$32 million - Hosting Company Liable for Contributory Trademark Infringement - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Dirty Dane · 09-04-2009, 08:59 PM

pornlaw, it is useless to explain something to someone who can't (or won't) see the difference between a gun and the gunman.

Robbie · 09-04-2009, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so a lawyer who claims

using a case where the host actually ignored takedown request as a bases for that arguement.

And doesn't have the common sense to realize that maybe the reason that safe harbor didn't apply was because they didn't meet the requirements for it to apply should be respected.

I understand an idiot who believes copying waynes world in porn is creative could make such a mistake, but good lawyer wouldn't.

btw the RDVR case was like 2 months ago.

so it wasn't me that apply the vcr case to the internet it was the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Gideon, I just looked up "full of shit" in the dictionary and damn...there was your picture.

How's the marketing of that torrent recorder coming along there big money? Oh, it's failing too? That's okay, you can just blame it on the big companies that are so greedy that they actually have the nerve to try and make money off of their labors.

You're right gideongallery...YOU are right. And the judge that just put that pirate in jail a couple of weeks ago is wrong. YOU are right and Sweden running TPB out of the damn country was wrong. YOU are right and a guy who actually IS a lawyer and actually practices law for a living is wrong.

First you try to tell ME how to sell porn. Even though you DON'T.
Then you make the statement that none of the people who make a good living in the porn biz know what they are doing but if we hire you to teach us then you can "save" us. Even though you DON'T know anything about this business

And now...

...
Now you have...

Now you have actually confronted a REAL lawyer and told him how the law works even thought you DON'T have a clue!!!

Goddamn I am laughing so hard I'm in tears.

I love you gideongallery (in a non-homosexual way), please, please keep up with your delusional rants. You are so damn funny because in YOUR mind you are serious. That's why it's just so damn funny to read your insanity.

pornlaw · 09-04-2009, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

using a case where the host actually ignored takedown request as a bases for that arguement.

And doesn't have the common sense to realize that maybe the reason that safe harbor didn't apply was because they didn't meet the requirements for it to apply should be respected.

I understand an idiot who believes copying waynes world in porn is creative could make such a mistake, but good lawyer wouldn't.

Tsk, Tsk you can do better than that. Stop with the personal attacks and debate me on the law. I asked for case cites and statutes that say the DMCA applies to contributory TM infringement claims.

Where are they ? Can you even do simple legal research ? Give me factual information to support your arguments.....

gideongallery · 09-04-2009, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Please, please, please show me where or how the DMCA even applies to trademarks ?

Cite some statutes or cases that hold that the DMCA applies to TMs ?

DMCA applies to copyright issues. There is no Lanham Act Take Down Notice. I wouldnt even need to send a take down notice for a TM infringement claim. I would send a C&D and if the host did not respond I am off the local District Court with my complaint.

The gravamen of my complaint would be that they are using the trademark, ie the watermark on the content, for a commercial use without an assignment of rights - not the actual video content.

And yes, by doing this I can eviscerate your "fair use" defense since I dont even care about the content - you wouldnt even be able to raise it as a defense to a Lanham Act violation. Unless you fit into one of the limited nominative fair use defenses to trademark infringement; (1) The product or service cannot be readily identified without using the trademark (e.g. trademark is descriptive of a person, place, or product attribute); (2)
The user only uses so much of the mark as is necessary for the identification (e.g. the words but not the font or symbol); (3) The user does nothing to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. You would be SOL.

I can bypass copyright law and go right for the Lanham violations, which means I dont even care if the content is registered with the US Copyright Office. All I need is a federally registered TM and I am good to go.

first of all i didn't DMCA takedown i said takedown

as tiffany takedown request to ebay thru the Ebay VeRO program

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...with_ Tiffany

it only by ignoring that key difference between those two case (ebay having a takedown policy and this host ignoring all takedown notices) that you come to the conclusion it a game changer.

such an interpretation were validated by the court it would represent a complete fair use killer, it would allow people to completely censor parodies and all kinds of free expression by simple putting a trademarked logo on their content. (as your "I can eviscerate your "fair use" defense" claim proves).

if this ruling extended to all host even if they had a self imposed trademark takedown policy then ebay would have lost their case against tiffany, instead of the reverse.

oh and btw the self-imposed VeRO policy mirrors the DMCA take down notice in context.

this lose has everything to do with the refusal to respond to takedown request by LV then some magic loop hole that allows your "eviscerate" all fair use.

Robbie · 09-04-2009, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Tsk, Tsk you can do better than that. Stop with the personal attacks and debate me on the law. I asked for case cites and statutes that say the DMCA applies to contributory TM infringement claims.

Where are they ? Can you even do simple legal research ? Give me factual information to support your arguments.....

Hang on...I'll handle this for gideongallery...

<gideongallery insanity>
VCR's, sony, clouds, timeshifting, fair use, waynes world, parody of hitler, swarm, back up.
Now do you understand?
</gideongallery insanity>

gideongallery · 09-04-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Hang on...I'll handle this for gideongallery...

