good luck with that court recongized timeshifting in a cloud(cablevision vs 20th century fox), backup up is not that far off.

As long as the courts keep agreeing with me who cares how many of you smart business men "know better". :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

already said it was access shifting.



your welcome, we will talk after someone has the balls to counter sue you for violating their fair use rights (lenz vs universal).

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! gideongallery....PLEASE come to The Atlanta Forum and speak at a seminar. PLEASE! There will be quite a few attorneys there who can and will show you how totally ignorant you are.

"time shifting" and "fair use" are NOT gonna work on FOR PROFIT sites like torrents and tubes. The only person who can't see the transparency of it is you. That is if you were stupid...which you're not. You know damn well the stealing that is going on.

But your intelligence can't overcome your greed, laziness, and freeloading instincts.

I have every right to be as "greedy" as I want with my own work. You don't.

How about just for once...you try to make money on your own instead of spending all of the computer time your parents give you daily trying to come up with a million ways to justify theft?

Bro, you are a piece of work. Keep on talking! You reveal yourself more and more and more. Who you are and what your agenda is was clear to me on day one. Now others see it too. You really should leave GFY and go over and join a tube or torrent forum so you can brag about stealing in peace and be a hero instead of a joke.

With each post you make it crystal clear you do not have a fucking CLUE about

1. How DMCA/Copyright enforcement even works.
2. What "fair use" actually means.

One thing CRYSTAL CLEAR is...

Thunderous Applause
 

Sweet justice.
:thumbsup

My God you are one ignorant piss ant.

There is not legal "fair use right" that content providers, bands, or companies have to provide for. You might as well start calling it the free loader or boogie man rights. :disgust

You are just making this shit up as you go to continue your board troll agenda.

As I have stated before shithead. There is no "safe harbor" or 'fair use" for full length overwritten videos, music albums, DVD's, mainstream movies, programs, video games, tv shows, or ANYTHING like that in the mother fucking law.

Anyone with some sense knows this. Personally, if you are practicing the bullshit you preach, I can't wait for you to get sued off your fucking ass. Your funds frozen, and hosting account closed.

Make sure you are posting the full length versions you think you have the "free loader bill of rights" to. We'll see how that stands up in court.

Pure genius.
:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

barefootsies....you ignorant slut! :1orglaugh (I "time shifted" that from Dan Ackroyd circa early 1970's Saturday Night Live)

gideongallery does NOT have any funds or hosting account. Oh wait...he does have a couple of parked domains LOL What a businessman. gideongallery is a bum and a freeloader. He doesn't have anything to sue him over. If he did he would keep his dickskinners closed and make money instead of trolling everytime he gets on his parent's computer.

Um, actually there is homo.

Most websites have a T.O.S. that you apparently forget to read. It covers things such as downloading the material is for private use only, and it not for distribution. A torrent is a mass illegal distribution network, and anyone with a clue knows this.

Oh, but I am sure you missed that day in law school too eh?

Apparently you missed EVERY DAY. Now, for that case you like to keep quoting. "Fair use" in that case did not apply to the song as infringement because the tube clip was not just a song. It was a baby dancing and in the background, you could hear part of the song playing.

It was not put on youtube, torrents, or other 'back up' things as a distribution channel for Prince's song. It was a clip of some stupid kid dancing, and some song on faintly in the background.

What you are talking about is full length clips, where the CLIP is the download, and what people are coming for. Do you see the difference now asshat? Stop quoting case law like you have any fucking idea what it means.

Furthermore, you are arguing with content producers who deal with enforcement of copyright, DMCA's, lawyers, and know about this shit more than you would. You are just a board troll who gets off shadow boxing, and dropping case law.

