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:

shes the bomb diggity! :thumbsup

that is the excuse used by people who trip all over themselves to illegally download the no good material. if it is that bad stop pirating it.

post it then

If you had the chance to prove me wrong you would jump on it.... but you can't. :1orglaugh

seriously you just claimed you had the entire thing right in front of you and that your response

1. i don't need to prove you wrong, you made my point for me with your claim that the case has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

2. i don't have the case in front of me right now, so i would have to make a trip into the office to get it.

you on the otherhand made a very powerful claim about having all 17 pages in front of you.

so i repeat post then

Again... you would jump on the opportunity to prove me wrong, that is without a doubt.... and everyone here knows this. :winkwink:

Funny attempt to twist things, again though... but I only give you 1 out of 5 stars for it, the repeating of the same bullshit is dropping your score quickly.

For anyone interested in reading the GM complaint against Mongoose you can find it here.

And the core of it:

There's no copyright-related claim in the complaint.

I disagree. If I go to the store and buy a DVD and pay cash for it, I haven't given them any of my private information. Yes, I would be giving my information (or some form of it) to the company providing the service, but I don't see how that would violate privacy rights of the customer. If I go buy a gun I have to go through a background check, but the gun store didn't make the gun they are just distributing it.

By making me join a site that site is likely getting more of my personal information than any retail outlet would have especially if I paid in cash.








Here's the thing. Say one day all the major movie studios decided to get together and offer all of their customers free access to their content for means of backing up content they have already purchased. Do you think for a second they are going to do this without forcing the customers to prove they have purchased it in the past?

If they did this then systematically went after the torrent sites to have them remove all links to their content would you be fine with that. The studios are now providing you with exactly what you want so those people who are just backing up their content can get access to anything they would need which means the only people left using pirate sites would be people illegally downloading it.

Wow, you are a moron.

If you're importing knockoff Gucci shit from Asia and you get caught selling it, you pay a fine or maybe go to jail.

Intellectual property is no different than physical property. In the case above, it's stealing someone's design and then lying about the maker that's the problem.

How is that different than stealing someone's intellectual property, ie song, movie, etc and reselling it for profit?

Buy a copy of Windows or some such and knock it off then sell it... again, get caught and see if you don't get in trouble.

please people register software all the time

cd could have a login code printed on the back.

tv stations could print a login id on bill (rogersondemand.com)

store have loyalty programs which track your purchases and give you rewards

for an overwhelming majoirity of transactions this problem will not be an issue.


even your worst case senerio (above) is way better then spreading out that personal information to every single torrent site so they have the ability to "verify the buyers"






as long as they make it easy enough that people don't care

or

cover 100% of the cost of the verification



sure i don't care who get the ad views if it my fair use right is provided for free.

Is there anyone in the world cheaper than you? Anyone ?

.

I would imagine that if a site like The Pirate Bay went to the major movie studios and proposed a system like you describe that would allow people to verify that they have purchased the content so they were eligible for free backup downloads and thus prove that every download on the site is legit the studios would jump at that, offer to pay the cost and endorse it.

The reason it will never happen is because beyond TV shows I think almost all of the downloading that goes on in these sites is illegal and the site owners know it and if they were to go legit their traffic would drop to nothing. It is much more profitable for them to service the millions who download illegally while hiding behind the idea that a few are downloading legally and their rights shouldn't be trampled than it is to run a legitimate legal site and only service those with the right to actually download the content. Money talks and there is too much money in pirating for these guys to actually go legit. If the money would be the same they would have gone legit a long time ago instead of either fighting long, expensive legal battles or living in fear of being crushed at any time.

i have already paid for the content

fair use gives me the right to recover/timeshift that content for free


your demanding i pay twice for content i already paid for


i got a question for you are you willing to send me a check equal to all your expenses.

if not then you have someone just as "cheap" as me staring back at you every time you look in the mirror.

why should the pirate bay be responsible for developing such a solution

if the copyright holders want such a solution they should pay for it first.



you refuse to recognize the supreme court declaration that copyright is a monopoly.

You keep arguing it not even though the highest court in the land explictly declared it as such

you keep arguing that movie studios should have a right to choose film projectors over bit torrent even though the courts have ruled that choosing broadcast over betamax tapes

or cd over mp3 was not allowed.

if copyright holders like yourself are not going to budge one bit and actually choose to deliberately go backwards on what the court have ruled

then the definition of going legit is bending over and taking it up the ass.

If every major film studio came to The Pirate Bay and offered this system to them to verify that their downloaders own the content they are downloading so they can be sure all downloads are legal and they paid to have the technology developed AND they paid for any cost to operating this system AND they covered any cost that the site would have in regards to running this system the site would still turn them down flat. We both know it. If they were forced to only supply their services to legit customers they wouldn't make nearly the amount of money they make now.



Relax, take your meds then once they have kicked in go back and read what I wrote again. Nowhere do I mention any of this. I simply stated that sites like The Pirate Bay will never work with studios to provide a legitimate service to customers because it is far more profitable to offer it to those who want it illegally.

If the studios themselves offered this service I mentioned so their customers could get backups of their content how much traffic do you think it would take away from a site like the Pirate Bay? Would it be as much as 1%? I doubt it. Why? Because most of the people (other than those downloading TV shows) are taking stuff they have never paid for and don't have the right to own. You insist on allowing an illegal enterprise to operate in the name of a tiny number of legit customers who are just backing up their content.

In theory if the studios provided free backups to those who can prove they own the content and free download of TV shows for those that can prove they paid for it/have access to it then realistically there would be no need for a site like The Pirate Bay to exist because all customers would have that service now available to them from the studios. Yet we both know The Pirate Bay and sites like it would continue to thrive and you would continue to support them.

your wrong

if all fair uses including access shifting was respected then bit torrent would just be another medium you could legally get your content

that a hell of a lot of people who could legally choose bit torrent as a medium.



you can make such a claim until you try

and again if access shifting was respected you would need the support

competition (legitimate bit torrent provider) would win.



53% of all torrent traffic is tv shows

and it growing every single year

there is no way in hell you can come to the conclusion it would only be 1% change in traffic

and the only reason it a "tiny number of legit customers" is because your deliberately lying about the numbers.


i only download content i paid for from bit torrent

i use bit torrent as a vcr

if the studios gave me the same benefit as bit torrent give me i would bother using the pirate bay


I am point blank saying if every fair use including access shift was fully supported by the copyright holders i would not support the pirate bay one bit

You have no right to call me a liar, and tell me what i think.

especially when i have already told you this before

If you had to choose which would you pick when it came to downloading your favorite TV show.

1. Download from a torrent site where no questions are asked and you get the show commercial free.

2. Download from a studio owned site where you had to prove you had access to the content (it would be fast and easy and once you registered you wouldn't have to do it every time so it wouldn't be a major burden), but the shows still had commercials in them. Obviously you can fast forward past them, but they would still be there.

Which option would you go with?

considering the fact that when mpaa argued in favor of banning the vcr after they lost one of their complaints was the fact that a person recording their favorite movie on tv could pause recording while the commercials were playing to get commercial free version as a "permenent" copy.

http://cryptome.org/hrcw-hear.htm

how stupid do you have to be to not realize the "Choice" you just gave me was another example of you trying to go backwards on the rights the court have already given me.

the courts didn't make pause buttons that only worked during playback

they did prevent the pausing while recording

they granted me the right to make my archive commercial free if i wanted it

how can you not see that your actually trying to take way that court granted right with your "choice"

So a business should keep track of everything you buy from them incase you lose or damage your copy ? hahahahaha