<gideongallery insanity>
VCR's, sony, clouds, timeshifting, fair use, waynes world, parody of hitler, swarm, back up.
Now do you understand?
</gideongallery insanity>

it actually easier

i said takedown (as in Ebay VeRO) not DMCA takedown.

the fact that Ebay VeRO policy mirrors the DMCA takedown policy in context is the point i am making

had they complied with the takedown request

the ebay precedent would have applied

Quote:

Companies like eBay cannot be held liable for trademark infringement based solely on their generalized knowledge that trademark infringement might be occurring on their Web sites," Sullivan said in his ruling. "The court finds that the plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden on all of its claims."

gideongallery · 09-04-2009, 09:39 PM

but robbie your going to spend the money hiring pornlaw to fight out the case against a company which properly responds to takedown requests

post the case here, i will make sure that a friends of a court filing is issued pointing out the conditions of the Ebay v tiffany ruling.

and specifically how that "host" is closer to ebay then this host.

pornlaw · 09-04-2009, 10:11 PM

Here's an analysis from a "real" lawyer on your beloved Ebay holding ... which is now up on appeal to the 2nd Circuit... And by the way.. Robbie and I are in the 9th Circuit which means Ebay isnt the law in our part of the country...

Quote:

The primary issue before the 2nd Circuit in Tiffany v. eBay is whether a supplier must have specific or generalized knowledge that infringement is occurring before acting to halt infringement. Tiffany's position is that generalized knowledge is sufficient to at least trigger a duty to investigate on the part of an auction house like eBay. (Fn5) eBay's position, which was adopted by the District Court, is that generalized knowledge is insufficient to impute either knowledge or a reason to know of trademark infringement, or any duty to halt the activity. (Fn6)

Assuming that the 2nd Circuit upholds the District Court on this point, eBay's notice and takedown system goes beyond what appears to be required to avoid liability for contributory trademark infringement. (Fn7) By reaching out and requesting notices of infringement, eBay is not merely acting on evidence it already possesses, but is reaching out proactively to investigate and discover incidences of infringement of which it may have no constructive knowledge. All that the law requires is that eBay act on obvious evidence of fraud that it already possesses. Indeed, eBay's use of a fraud engine to search its listings for such facial evidence, along with its apparently manual periodic "clean-up" reviews of listings, could be sufficient for eBay to avoid being found willfully blind to incidences of trademark infringement -- assuming these measures are sufficiently robust.

On the other hand, if the 2nd Circuit finds that generalized knowledge is sufficient to at least trigger a duty to investigate, eBay's notice and takedown system may not be enough for it to avoid liability. As Tiffany's briefs point out, eBay's notice and takedown system puts the burden on the trademark rights owner to identify problematic listings -- in other words, it shifts the duty to investigate from eBay to Tiffany. On the other hand, the 2nd Circuit might find that eBay's use of a fraud engine and periodic "clean-up" of listings are sufficient to satisfy's eBay's burden to avoid being found willfully blind to incidences of counterfeiting.

eBay's notice and takedown may actually open eBay up to potential liability for contributory trademark infringement. Some cases have held that advance notice of a specific act of infringement can create knowledge that is sufficient to trigger a duty to act by a supplier.

Quote:

i said takedown (as in Ebay VeRO) not DMCA takedown.

Here's what you said...

Quote:

ok let see
host get takedown notice
host ignores take down notices
host claims safe harbor protection for content they refused to respond too
judge and jury deny safe harbor protection.

Content does not refer to TMs and there is no Safe Harbor for the Lanham Act. Safe Harbor refers to DMCA... therefore it is not unreasonable to think your use of takedown notice also refers to DMCA.

You are mixing your arguments.

pornlaw · 09-04-2009, 10:18 PM

And again, please show me where your "fair use" argument was used by Ebay in the defense of their case ?

CrkMStanz · 09-04-2009, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

...
You are mixing your arguments.

this tactic is the basis for every rebuttal Giddyboy has ever made

better brush up on your circular logic skillz

because you are gonna need 'em to keep your sanity here

DonovanTrent · 09-04-2009, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Hang on...I'll handle this for gideongallery...

<gideongallery insanity>
VCR's, sony, clouds, timeshifting, fair use, waynes world, parody of hitler, swarm, back up.
Now do you understand?
</gideongallery insanity>

You forgot about the brand bugs.

I'm glad to see GideonGallery got his second wind and returned to the thread swinging. I will instruct my minions to resume constructing the popcorn ball.

Robbie · 09-05-2009, 12:32 AM

I have to say that I've been itching for Michael to enter into a gideongallery thread for a long time as I really wanted to enjoy watching him hand gideon his ass...but he wisely ignored the stupidity.

But now gideongallery in his growing desperation has made the fatal mistake of trying out his armchair lawyering against a professional and entered Michaels thread!

And he's having the same results as when he tried his armchair marketing theories...total fail.

gideongallery · 09-05-2009, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Here's an analysis from a "real" lawyer on your beloved Ebay holding ... which is now up on appeal to the 2nd Circuit... And by the way.. Robbie and I are in the 9th Circuit which means Ebay isnt the law in our part of the country...

Here's what you said...

Content does not refer to TMs and there is no Safe Harbor for the Lanham Act. Safe Harbor refers to DMCA... therefore it is not unreasonable to think your use of takedown notice also refers to DMCA.

