Obama 2008 was made possible with the sponsor in my sig

Ron Paul got NOTHING on my nigga

Well there are a few reasons I wouldn't do that.

First of all, I'd have to go all the way to the dvd rental shop. Second of all, the newest movies aren't available yet there. You'd probably say I should go to the cinema, then comes reason #3: I fucking hate the cinema. All the fucking kids and noise they make, it's terrible.

Once they come up with a nice system that allows me to watch the newest movies (high quality) on my TV I'll order it right away and stop downloading. I found a service similar to that a while ago, but they only had a small collection of old played out movies... fuck that.

:2 cents:

A sensible set of rules here.


.

I could rent it but the video store here charges $11 for a rental. I could just wait for a previously viewed and buy it outright for $15 or $19. It doesn't make much sense.

I listen to music I like on the radio before I buy it, so I watch a movie before I buy it.
As I said, it's wrong. I know it. But I do it anyway. At least I still buy them often enough. I could just burn them since they're downloadable in dvd quality.

Show me the law that states that and I will shut up. If it is merely YOUR preceived right, then with all due respect, please STFU.

We know you don't believe in copyright infringement. We know you don't think you should have to pay for something twice with your warped interpretation of the definition of "Timeshifting"

It is illegal, by definition of the law, regardless of whether you consider it theft or copyright infringement.

What happens if a user buys a membership to some porn site, likes the content, thinks "this is good stuff, I want to save a copy of it for later", saves one clip, then another, then thinks "fuck this, this is taking too long", goes to a torrent site, and instead downloads the whole site rip of the site he bought membership from? So by buying a $1.95 trial, he can legally own 100s of gigabytes of content? That's 100% ethical/legal?

Keep in mind that "new media" laws are different from country to country as well, as in Canada we pay taxes on blank media which go directly to the recording and movie industries to cover things just like this.

Oh my fucking god. You have got to be one of the dumbest people in existence today.

Ok, clearly you have the attention span of a gnat, as well as the intellect of one. Your topic is all over the place. You went from downloading content, to being some retarded time traveling nugget, to babbling on about your misinterpretation of a special case copyright law pertaining to DVR services & technology, to now you're talking about loss and potential loss of theoretical DVDs and the value of them.

STEALING ONE DVD = One Stolen DVD. Copying your existing DVD = 2 DVDs. You can make a backup copy of purchased DVDs, however this thread isn't about that, now is it? "Illegally Downloading Hollywood Movies... Right or Wrong?"...

Downloading from P2P networks is ILLEGAL no matter how you spin it. Show me a case that went to court, where a content producer sued an end user for damages from downloading a movie from a P2P network, and the end user WON the case because he claimed to be a time traveler. Until you can do that, JUMP INTO SOME BBQ SAUCE, RETARD!

Your right... laziness is the perfect excuse to engage in illegal activity.

Well guess what? I hate it too. But I wait till it has been out a week and go when the crowds are sure to be non-existent. But it is much easier to engage in illegal activity.
[/QUOTE]

I guess I don't need to ask your age, you wildly divergent moral compass tells me all I need to know.

I don't care about laws from country to country. I am talking about within the USA and US applicable laws only. What another country allows you to do has no bearing on me or my stance in this thread.

But I hear what your saying.

BTW, your Rental Store prices are ridiculous. Around here is varies from $2 to $4.

Seems like this comes up every month on gfy. You'll find some people here that think it's fine but most of them aren't big program owners if they even own a site at all. Even if some well known "bro" was doing it and thought it was fine it's still not the same. If he downloaded a movie that's nothing compared to the guy giving away "millions" of copies of adult movies or any movie for that matter.

If you get busted for downloading a movie or two you'd have to pay a small fine long as you weren't uploading. But that's the key here, torrent site owners and tube site owners are giving out content, they know what they are doing. If it's proven in court they would have to pay a price for those millions of copies distributed which would be way more because they are distributing.




In a lot of cases he would be right. Downloading does more harm because most people do it off p2p networks which means they distribute not just download. If you steal a movie you might have cost them $5 or so. If you pirate it on a p2p network or distribute it then who knows how many copies you helped give out. You could've cost them a million bucks.

