it interesting how you believe a senator "problem" with the bill is bought yet all the money spent to get the bill in the first place is corupting in any way shape or form.

you might want to check the guys voting record, he has been pro free speech for years

google money went to guys who are pro free speech, not the other way around.

I don't believe that any politician will ever be on our side.

It would be political suicide in todays uptight and sexually repressed American society. We all know that everybody loves porn...and everybody denies it.

I don't really see content theft as a free speech issue.

it not

it everything else that get caught in the net when copyright holders use these over reaching laws to take down/redefine fair use.

As I recall, the intellectual property laws were in place long before the Internet so where is the redefining happening?

Seems to me that the thieves are trying to do all the redefining.

how about trying reverse the timeshifting ruling that allows me to get a commercial free timeshifted version from the swarm


or arguing that timeshifting never allowed distribution (to justify disallowing using torrents as a vcr)

even though mpaa failed to get tape locking (preventing a recording from playing in any vcr that didn't record the content)

a failure which clearly proves that distribution (lending a copy of the show to someone else who missed it) was covered by the original right.


and don't get me started on commentary, backup, recover.

You made my point for me that the thieves are redefining the copyright laws.

What is thieving today may be legit tomorrow at the copyright holder's expense.

what the fuck are you talking about

when the vcr first established the right of timeshifting

it include the right to make a commercial free "permanent collection" (see quote from the vcr debates in congress)




yet if i use the swarm as the medium for that "permanent collection" copyright holders are arguing that infringing.

that clearly trying to reverse a right i have already been grant

to try and make the new technology (torrents) inferior to the old technology (Betamax).

Betamax is inferior to torrents on a technology scale, gideon. Just to clear that up. It's the decades, not the argument.

Pretty sure that law only applies to someone taping something from a source they originally paid for or had rights to. I can't tap into my neighbours cable and "backup" what's coming through his signal, well I can, but it's not legal.

Doing so would be illegal beyond the stealing cable aspect, or tampering with their equipment - because, it would be displaying it to a large audience. Same way bars have to pay a different licensing fee to show a pay per view event in public, or why you can't buy a DVD and sell tickets for people to watch it.

If letting 500 people watch a DVD I purchased is illegal, then why is it okay to share it with 500 strangers on the internet?

If I remember correctly, the copyright holders fought Sony over the introduction of VCRs that resulted in the Betamax case giving rise to the right to time shift television shows.

The copyright holders then fought the VHS video stores over the right to rent the movies on VHS tapes that the stores purchased with the resulting decision establishing the "First Sale Doctrine."

In both cases, new rights were established by those who opposed the perceived rights of the original copyright holders: ie. time-shifting and right to rent.

we are talking about using the torrents as a timeshifting device

the modern day equivalent of borrowing your next door neighbours copy of k night rider because the power went out on your vcr




the only difference between the two is that instead of having a million 1:1 transactions

you have a million people in the same swarm


not based on the arguement you just made

betamax cassette can be used for timeshifting

while the superior torrent can't be.

That the point i am making

that the point those new rights have been established

and copyright holders are trying to deny those rights for the technology of torrents.

with bs arguements like sock just tried to make.

What's your first language gideon?

Yes, new rights were established BY THE COURTS. Until that final decision was made, the violators were just thieving as the torrents are now.

If each torrent could only be accessed by the individual uploader, the time shift argument might be valid. However, the current paradigm does not support the time shifting argument due to the public availability of the torrent.

It is just thieving in my opinion.

Yeah I mean this whole ongoing never ending discussion with you centers around one thing:

You know that current laws about recording things are in place that give you rights to use torrents as an unlimited backup device.

Clearly the use of PVR devices backs up that argument, as well as all these sites staying online.

We're arguing that the changes in the landscape since those laws were enacted are so immense that the laws are no longer suitable and clearly aren't working as was intended when they were enacted.

You hope that never happens, while we hope that we can make some money again some day.

but we are not talking about new right just the same right for new technology

what your doing by calling tv torrenters theives is like trying to argue that pvr are illegal because they didn't establish timeshifting rights all over again

oh really

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud

you might want to reread the supreme court decision then

this cloud included the public internet.

the swarm is just another form of a cloud.

exactly

except the solution is not in taking away fair use rights but in comming up with a put your shit on the cassettes solution for the technology

:Oh crap You're not gonna start droning on about "branding bugs" now are you?

.

very true but there are also people out there with 10 years of downloaded content. technology won't stop them but would definitly stop any future stealing.

gideon, your points are all great and fine... but the problem with torrent sites is that they are not used as VCRs, and you yourself know this very well.. They might be used as VCRs by SOME of it's users, but its obvious that its not the case for most of them!

