Very well said. If it all was about backup/timeshift and whatever other fair use, what you're saying is the way to go. But ya know, it isn't about backup and fair use really :pimp

like Gideon says go after leecher without fair use rights,
I can say the same opposite - go after company who gives you content and doesn't provide you fair use and valid timeshifting methods.

That's still DRM by definition, albeit a terribly flawed implementation. What stops anyone sharing content from the subscriber network to the outside world? Software? Because that is the same as other failed attempts. It's not impossible, but there are very real technical limitations which are cause for both contempt and limitation in commercial uptake.

They can, but they can no longer use their fair use defence if caught - that's the plan according to gideongallery.

sorry i'm not stuck in failed DRM world. issue SSL certificates for all licences of all type of content, build a fucking tracker validating this certificates on the background through API with content providers and timeshift all you fucking want stuff you PAID for with others who have also PAID for it. - this is a multi-million dollar idea, if you call it DRM I could care less, just don't forget about "thank me" with commission of 10% royalty dividends when you develop and implement it for global redundant backup purposes. then only then you can talk about fair use on the internet.

Wow, okay. You realize what SSL stands for right? It's for end-to-end encryption i.e., the content is decrypted at either end of the network. That's not even the problem when it comes to preventing sharing.... it's good as pirated once the user has a decrypted copy. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Most schemes deal with that problem by encrypting the content (as opposed to just licensing it) and then providing the viewer with a key to decrypt it (using closed software to avoid the aforementioned piracy). Guess how well those schemes worked out?

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

You are so goddamn stupid.

People living on goddamn welfare have television and internet! You should know, people like you who don't DO anything always seem to be overweight (somehow they never miss a meal) and they ALWAYS have cable tv, internet, cigarettes, and beer.

But they are always begging and stealing.

I remember back in the 1980's touring with my band and we went through Tennessee through a VERY rural area. And it was extremely poor. All these single wide run down trailers. And in the front yard of all these decrepit trailers that almost looked abandoned was a nice car and a big satellite dish! lol

You really do need to get out of your mom's basement and get into the real world. Maybe get a freakin' job and stop stealing everything off the internet. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Great point!



Dude you and Robbie have been a great read this whole entire post. I am in agreeance with you guys on every point. I would love to pay both of you guys for saving me the time arguing with this third world, backwards thinking, grass hut living, bread line waiting, idiot Giddion Gallery.



My payment method: "THANK YOU"


HELL, I CAN AFFORD ANOTHER ONE. ONE FOR EACH OF YOU GUYS: "THANK YOU" AND "THANK YOU"


Dont spent them all in one place guys.lol:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

What gideon"thief"gallery is leaving out on his bullshit "timeshifting" crap are these FACTS:
FACT: He LOVES to talk about a 40 year old ruling on VCRs. Why doesn't he just BUY one and stop using a torrent?

FACT: He could also use a DVR

FACT: The cable company ALREADY has FREE VOD to watch any program that you may have missed. They put it up on the VOD channel 24 hours after it airs and leave it there for a month. ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE to miss your favorite program

FACT: gideongallery needs to get a job.

FACT: The networks have websites now where they stream all their programs for free for you already

FACT: HULU

FACT: gideongallery needs to STOP watching so much television and do something with his life other than steal shit off the internet

It seems you like many others are stuck to already existing concepts and cannot see how more widely they can be adapted. I'm well aware that SSL is a secure encrypted layer. do you know how this layer works in order to provide secure channel? first it must provide 100% safe and secure validation of 2 parties - this mechanism is not limited only for HTTPS use if you start thinking out of box. You can issue SSL cert. licences for content for instance, as a true receipt of purchase; you can then give such cert. license to a person or integrate it inside digital media, trackers can already validate pieces of content by hashes and probably some other new means so providing side can keep hash of provided media content along with SSL cert of purchaser. Further thinking for my concept is more complex. First you need to establish ISO Standard for Licence Validation or Digital Right Management that involves establishing consortium similar to what W3C does which then will promote benefits to adapt License Validation Standard for everything computer/digital media/internet related - so companies can built in to editing and media creation software to encompass these SSL certs into media - this thing to develop right way won't happen within few years like it was expected with DRM - that's why it failed. It will take decades to establish and adopt globally any kind of license validation standard - only then we could get to any type of free global redundant backup services based on proper license validation. The consortium will develop technical aspect of limited content sharing so you can expand fair use right to send for instance favorite mp3 to your buddy of girlfriend but not distribute it to the whole world. point is SSL is perfect secure validation mechanism which can be applied anywhere where you need proper validation of involved parties not only for network communication.
current trackers are not an answer for fair use, they promote piracy. we desperately need digital media license validation mechanism - preferably decentralized. and I realize who ever decides to start developing such standard for digital media will face huge challenges, but technically it is already possible now. this is just a rough idea and not a perfect thought out concept.