That's why if you steal a physical copy of a dvd you'd get a slap on the risk if you get caught. But if you're sharing on a p2p network you're likely to pay some seriously hefty fines, thousands of dollars and/or jail time...

I agree with you about the theater. I have to really want to see a movie to go to the theater and watch it. Nothing like sitting in a cramped seat with a bunch of coughing, chewing, whispering people to ruin a good movie. If I really want to see something I usually go to early shows during the week where there are smaller crowds. Otherwise I just wait for DVD.

That said, getting to see the movie in the theater is a convenience. You get to see it today not in 4-6 months or whenever it comes out on DVD and if you want that convenience then it costs money. Just because you don't want to go to the theater doesn't give you the right to download it.

To me it is kind of like saying you want a new car at a used car price and you want it today.

Tell me about it. I live in a small town. The price has gone from $8 to $11 in 3 years. It pains me to pay that. I don't go there very much any more.

This has always been my argument as well. If I take 1 DVD from the store that store and the studio involved with the movie are out that one DVD. If I download the DVD and share it to a 10,000 different people, who knows how many they are out.

There is a different thread today where a judge ruled that you can't consider every download a lost sale. I agree, there is no way of knowing how many of those people may have bought the product if downloading wasn't available. So say it is just 2%. If you distrubute the DVD to 5000 different people that means it could be around 100 sales. Even if it is .5% that is still 25 DVD sales lost which is far greater than 1.

Gideon will argue, however, that you are not sharing the entire product with other people that you are only sharing pieces of it. If someone connects to you on a p2p network you only give them a small piece of the whole file since they are connected to many peers at once so that makes it okay.

It doesn't matter though because that crap won't fly in court. Neither will the "I downloaded it for a backup copy", I've seen court cases where that was shotdown by a judge. You have the right to backup "your" copy but you do not have the right to download another copy from someone sharing it illegaly. That's just how it works and I'm not going to bother finding the court case just to prove it here. Of course some other judge(s) may say different but that hasn't been the case so far.

i love this you go to the testimony of the guys who want to strengthen the laws in their favor and use it as a bases for what the law is currently.

That like saying someone is guilty because the prosecution says they are guilty without listening to the defence at all.

The judges oppinion is the only one that counts

http://supreme.justia.com/us/464/417/case.html

do a search on this page for "Unauthorized Time-Shifting"
if really had to get permission for every distribution/rebroadcast then VCR would never existed in the form that they did, they would have had locks that prevented them from playing shows recorded on another machine (preventing tape trading)

as to the rest of your points

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

check out this ruling, which recognized the right to timeshift using a cloud

since a swarm is by definition a cloud it absolutely contridicts the uploading and downloading is always an infringement arguement. Because the same fair use rights that made VCR legal has been explictly extended to the Cloud (see swarm).

Which by the way is exactly the point i am making.

Some movies are enhanced by a large crowds though. But you have to pick those kind of movies carefully. My Bloody Valentine is a good example, as is most any scary movie where the audience involvement adds a little fun.

I am with you though. I pick my movies carefully, seeing very few in theatres. I do most of my viewing through DVD's. On netflix you can schedule a movie that is still in theatres and the day it hits the rental stores it is in your mailbox.

living on the edge, baby!!! :1orglaugh

IF you are going to say what i am arguing do me a favor please say what i am actually saying.

I never said the entire p2p transaction was ok,

seeding is ok because you are never giving away a single working copy of the file

downloading when you bought(and are therefore timeshifting) a right to the video is ok (see the DVR in a cloud ruling)

downloading when you have not bought a right = copyright infringement = wrong.

The 25 people in your example are all guilty of copyright infringement, however they are the only ones who are guilty.

I've never downloaded a movie online...just never had to urge.

The wife and I generally rent DVDs from Jumbo - or we rent the occasional VOD from our local cable company.

Quite often when we rent really good flicks we like from Jumbo - we end up buying a used copy from the store.

As for downloading music - everything I download from sources like LimeWire is stuff I've paid for in the past on one format or another (LP, cassette, CD, etc.).

I guess somewhere along the way the producer mentality in me developed a set of scruples. I despise piracy and go out of my way monetarily not to be hypocritical about it.

Your interpretation of "timeshifting", as I stated earlier, is incorrect. Based on those links you just provided, the evidence is clear that THEIR definition of Time-Shifting is VERY DIFFERENT than yours.

"(c) The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i.e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works. The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home satisfies this standard of noninfringing uses both because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such time-shifting for their programs and because the District Court's findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use. "

"The respondents and Sony both conducted surveys of the way the Betamax machine was used by several hundred owners during a sample period in 1978. Although there were some differences in the surveys, they both showed that the primary use of the machine for most owners was "time-shifting" -- the practice of recording a program to view it once at a later time, and thereafter erasing it. Time-shifting enables viewers to see programs they otherwise would miss because they are not at home, are occupied with other tasks, or are viewing a program on another station at the time of a broadcast that they desire to watch. Both surveys also showed, however, that a substantial number of interviewees had accumulated libraries of tapes. "

"Twenty-four years ago in the Sony Betamax case, the Supreme Court declared that using a VCR to "time-shift" ? to record a television program for viewing at a later time"

Time-Shift(ing): is the recording of programming to a storage medium to be viewed or listened to at a time more convenient to the consumer.

It says nothing about paying for viewing rights to be extended to all access to that movie or medium from anywhere OTHER THAN THE DEVICE THAT YOU RECORDED IT ON DIRECTLY FROM THE TV WITH THE INTENT TO WATCH IT LATER.

this is thread is so last year.

Illegally Downloading Hollywood Movies... Right or Wrong?

Well let's see...
"Illegally" is pretty much the answer within the question....

Every post between the first one and this one is moot...

both the canadian and the US legal system are an "innocent until proven guilty" system not the reverse

so until you produce a court case in which

1. A person downloaded content from the torrent
2. They had proof they had bought that content
3. And a judge rule it was still a criminal act of copyright infringement to "recover" the paid for content

What i am saying is 100% true.

good so you read the case

so i have a right to recording a program to a storage medium to be viewd or listened to at a time more convenient to the consumer.

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

" the Second Circuit rejected [PDF] an attempt by the content industry to change the rules of the game if your video recorder is stored "in the cloud" on the Internet."

this case made the cloud a VALID storage medium for my time-shifted content.

The first case established the right to timeshift

the second said that a cloud is a valid storage medium for that right.

Put them together you get the point i was making exactly.

Get.... In.... The.... Fucking.... BBQ.... Sauce.... Retarded Nugget!
http://www.saucefactory.com/catalog/...voodoo-bbq.jpg

GET IN! STOP POSTING AND GET IN!

It puts the BBQ sauce on it's skin... Or else it gets the ownage again.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

so when i ask you to back up your statement you simply dodge.

unlike me you don't have the fundamental principle of the legal system to justify your avoidance of the question.

II. The District Court’s Decision
16 In the district court, plaintiffs successfully argued that
17 Cablevision’s proposed system would directly infringe their
18 copyrights in three ways. First, by briefly storing data in the
19 primary ingest buffer and other data buffers integral to the
20 function of the RS-DVR, Cablevision would make copies of
21 protected works and thereby directly infringe plaintiffs’
22 exclusive right of reproduction under the Copyright Act. Second,
23 by copying programs onto the Arroyo Server hard disks (the
24 “playback copies”), Cablevision would again directly infringe the
25 reproduction right. And third, by transmitting the data from the
26 Arroyo Server hard disks to its RS-DVR customers in response to a
-10-
1 “playback” request, Cablevision would directly infringe
2 plaintiffs’ exclusive right of public performance. See id. at
3 617. Agreeing with all three arguments, the district court
4 awarded summary declaratory judgment to plaintiffs and enjoined
5 Cablevision from operating the RS–DVR system without obtaining
6 licenses from the plaintiff copyright holders.
7 As to the buffer data, the district court rejected
8 defendants’ arguments 1) that the data were not “fixed” and
9 therefore were not “copies” as defined in the Copyright Act, and
10 2) that any buffer copying was de minimis because the buffers
11 stored only small amounts of data for very short periods of time.
12 In rejecting the latter argument, the district court noted that
13 the “aggregate effect of the buffering” was to reproduce the
14 entirety of Cablevision’s programming, and such copying “can
15 hardly be called de minimis.” Id. at 621.

wow so the best case you can come with is the case that was overturned on appeal

IF you didn't realize the highest court (the appeals court) said that the district ruling was completely wrong.

-A pirated copy does not result in a lost sale

-Many people who pirate were never going to buy the item in the first place. Many people who pirate also pay for a lot of stuff as well.

-Piracy helps grow a larger fan base in some cases.

-Shitty DRM on stuff that you pay to download and regional restrictions leads to more piracy. People who pirate are unaffected by DRM. Legitimate consumers cannot access digital products that they paid for. And consumers outside of the US are unable to purchase digital products (eg Amazon Unbox). Consumers who pay for stuff will not share it because they paid for it and shouldn't have DRM. It took iTunes about 8 years to figure this out.

-If you already get the channel, you should be allowed to pirate the shows that air on that channel. Maybe you want to see the show again, or you missed it. If you missed Monday's episode of 24, you may have little incentive to watch episode 6 because it will be confusing to you. But if you can pirate it (at NO loss to FOX), then you will tune in next Monday.

-TV stations do NOT lose a cent when people pirate their shows. They make money from ads when you watch the show on TV. But if the show aired, and you go to download it, it is too late for you to tune in anyways.

-If you don't get a TV channel because it's not available in your country/with your service provider, then you should be allowed to pirate the shows. No harm done.

-If you are too cheap to pay for cable, then that is a different story.

-If you saw a movie in a theater or you own the DVD, then you should be allowed to pirate a copy to watch it on your computer or iPod. No harm done.

-Some movies are available to be pirated but not available on DVD or digitally. So a pirated copy is the only way to get it. No harm done.

-Pirating software is not good. There is no excuse, especially for commercial use. There are free software programs available. And if you are a student, there are student editions available. Microsoft sells Office Ultimate to students for $50. If you own the software and lost the CD then you should be able to download it.

-Pirating music is not good. Or maybe it is. I can't really decide. People like to share music. A lot of people who pirate music also buy music. One lady who is on trial for sharing songs owns about 300 CDs that she bought. If you own the CD you should be able to download the songs.

-The industry complains that consumers getting younger and do not want to pay for stuff. It is not as serious as they want you to think. They are still making billions of dollars. Ultimately, consumers will decide on the value of the product, not the companies. If they want the consumers to give more value to their product they need to stop releasing crap, stop DRM, educate consumers, and find newer ways to make money off the products.

For example, FOX could display in-video ads in 24. Or after Jack Bauer kills a terrorist, he could say that he uses gillette shaving cream. And then get back to killing terrorists. People watching on TV will see the ad. And people who pirate the show will see the ad too because it can't be cut out like normal commercials.

-Industry needs to adapt. Some DVDs come with a free digital download. But very few DVDs have this, and it comes with DRM, so you can't watch the movie on an iPod or on another PC.

True, but if you own a copy of a CD and you didn't pay for it that still means that you get to enjoy someone else's work/product and they get nothing in return. Did the artist lose a sale? Maybe. Maybe not. But should they not at least have the right to decide where and how their product is distributed?

True there are bands and TV shows and other things that have found an audience because of downloaders. That said most of them willingly gave the product away in the first place in order to attract a new audience.

I agree. Often DRM does suck. If I buy a CD I can play it in my car, in my home stereo or in a friends car with no problems. Digital music should be the same. The same goes with movies. My DVD plays just as well in my computer, home DVD player or at a friend's house. So should a paid for digital download.

When it comes to TV I pretty much have no problem with recording/downloading. Like you said if you miss an episode, there is minimal harm done if you download it and watch it so you can keep up with the show. Many studios are now putting full episodes of their shows online with few or no commercials so that people can watch them at their leisure.

This is a little off. They determine the ad rates by how many people watch the show. If 5 million people watch a show and a million more download it, they only count the 5 million viewers. So a show could have 6 million viewers, but they are selling ad rates based on 5 million so they can lose money.

I disagree. If you wouldn't normally have access to something that doesn't mean you are still entitled to it. If a movie I want to see is not playing at a theater near me does that mean I should be allowed to download it?

The DVD you could make an argument for, but not seeing a movie in the theater. When you go the the theater it is an agreement. You agreed to pay you $8-$10 (or whatever they charge) to see one showing of a movie. That does not entitle you to now own it and watch it as many times as you want. If you buy a ticket into Disneyland can you go back everyday and ride Space Mountain for free?

Again, shouldn't people be allowed to have control over how their product is distributed? If they choose not to make it available digitally or on DVD isn't that their right?

How exactly is this different from pirating music or movies? If I download a copy of MS Office and use it I have the product and I am using it and I didn't pay. If I download a movie I have it, I am watching (using) it and I didn't pay. Maybe I would have never purchased MS Office so by downloading it they didn't lose a sale because I would have never bought it. You can't argue for one thing then allow another when they are the same thing.

To me buying CD and burning a copy for a friend is not a big deal. Buying a CD (or MP3s) and sharing a few with your friends is no big deal. But if you buy a CD, burn it to your computer then share it on Limewire with 10,000 different people. I think that is wrong. I know some people will argue that you aren't sharing the entire product, just a piece of it, but to me that is semantics. You are helping to give the CD to 10,000 non paying customers. If the band doesn't care and the studio doesn't mind, I don't care, but I think the band and studio should have the ability to stop people from doing this.

I agree that they need to stop releasing crap. Rick Rubin said that at some point the music business stopped selling art and started selling a product and that is when they went wrong. People hate hearing a song they like then having to pay $15 for a whole CD only to find out the other 10 songs on it suck. This is why Itunes and MP3 sales are big. They changed the industry from being an album based industry to being a singles based industry. Maybe education and technology will help stop the music sharing, maybe not. That said you can't make the argument that they make billions so it is not that bad. Apple makes billions, but if you take a Mac Book out of the store they will arrest you. Exxon makes billions, but you still have to pay for gas. How much they make is not a factor. The reality is they are making less than they could.

They have some of this already. If you watch a TV show and someone uses a laptop, there is a very good chance that laptop is an Apple. Product placement is growing within TV shows. Another example is American Idol. They are always drinking out of cups that say Coke on them. But having characters pitch products mid show would never work. I would never watch a show where they did that. The minute a character on a show does something then turns to the screen and mentions a product is the minute I stop watching that show. I'm pretty confident I am not the only one who feels this way.

True. Suing won't work. The RIAA has sued like crazy and it has had no effect on the downloading of music. Adapting and offering a more digital friendly product will help. Educating the consumer and offering good stuff will help. If you put out a good product people will buy it. Right now the music and movie industries are on the edge of a cliff. They can figure out a way to adapt and grow from the internet and fly or they can fight it and fall off. They do need to change, but they should also be allowed to protect themselves against those that make pirating their products easy and accessible.

that is assuming you didn't pay for it indirectly
canadian have a piracy tax on media like CD so we do pay for it.
if the artist is to stupid to collect their share is it my fault.

tivoed and pvr'ed shows also don't count in the ratings

my own worst enemy had heroes level ratings if you added pvr'ed numbers into the mix, yet it got cancelled because only 3/7 people watched it live.

It is hypocryticial to attack downloading with this arguement if you are proponent of tivio when tivo does the exact same damage to the show survival.


it called the network effect, if you counted all the people sharing cd in the past, added them all together i am pretty sure the total amound of people shared too would be similar in numbers to you 10k number (a good portion who actually paid for it because of things like the piracy tax)

The fact that you add them all together and allow them to be interconnected simply means they can be counted in some way or form. the lime wire numbers are effectively just counting them as a group.


i suggest you pay attention because you are getting pretty close to that now and you don't even notice it because it is intergrated into the story line.

http://www.cisco.com/web/solutions/t...fox/index.html

6+ minutes of them using cisco telepresence technology is more valueable to cisco then 1 30 second spots.
IT a feature by feature advertisement of the product.

and the show producer gets 85% of that money (ad agency cut) instead of 4/26 with traditional commercials.



as long as they don't take away the equivalent fair use rights i have no problem with that.
If i want to use torrent to timeshift

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

then i should be able to use them in the same way as i my parents would have used a vcr.
The new technology should not be forced to give you less rights that the old technology, that hinders innovation.

I go to theaters and buy DVDs I really like.

I own Zoolander and The Big Lebowski.

it's wrong :2 cents:
Buy the real thing !

I am sure this is going to be a stupid question but is it considered worse to be the one uploading the content on the torrent sites or be a downloader? Legally that is.
I have a friend that downloads a ton of stuff (mostly older favorite movies) and believes that its not wrong being when he buys new movies or tv series he doesnt upload them.

It's wrong </thread>

You must be kidding.....

Really, so if someone offers a pirated movie and a million people download it ILLEGALLY, because it IS ILLEGAL no matter how your warped fucking mind wants to justify it, there is NO monetary loss. You are a moron.

Well I am never going to buy a porsche, so I have the right to download it from someone's driveway? The analogy doesn't fit? Of course it fucking does. If you weren't going to pay for something to begin with, DONT FUCKING TOUCH IT, OR WATCH IT, OR EAT IT, OR DRIVE IT, ETC.

There are many things I will never buy but I sure as fuck don't find I am entitled to it for free on that basis alone.

Fanbase for what... More freeloading assholes? This is the weakest argument of all. These so called fans, generated by illegal downloads, are going to go pack to the source to get more of what they like and that WONT be to the store to put money in the pocket of the person they have become a fan of.

No. You pay a CABLE BILL for the right to view through your television. Paying a cable bill does not give you ALL ACCESS RIGHT TO EVERY MOVIE EVER MADE or even the movies that are on the current schedule.

Then get a fucking Tivo or other DVR device... That is what they were created for. It isn't always about the money. By illegally downloading a creators art you?ve taken from him the right to make the publicity-versus-overexposure decision.

But according to you, they have a right to whatever they want because "they wouldn't have paid for it anyway." You contradict your own justification for illegal downloading.

Then fucking do without. I swear, what the fuck is this world coming to. I can think of a million things I can't get my hands on but I wouldn't use that as an excuse to obtain it illegally.

You're right, see my reply below to JHC.

You are right, maybe we should put our foot down. Stop putting up with people in our own industry, condoning the very same type of illegal activity that we are fighting today. I don't buy the, industry needs to adapt bullshit. Why? cause someone wants to take without paying? Why should we have to bend ourselves backwards to cater to criminal behaviour?

Take a good look people, the ones like Bama, GideonGallery, wootpron, StuartD, JamesK, and others are the ones we do business with or at the very least tolerate their presence here. If we can't even weed this shit out of our own front lawn, what hope is there in stopping it at all?

I am off my soapbox now, I've said what I wanted to.
:disgust

1. You both robbing the producers of their money.
2. Engaging in illegal activity is just wrong to begin with.
3. By downloading your are just contributing the proliferation of piracy.

So, Yes.

Depends if you get caught

My question wasn't whether its right or wrong. Its wrong period.

My question was legally do they tend to prosecute the people that upload the content as well as download vs the people that just download more?


I dont agree with my friends belief that because he doesnt upload the content but just takes advantage of whats already there it makes him somehow better than those that upload the content to begin with. I just wonder how many people use that thinking to justify their actions.

