You can't trust me to read... classic. I think I should feel insulted.. yet I don't

Wow.. a history lesson on GFY... who would have thought. Very insightful.. thank you. Why do I need to rent the movies? i can just download them from a torrent site for free, right?

Your biggest mistake is in thinking that every scenario outside of what has been defined is fair use.

You take something simple, like getting a tape from your friend, and copying it at your house because your VCR went to shit or your power went down, and then liken it to getting the same from Vladomir in Russia or Punjab in India via torrent. How can that be an apples to apples comparison??? In the first, this is someone you are very acquainted with and knowledgable of. Your intention is not to distribute the content widely. In the latter, you have no clue who the suppliers are and there is no control as to whom receives the content. Absolutely different thoughts entirely.

If your friend was in the habit of taking that tape recording, or CD, or whatnot, and not only sharing it with you down the street, but then going door to door and offering it to everyone in the neighborhood, nay the city or state, you now have problems and the original copyright holder would be on his ass without question. The scale has overcome the fair use intention. This is where your argument breaks down. Just because it may be acceptable at the basic level does not bring that assumption to the grandiose level and make it OK there.

For all that education you have (as you can obviously read beyond a 1st grade level), you should really investigate the two words Fair and Use. Where would you think it is FAIR for anyone to make items available when I should be the one controlling the financial distribution of them? It is competing with the distribution of my product... FREE vs. CHARGED... who honestly cares about anything beyond the fact that the ones traficking the FREE content are not controlling it properly. They would be no different than someone delivering controlled substances (prescribed medicines) without a license..... here ya go.. oh, you say you have a right to Morphine.. OK, I trust ya.. thanks!!!

For all your legal wrangling.. how can you not agree to the fact that it has gotten out of control and opinions such as yours continue to support that fact? I would be happy to support TPB if they didn't traffick in goods they have no right to distribute. Don't give me the bullshit of people having backups or recovering, as 99% of the files are current versions where the original purchaser would have recourse to interact with the seller. P2P is the same. You go to the law, but you never address responsibility and accountability. Why should the user be given such rights? I don't believe that they have been and I do believe that people twist and bend the laws to their own satisfaction.

You can call me an ass or idiot all you like, but your opinion is in supporting people that are taking money from the pockets of artists and producers. People really don't like to create something, just to learn that the current market has determined that their product can be distributed for free very easily and there are no controls that will reasonably stop it. It tends to piss people off when you fuck around with their pocketbooks and ability to make money. At that point, they could really give a flying fuck about you having the ability to backup Windows95 13 years down the road when their musical production or video production that was released last week is now being shared at a rate of 10,000 to every 1 that is sold. The more that happens, the less likely it is for the creators to continue what they are doing because they are getting fucked over. You can only have a free ride for so long before it comes back and bites you in the ass. Such as getting fined $220K for sharing music files.

And if I am the whiz in the adult industry that can move the traffic, what's to say that I don't require a nice sum of money for my efforts? Perhaps something along the line of what a record company charges for their services?

Tell me the honest truth, name 10 bands that have made it big because of MySpace.... or did they get noticed because of MySpace popularity and then sign with the big bad record company?

Why would I justify paying $30-40 for someone that I may have never heard of or for that matter is a mid level band? Because I heard them on Myspace? Like it or not, until the model is changed in your car and in your office, radio play is the way most Americans hear music. It's that repetition on the airwaves that makes a difference. Where do you get that repetition on MySpace? or anywhere on the Internet for that matter? Radio stations have a lot to say about who is popular and who is not.... and who are the radio stations beholden to??? the record labels. The big promotors. The advertisers. They control what we hear and what is popular.

They are the reasons that albums get sold and in turn why a band becomes popular enough to tour.

Biggest tour in the world right now??? Little Ms. baby girl Cyrus (sorry, don't know her first name)... a.k.a. Hannah Montana. Making bank. What would she have without the Disney Channel?? What would she have without that label? Not much.. in fact, she wouldn't even be a star.

The model may change... it may adapt... but you think that RadioHead, PearlJam, Madonna, etc. are going to bring down Sony and the likes? If I had money to put on it I would wager no. I would wager that the delivery may change, but not in a huge way.

Absolutely true regarding speculation. Who knows. Change is inevitable.. it just depends on what the change is.

Whether they sell assets or not doesn't change the fact that they will still exist. My opinion is that regardless of their size, they will be specialized enough that their skillsets will far outweigh the Internet path and their clients will be much more popular and profitable.

People have been saying prices are high since before Napster, but that doesn't address a free market economy. Supply and Demand dictate the price, not a loud voice. If the Demand is high, you can raise your price until that demand lessens. I personally think what they charge to go to an NFL or NBA game is criminal, but they still sell those seats. There are plenty of people willing to pay so the price stays where it is (even when you can get the game for free on the television!!!)

Pricing in the music (and content type industries) is affected by the delivery of the goods at sub-market prices (up to and including free). That is why piracy is such a huge issue. Of course my product isn't worth anything when you can get it for free. Such actions completely devalue the product.

A new way to make the industy profitable is always a great idea. If it is the better way, it will win out in the end, but you cannot accept the "common practice" argument to justify it. People sharing content is theft and they deserve to be prosecuted for it. Yes I do agree with prosecuting customers that step outside the realm of reason. I am not suing all customers, just the one that took money from me. The rest can continue to enjoy the product at their leisure.

I would never take my business model and say.. oh fuck.. we have to adjust because there is no way to overcome people giving our stuff away. That's just the wrong path to take.

MTV has become more of a television station rather than a music station. They found that their viewership was higher with production of programs rather than music. You can't fault them for anything if they are making money doing it.

If the demand for music videos was high enough, they would either change their format back, or another channel would be introduced which focused on the music.

Supply and Demand rules the economic decisions, not outsider opinions. I imagine if you sat in on a session at MTV discussing such things, they would have realistic and logical answers that made sense to you.

I hate MySpace. It sucks. It lost it's ability to promote a long time ago. Something new will come along I am sure, but MySpace is just sad now.

.

btw the entire collection of rights you are claiming into fair use is based on a misrepresentation of the law

betamax case did not say "personal use" as you claimed but "private use" and if you actually read the part that talks about unauthorized time shifting and within the context of the paragraph it is clear that they mean "non commercial"

which leads back to the two question i keep asking and you keep dodging

1. how does giving multiple non working copies of your content hurt your business model (seeding)
2. Under what law does it say that you have a right to sell the same right to view multiple times (downloading content you have already bought the right to view)

For bands, MySpace offers a chance to go from "completely unknown" to "known by 30 people around the world". For the most part, Myspace by itself isn't a springboard. It is a modern tool in the same line as a magazine article, a local newspaper review, or an interview spot on the local college radio.

For the most part, MySpace reaches people who already know you exist or that fall over you randomly. It is not some great "make them out of nothing" site.

How music would be marketed and sold int he future is really the same discussion as porn torrents and tube sites. The question has everything to do with turning something that is very popular with people (giving shit away for nothing) and turning it into a model where the people pay enough to make the venture profitable.

If a band has to pay 20k-50k of (cheap) studio time and a few months of effort to make a pro sounding album, they need to find at least 100,000 people to pay $1 to make it worth getting out of bed in the morning. Just having a myspace page isn't going to do it. They need some way to get from "nobodies with an album" to "tons of people want a copy".

It is a question of business model. Without a route to a business model, all of this stuff is horseshit. Older established bands without record deals aren't burning a brave new path through the bush, they are just attempting to profit from the left overs of their hard earned reputations and fan base.

I have heard the one song the local radio is playing from the Radiohead album. I suspect most people picking it up will be happy their paid nothing for it, because it the music equivilent of a direct to DVD movie.

it is amazing how you keep falling back to the same old song and dance about most of the people are stealing from you

Again as i have said 15 times before
i want you go after the people who are downloading your content WITHOUT BUYING A RIGHT TO IT.

We are not talking about those "thevies" we are talking about the people who have bought the right to the content and are simply getting it back or gaining missed access.

as to your apples to apples comparison it all comes down to your deliberate misrepresenation of private (meaning non commercial) = personal

i suggest you read the post again
i quoted the entire section because you keep arguing that i am misquoting the law to prove my point.

When i get a copy from my friend to view in my own home, as long as he doesn't charge me it is private transaction
the same is true if i get the content (i bought a right to view) from anywhere else in the world.

they are the same thing under the law, because i am not paying my friend for the content, and i am not paying the remote seeder for the content.

Your #1. Is directly a result of Section 107 subsection (3) which reads:

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Why would anyone in their right mind chop up a video or song into tens or hundreds or thousands of pieces with no clue about where they would be retained (for backup or recovery purposes)?

Seeding is directly tied to this portion of the statute. It has been created as plausible deniability. If you don't provide the entire rip, then how can you be accountable, right? If you don't even provide a workable rip, there is no way you can be accountable!