I think that is the big problem we are facing, that we need to try to find a way to make the illegal use impossible or very hard while the legal use of the technology remains.

But you yourself know that if someone downloads a torrent of a screener, this is CLEARLY not VCR-like use. The content could not have been recorded by the previous owner anyway..

The online VCR companies btw that exist, do it where if you do not tell them to record something BEFORE it starts, you can not download it or at least you can not unlock it... That makes it OBVIOUSLY VCR-like and thus fully legal...

I just think torrents are very different... and clearly are so in many many cases. How do we stop those uses of torrents?

1. again more then 50% of all torrent traffic is tv show so by DEFINITION most people ARE using it like a VCR.



we didn't ban the vcr because people could use them to make bootleg copies of shit, the companies adapted to the medium change and created a new revenue stream to replace the one that was lost

compare that with trying to fix the problem by changing the laws, the DMCA was designed to replace the long complicated process of getting a court order to get content taken down with a simple takedown process, now you guys are complaining because that new process is "flawed".

the pattern is guarrenteed to repeat itself, you just need to choose the pattern you want to repeat, one that leads to new revenue, or one that simple leads to another problem "flaw"


so what, torrent can be used for all kinds of fair use including ones that have not been established yet by the courts

WE are on the verge of a new fair use being founded, access shifting is just as legitimate as timeshifting

and demanding that i watch a movie at a specific location is just as much of an abuse as demanding that i watch a movie/tv show on a specific day, at a specific time.




but that the point technologically torrents are superior to those offering because they combine all the benefits of multiple fair uses with the network effect.

backup/recovery/timeshifting all combine together to make an infinite sized hard drive pvr

i can wait until the season is ended and timeshift all the episodes at the end, i can timeshift content i paid for but didn't realize was something i would like (like supernatural for me)

all because other fans of the show act as a redundant backup for my POTENTIAL viewing habits.

problems in the current model which would normally prevent me from getting access (supernatual not advertising how like buffy/b5 they were for example) .

choice is expanded by allow the technology to move forward naturally, rather then looking backwards and trying to make an online version of an outdate technology.

They just need to make giving away the same as selling. If someone was selling tapes with copyright materials on them in North America, they're just asking to go to jail. Yet if you give away a small portion of that tape several thousand times to people on the internet for free, you've done no wrong?

Since i m not an American feel free to say My opinion does not matter, but if any content producer thinks it's a good thing, then i won't laugh but, wonder how such foolish people are able to serv until now.

to make afew bucks more for a while You think this is something good, but don't You think You also ask trouble for Yourself?

when you go and cry gov to watch Your dumb ass, don't you also give them right to tell you how to run Your business?

if internet wasn't such a volantary community, we wouldn't have those great opportunities to sell porn and other stuff world wide.

if Your shit is stolen, it's Your responsibility to take care of it.

there are bunch of technologies, don't tell me these pirates got more brains than you do.

there is no way You can stop someone changing dns and get the same shit one way or an other.

with supporting this, You are only shooting Yourself in the foot, however you are unaware of it :2 cents:

You have a good point Atlantis Cash.

But the problem is that it is the govt. who made the law that has the loophole in it because it was written by people who at the time didn't understand the internet.

It's outdated and needs to be re-written to keep up with the times.

I hate the fucking govt.
But I have to live by the laws they already have in place. And that law is killing honest people's business in many industries. It needs to be re-written to reflect today's technology.

I don't think that would be handing over the internet to the govt. al all. I think it's something necessary to stop the brazen stealing that thieves are doing right to our face.

I don't need the govt. to do anything for me. But they did something TO me with the DMCA laws as they stand. All I need is an even playing field and then guys like Fabian will be back to mowing my yard and not making millions off of the work of other people.

Giddeon, I agree, for TV again its fine... but you can hardly argue that a movie that is only available in theaters should be legally trade-able.. that just seems ridiculous. Why make theaters at that point? Again, I see no problem with TV and torrents, as you said, its basically just a VCR at that point. Or at least its similar.

Robbie,
tell me where exactly the DMCA law has a loophole and how you suggest you fix it. What would you change in the law to make it "good"?
I mean, actually EXPLAIN to me what change you would do in the logic of the law, how would you make what tube sites do illegal?

(someone tell Robbie to read my post)

Ok they didn't understand how internet worked x years ago, do You think did they get it for today?

Burocrats and Politisions are mostly thick headed, don't expect them to perform solutions but new problems.