65,535 people can't be wrong!

that is circular logic and a dodge to the point made by wootpr0n
given the current ruling
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?n.../01/20/1320242
wootpr0n is closer to the right answer than you are
remember that one of the key definition of fair use is that it does no economic damage, if you can prove that the person was not going to buy (either directly or statistically) then those transactions might fall under the fair use exemption to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
If they did full under that exemption then they would be LEGAL, not ILLEGAL.


again it does fit, because when you take the car you prevent the owner from use it
the only way it would fit is if you could wave a magic wand and make a copy of the porsche.


the betamax case grants you the right to record any show you subscribed too (cable) for later viewing (timeshifting)

The RS-PVR case allows me to use the Cloud as a recording medium for that right.
Swarm = cloud

so yes it does.

biggest bullshit statement ever
amick to NY Daily News

when you tivo a show you deny the tv station, producer actor (everybody) the revenue from those viewers, they don't count period. Which means you are doing as much economic damage to the show as downloading the show via torrents.

There is no difference between the two
both are equally damaging and equally legal
tivo because of the betamax case
torrent because of the RS-DVR case (which extended the betamax case to the cloud)

well technically he is talking about two different extremes of the fair use do no economic damage exemption

already paying for the content = do no economic harm because i already paid for it.
established by the betamax case, and the convictions for illegal uses of a vcr (bootlegging)

i would never have bought it = do no economic harm because there was no sale to lose
we have started down the path with this case
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?n.../01/20/1320242
as of yet that has not been absolutely established, but it is a logical arguement that has the potential to be defined.

Then fucking do without. I swear, what the fuck is this world coming to. I can think of a million things I can't get my hands on but I wouldn't use that as an excuse to obtain it illegally.


what you still don't get even though i have produced judges ruling explictly defining those rights is that what i am talking about doing is not ILLEGAL.

It is legal, it has been defined as fair use rights. You may not like it because it cost you money, but you have no right to take away those rights, because the copyright act never gave you exclusive right of distribution for context of that distribution.

The technological expansion of that right (i can now timeshift a show that i missed the entire season too where before i could only reasonably do 1 or 2 episodes) does not reduce the right, or suddenly make it illegal.

The market will prevail, because people will figuire out a way to make money in this economy and just like every technological advancement that was represented as piracy at first, it will bring a shit load more money to the content producers.(all though the middleman may be screwed).

the printing press
vcr
cable tv
dvd recorders
all resulted in a massive expansion of profit when people stopped fighting them (after they lost the landmark cases) and started using them as a new distribution method

The same thing is going to happen with torrents.

I personally want that happen sooner not later.

You guys are funny, and Gideongallery is killin you guys again on this subject.

He is correct.. like it or not.

I watch cable tv stations, online.. for free, legally, on our TV in the living room. I sit down, turn on what I want, watch a 30 min show in 20 minutes with no commercials, get up and walk away. I don't surf trash tv channels, I don't have to put up the 100 stations I never watched anyway.. and it's all legally online provided by the studios that bitch about piracy.

uploading was being targetted more because it was easier, they sued people for all of the potential sales lost
the new ruling by the district court should change that because now it is a lot harder to target those people with that arguement now that it has been legally ruled to be invalid
(about time since it is fundamentally flawed economic theory)

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?n.../01/20/1320242

in terms of getting sued, at least in the case of the MPAA and the RIA both have choosen to exclude content that accused has proof he paid for.

they don't want another "canadian piracy tax" ruling going aganst them, that explictly defines that act as legal.

So if you only download stuff you can prove you paid for while you might be accused of a copyright infringement, the MPAA, and the RIA (CRIA) will back down from the threat if you start producing the documentation that you actually paid for the stuff.

The case to watch is the isohunt case
two potential issue should be established within that case
1. does product placement pay for piracy like the canadian "piracy tax"
2. does the fact that you are never giving away a working copy make seeding 100% legal

Not right, not wrong, depends of your necessity...

Okay then answer these 2 questions:
1. What would happen if I turned in all these pro piracy supporters into the feds and they showed up at your door? Suppose they also found pirated content on your computers or burned DVD's, etc. You saying they wouldn't do anything about it?

2. If you think torrents and piracy should be acceptible AND THE NORM, then how would producers ever get paid for there work?

I also don't want anymore of your tired "cloud" theory as that is the dumbest shit I have ever heard and that judge should be shot. The second a product changes medium, from a recording device to another recording medium, should be deemed illegal and in no way, shape or form is endorsed by the TRUE definition of time-shifting, not YOUR warped interpretation of its meaning.