As I've said before. You do not have a collective clue what you are talking about, and with each post you reinforce this further.

your so right and sony lost the betamax case because they were selling their vcr for 1k each. Oh wait the supreme court ruled in their favor. considering i have pointed you to the independent research that proves that fair use economy is 6 trillion dollars, and i said it once in this thread already, and i have pointed out the fact that sony sold their vcrs for a profit when they won their case i don't understand why you keep trying to make this same bogus point.


funny how you seem to make both arguements, weren't you the one who complained because i bumped an old thread after i came back.

Most of the time i am working making money. I rarely show up. When i do i have time to spend, and then i leave comming back when i again have free time.

you keep bring up the same bogus arguements, veoh case is a perfect proof that making money does not invalidate fair use. For GODS sake they were charging a membership fee to get access to videos and the court still ruled in their favor.


you could completely eliminate torrent based piracy of your content by setting up a private tracker, the same is true for tube sites.

you want to avoid that cost, the consequence of that is you legitimize their actions under the law.

I don't get why some idiot tube owners want or seem to need this "fair use" farce. There is enough legal content out there to fill a tube up (unless you are one of those tools promoting 10-30 min clips).

Hell I just had to rotate 5000 clips off my tube to make way for more legal fresh content from sponsors. I have good traffic, make money and hell I don't even really need to take submits too much anymore because my sponsors feed me with shit loads of content. Hell having no submits would also solve the problem of occasional uploads of illegal or stolen content which are a real pain in the ass to spot.

The tube model is here to stay, but if you believe in this "fair use" crap and hide behind that to steal content you shouldn't be using you deserve for someone to come and take everything you own.

I'd tell you to run that by any copyright lawyer, but I know you do not have one. Any lawyer, but I know you do not have one of those either.

I'd ask if you have ANY fucking sense, but that would be rhetorical as well.

Exactly.

Go ask Perez Hilton, of TMZ, how his 'fair use' and 'safe harbor' case worked out. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

No gideongallery. You once again have mistook me for someone else as you do in most every thread after you become flustered.

I hate to break it to you...but "no": "weren't you the one who complained because i bumped an old thread after i came back"

I'm gonna try to let you down easy here...you are nothing more than a source of amusement on GFY. We don't give you much passing thought except when you make your outrageously stupid and funny posts.

Sony selling video recorders has nothing at all to do with thieves putting stolen content up and selling pre-paid ad spots because of all the traffic it attracts.

Keep thinking the way you do. It makes great sport for me to follow you around and bash the fuck out of you on here. And judging from the messages I get on ICQ, it's very entertaining for the whole forum. LOL.

And hey...you keep side-stepping my "Are you gonna come speak at The Atlanta Forum" question. Why?

After all...we are all just a bunch of idiots who don't even understand our own business. You can just show up at The Atlanta Forum and get us all a drink at the open bar and we'll call you "bro" and "topnotch"

Isn't that the standard surfer line of b.s. on GFY? Come on down "bro" Get me a free drink and slap me on the back and then give a lecture at a seminar.

I'm sure your parents won't mind giving you some extra money in your allowance to make the trip.

nope i am just aware of the class action suit against microsoft when they tried to make the arguement they had a right to tos away fair use rights. When they demanded that we as consumers pay them $19.95 for a backup of the windows cd we bought. When they used to stamp do not make copies on the cd and in their liciening agreement.


They lost, paid out a settlement to all people who paid their extortionary pricing and changed the wording to say "do not make illegal copies"

you can verify it yourself if you have older cd copies of windows from back in the day.

But be my guess go to court and claim that while trillion dollar company like microsoft does have a right to TOS away fair use, you do.

Tell me how well that goes over.



that was a partial mistake it should have said (lenz vs universal + cablevision vs 20th century fox)

the latter established timeshifting to a cloud, and the former established a liablity for takedown notices for fair uses of content.

considering i mentioned the case multiple times in this thread already, i am surprised your jumping down my throat about a miscopy and paste. But since you now have the correct case reference i suggest you look it up.

i deal with this issue when we dmca takedown notices for our company, we changed our policy when the lenz vs universal case came down (since it effects all fair use equally not just sampling as was the example arguement). One of us is right one of us is wrong. 4/4 is my record. and considering your arguement about TOSing away fair use i would continue to bet that i know a little bit more about this than you do.

good luck with that, i would love to see the consequence of you making these arguements in court. like i said one of us is right one of us is wrong.
And now that you can get counter sued for sending out a bad takedown request, the liability is just as great for you as it would be for me.