You are mixing your arguments.

your the one claiming that this win has nothing to do with the fact that they were informed about the violation and did absolutely nothing to takedown the infringing sites

the point i am making is that by notifying them about SPECIFIC instances of violations
LV well exceeded the "generalized knowledge" level that all cases of fuck the dmca takedown notice, just sue them for trademark violations with no specific notification whatsoever would have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

And again, please show me where your "fair use" argument was used by Ebay in the defense of their case ?

i never said it was,
i am talking about the consequence of what your claiming is possible

if what you say was true

all the NRA would have to do to completely censor all negative documentaries about them is to stamp their logo on all their speaches.

RDVR case would have to be reversed because every tv show has a trademarked logo stamped on it.

No fair use right could exist for anyone, unless the trademark holder allowed it.

if a policy of not accepting logoed content, and therefore inducing end users to scrub the logo for you would be considered a violation in itself. Creating a situation where there was no way to seperate the copyright content from the trademark then you would be talking about transforming the conditional monopoly of copyright into an absolute monopoly something that congress never intended to do.

hosts would have no choice but to stop hosting user generated content unless it was PROVEN to be completely created by that user.

free speech is significantly destroyed by such an interpretation of the courts.

DWB · 09-05-2009, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Let me see...
Gideon "pussyserver" Gallery draws all of his conclusions from an old case involving vcr's and applies it to the internet.

Then Gideon "totally delusional" Gallery tells Michael Fattorosi (an actual attorney) that he is all wrong for drawing his conclusions from a case INVOLVING THE ACTUAL INTERNET

Insane loner living in his parents basement using a decades old ruling that was before the internet existed VS Respected attorney at law showing a new precedent involving the internet.

Only in the completely insane world of GideonGallery does this make any sense at all.

I warned you gideon...you're playhouse is going to tumble. There is a very good reason that no company with any credibility will buy into any of your "theories" on marketing.
1. They don't work
2. The whole foundation for it is about to become illegal.

I look forward to my daily dose of Robbie posts.

pornlaw · 09-05-2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

all the NRA would have to do to completely censor all negative documentaries about them is to stamp their logo on all their speaches.

RDVR case would have to be reversed because every tv show has a trademarked logo stamped on it.

No fair use right could exist for anyone, unless the trademark holder allowed it.

if a policy of not accepting logoed content, and therefore inducing end users to scrub the logo for you would be considered a violation in itself. Creating a situation where there was no way to seperate the copyright content from the trademark then you would be talking about transforming the conditional monopoly of copyright into an absolute monopoly something that congress never intended to do.

hosts would have no choice but to stop hosting user generated content unless it was PROVEN to be completely created by that user.

free speech is significantly destroyed by such an interpretation of the courts.

That is the heart of the matter... and I agree that your concerns are real.

However, its the law and you really cannot get around it. Logos and TMs are treated much differently that copyrighted content.

You may want to read some Logo/TM Use Policies of mainstream companies...

http://tulane.edu/news/style/logos/trademark.cfm

http://www.sun.com/policies/trademarks/

http://www.adobe.com/misc/linking.html

In 1972 there was a case involving Coca-Cola and the Gemini Company where Coke successfully prevented Gemini from changing their logo and profiting from it. Gemini created a poster with "Enjoy Cocaine" from the "Enjoy Coke" red and white logo. Coke sued and won. Gemini even tried to use free speech as a defense stating its poster was an instance of free expression secured by the First Amendment, which constitutes fair comment and cannot be defamatory without a claim of malice. The court shot that argument down very quickly.

However, there are cases in support of fair use and TM -- LL Bean v. High Society Magazine is one example. High Society did a porn parody of LL Bean called "LL Bean's Back to School Sex Catalog." LLBean sued under a theory of TM infringement and the court held for the magazine calling it a parody-- so parody would still stand. This issue has been addressed by many courts, albeit divided -- see the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders case against the Pussycat Theater- where the court held that the use of the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader costumes in the movie was not free speech nor fair use.

However the issue we are discussing is not parody or fair use. The limited issue I am discussing is taking someone else's content with a TM logo and uploading it to a tubesite without any transformation of the underlying content. Thats not parody. Thats not free speech, nor is it artistic expression. It is the unauthorized use of someone else's intellectual property for profit.

Your examples differ factually from the issue at hand. Your RDVR case is not a commercial use, its for private personal use.

If you make a documentary about the porn industry and take a small clip of Claudia-Marie getting worked over hard, perhaps less than 15 seconds, to illustrate and comment on the MILF portion of the market and Robbie's TM logo is on that clip, I doubt that Robbie would have an actionable case. That would be nominative use for the logo and fair use for the content.

No where in any of my posts did I say this argument is a guaranteed winning argument. All I said was that there is now one more arrow in a quiver of arrows to go after tubesites with.

We can literally debate all day on this one and there are numerous cases going either way. Thats what makes it debate. I like cutting edge law, thats the only thing that makes being a lawyer interesting, thats where the creativity lies in the practice of law.

CrkMStanz · 09-05-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

blah,blah,blah...

No fair use right could exist for anyone, unless the trademark holder allowed it.

blah,blah,blah...

GiddyBoy...

how can you NOT understand that fair use is defined...