My mum still has and uses a VCR :upsidedow

With locking stuff up using what sounds like online verification each time you want to play it what happens with all the portable devices that can play something but not connect to the internet to get permission to play it?

the grokster case choose to ignore the concept of access shifting because the sharing transaction had 1 infringement even if the downloaders rights were authorized by access shifting.

While that is true for grokster protocol because the sharer gave away a complete working copy of the file (infringing) that is not true for bit torrent where the seeder only gives away non working pieces of the file.

in the case of bit torrent the fair use rights of the leacher should not be ignored

ISOhunt has an appeal based on this arguement because the judge who made the ruling wrongly used the grokster case as a base without address this fundamental difference.

but that the point
if seeding becomes fair use proected (sampling ) because of the piece meal nature then adobe could sell MORE flash servers becuase it would provide equal legal protection for such tube sites.

so either you are a world class moron who thinks the movie theaters are the copyright holders
or your trying to misrepresent what i am saying again

Problem is you are doing a lousy job because you actually document the abuse i am talking about.

here let me show you



RBGY tv are a new form of tv that give truer to life picture quality.
The problem is that it is no where close to what it could be because the source doesn't film in RBGY.

this tv would replace 4096 red beside 4096 green(approximate true 4096 yellow) with two 4096 yellows (true 4096 yellow)
it doesn't recognize the hues created by putting 4096 red beside 4096 yellow because the original content is not filmed in RBGY.

this problem occurs because the technology did not perculate up thru theaters to the tv because the copyright holders are allowed to abuse their copyright monopoly to play favorites of one medium over another.

IF access shifting had been established as a fair use right, and the act of abusively saying we are only going to allow the movie in the theater would allow other business to distribute it on dvd and tv without paying any fees whatsoever (like recording a tv show on a vcr doesn't require paying royalties for the taping) then the only way the copyright holder could protect their dvd and tv royalties would be release them to all mediums at the same time.

under that senerio the theaters would only be able to compete if they adopted technological advancements that made watching it in the theater superior to watching it at home. (like RGBY)

unlike the home viewing market which would have to wait until the price point of the technology dropped that it could afford by a single family, a movie theater making 10k per hour showing movies could afford to make the change at a much higher price point.

the copyright holders would have to either accpet lower liciencing fees or give up the market place.

Given what happened with 3d versions due to the problem of "piracy" it a pretty good bet they would accept the lower fees and allow the investment in new technology.

of course some movie producers would realize that if they shot in RBGY it would be a small 20% improvement but would actually allow 256 x as many colors and obviously it would not be that hard to replace true 256 yellow with a pair 256 red/256 green to down grade it for dvd sales.

Geometrically increasing the value of seeing that movie over all the guys who decided to keep the outdated RGB only camera equipment.

As more content is being shot in RGBY then the demand would increase for the technology quickly dropping the price so that dvd, and tv could broadcast in full RGBY.

which would just repeat the cycle again (8 bit to 12 to 16 bit or adding cyan and magenta).

instead of crappy 3d which requires me to wear glasses to see the effect i would be watching movies with so many shades of color that my eyes would natually precieve them to be in 3d.

that what the abuse has caused the market.

we have crappier technology, inferior version of what we would have had simple because a monopoly held up an inferior quality offering.

Going to the cinema is a lot more about the whole experience of big screen + crowd + night out than just picture quality. Although things like Avatar and Alice in Wonderland were 3d the cinemas here showed both 3d and non-3d screenings and still had plenty of customers for the non-3d versions.

[that statement proves you don't undertand what fair use is
restricting fair use to only what the copyright holder provides you at the monopoly price he want to charge you be definition destroys fair use

tv stations provided timeshifting before the vecr it was called "re-runs"

the whole point of fair use is to prevent copyright holders monopoly from holding back free speech AND technological advancements.


you mean the companies who could adapt and exploit the technological advancements that would be created by the increased competition

the idiots who kept running porn theaters rather then get into the home viewing market

my own worst enemy got cancelled because not enough people watched it live. i don't say destroy the entire home viewing market , go back to reruns only so mowe wouldn't get cancelled. if a company can't survive under fair market competition, if they need to have monopoly to survive (above the monopoly that protects the revenue from the content sale ONLY) then fuck them they deserve to die.

That how the capitalist system works.


the copyright act doesn't require the copyright holder to PROVIDE fair use right, they must just respect them. that actually a good thing, since technological improvements can come from other sources beyond the copyright holders.

now as i have siad i believe it should be strenghtened a little bit, if you attempt to use copyright to squash a fair use then that act should suffer the same penalty as any other monopoly trying to squash a free market (triple damages or a loss of the monopoly)






your an idiot
if the copyright holder is the only provider of fair use, and they are alloed to charge monopoly prices for that service then by definition that not fair use.

There is no point in having fair use under that circumstance.

you get crappy arguements like this


QUOTE=Robbie;17164772]What gideon"thief"gallery is leaving out on his bullshit "timeshifting" crap are these FACTS:
FACT: He LOVES to talk about a 40 year old ruling on VCRs. Why doesn't he just BUY one and stop using a torrent?