Damn gideongallery...I'm glad you're back off of the "time out" your parents gave you this afternoon from the computer.

What on God's earth could Microsoft losing a case where they tried to re-charge people for a backup copy of their OS have to do with thieves stealing content and making money off of other peoples' work?

LOL! Oh and here's the best part of you post: "i deal with this issue when we dmca takedown notices for our company"

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You mean that "magical mystery" company that you own but you won't reveal what it is or what your website is or ANYTHING about it at all?

Hey everybody...does THAT sound familiar? LOL! Go away surfer. Go away.

1. they are not putting up content, they are letting users put up content, as i have said more than a dozen times if you have proof they are doing it themselves then the safe harbor provision does not apply.
2. when you don't misrepresent it as something we both agree is illegal, then the parallel to sony is perfectly valid, both provided a service/technology that could be used to infringe copyright material. Both are not responsible for that potential infringement.

just as long as the courts keep agreeing with me, i don't care what all your buddies think.
I am right or wrong based on what the judges end up saying, not based on the number of people who agree with me (because of the bias they have).


i am not that shallow, i don't need to buy friendship.
i realize that i am right when the judges agree with me, so i don't need to waste my money comming down to the convention
finally why should i if there is no financial benefit for me to do it. That like me asking why don't you give all your money to the poor.

Nothing, it however has everything to do with arguing that fair use does not apply because it TOS away. Which is exactly the point i was addressing.


I have already said i have no financial insentive to give you that info.

I am right or wrong based on what the courts say, not what you say.

If your so certain that the company doesn't exist why don't you give me a financial insentive greater than the potential risk that would be cause by you using the info to try and poach my customers. I thought you were the person who said you made 500k last year you can certainly afford it.

If you truely believe it does not exist, you should have no problem making an offer.

this thread has officially done exactly what i intended it to do...

congrats to me.....

i am the winner...

now do you see what i did here?

Yeah you goaded gideongallery into getting computer privileges from his parents. He still hasn't said a damn thing! LOL

No gideongallery. Putting up a tube site and then soliciting pre-paid advertisement spots based on traffic generated from stolen content is not legal.

No court has YET addressed that. No matter how you try to mince, parse, and twist words.

And no. You don't any company. And if you did you wouldn't hide it on GFY, which is a board originally designed for PROMOTION. lol

You're just another angry freeloading bum trying to armchair lawyer about something you know nothing about.

Fucking trolls make me laugh. That's all your good for. You have no business, you have no reason to be here EXCEPT to troll. That's your only purpose. And that makes you no better than the rest of the trolls and their pathetic "Look at me, look at me" bullshit when they have NOTHING to offer. Nothing.

Loser.

Hey, let me pretend I"m a lawyer for a minute too....

If a tube site enters into a pre-paid advertisement agreement with a company. And both parties are well aware of the stolen content...Well, wouldn't that be "conspiracy" ?

Quick, check wikipedia and get back with me on that one gideongallery :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

To be legal, in the context we are talking about all it has to be immune from civil liablity due to the safe harbor provision
the veoh case does establish that level of legality for this issue. If it did not the case would never have been thrown out.

guess what it was (just like i predicted it would)
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=851099


so your expecting me to promote a service which no one will buy (because it deals with software not videos) when there is a jack ass who has already proven he will try and damage that business as much as possible (you contacted [email protected])

just because my adult income is small enough that i don't care about doesn't mean i would want to risk an income i do care about.

I have a direct monetary insentive to keep it details private, and no monetary insentive to expose them.