Politicians are out for themselves in my opinion.
But there is too much money being lost by legitimate mainstream businesses online for them to ignore this problem. The people putting money in their pockets are demanding that it be corrected.

And I do believe that "yes" the companies affected do understand how it works and are actively working on shaping the legislation and treaties that govt.'s are moving towards.

Thieves have been using the DMCA law in a perverted way to STEAL and profit off of others. As I said earlier...just look at Pornhub. Millions of people visit that site everyday. Take away all the content that doesn't belong to them? That site would be a ghost town.

Something has to be done or the internet will cease to be a place to do viable business for people creating their own content. I think that much has already been shown just by looking at how many companies went out of business already and how many are struggling.

And yes, some will say: "They just couldn't adapt"

"Adapt" means one of two things: Profit off of stolen content like Manwin, Pirate Bay, fileshare sites.....or protect your content and spend time and effort fighting to survive while the Manwins of the world laugh at you.

Neither one is acceptable. The only solution is for the loophole in the DMCA law to be closed and copyright to actually mean something again.

Well said, Robbie.:2 cents:

Not going to happen in America.

from my point of view..

1 - any site can upload any copyright-abuse digital thing it wants, claiming 'user submitted' (even if the site owners either do it themselves or pay others to do it for them) and profit from advertising or selling traffic. If they have to take down content - it can be immediatly re-upped.

2 - the copyright owner must FIND the infringers, and who can moniter every possible infringing site? After 'finding' the infringing site the owner must submit the DMCA, it must be in the correct format or it can be 'rejected' by the infringing site, ultimatly some sites can just 'ignore' DMCA notices with little or no penalty, and continue to profit.

DMCA is only a mechanism to remove content after discovery - a way to deal with something after the fact, it is not a tool to stop "infringement practice" and impose actual penalties on repeat offenders / sites

DMCA needs to be replaced by Laws such as the "PROTECT IP" bills being proposed - putting the onus on the infringer - an emphasis to not do it in the first place - instead of putting the onus on the content producer / copyright holder to have to 'FIND" the infringer.

digital product needs to be protected under the same governances as physical product - DMCA does not satisfy that.


and IMHO - 'Backups' should only be classified as such if they are private - if they can NOT be obtained publically - either by public torrent or by a public link to a 'file locker'

also IMO - digital piracy should not be looked at solely as 'theft', but also counterfieting



:321GFY:321GFY
and giddyboy... there are TONS of torrents out there with only 1 seeder - therefore if I take a copy I am not entitled to then I may be breaking the law - but that seeder is too, even if his torrent is a legit 'backup' to him - he is feeding me the whole copy- your whole argument for ONLY going after the non-entitled downloader is bullshit.
:321GFY:321GFY

.

CrkMStanz,

1) PROTECT IP says sites following DMCA do not fall under sites that could be seized according to PROTECT IP. So I do not think you actually mean replacing DMCA with PROTECT IP would solve your issue.

2) You are also basically saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that you want all sites that allow user submitted content to be shut down and made illegal? Meaning, facebook needs to stop allowing user uploaded items, all the image hosts out there that let you manage your photos and share them need to be closed, all of flickr.com basically is illegal, twitter can not be allowed to let people link to content...

3) You also seem to want the definition of "hosting service" to be changed. But I am not sure to what, how do you define what is a hosting service and what is not? Since you clearly do not want a HOST liable for what its users upload, right? IE, you are a user of your host, your host is thus a user submitted content service. And if you upload illegal content, your host would be liable without DMCA. How do you fix that?

And please, give me answers to 2) and 3) which are not short ones, actually define HOW you want to fix it. Suggest how to define each...

think about it for a second
the current model of granting exclusivity to a venue is killing innovation

imagine what theaters would do to compete if dvd/ppv/television got the movie on the same day.

They would have no choice but to use technology that only cost effective at the theater level to make the viewing experience valuable enough to justify the inconvience.

6 spectrum color/ autoscopic 3d/ ofactory triggers/

that technology would perculate down to home market.

All that technology is being held back because of the access shifting abuse.

Take a look at the technologies that can be traced back to the commercialization of solid state disk (after diamond rio gave us the format shifting fair use)

that what we are losing so that movie producers can make an extra $3-4 per showing.

except if you have a million seeders and you taked a copy your not entitled to you breaking the law

the point isn't how many people you take it from

btw look at the law again


seeder is not liable for the actions of the other person/ he has no way of knowing if the person has a right or not

he trust that they do, and isn't liable if they lied to him/her

the parallel to your own business is clearly

every one of you KNOW that little johnny COULD steal his daddy credit card to get access to porn

your not liable IF that happens.

same basic principle in this case.

Daddy's credit card has an authorization security code that only Daddy knows. False analogy here in my opinion.

However, making an unauthorized upload is the same as making as making an unauthorized purchase on a credit card in the fact that both are stealing from the true owners of the property.

which is on the back of the credit card

ok let say your right in special case where there is only 1 seeder and the only person in the entire world who wants that content is not authorized to get it

the seeder would be distributing the content without autohorization

how exactly would you catch that person, the second an authorized person participated in that swarm (agent of the copyright holder) the 1:1 relationship would be broken and you would have the no whole copy situation

the senerio your trying to use to justify your position is impossible to exist

the only way 1:1 relationship can exist AND have the evidence necessary to convict is if the leacher is an authorized agent of the copyright holder, and therefore has a right to download the content.

BTW
you still haven't explained why little johnny stealing the credit card should gives you a pass on the crime of selling porn to minors when similar lack of knowledge shouldn't give a pass to seeder

You guys missed the most important part of that legislation: ?private right of action?

This gives any struggling lawyer a new way to make cheddar.

If you thought ambulance chasing was rough on the respondents, wait till you see this in action

yes, we need to get away from the 'content owner must find the infringing sites and politely ask if they would kindly take it down' way of doing things, to replace DMCA the new laws would have to absorb it as a way of tracking repeat offenders - submit the DMCA to not only the site but to some kind of registry to track repeat offenders.

we both know that existing 'infringing' sites already monitor their 'user uploads' for some stuff (CP, banned studios, beastiality, or ANYTHING that doesn't fit the motif of their site) - there should be no problem in requiring all 'upload sites' to expand that list at the request of any content owner / copyright holder

Don't pull the giddyboy twist on words here - you are smarter than that. It isn't black or white. I am saying they need to be responsible for what they make available - user submitted content is supposed to be content that the owner made or owns, content they have a right to post for the world - If Matt and Trey want their full episodes of South Park up onYouTube, then they can post it, postings by anyone other than them (or the studio, or whoever actually owns the right to post) should have some real ramifications, to both the uploaders, and to the site that allows it.

simply put - make your own dam videos and post them on YouTube (or anywhere else)

If you absolutly just have to start a "discussion" on someone elses work, post the trailer/promo - or better yet, post a video of YOU, clearly using your right to Free Speech, actually talking about the content - and link to the content OWNERS site for the full version - thats some real 'Free Speech' in action right there

its not the 'user submitted' sites that need to be made 'illegal', its the allowance of the current practices that needs to be addressed - and SOMEONE has to be held accountable (the submitter) and SOMEONE has to be responsible (Site Owners).

pawn shop owners are responsible for what comes in to their stores - in fact, in some way every business is responsible for what they take in and in turn offer to the public
- diamonds from banned countries
- automotive parts obtained from chop shops
- food from reputable sources
- news services and their sources
I could go on and on with this list... there is NO reason that 'user submitted' sites shouldn't be held accountable for their sources of 'input'

The fix is to get to a place where digital is treated the same as physical in the eyes of the law.

Didn't think I went there but, yes... At some point in the chain it would become apparent that some 'Hosts' are dealing in a large volume of infringing sites, and just as the individual sites should be responsible for their own 'uploaders', Hosts should be responsible for their individual sites, and ISPs should be responsible for their individual hosts. If you continue to allow Infringement on the site/host you own, you should be accountable, you should risk losing your site, or having your hosting services shut down.

I am not saying 'MONITOR EVERYTHING' - I am saying that when it becomes apparent there needs to be repercussions - right now there are none - everyone is free to carry on infringing and only take something down if they are 'caught' - thats all well and good but the next step is to tally how many times they are caught, and then take appropriate action.


it is, of course too complex to answer without a gideon style novel

NONE of this deprives anyone of their 'Free Speech' - it would still allow you to

.

ok care to explain who documentaries like "this film is not yet rated" could ever be made then

I got your answer Fabian...since you have said repeatedly over and over that the tube sites are a small, small part of Manwin's business...

Then do the RIGHT thing. Remove user upload, and then remove all content that you don't own.

No big loss for you there since you claim to be a genius at business and the tube sites are so small to Manwin.

If you did that there would be no need for you to worry about DMCA since you would own all the content...you know, like a REAL site is supposed to.

But you won't and you can't. Your bosses (the real owners) bought the company because they want all the money being generated by those tube sites...which of course is why you guys just went on a buying spree and bought a bunch more big tube sites.

ALL of that traffic and money from those tube sites is generated off of the work of others.

Yet you play hide and seek with the DMCA law and then try to act like you are a bigshot. You are a clown.