Quote:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

1.the nature of the copyrighted work;
2.the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
3.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]

there is NOTHING in that quote that justifies your interpretation of 'fair use'

PARODY is judged on a case by case basis

profiting off of full unaltered copies of other peoples work is NOT COVERED OR PROTECTED - that distributing full unaltered copies of other peoples work is NOT LEGAL.

we all agree that parodies are cool, mashups are unique, using pieces of someones work for comparison/comment/etc is totally cool.

but publically distributing full copies/siterips is actionable

get with the reality

your future business plans are doomed

.

TheAmericanCannibal · 09-05-2009, 09:56 AM

and this kids....is why Michael ( PornLaw) is my partner in 2257safe.com

He makes great arguments and knows the new 2257 laws better than anyone else I have spoke to.

gideongallery · 09-05-2009, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

That is the heart of the matter... and I agree that your concerns are real.

However, its the law and you really cannot get around it. Logos and TMs are treated much differently that copyrighted content.

You may want to read some Logo/TM Use Policies of mainstream companies...

http://tulane.edu/news/style/logos/trademark.cfm

http://www.sun.com/policies/trademarks/

http://www.adobe.com/misc/linking.html

In 1972 there was a case involving Coca-Cola and the Gemini Company where Coke successfully prevented Gemini from changing their logo and profiting from it. Gemini created a poster with "Enjoy Cocaine" from the "Enjoy Coke" red and white logo. Coke sued and won. Gemini even tried to use free speech as a defense stating its poster was an instance of free expression secured by the First Amendment, which constitutes fair comment and cannot be defamatory without a claim of malice. The court shot that argument down very quickly.

However, there are cases in support of fair use and TM -- LL Bean v. High Society Magazine is one example. High Society did a porn parody of LL Bean called "LL Bean's Back to School Sex Catalog." LLBean sued under a theory of TM infringement and the court held for the magazine calling it a parody-- so parody would still stand. This issue has been addressed by many courts, albeit divided -- see the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders case against the Pussycat Theater- where the court held that the use of the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader costumes in the movie was not free speech nor fair use.

However the issue we are discussing is not parody or fair use. The limited issue I am discussing is taking someone else's content with a TM logo and uploading it to a tubesite without any transformation of the underlying content. Thats not parody. Thats not free speech, nor is it artistic expression. It is the unauthorized use of someone else's intellectual property for profit.

but parody has just recently been extended to include the downfall parody (thanks to eff)
taking a claudia marie sex scene and dubbing in a new comedic dialog would far exceed that level of change and could therefore be argued to be equally protected.

how could a tube site/torrent site tell the diffence between such parody and the underlying work that would be infringing without the input of the original creator

the circumventing of all notification process as you described would create a censorship of such parodies.

Quote:

Your examples differ factually from the issue at hand. Your RDVR case is not a commercial use, its for private personal use.

cablevision charges a monthly fee for the service, they even charge upgrade fees if you were exceed your level of storage and wanted more.

there is a commercial component to the transaction.

the multiple copies that each person used private viewing, was copied from the data stream multiple times and was delivered over public networks (including the internet, and shared peering).

The parallel to a using the swarm (as the cloud) to deliver those personal copies that were used for private viewing is quite clear. The parallel between the service fees and the ad revenue for providing cede service is also equally clear.

Quote:

If you make a documentary about the porn industry and take a small clip of Claudia-Marie getting worked over hard, perhaps less than 15 seconds, to illustrate and comment on the MILF portion of the market and Robbie's TM logo is on that clip, I doubt that Robbie would have an actionable case. That would be nominative use for the logo and fair use for the content.

No where in any of my posts did I say this argument is a guaranteed winning argument. All I said was that there is now one more arrow in a quiver of arrows to go after tubesites with.

We can literally debate all day on this one and there are numerous cases going either way. Thats what makes it debate. I like cutting edge law, thats the only thing that makes being a lawyer interesting, thats where the creativity lies in the practice of law.

i agree, but the law is normally quite balanced, equilibrium is important.

the balance would exist in a notification policy/sanction system that draws the line between "general knowledge" (could be a full scene, could be modified scene) and "specific knowledge" (i have been told by the creator this is an infringing scene and choose to leave it up).

That balance would match the current equilbrium created by the safe harbor provision of the DMCA (as it should).

like i said when you and robbie decide to go after the first tube site with your arguement post the details i will make sure the friends of the court filing that brings up these key points will be issued.

gideongallery · 09-05-2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

GiddyBoy...

how can you NOT understand that fair use is defined...

there is NOTHING in that quote that justifies your interpretation of 'fair use'

PARODY is judged on a case by case basis

profiting off of full unaltered copies of other peoples work is NOT COVERED OR PROTECTED - that distributing full unaltered copies of other peoples work is NOT LEGAL.

we all agree that parodies are cool, mashups are unique, using pieces of someones work for comparison/comment/etc is totally cool.

but publically distributing full copies/siterips is actionable

get with the reality

your future business plans are doomed

.

backup make complete copies of copyrighted materials they would not be effective backup if they didn't

sms servers and ghost images make shared access copies of that copyrighted material and are still covered by the fair use of backup.

shared access does not automatically make fair use invalid. the network effect does not automagically eliminate fair use.

a public transmission of content does not automatically equal a public broadcast of content.

beemk · 09-05-2009, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Gideon, I just looked up "full of shit" in the dictionary and damn...there was your picture.

nice one, are you 7 years old?

Agent 488 · 09-05-2009, 11:08 AM

why do i click on this shit.

CrkMStanz · 09-05-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

backup make complete copies of copyrighted materials they would not be effective backup if they didn't

sms servers and ghost images make shared access copies of that copyrighted material and are still covered by the fair use of backup.

shared access does not automatically make fair use invalid. the network effect does not automagically eliminate fair use.

a public transmission of content does not automatically equal a public broadcast of content.

shared access does not automatically make (your version of) fair use valid either

when any business licenses content for broadcast they have paid the copyright owners for the RIGHT to do it and everyone is happy - the companies offering rDVR DO have the right as they have paid for a content broadcast license.

when a company pays their licenses to use sms/ghost access/distribution to authorized recipients then they have paid the copyright owners for the RIGHT to do it and everyone is happy - the key is that they use SECURITY to ENSURE that it is distributed to authorized users

when a company/artist/content owner uploads something to a torrent for free distribution that is their CHOICE to do so and everyone is happy

when a legal tube buys all their content or licenses from producers (specifically for tube distribution) then every one is happy

NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH THE TECHNOLOGY

all others who misuse that technology need to be legislated, regulated, and in the case of repeat offenders - jailed.

and everyone in the chain needs to have some accountability - ISPs, hosts, site owners, and unauthorized up/downloaders

your plan is doomed

.

gideongallery · 09-05-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

shared access does not automatically make (your version of) fair use valid either

when any business licenses content for broadcast they have paid the copyright owners for the RIGHT to do it and everyone is happy - the companies offering rDVR DO have the right as they have paid for a content broadcast license.

if someone hacks into the cablevision servers and downloads someones timeshifted content does cablevision get penalized
no

Quote:

when a company pays their licenses to use sms/ghost access/distribution to authorized recipients then they have paid the copyright owners for the RIGHT to do it and everyone is happy - the key is that they use SECURITY to ENSURE that it is distributed to authorized users

have you ever setup an sms server ghosting system for a major network
they are protected by username and password
identity login
if a hacker comes in and guess your username and password does the company get convicted for copyright infringement
no

Quote:

when a company/artist/content owner uploads something to a torrent for free distribution that is their CHOICE to do so and everyone is happy

when a legal tube buys all their content or licenses from producers (specifically for tube distribution) then every one is happy

NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH THE TECHNOLOGY

all others who misuse that technology need to be legislated, regulated, and in the case of repeat offenders - jailed.

and everyone in the chain needs to have some accountability - ISPs, hosts, site owners, and unauthorized up/downloaders
your plan is doomed

.

but your arguing to criminalize the technology as a whole because of some potential infringement.
i used the torrents like a vcr
and the betamax case (the original) and the RDVR (the current) both recognized that my actions are what counts.

criminalizing the tracker prevents me from using torrents like the world best PVR (infinite hard drive space, record every show possible).

i have no problem with you going after all the people who use the torrents to pirate stuff.

leave the technology alone, punish the infringers.

Just like the above examples, you go after those people who fraudlently access the network(swarm) to infringe on the copyrights of the rightholders.

those that connect to network for a fair use or licienced purpose should be left alone

the infrastructure which is infringement neutral (can be used for infringement and fair use) should be left alone

the people who are actually violating copyright should be punished.

your chain of responsiblity arguement is completely inconsistant with the way the law is currently written especially when you take into account that copyright infringement law is based on the concept of WILFUL infringement.

gideongallery · 09-05-2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

shared access does not automatically make (your version of) fair use valid either

.

btw what exactly about

leave the tracker alone
leave the seeders alone
leave the leachers with a fair use right alone
punish the leachers without a fair use right

do you not understand. I have never claimed that shared access makes fair use valid.
i of course don't have to, all i need to do is prove that it doesn't automatically invalidate it.

fair use (in the context i am talking about) is a personal right, my right to move a show i paid for from monday to tuesday.

when i paid for the show i have that right, when i didn't there is no fair use right to consider.

It doesn't matter if i use a pvr, vcr, or the swarm to do it, i always have the right to move a show i paid for from monday to tuesday.

the key characteristic is did i pay for it or not. PERIOD. if i did then i have a right to timeshift it.

if i didn't then i don't have a right to timeshift it.

CrkMStanz · 09-05-2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

if someone hacks into the cablevision servers and downloads someones timeshifted content does cablevision get penalized
no

wow - i can't believe that I have to explain this to the the GGLawyerboy... but what the hell

the cablevision company (and all other Licensed broadcast types) have taken all due diligence to PREVENT unauthorized access - if someone breaks in then no - they are not liable - if they leave their system wide open for public access then yes - they most certainly are (like the torrents -and all other similar 'public access' technologies - do). the apple is NOT the same as the orange. When torrent (et al) police their own sites and put security in place such that only 'hackers breaking in' can get unauthorized access - then I will consider them in the same boat as the licensed broadcasters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

have you ever setup an sms server ghosting system for a major network
they are protected by username and password
identity login
if a hacker comes in and guess your username and password does the company get convicted for copyright infringement
no

I have not set one up myself, but have participated in various teams who have, and done support for said systems after installation. once again - they have taken all due diligence to PREVENT unauthorized access - if someone breaks in then no - they are not liable - if they leave their system wide open for public access then yes - they most certainly are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

but your arguing to criminalize the technology as a whole because of some potential infringement.

how many times does it need to be said NO ONE IS ARGUING AGAINST THE TECHNOLOGY.
NO ONE WANTS TO CRIMINALIZE THE TECHNOLOGY
its the misusers - which INCLUDES ISP's, hosts, site owners, and the individual infringers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

i used the torrents like a vcr
and the betamax case (the original) and the RDVR (the current) both recognized that my actions are what counts.

your 'legal use' does not legitamize it

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

criminalizing the tracker prevents me from using torrents like the world best PVR (infinite hard drive space, record every show possible).

no one wants to 'criminalize the tracker' - password protect the torrent and only give the password to those that can prove they are authorized to have it - then you are justified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

i have no problem with you going after all the people who use the torrents to pirate stuff.

leave the technology alone, punish the infringers.

Just like the above examples, you go after those people who fraudlently access the network(swarm) to infringe on the copyrights of the rightholders.

those that connect to network for a fair use or licienced purpose should be left alone

the infrastructure which is infringement neutral (can be used for infringement and fair use) should be left alone

the people who are actually violating copyright should be punished.

your chain of responsiblity arguement is completely inconsistant with the way the law is currently written especially when you take into account that copyright infringement law is based on the concept of WILFUL infringement.

punishing the individual infringers (just the downloaders by your interpretation) means tracking and opening the books on all the personal data of all the users - you really want to go there?

your arguments get weaker as you try to hone them to a point
but keep it up
Robbie needs the laughs..

.

CrkMStanz · 09-05-2009, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

btw what exactly about

leave the tracker alone
leave the seeders alone
leave the leachers with a fair use right alone
punish the leachers without a fair use right

do you not understand. I have never claimed that shared access makes fair use valid.
i of course don't have to, all i need to do is prove that it doesn't automatically invalidate it.

fair use (in the context i am talking about) is a personal right, my right to move a show i paid for from monday to tuesday.

when i paid for the show i have that right, when i didn't there is no fair use right to consider.

It doesn't matter if i use a pvr, vcr, or the swarm to do it, i always have the right to move a show i paid for from monday to tuesday.

the key characteristic is did i pay for it or not. PERIOD. if i did then i have a right to timeshift it.

if i didn't then i don't have a right to timeshift it.

do YOU not understand that when 'backup' and 'time shifting' legislations were put in to effect that the guiding principal was that methodologies used were meant to be private and personal.

you put it in a publically accessable place and you contravene the spirit (if not the letter) of said legislation - and sooner or later you are gonna get your peepee whacked.

just a matter of time

and the snowball has started down the hill

your arguments are flawed and delusional
your plan is doomed

.

gideongallery · 09-05-2009, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

wow - i can't believe that I have to explain this to the the GGLawyerboy... but what the hell

the cablevision company (and all other Licensed broadcast types) have taken all due diligence to PREVENT unauthorized access - if someone breaks in then no - they are not liable - if they leave their system wide open for public access then yes - they most certainly are (like the torrents -and all other similar 'public access' technologies - do). the apple is NOT the same as the orange. When torrent (et al) police their own sites and put security in place such that only 'hackers breaking in' can get unauthorized access - then I will consider them in the same boat as the licensed broadcasters.

I have not set one up myself, but have participated in various teams who have, and done support for said systems after installation. once again - they have taken all due diligence to PREVENT unauthorized access - if someone breaks in then no - they are not liable - if they leave their system wide open for public access then yes - they most certainly are.

really do you want to produce a single case where sys admin/company got criminally prosecuted for copyright infringement because one of their users did something stupid like setting their password to password.

it has never happened.

The burden of security you are talking about has never existed.

Quote:

how many times does it need to be said NO ONE IS ARGUING AGAINST THE TECHNOLOGY.
NO ONE WANTS TO CRIMINALIZE THE TECHNOLOGY
its the misusers - which INCLUDES ISP's, hosts, site owners, and the individual infringers.

your 'legal use' does not legitamize it

no one wants to 'criminalize the tracker' - password protect the torrent and only give the password to those that can prove they are authorized to have it - then you are justified.

and exactly how do i find out identity of all the authorized people without violating their privacy.

the only person who can do that is the content provider. And if they refuse to put up a private tracker and no one else can, that means

YOU ARE DENYING the technology to everyone who is authorized.

fact sony admitted that you could use the vcr to infringe on people copyright, that explictly warned about that
the courts ruled even that level of knowledge was not enough to prevent the technology.

expect that you must first prove that person is actually authorized BEFORE giving them access is insanely overboard. Especially when you know that walmart has never been required to prove you were not going to use the VCR for bootlegging before they sold it to you.

Quote:

punishing the individual infringers (just the downloaders by your interpretation) means tracking and opening the books on all the personal data of all the users - you really want to go there?

have you ever used a torrent.

http://azureus.sourceforge.net/screenshots_v2.php

the list of all the peers (including their ip address) is publically available to everyone in the swarm.

how could you connect to a peer if you didn't know what he/she ip address was.

Quote:

your arguments get weaker as you try to hone them to a point
but keep it up
Robbie needs the laughs..

.

says the guy who is so totally clueless about how torrent work that he didn't realize that the peer list is public.

SleazyDream · 09-05-2009, 02:24 PM

gideongallery, how much does tube fluffing pay?

CrkMStanz · 09-05-2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

really do you want to produce a single case where sys admin/company got criminally prosecuted for copyright infringement because one of their users did something stupid like setting their password to password.

it has never happened.

The burden of security you are talking about has never existed.

c'mon giddyboy - if you want to just get plain stupid, this argument becomes no fun.

i said they would be liable if they made their systems PUBLICALLY accessable - you are trying to justify with an argument that doesn't even apply to what i said... take a deep breath, you can do better than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

blah, blah, blah...

the list of all the peers (including their ip address) is publically available to everyone in the swarm.

how could you connect to a peer if you didn't know what he/she ip address was.

says the guy who is so totally clueless about how torrent work that he didn't realize that the peer list is public.

says the guy who seems to have forgotten that proxy's are part of the equasion... and any pirate worth his salt (arrrrrr matey) sure as hell isn't going to use his home IP address.

try again

but without the stupidity
stay on point

.

gideongallery · 09-05-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

do YOU not understand that when 'backup' and 'time shifting' legislations were put in to effect that the guiding principal was that methodologies used were meant to be private and personal.

you put it in a publically accessable place and you contravene the spirit (if not the letter) of said legislation - and sooner or later you are gonna get your peepee whacked.

just a matter of time

and the snowball has started down the hill

your arguments are flawed and delusional
your plan is doomed

.

again if it had to private and personal then cablevision would have lost. (and they didn't)

their cloud uses shared satellites, leased peers/local loops and the internet.

i suggest you look at the fair use statute again, see if you can see anything in that list of 4 conditions that says "the medium must be private"
backup was one of the court established fair use right, and bound exclusively by the 4 conditions of fair use. there is no possible way you can make the arguement you just did based on the actual wording of the law.

Quote:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

1.the nature of the copyrighted work;
2.the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
3.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]

HorseShit · 09-05-2009, 02:42 PM

somebody throw in some naked chick pics in here before the lawyer talk bores me to death

gideongallery · 09-05-2009, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

c'mon giddyboy - if you want to just get plain stupid, this argument becomes no fun.

i said they would be liable if the made their systems PUBLICALLY accessable - you are trying to justify with an argument that doesn't even apply to what i said... take a deep breath, you can do better than that.

and i am pointing out to you that sys admin that allows a user to access the sms server with username that the begining part of his email address (publically available) and a simple password ("password") is making it just as publically accessable as every torrent site out there.

Especially when you take into account that it impossible to tell the difference between authorized (timeshifter) and non authorized (infringers)

only the original content seller could tell the difference, and if they refused to setup a private tracker and other people were prevented for filling that need then the consequence is

denying the technology to all the authorized people

fact sony admitted that you could use the vcr to infringe on people copyright, that explictly warned about that in their manuals
the courts ruled even that level of knowledge was not enough to prevent the technology.

expect that you must first prove that person is actually authorized BEFORE giving them access is insanely overboard. Especially when you know that walmart has never been required to prove you were not going to use the VCR for bootlegging before they sold it to you.

Quote:

says the guy who seems to have forgotten that proxy's are part of the equasion... and any pirate worth his salt (arrrrrr matey) sure as hell isn't going to use his home IP address.

try again

but without the stupidity
stay on point

.

proxy and password sharing exist for paysites as well, so arguing that point is non sequitur.

those proxies are just another layer you have to get thru with court orders. The reality is copyright holders have been able to get thru proxy.
IF they could none of the people who got convicted / procecuted would have been found.

Manowar · 09-05-2009, 02:44 PM

32 million for being the host company... unreal

qxm · 09-05-2009, 03:23 PM

shit ... so this thread just became a pissing contest? ... fuck that I am outta here ..

CrkMStanz · 09-05-2009, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qxm

shit ... so this thread just became a pissing contest? ... fuck that I am outta here ..

ya - you are right

I was hoping if I kept giddyboy talking - that pornlaw would school him righteously

i now realize that any good and competent lawyer would never waste his time trying to explain the interrelationships of the various laws involved and their real life applications to a child

my bad

i r outta here too

DonovanTrent · 09-05-2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

ya - you are right

I was hoping if I kept giddyboy talking - that pornlaw would school him righteously

i now realize that any good and competent lawyer would never waste his time trying to explain the interrelationships of the various laws involved and their real life applications to a child

my bad

i r outta here too

No, GideonGallery saw where pornlaw said he was going to be out of town for a few days, so he decided to put on his "Official GFY Armchair Attorney" cap while he has free reign.

That's all.

gideongallery · 09-05-2009, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Let's talk...I leave for Italy on Monday for 3 weeks but I will be available until then. I think you have my cell number.

What I am saying is that you can go around DMCA and start giving notice to pirate sites where the content is and if they do not take it down you can hit them with a contributory trademark infringement suit instead of a DMCA takedown notice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonovanTrent

No, GideonGallery saw where pornlaw said he was going to be out of town for a few days, so he decided to put on his "Official GFY Armchair Attorney" cap while he has free reign.

That's all.

so your stupid enough to think it monday already.

well for those of us who know the days of the week it still saturday.

CrkMStanz · 09-05-2009, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonovanTrent

No, GideonGallery saw where pornlaw said he was going to be out of town for a few days, so he decided to put on his "Official GFY Armchair Attorney" cap while he has free reign.

That's all.

really? - might be some hope yet (if he bothers to slog thru all this)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin

somebody throw in some naked chick pics in here before the lawyer talk bores me to death

fine then, while we wait ... nekkid girl pic it is

.

CrkMStanz · 09-05-2009, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so your stupid enough to think it monday already.

well for those of us who know the days of the week it still saturday.

and for those of us that get out of Mom's basement - it takes time to prep for a 3 week trip to a foriegn country - and it doesn't involve GFY.

.

DonovanTrent · 09-05-2009, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so your stupid enough to think it monday already.

well for those of us who know the days of the week it still saturday.

My apologies, I apparently need to brush up on my "detailed diary of the comings and goings of Pornlaw." I will work on that straightaway sir!

Once I have it updated and completed, I'll release it to the torrents, complete with a video of me taking a shit on it, so you and all your buddies can timeshift it and I can re-shit it at a time in the future. For private use only, of course.

Robbie · 09-05-2009, 05:26 PM

One thing you can say...gideongallery ALWAYS comes into these threads and starts his trolling to take the focus off of what really happened.

The reality is A HOSTING COMPANY JUST GOT NAILED FOR 32 MILLION DOLLARS

Doesn't matter what legal maneuvering was used to get the job done. The bottom line is that hosting companies that have stolen content on them had damn well better start policing their clients and maybe not even hosting the ones who are questionable. Otherwise they could be next on the chopping block.

THAT is what gideongallery wants to distract everyone (and himself, because he is in full denial now) from.

CrkMStanz · 09-05-2009, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

One thing you can say...gideongallery ALWAYS comes into these threads and starts his trolling to take the focus off of what really happened.

The reality is A HOSTING COMPANY JUST GOT NAILED FOR 32 MILLION DOLLARS

Doesn't matter what legal maneuvering was used to get the job done. The bottom line is that hosting companies that have stolen content on them had damn well better start policing their clients and maybe not even hosting the ones who are questionable. Otherwise they could be next on the chopping block.

THAT is what gideongallery wants to distract everyone (and himself, because he is in full denial now) from.

I am hoping that this will translate easily to all digital media
And is the start of big changes all around

and MANY more dollars put back into the stream

.

Dirty Dane · 09-05-2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonovanTrent

My apologies, I apparently need to brush up on my "detailed diary of the comings and goings of Pornlaw." I will work on that straightaway sir!

Once I have it updated and completed, I'll release it to the torrents, complete with a video of me taking a shit on it, so you and all your buddies can timeshift it and I can re-shit it at a time in the future. For private use only, of course.

09-04-2009, 09:39 PM	#57
gideongallery Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 7,082	but robbie your going to spend the money hiring pornlaw to fight out the case against a company which properly responds to takedown requests post the case here, i will make sure that a friends of a court filing is issued pointing out the conditions of the Ebay v tiffany ruling. and specifically how that "host" is closer to ebay then this host. __________________ “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

09-04-2009, 10:18 PM	#59
pornlaw Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,877	And again, please show me where your "fair use" argument was used by Ebay in the defense of their case ? __________________ Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com

09-05-2009, 12:32 AM	#62
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	I have to say that I've been itching for Michael to enter into a gideongallery thread for a long time as I really wanted to enjoy watching him hand gideon his ass...but he wisely ignored the stupidity. But now gideongallery in his growing desperation has made the fatal mistake of trying out his armchair lawyering against a professional and entered Michaels thread! And he's having the same results as when he tried his armchair marketing theories...total fail. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

09-05-2009, 02:24 PM	#78
SleazyDream I'm here for SPORT Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phone # (401) 285-0696 Posts: 41,470	gideongallery, how much does tube fluffing pay? __________________ This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog! Now read without the word dog.

09-05-2009, 03:23 PM	#84
qxm Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: NoHo Posts: 5,970	shit ... so this thread just became a pissing contest? ... fuck that I am outta here .. __________________ ICQ: 266990876

09-04-2009, 08:59 PM	#51
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	pornlaw, it is useless to explain something to someone who can't (or won't) see the difference between a gun and the gunman.

09-05-2009, 09:56 AM	#67
TheAmericanCannibal Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,086	and this kids....is why Michael ( PornLaw) is my partner in 2257safe.com He makes great arguments and knows the new 2257 laws better than anyone else I have spoke to.

09-05-2009, 11:08 AM	#71
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	why do i click on this shit.

09-05-2009, 02:42 PM	#81
HorseShit Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 17,513	somebody throw in some naked chick pics in here before the lawyer talk bores me to death

09-05-2009, 02:44 PM	#83
Manowar jellyfish Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 71,528	32 million for being the host company... unreal

09-05-2009, 05:26 PM	#91
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	One thing you can say...gideongallery ALWAYS comes into these threads and starts his trolling to take the focus off of what really happened. The reality is A HOSTING COMPANY JUST GOT NAILED FOR 32 MILLION DOLLARS Doesn't matter what legal maneuvering was used to get the job done. The bottom line is that hosting companies that have stolen content on them had damn well better start policing their clients and maybe not even hosting the ones who are questionable. Otherwise they could be next on the chopping block. THAT is what gideongallery wants to distract everyone (and himself, because he is in full denial now) from. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com