However as i said you could make me an offer so great i could lose the entire business and not care. You said you made that much money. That would give me a financial insentive. And if you truely believed the business does not exist you would do it in a heart beat. The money would be in an escrow account.

i am not the one who does not realize that the veoh case and the judges ruling about the strength of the safe harbor provision does legitimize

"Putting up a tube site and then soliciting pre-paid advertisement spots based on traffic generated from stolen content"

simple because you would have to prove they knew that the person did not have a right to upload it (fair use or licienced)

Considering my post in paul markham's "Is this the Achilles heel for Youtube?" thread that is going to be very hard to do unless they either ignore the DMCA notice (assuming they are in the us), violate the equivalent in their country (assuming they are not in the states) or we start having access to telepaths (psi-corp).


the first two are never going to happen in the examples we are talking about

and the last is science fiction. :winkwink:

and when mind readers can start looking into our head and tell when we are lying this should work. Of course until then as long as they are comply with "perfectly formed" DMCA take down request they can always claim that they didn't realize it was unauthorized. In fact as long as there is a record of false takedown request successfully taking down authorized content (licienced and/ or fair use) they can even argue it the only legitimate way to act.

LOL There you go again gideongallery. You are getting flustered. I never said I emailed anybody named "rob" I said I spoke with Ron about you and they are monitoring how much animosity you are causing on GFY and whether or not they wish to have their company associated with you.

And you are being hilarious! LOL! There is only one reason for a porn tube or torrent to exist. And that is to make money from a pre-paid spot. Hang on, I'm laughing so hard I can't type...


Now let me get this straight...You own an imaginary company that you just said provides : "a service which no one will buy (because it deals with software not videos)"

And you make a small income with pussycash by flying a banner in your sig while you piss everybody off on GFY with your constant cheering for content theft.

Hmmm...so you make no money with your imaginary company, and you're bullshit has caused you to be a hated person on GFY so you make no money with your "sig"

So tell me again gideongallery...WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE?!?!?!?!

Leave loser.

Robbie, gideongallery is not worth it to waste too many minutes on here.
this advice is given to you for free

I know brother. I'm just having fun. I get bored while I'm rendering vids. The whole time I'm reading his drivel I'm rendering vids into encrypted streaming h264's

I've almost finished the entire members area and stopped my shit from getting stolen. But it's still fun to bitch slap gideongallery and his 3rd grade lawyering.

Nah. That's ok troll. I'll wait for your case of copyright theft in the name of 'fair use' and 'safe harbor' to go to court.

The end result should be entertaining. Hope you bring a toothbrush.

:)

K, have fun Robbie, understood !

Steal some of my content. Let me know where you post it. I'll hit you with a DMCA, and we will do this dance friend. While your at it. Steal some of Robbie's, and Jim Gunn's. I am sure we would LOVE putting you out of "business" and further more shutting your mouth on this issue.

Now, hedge those bets chief. If you DO actually have a company. That should be nice and tasty for my lawyers.

Game on.

IF gideongallery ever actually owned anything....and opened a tube site full of stolen content, I believe when he finally ends up going to court he is going to learn the TRUE meaning of "BackUp" :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

go 4 it Barefootsies

geez this IS entertainment I am watching some stupid shit on television but heh ......... this is kewl

and I would LOVE to be the one to teach it to him. :)

Maybe he can dazzle those "bros" with his big talk of legalized theft under the guise of 'fair use' when the roast his rump. As I said to him,.. "game on".

I'll be waiting.
:thumbsup

It would be my pleasure. I can end this argument easily in court. We'll put tootsie to the test.

He's a betting man. So he can put up his company's assets to back up his mouth. I'm game.

:)

hang on now barefootsies...lol You just said you want to fuck gideongallery in the ass? WTF?!?!? This thread has taken a new romantic turn now! heh-heh

entertaining for sure :thumbsup

"with the law"
:winkwink:

Sweet baby jesus! How ironic that tubes and torrents are funded by prepaid ads from dating sites...and now we have somehow "cum" to this? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh Okay, okay....fuck it. I'm in too. Me and barefootsies are gonna DP gideongallery. :1orglaugh

I am sure once things start getting seized, and frozen, he will "come to see the light" and all this bullshit big man talk of safe harbor, and his fair use, and so on will end real quick.