What is the purpose of seeding if not to ultimately form a workable copy? Otherwise you are just populating with useless data and fillng up space somewhere.

What a stupid fucking question, how does seeding hurt a business? They are just harmless pieces of non-working data. No one would ever consider putting them together! That is waayyyyyy beyond the considerations of why a user would go to a torrent site in the first place your honor.

If the intent of the action is to break the law, yet the parts of the action themselves are legal, are you breaking the law? Sure, once the final act is complete. There are plenty of cases out there where the intent was enough. Planning a crime can be just as prosecutable as executing it.

Your #2. Under what law does it say that once your dumbshit ass loses something, misplaces something, or just decides you are too fucking lazy to pay again, that you can perpetually access something any time you please? Because I truly believe that responsibility and accountability are part of the intention of copyright protections. By your reasoning, no one out there even needs to show a proof of purchasing, we just all raise our hand up in the air and swear that we have a right to access it; that's good enough by golly!!!

I don't sell a right to view content on my website. I sell a time restricted membership. I am sharing my artwork and creations with you. Apparently, if I fail to DRM said content, you are under the false impression that I wish that content to be shared worldwide without restriction. Hard to believe that I would sell such work for a mere $30 for 30/days and just let you do as you wish with it. What a bargain for you!!

Hey, I heard that if you bought E.T. way back when that Spielberg and Paramount said it was OK to get a rip of it online at DVD quality even though you only originally bought the VHS cassette. That seems logical, doesn't it? Of course it does.. you have already bought a right to view it. In fact, why did you even buy the cassette?? You paid your $4.50 when the movie came into theaters. You are square as far as the law is concerned. Your payment for viewing rights is complete and you never need pay for that movie ever again.... especially if it's released in HD/Blue-Ray. Don't you dare pay for it because Paramount doesn't want your money. They would feel bad charging you again.

You truly have no idea how ridiculous your statements are that you buy a right to something and it remains perpetually. Apparently I am the last dumbass on the face of the earth to believe that once my DVD of Goonies gets scratched enough, and I haven't made my own personal backup copy, that I need to pay Paramount again to own a copy. How idiotic am I????

Pray tell what law school you went to so I can attend the same when I finally complete my basic education and learn the common sense and elementary legal prowess that you possess

SHOULD IT BECOME WIDESPREAD!!!! CHECK
ACTUAL PRESENT HARM NEED NOT BE SHOWN!!! COOL
WHAT IS NECESSARY IS A SHOWING BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT SOME MEANINGFUL LIKELIHOOD OF FUTURE HARM EXISTS!!! CHECK

Your torrents all operate for a profit. Every single one of them is a commercial venture. As are P2P networks. They all have advertisements to offset their costs of operations. They all fall within these guidelines that you have posted. You as users are not the operators of the sites. You are not providing them non-commercially. To even attempt to utilize the non-commercial aspect of the code, you could not utilize these locations. Anyone, anywhere receiving consideration due to the transaction makes it a commercial venture.

I would like to see what the final boldface says, because it?s probably something along the lines of the likelihood that the potential market of the work would be damaged just as it says above.

BTW, when your friend shares his copy with you, is he releasing complete rights to you for that content and delivering the original and all copies to you? Or is he just ripping it and giving it to you? The first is a private transaction, the second is acting as a distributor. He doesn?t have the right to do that.

You are well aware, as am I, that you paying someone is not the only thing that makes it commercial. The mere fact that the content is listed and/or hosted at a commercial venture is enough to pass that test. It?s as basic as saying? Is someone making money off of this transaction??? Yep.. TPB, Kazaa, Napster?

Come on.. keep em comin... you obviously don't believe in personal responsibility... I would hate to have someone like you working for me. I would be fearful of you thinking you were entitled to more earnings than you deserved and embezzeling... after all.. that's just a matter of semantics isn't it? One person thinking one thing and the other thinking something else??? Sure there's laws surrounding it, but if you read it the right way, you can make anything work for you. That's all you are doing here.

BTW, in your quote.... how do you neglect the portion that says the protections that Congress intended for them? You think Congress intended for me to lose my distribution and market abilities because you believe you have these rights? Wow!!! that's a pretty big step. I would lay down a lot of money to bet that my interpretations are 1000 times closer than yours.

you are either the world biggest moron or you are deliberately trying to hide the fact you don't have a legitimate arguement

in the case referenced SONY was selling VCR for a profit, their direct profit from providing the technology was far greater than torrent portals yet the point of the case was that if the actions of the VCR USERS was noncommercial they were not guilty of contributory infringment, because the actual copyright infringement did not occur.

Going back to portal to prove commercial enterprises for the SEEDER -> PEER relationship is as valid as going back to the sale of VCR to prove that the VCR USER taping was commercial.

So try again tell me how the SEEDER is making money from SEEDING,
Try again tell me how the PEER is making cold hard cash from downloading.

this is funny, i buy a right to view, to give someone content who has also bought a right to view a copy of said content, i must give up my right to view.

private transaction is not the opposite of acting as a distributor, private transaction is the opposite of commercial transaction. Acting as a distributor can be done in both transactions, when done in the private transaction it is not infringing unless you can show the economic damage to your market scope. When done commercially it is automatically an infringment because you are the only one entitled to that money.

i will take that bet, 1000 to one odds would be great,
if the isohunt/torrentspy etc cases proves that seeding is a non infringing act i win
if they don't you win

we will call that bet #1 since i am effectively giving you a win in every situation in which i am not proven 100% right(i am giving all the grey area) you should jump at this bet.


If isohunt /torrentspy etc cases prove that downloading content you have bought a right to view is non infringing act i win
if they don't you win

we can call that bet #2 (dito)


We will see put your money where your mouth is, pick an impartial third party to hold the money and i will put it up today.

Learn how to connect the dots here.

Live Nation is a subsidiary of Clear Channel. Clear Channel owns over a thousand radio stations in the US and over 10 channels on satellite radio. They will use these stations to promote their artists more than the do currently. So these bands will be very much in your face, just as much as Britney Spears. I agree that this is a departure from the model that artists want, but it comes with the changing landscape of the industry. Soon, I think you will see more and more people going away from the radio and using the internet to find new music. New artists are going to have to take a DIY approach and find new ways to get themselves heard if they don't want to be associated with Clear Channel. But the fact of the matter is that anyone with a keen knack for PR will be able to exploit the internet to their advantage. Eventually whole cities will be "hot spots" and there will be less and less use for traditional radio and or satellite radio even and therefore that method of promotion will go the way of VHS.

And Alex, the fact that you only learned about the Radiohead album going to stores yesterday shows that you are not up with what is going on in the industry. Before I bought the box set (on the 6th) I knew that they were going to release a cd version of it in stores. I am not sure where you read that the cd is dropping before Christmas because everything that I have read states that it is going to come out in stores in January.

First, people do accept the common practice every day when the j-walk across the street or smoke marijuana or any number or offences that are technically illegal. Our society does dictate what is acceptable and what is not, the laws in general follow to suit what society wants in a democracy.

Perhaps forgetting about a business model that is no longer profitable is the best decision these companies can make. Otherwise they are going to continue to loose money year after year until even their investors loose faith that the people running these companies can't turn a profit.

J-Walking across the street where there is no harm is one thing, step into the street and cause an accident; that's another. You as the pedestrian would be at fault.

Smoking pot.... again, one thing. Hold a pot party or distribute it and that's another.

Scope and scale have a lot to do with how people are prosecuted. So yes, at a certain level common practice is accepted, when it becomes widespread and rampant, that's another. You also have to consider whether those making th laws are participating in the behavior or not, as it is their morals and their values that determine what is punishable, not the masses.

Laws aren't pushed by the masses, they are pushed by the lawmakers to suit their personal agendas. Just look at the legislative process (as I am sure you have), it rarely if ever makes sense. Politics drives the process more than common sense would. Lawmakers are changed by society, laws are changed by lawmakers that have the balls and the talent to get things done.

Regarding the business model, again, it's a determination as to what works and what doesn't. I think you would be hard pressed to state that the current model is a failure and the new experimental model is a raging success. Obviously time will tell what works and what doesn't. It wouldn't be surprising to see both functioning side by side. After all, is there only one true model to success in the business sector? Of course not, there are many paths to success. It will be interesting to see how the market responds to "free music" and what that does to everyone else. A flash in the pan idea doesn't necessarily mean long term success; but it could.

still waiting you said "I would lay down a lot of money to bet that my interpretations are 1000 times closer than yours. " which means you should be jumping at a chance to take this "theif's" money.

especially since i am giving you all the grey areas in the bet.

1. if the courts rule that it is fair use but still an infringement YOU WIN
2. If they rule like in this case that it not Fair use YOU WIN

i only win if the courts rule i am 100% correct and the actions are non infringing for the two conditions i mentioned.