judge rules against the RIAA again

[gideongallery]

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

Ars Technica has a story on a ruling by a US District Judge who rejects claims by the RIAA that the number of infringing downloads amounts to proof of the same number of lost sales. The judge ruled that 'although it is true that someone who copies a digital version of a sound recording has little incentive to purchase the recording through legitimate means, it does not necessarily follow that the downloader would have made a legitimate purchase if the recording had not been available for free.

surprised that it took this long for a judge to realize something that they teach in first year economics

if price goes down to zero, demand increases. The only sales lost are all those above the equilibrium point how decided not to buy.

Of course having to now prove that point is going to make it a lot harder to get a conviction now.

Stupid fucks should have made a reasonable guess about the true lost sales rather then try and defend the fundamentally stupid position that every download represents a lost sale.

[kane]

The judge does make some sense. There are people who download a song/CD that would have never purchased it to begin with so you can't say if there were 10,000 downloads of a CD that it equals 10,000 lost sales. It does mean lost sales, but it is almost impossible to say how many lost sales it means.

That said it also means there are still 10,000 people that now own the CD and didn't pay for it which I feel is wrong.

[cherrylula]

yeah I only download music that sucks, then I toss it.

[Fletch XXX]

before i could even buy music we were tading tapes in the midle of the eighties.

I guess we are all criminals for trading blank tape copies back then.

LOL

my first Misfits tape was a copy!!! Danzig 1 I had a copy too!!!

[pornguy]

I recall trading tapes making recordings off the radio. It was no issue then..

[Tom_PM]

"it is true that someone who copies a digital version of a sound recording has little incentive to purchase the recording"

[onwebcam]

This will all change very soon.

Obama picks RIAA's favorite lawyer for a top Justice post

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama won applause from legal adversaries of the recording industry. Stanford law professor Larry Lessig, the doyen of the "free culture" movement, endorsed the Illinois senator, as did Google CEO Eric Schmidt and even the Pirate Party.

That was then. As president-elect, one of Obama's first tech-related decisions has been to select the Recording Industry Association of America's favorite lawyer to be the third in command at the Justice Department. And Obama's pick as deputy attorney general, the second most senior position, is the lawyer who oversaw the defense of the Copyright Term Extension Act--the same law that Lessig and his allies unsuccessfully sued to overturn.

Obama made both announcements on Monday, saying that his picks "bring the integrity, depth of experience and tenacity that the Department of Justice demands in these uncertain times." The soon-to-be-appointees: Tom Perrelli for associate attorney general and David Ogden for deputy attorney general.

Campaign rhetoric aside, this should be no surprise. Obama's selection of Joe Biden as vice president showed that the presidential hopeful was comfortable with someone with firmly pro-RIAA views. Biden urged the criminal prosecutions of copyright-infringing peer-to-peer users and tried to create a new federal felony involving playing unauthorized music.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10133425-38.html

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Biden urged the criminal prosecutions of copyright-infringing peer-to-peer users and tried to create a new federal felony involving playing unauthorized music.

time to arrest John Mccain

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/159...fighters.jhtml

Foo Fighters Slam McCain Campaign Over Unauthorized Use Of 'My Hero'

"This isn't the first time the McCain campaign has used a song without making any attempt to get approval or permission from the artist," the statement reads. "It's frustrating and infuriating that someone who claims to speak for the American people would repeatedly show such little respect for creativity and intellectual property. The saddest thing about this is that 'My Hero' was written as a celebration of the common man and his extraordinary potential. To have it appropriated without our knowledge and used in a manner that perverts the original sentiment of the lyric just tarnishes the song. We hope that the McCain campaign will do the right thing and stop using our song — and start asking artists' permission in general."

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

The judge does make some sense. There are people who download a song/CD that would have never purchased it to begin with so you can't say if there were 10,000 downloads of a CD that it equals 10,000 lost sales. It does mean lost sales, but it is almost impossible to say how many lost sales it means.