That my friend is a solid bet.

Oh,... and that doesn't even get into the 'annoymous tip' that will be phoned into the FBI on the 2257 issue on top of the copyright theft.

Toe hee.

:winkwink:

post the links i will keep you in mind in the future

But take notice i will not post them on my site (since i have already said that would be illegal)
i will post them on all of those torrent sites. other peoples torrent sites.

and quote my little torrents a a backup speach in the post that way i can prove you are fully aware of the fair use arguement when i dispute your DMCA take down notice.

Oh, and now you do not have the balls to post to your own tubesite(s). Oh lookie... he's back peddling now. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh But I thought it was so leeeeeeeeeeeeegal under your laws.

Only quotes the lawyers will need are all your claims in this thread that you are going to steal and post copy written material to torrents, which you know is wrong.

Furthermore, that while you have been corrected on the case law, you continue to claim conscious copyright theft, and the use of torrents, under 'fair use' and 'safe harbor'.

In the meantime, post your company information so we do not waste time dilly dallying around chief. We can take this straight to court. Stop fucking around bitch. You think you have the law on your side. Start stealing, and give me your info so we can go straight to court and test your "theory".

All I know is that after I lube up, I'm trying to decide if I want to stick my dick in his ass under "fair use" or "safe harbor"? Either way I'm gonna blow a load. lol

He knows his big fat mouth is writing checks his ass can't cash.

He's a big man on a message board, but he doesn't wanna play now.

If he was so sure he was in the right. He would steal content. Post it on his own sites. Refuse the DMCA, or counter. Then show up in court and try an prove his claims. But he knows they are bullshit, and he's just a board troll.

So he backed down.

Predictably.

After he would get done losing this case on the copyright. I would make sure that the 2257 'anonymous tip' case comes next to add on to the copyright infringement. Should prove rather tasty to test that theory as well.

Either way. That will end this debate with him.

So does that mean the three-way gay sex thing is off? :1orglaugh

no backpeddling i have said it more than a dozen times already

i even said it way back in post 117

just becuase i don't want to take a bet i have already admitted i would lose.

What i am saying is legal is legal, what i admit is illegal is illegal. Doing something i admited is illegal would not prove my point. Nor would it prove yours.


If you want me to post the content on my own site, even though i stated quite clearly it was illegal, the only way i would do that is if you granted me a licience that said i was fully authorized to post anything i wanted so long as it would be legal for a third party to do so under the safe harbor provision of the dmca.

Declare me as a proxy agent for any of your existing members.

If you truely believed that i was actually wrong you would have no problem with this since i would be autorized to be considered an independent third party for all of my post to my own site (which i have already stated multiple times would be illegal)

Be still gideongallery...I'm trying to get off...

Fuck it. Now my dick is limp. Goddamnit gideongallery. You are as lousy in bed as you are at being a lawyer and a "businessman" Fucking lame ass surfer

see i knew you would back out.

trying to get me to do something i explictly told you was illegal and when i legitimately moved it back to the arguement i was actually making you backed down like a little bitch.

Huh? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh WTF?!?! You are flustered aren't you? I'm not barefootsies, I'm Robbie! LOL! You are losing it gideongallery. You constantly think I type things that I didn't!

Your grip on reality is slipping fast. :1orglaugh

Keep back peddling. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

What happened to your "backing my content up on torrents" is legal debate? Or your, T.O.S. when you buy a membership argument not being valid? How were you going to get around the 2257 issue?

Nice to see you back down little bitch when you are called on your bullshit. I told you to put your money where you mouth is. I knew you would back down.

Maybe that makes me psychic like you. I can start claiming the outcome of all lawsuits.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh