.

Can we hear again how you once bought a FLOCK OF SEAGULLS 8 track so now you are entitled to download the same version digitally for free.

I'd like to hear that too. In the 80's I was in high school and bought dozens of cassettes. Over the years they were destroyed, wore out or got lost. This means I get to download all those albums free now right?

Only if you are to cheap/broke to pay for them.

.

Somehow I have a feeling Gideon will tell us that we are entitled to free downloads. :)

I hope google fight this all the way and waste so much money on doing so that they can no longer dominate the search engines. It would be such a blessing because they are one of the biggest advocates of content theft. Iv said this before that google is one of the biggest problems of content theft and we all support google in one way or the other. I would dance naked on my keyboard and slap my balls on the screen when the mighty google falls. I know this will ever be likly to happen for a very long time, but one can always dream about it

So A Big Fat Fuck To Google :321GFY

Hmmmmmm, anyone remember my earlier post where I mentioned that arrogance
was the problem?

:1orglaugh


>>"you can't copy a corvette like you can an mp3"

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH?

So the corvette design is not "copyrighted"?

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

God damn! I'm being "ed-jew-makated" today.

:1orglaugh


Please rap the following lyrics to a serious hip hop beat :

Gidiot is a Fidiot
Gidiot is a Fidiot
Gidiot is a Fidiot
Fuck Fuck Fuck

Gidiot is a Fidiot
Gidiot is a Fidiot
Gidiot is a Fidiot
Fuck Fuck Fuck

Yeahhhhhhhhh! Boyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

(add superfluous vinyl scratching here)

repeat verse.

Fade out:

Yeah yeah yeah.
Break it on down.

......

[

your exact word


you will notice neither of us said corvette DESIGN

we both said corvette as in the physical good that actually has property rights associated with it.

the design is IP which is in the area of no property rights, but liciencing rights instead

btw

you might want to look up the differences between patent law and copyright law because even your misrepresentations are completely wrong.

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

just because i can do something legally doesn't entitle me to benefit if it is not provided.

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

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

Ok, so now we can copy a corvette without copying the corvette design?

:helpme

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.