That said it also means there are still 10,000 people that now own the CD and didn't pay for it which I feel is wrong.

I really don't think most of those people are in fact keeping the songs, they will download an album, listen to the tracks a couple of times. and junk them after they get tired of them. IT the modern day equivalent of taping a song off the radio and then rerecording over it when you get tired of the song.

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by kane

That said it also means there are still 10,000 people that now own the CD and didn't pay for it which I feel is wrong.

theoretically, they dont owqn the cd, just a "copy" of the music... the CD cover, CD inlay, CD case/digipak is sill very much part of what you are *paying for* when y0ou DO BUY it...

but having a copy of a cd is NOT the same as owning it.

I have over 2000 purchased CDs in my home right now and Id rather have those discs than a copy... i collect import music only, so the discs I buy are all $38 and up.

[Fletch XXX]

also, whats the take on used cd stores?

I spent sooo much money at Second Spin in LA every week, and bands do not get a cut, its all pre-used cd sales.

Whats the take on that?

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

I really don't think most of those people are in fact keeping the songs, they will download an album, listen to the tracks a couple of times. and junk them after they get tired of them. IT the modern day equivalent of taping a song off the radio and then rerecording over it when you get tired of the song.

It's all about the money. People like Britney Spears need more than the hundreds of millions of dollars they have so the can shave their head and run around like the insane bitches they are.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

This will all change very soon.

Obama picks RIAA's favorite lawyer for a top Justice post

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama won applause from legal adversaries of the recording industry. Stanford law professor Larry Lessig, the doyen of the "free culture" movement, endorsed the Illinois senator, as did Google CEO Eric Schmidt and even the Pirate Party.

That was then. As president-elect, one of Obama's first tech-related decisions has been to select the Recording Industry Association of America's favorite lawyer to be the third in command at the Justice Department. And Obama's pick as deputy attorney general, the second most senior position, is the lawyer who oversaw the defense of the Copyright Term Extension Act--the same law that Lessig and his allies unsuccessfully sued to overturn.

Obama made both announcements on Monday, saying that his picks "bring the integrity, depth of experience and tenacity that the Department of Justice demands in these uncertain times." The soon-to-be-appointees: Tom Perrelli for associate attorney general and David Ogden for deputy attorney general.

Campaign rhetoric aside, this should be no surprise. Obama's selection of Joe Biden as vice president showed that the presidential hopeful was comfortable with someone with firmly pro-RIAA views. Biden urged the criminal prosecutions of copyright-infringing peer-to-peer users and tried to create a new federal felony involving playing unauthorized music.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10133425-38.html

i hope not because it will put your economy into a depression that it will never get out of

more than 6 trillion dollar of the us economy is from fair use business. 1/6 of the people in the US are employed in fair use dependent industries. If arguements like fuck basic economics, every download counts as a lost sale bullshit is allowed to stand you can kiss all of those jobs good by.

All i can say is thank god i am a canadian.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

I really don't think most of those people are in fact keeping the songs, they will download an album, listen to the tracks a couple of times. and junk them after they get tired of them. IT the modern day equivalent of taping a song off the radio and then rerecording over it when you get tired of the song.

I have to disagree with you on this. However, I base this only on my own experience so I may well be wrong. It seems to me that many people love the idea of collecting things. My friends that buy a lot of DVDs take pride in how many DVDs they own. I know that most of these DVD only get watched once then just sit on the shelf, but they like being able to say, "I have 1500 DVDs." The same goes for music. I know a ton of people who say, "I have over 25,000 mp3's," (or some large number) others say, "My Ipod is full or, I had to add a new hard drive to my computer just for music." So I think they do keep them. They may never listen to them, but I think they keep them.

To me it the same mentality that has people keeping stuff around their house that they don't need. They have items that they haven't used in years and may never use again, but they won't throw it out.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

theoretically, they dont owqn the cd, just a "copy" of the music... the CD cover, CD inlay, CD case/digipak is sill very much part of what you are *paying for* when y0ou DO BUY it...

but having a copy of a cd is NOT the same as owning it.

I have over 2000 purchased CDs in my home right now and Id rather have those discs than a copy... i collect import music only, so the discs I buy are all $38 and up.

True in most cases. Some CD torrent files now include scans of the covers and inner artwork, but most don't. I guess I should have said, "you now own the music and haven't paid for it."

[kane]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

also, whats the take on used cd stores?

I spent sooo much money at Second Spin in LA every week, and bands do not get a cut, its all pre-used cd sales.

Whats the take on that?

This is a very good question. Back in the early 90's I used to write for a music magazine. When I first started there I didn't make much money, but I would get sent 20-40 CDs every week from record labels who were hoping I would review them. Most of them I sold to used CD stores.

The bands don't get a cut, but I guess, in theory it is still only one copy of the CD in existence. The idea being if you own it and then sell it to a store and I buy it I now have it and you don't. Similar to buying a car. When you sell a used car the car manufacturer doesn't get a piece of the deal. In reality the seller often copies the CD then sells it. This is a lot more common now than it was 10-15 years ago. 15 years ago copying a CD was something most people didn't have the technology to do, now anyone with a computer can do it.

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by kane

This is a very good question. Back in the early 90's I used to write for a music magazine. When I first started there I didn't make much money, but I would get sent 20-40 CDs every week from record labels who were hoping I would review them. Most of them I sold to used CD stores.

The bands don't get a cut, but I guess, in theory it is still only one copy of the CD in existence. The idea being if you own it and then sell it to a store and I buy it I now have it and you don't. Similar to buying a car. When you sell a used car the car manufacturer doesn't get a piece of the deal. In reality the seller often copies the CD then sells it. This is a lot more common now than it was 10-15 years ago. 15 years ago copying a CD was something most people didn't have the technology to do, now anyone with a computer can do it.

the first thing I do when i buy a disc is to make a computer copy sao I never scratch it.

I keep my compact discs in the plastic wrap they come in and just slice a slim cut in the side to slide the disc out LOL

once i rip it, I dont ever play the disc again.

keeps my collection mint.

however in regards to selling cds to used stores, I knew people who did the same, wrked at music store, would take the promos and sell em to Second Spin.

I dropped THOUSANDS in that store and its all used cds

[Jim_Gunn]

Who can really say what someone would or would not have paid for had the alternative to obtain it without compensating the artist and distributors and song writers and publishers. You are taking the self serving word of the dishonest person who got the benefit of the product or service without having to pay for it. What do you think they are going to say? Theft of services and unjust enrichment have long been recognized in the common law for a reason. Try telling the cable company you were not going to pay when you get your illegal cable hookup. That's not a tangible product that you are depriving someone else of either but the penalties in many states are serious for pirating cable.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

before i could even buy music we were tading tapes in the midle of the eighties.

I guess we are all criminals for trading blank tape copies back then.

LOL

my first Misfits tape was a copy!!! Danzig 1 I had a copy too!!!

This brings up a valid point. While the music industry loves to blame their poor sales for the past four years on illegal downloads, the truth is more like we did that years ago with cassettes.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Rochard

This brings up a valid point. While the music industry loves to blame their poor sales for the past four years on illegal downloads, the truth is more like we did that years ago with cassettes.

The music industries poor sales are there own fault.

Instead of having music guys in charge they put "suits" in charge. Music became "product". Instead of finding the next Beatles, Rolling Stones, or Jimi Hendrix...we got stuck with Nickelback, rap, and anything else that they could figure out how to shove down our throats that was interchangeable with no talent.

That being said...despite gideongalleries delusional longing for all of us to justify his primal urge to steal everything...
There IS a big difference between making copies of something for yourself and a handful of your buddies as opposed to uploading stuff onto torrent sites so that some piece of shit can make millions off of your hard work. BIG difference. One day, when gideongallery leaves his parent's home and tries to make it in this world, he too will understand.

Nah, he won't.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

Who can really say what someone would or would not have paid for had the alternative to obtain it without compensating the artist and distributors and song writers and publishers. You are taking the self serving word of the dishonest person who got the benefit of the product or service without having to pay for it. What do you think they are going to say? Theft of services and unjust enrichment have long been recognized in the common law for a reason. Try telling the cable company you were not going to pay when you get your illegal cable hookup. That's not a tangible product that you are depriving someone else of either but the penalties in many states are serious for pirating cable.

Solid point. What they would or would not have paid for, in my eyes, doesn't really matter. The reality is that they downloaded it and now own it and didn't pay for it.

[doridori]

'although it is true that someone who copies porn has little incentive to purchase the porn through legitimate means, it does not necessarily follow that the downloader would have made a legitimate purchase if the porn had not been available for free.'

that sums everything up. replace music with porn.

[doridori]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

I really don't think most of those people are in fact keeping the songs, they will download an album, listen to the tracks a couple of times. and junk them after they get tired of them. IT the modern day equivalent of taping a song off the radio and then rerecording over it when you get tired of the song.

same with porn, games, everything. its freely abundant. ppl dl and dlete stuff all the time because they know they can get it again for free.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

Who can really say what someone would or would not have paid for had the alternative to obtain it without compensating the artist and distributors and song writers and publishers.

law of supply and demand

demand increases as price goes down

so a lot of people who would have simply chose to not use the services at all would be mistakenly counted as buyers of the good.

IF the torrents didn't exist i would never have watched my own worst enemy.

I didn't start watching it until two different friends recommended it to me ( one because i mentioned i was looking forward to 24 and another when i mentioned burn notice)

the show was over the season was done, only the last two episodes were available for streaming on globaltv.com

if i hadn't downloaded the first episode and watched i would have never become a fan.

comming to the conclusion that i would have bought the dvd boxed set when it comes out 6 months from now is insanely stupid arguement.

[D Ghost]

god, fuck the RIAA

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Rochard

This brings up a valid point. While the music industry loves to blame their poor sales for the past four years on illegal downloads, the truth is more like we did that years ago with cassettes.

trading a cassette with a friend isnt the same as trading with 1 million people.

[dav3]

dont copy that floppy!!

[LiveDose]

It's funny to see the tables turned. I still remember having to buy an album of pure shit back in the day just to get 1 good song.

[Drake]

The internet made it easy for somebody like me to sample music from artists I would consider buying but was unsure. I used to buy albums from groups and artists I had never heard of just because I was curious to listen to what kind of music was out there. I later learned that Hendrix used to do the same.

[Jim_Gunn]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

law of supply and demand

demand increases as price goes down

so a lot of people who would have simply chose to not use the services at all would be mistakenly counted as buyers of the good.

IF the torrents didn't exist i would never have watched my own worst enemy.

I didn't start watching it until two different friends recommended it to me ( one because i mentioned i was looking forward to 24 and another when i mentioned burn notice)

the show was over the season was done, only the last two episodes were available for streaming on globaltv.com

if i hadn't downloaded the first episode and watched i would have never become a fan.

comming to the conclusion that i would have bought the dvd boxed set when it comes out 6 months from now is insanely stupid arguement.

I doesn't matter what someone would have or could have done in some theoretical world with some hypothetical circumstance. What matters is that in this reality you- or the freeloader in question- is rocking out in your car, home stereo or ipod to some band's tunes who never got paid for the fact that you are enjoying the fruit of their creativity and hard work. Hardly seems fair now does it?

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

I doesn't matter what someone would have or could have done in some theoretical world with some hypothetical circumstance. What matters is that in this reality you- or the freeloader in question- is rocking out in your car, home stereo or ipod to some band's tunes who never got paid for the fact that you are enjoying the fruit of their creativity and hard work. Hardly seems fair now does it?

Jim, Jim, Jim...how foolish can you be? Not only is it fair, but it's FAIR USE!
Who cares if the artist gets paid? Who cares if we get paid for our work?

This is GideonGalleries world baby! We only live in it! Get used to it. You better get with this new and improved GideonGallery world where everything is "time shifted" now before it's too late.

Wait, strike that. It's never too late. Just upload this moment onto a torrent and time shift it. So later, when you come to your senses you can re-download it and have fair use!

It's all so clear to me now. I don't do anything in real time anymore. I even used my DVR to record "Nip Tuck" the other day. But I didn't watch it. No, I uploaded it to a torrent. And NOW, when I feel like it...I will download it and watch it on my computer screen instead!

See how much better that is Jim?

Let me break it down to ya:

gideongallery + living in his parents' basement in Canada + torrents X tubes = Communism!

[Jim_Gunn]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Jim, Jim, Jim...how foolish can you be? Not only is it fair, but it's FAIR USE!
Who cares if the artist gets paid? Who cares if we get paid for our work?

This is GideonGalleries world baby! We only live in it! Get used to it. You better get with this new and improved GideonGallery world where everything is "time shifted" now before it's too late.

Wait, strike that. It's never too late. Just upload this moment onto a torrent and time shift it. So later, when you come to your senses you can re-download it and have fair use!

It's all so clear to me now. I don't do anything in real time anymore. I even used my DVR to record "Nip Tuck" the other day. But I didn't watch it. No, I uploaded it to a torrent. And NOW, when I feel like it...I will download it and watch it on my computer screen instead!

See how much better that is Jim?

Let me break it down to ya:

gideongallery + living in his parents' basement in Canada + torrents X tubes = Communism!

I know it makes no sense at all. Once in a while he sheepishly throws in the mention almost as an afterthought that you should only "time shift" something if you paid for it. But I don't think he really believes it. I guarantee that Gideon is a highly intelligent but very low status and underpaid functionary in an office of a technology company somewhere who is really angry at the world and that this whole schpiel about the new economy and fair use is his way to feel important.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Of course having to now prove that point is going to make it a lot harder to get a conviction now.
.

Wouldn't that point just affect the amount of actual damages that can be claimed?

I don't see how that would help or hurt with a conviction.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Wouldn't that point just affect the amount of actual damages that can be claimed?

I don't see how that would help or hurt with a conviction.

Bro, do NOT argue with gideongallery about the law. He uses wikipedia

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Wouldn't that point just affect the amount of actual damages that can be claimed?

I don't see how that would help or hurt with a conviction.

Bump for an answer

[Barefootsies]

You know, you really are one seriously annoying faggot troll who gets his jollies off posting this bullshit on the board. You just like stirring the pot for no other purpose than to get people all worked up.

No one gives a flying fuck about your 'time shifting' bullshit, and as many threads have shown. No one is going to be persuaded to your fucked up concepts or ways of thinking.

Fucking asshat.

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Bro, do NOT argue with gideongallery about the law. He uses wikipedia

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=74342

"US Courts citing Wikipedia"

judge and homeland security cite wikipedia heheh

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=74342

"US Courts citing Wikipedia"

judge and homeland security cite wikipedia heheh

Priceless, just priceless....Gideongallery probably writes all that bullshit on wikipedia himself, then the dumbass judges (who are nothing but failed lawyers elected to a post) in their ignorance of how the internet works, read gideons bullshit and then it becomes self-fulfilling. LOL

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Wouldn't that point just affect the amount of actual damages that can be claimed?

I don't see how that would help or hurt with a conviction.

let use robbie's site as an example

suppose i wrote a program that virtualized the video card and did a bit by bit copy of that data to file.
I now have a shareable version of his encrypted stream video

i setup a torrent site to service all the people that "Robbie refuses to sell too"


before i let them access the torrent i put some kind of declartion that they don't want to buy his content under his streaming only rules.

That could be a person who got suckered into buying because he doesn't clearly specify on his tour that it is streaming only all the way to the people who simply want to have the right to watch the movie they bought a viewing right after their membership is cancelled (timeshifting)

The explictly declare they are not potential or actual customers.
Now the act of providing the functionality is not an infringement (rule 4 of the fair use doctrine)

i have not change the value of your copyright material ergo it falls under the fair use exemption ergo no copyright infringement

Unless you get one of those people to admit the lied and were in fact replacing a membership they would have bought with the free offer of content i am providing.

if you do, then i send them to jail for committing fraud, since i set my system to provide only to those outside the scope of your delivery of copyrighted material.

This is a bit of an abuse of ruling, equating regionality restrictions to format restrictions but since you are deliberately denying an established fair use (timeshifting) using the same arguement that the court already ruled was invalid (you only get access at the time, i give you access) i didn't think it that bad.

Odds are it will be use for movies pirated in a region where the content is not distributed
ie (dr who confidential in canada/US).

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Priceless, just priceless....Gideongallery probably writes all that bullshit on wikipedia himself, then the dumbass judges (who are nothing but failed lawyers elected to a post) in their ignorance of how the internet works, read gideons bullshit and then it becomes self-fulfilling. LOL

while i won't necessarily defend its use in court rooms, possibly due to your age group, you may not realize how much wiki is used in colleges across the US every day and has quickly become a resource not just among web lovers, but researchers and now as my article stated, judges and even Homeland Security.

[cess]

They should just appeal or whatever. Get a judge that isn't a complete idiot. If someone did something illegal then they did something illegal. If they were going to buy it or not makes no difference because they got it illegally and should pay the price. I guess one or two court cases out of a 100 or so you're gonna get some moron for a judge.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

let use robbie's site as an example

suppose i wrote a program that virtualized the video card and did a bit by bit copy of that data to file.
I now have a shareable version of his encrypted stream video

i setup a torrent site to service all the people that "Robbie refuses to sell too"


before i let them access the torrent i put some kind of declartion that they don't want to buy his content under his streaming only rules.

That could be a person who got suckered into buying because he doesn't clearly specify on his tour that it is streaming only all the way to the people who simply want to have the right to watch the movie they bought a viewing right after their membership is cancelled (timeshifting)

The explictly declare they are not potential or actual customers.
Now the act of providing the functionality is not an infringement (rule 4 of the fair use doctrine)

i have not change the value of your copyright material ergo it falls under the fair use exemption ergo no copyright infringement

Unless you get one of those people to admit the lied and were in fact replacing a membership they would have bought with the free offer of content i am providing.

if you do, then i send them to jail for committing fraud, since i set my system to provide only to those outside the scope of your delivery of copyrighted material.

This is a bit of an abuse of ruling, equating regionality restrictions to format restrictions but since you are deliberately denying an established fair use (timeshifting) using the same arguement that the court already ruled was invalid (you only get access at the time, i give you access) i didn't think it that bad.

Odds are it will be use for movies pirated in a region where the content is not distributed
ie (dr who confidential in canada/US).

I'm sure that's the answer to a question, but it's not the answer to my question. (The whole "refuses to sell to someone" is from another thread)

The judge rejected RIAA's argument that each infringing download is a lost sale.

You said that would make it harder to get a conviction.

I said, wouldn't that just affect the amount of actual damages were the RIAA to win the case, and not affect their ability to get a conviction?

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

while i won't necessarily defend its use in court rooms, possibly due to your age group, you may not realize how much wiki is used in colleges across the US every day and has quickly become a resource not just among web lovers, but researchers and now as my article stated, judges and even Homeland Security.

Damn...did you just call me old?

Fuck.

And yeah, I do realize how many people use wiki. I've kinda worked on the internet for the last 12 years or so and even us old geezers try to keep up with what the kids are doing these days.

But as we both know, the wiki is what you make of it. It's written by clowns like us. No way to tell if the person who wrote each submission has any expertise in what he's writing about...or even if they are who they claim to be.

Funny that anybody would use wikipedia as a reliable source for anything. Not saying there isn't good info on there. Just saying it's not vetted for facts.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

let use robbie's site as an example

suppose i...blah, blah, blah

The explictly declare they are not potential or actual customers. blah, blah, blah

i have not change the value of your copyright material ergo it falls under the fair use exemption ergo no copyright infringement.blah, blah, blah

This if GREAT news gideon! I have just decided that I was never going to use electricity from the power company! The motherfuckers just stream it and don't let me keep it. I wanted to timeshift it to use later. So I'm going to cancel my "membership" to the electric company and just start taking it for free!

It's fair use all the way baby! I'm next considering to declare that I am not and never will again buy groceries, clothing, cars, my internet connection, cable television....

Edit: After all they aren't losing any revenue since I just "declared" that I'm not gonna buy anything from them. This is genius! Gideongallery you are the best!

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by Robbie

This if GREAT news gideon! I have just decided that I was never going to use electricity from the power company! The motherfuckers just stream it and don't let me keep it. I wanted to timeshift it to use later. So I'm going to cancel my "membership" to the electric company and just start taking it for free!

It's fair use all the way baby! I'm next considering to declare that I am not and never will again buy groceries, clothing, cars, my internet connection, cable television....

Edit: After all they aren't losing any revenue since I just "declared" that I'm not gonna buy anything from them. This is genius! Gideongallery you are the best!

[Snake Doctor]

BTW gideon, not to be an ass or anything, but if the only person breaking the law is the person downloading something they don't have a right to view (which is something you said in another thread)

Then what about Daniel Dove?

Daniel Dove was originally found guilty of criminal copyright infringement for running a torrent group called "Elite Torrents" between 2004 and 2005. The jury in the case had found Dove guilty of reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works, as well as conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement. At the time, Judge Jones sentenced Dove to 18 months in prison for each count, plus a special assessment of $200 and a $20,000 fine ($10,000 per count).

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Damn...did you just call me old?

Fuck.

And yeah, I do realize how many people use wiki. I've kinda worked on the internet for the last 12 years or so and even us old geezers try to keep up with what the kids are doing these days.

I wasnt calling you anything, I simply know you fall into an age group that is higher than the average college web 2.0 kid these days. Arent you in the gramma/pa porn niche?

anyway, you do seem to place no value on wikipedia, you said "he uses wiki" as if it has no truth behind it, and is simply not the case and thats all I wrote. Im not here to argue the validity of wiki, however it is used as a reference, and thats all i aimed to prove.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

Arent you in the gramma/pa porn niche?

No! LOL! Grampland is a milf tgp. That's about it. Other than that I've ALWAYS ran general tgps and used to do enough teen niche traffic to be one of the biggest lightspeed cash affiliates (won a motorcycle from them)

And my point was "Yes" of course I know all about wikipedia. How the hell could I not. I WORK ON THE INTERNET lol

The main thing I'm making money with these days is the big tit niche courtesy of claudia-marie.com

But yeah, I still make sales with other programs for every niche there is.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

, you said "he uses wiki" as if it has no truth behind it, and is simply not the case and thats all I wrote.

And my joke was that gideongallery takes wikipedia as the gospel for legal rulings. Of course it's written by anybody. So it's not. Some of it is correct and factual and some of it is just plain old made up shit.

[Fletch XXX]

working on the internet has zero to do with the fact that you seem to negate the fact that wiki uses references.

note: if a newspaper prints it and you cite it on wiki, its as good as when in senate chambers Senators use NY Times to drill politicians, its that simple really.

but again, im not here to argue how valid wiki is, i just believe it is more valid than you make it to be.