FACT: He could also use a DVR

FACT: The cable company ALREADY has FREE VOD to watch any program that you may have missed. They put it up on the VOD channel 24 hours after it airs and leave it there for a month. ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE to miss your favorite program

FACT: gideongallery needs to get a job.

FACT: The networks have websites now where they stream all their programs for free for you already

FACT: HULU

FACT: gideongallery needs to STOP watching so much television and do something with his life other than steal shit off the internet[/QUOTE]

the swarm provides infinately sized hard drive, that records and saves every single show bought, that allows me take the content and move it to any of my portal viewing devices.

and keeps cached copy so if my internet drops i can still watch that content i have local.

and it does it for free.

want to provide a link to a DVR that has all those features.

hell drop the free condition show me one that cost let then $200.

this is exactly why fair use must stay open competition and out of the control of the copyright holder because they don't give a fuck about problems like this

to them protecting their monopoly is more important that inferior "fair use services"

if that statement were true you should need to prevent the simultaneous on tv and dvd.

if those other issues were enough to keep theaters competiting then you would need the fair use of access shifting, and the problem of torrent piracy would be solved by the sale of dvd and the comerical interuption version of the tv broadcast.

with torrent of the tv version coveirng the timeshifting rights of the viewers

the fact that you are bitching about piracy means that the statement is bullshit.

the fact is the non 3d sales are because the monopoly of the content has been extended to the medium and the choice of home viewing non 3d is taken off the table.

Gideon, all your "smart" talk and mind misses a point to complete the picture:
if seems you are suggesting allow everyone chance to steal and then go after them. small companies do not have resources to monitor all trackers and pursue globally all leechers with no fair use.

I understand how fair use rights work, i'm not going to comment or argue on your points above because you think internet is your vcr, which is not. you are totally dismissing issue at hand which is freely available content encourages piracy - if you are so protective of your vcr rights at least be so courageous and take a stand against piracy too because it is hurting those who create and provide content for you. you can't 100% advocate fair use through freely available to anyone means and totally dismiss fact that it is going to be stolen just as well. where is the solution? going after leechers without fair use isn't a solution for small guys.

That's ok, just another reason to justify stealing all of their software.

good news...i like tube sites :))))

i address the issue i said it quite clearly

btw you may think it harsh but remember the every fair use has brought with it a new income stream

timeshifting brought the entire home viewing market

access shifting will bring real 3d 12 surround sound, movies with smell and ambient changes in enviroment.

that a new money making oppertunitity. If your one of the fucknuts who can't survive under the new marketplace you deserve to die.

just like every tv show that got timeshifted to death.

btw your never going to make everyone happy

so your left with the lesser of two evils

which is worse, destroy trillions of dollars of technological advancement (real 3d, 12.1 surround sound, synced climate changes while watching) by proping up an inferior offering

or

having a couple clueless copyright holders to stupid to see the money that could be made from the new technology being hindered fall by the wayside due to market competition.

Not sure where I was bitching about piracy and spouting bullshit. Some of your posts get really confusing :Oh crap

Gideon, please point where lies new revenue stream in example such as this:

What about little guys? small production shops, who are pushing only 1-2mil in revenues? let say there is a stock photo company, let say they release 10-20 CD/DVDs a year, and have generous 50% gross profit. One day someone decides to utilize redundant backup of modern public torrent trackers to store these DVDs. what happens next? almost instantly their content freely available on all pirate resources with 100 thousands of downloads globally. How this small shop can monitor all such resources and go after all leeches without fair use right? - Gideon suggests for this company to use most of their profits to legally pursue criminal offenders.

I see only additional expenses occurring to the fact of piracy. how can they monetize their freely distributed content to increase their profits? please do enlighten us

lets take another example, small startup gaming company releases for sale blockbuster game, 1million bought copies, in few month 10 million playing cracked version - where are these new revenue streams you are talking about?

...this fine piece of artistic genius just went on my Facebook :thumbsup

like i said not everyone will survive

mowe got timeshifted to death


but that because your clueless about this stuff (as proven by your copyright holders only fair use statements)

sure 5k plus 10% of all revenue generared from the techniques.


well i would say do something like crazy taxi did, but negotiate a back end on it instead of a fully paid front end

that way the product placement would kick in for the 10 million cracked copies too.

that just 1 of over 500 we teach.

althought that one is so self evident only a complete moron would miss it.

or how about use the newer shooting technology
upsell the better monitors/video card to the lowbies using affiliate links
and then sell them the higher real 3d stuff for the new tv.

hell offer a bundling deal and make money off the commissions.

Stay on topic. You, as well as the bittorrent community in general, know nothing of the technology Adobe is pushing, or why, or understand their business model, or their mindset.

So, you have to dilute the topic with a bunch of other crap.

I don't really care about your interpretation of the Grokster case. You're not a subject matter expert in my eyes. Even less so when you keep posting about something, have you proved wrong, then continue to spout the same lengthy nonsense about fair use.

Case in point: You keep talking about "fair use rights." There's no such thing. Fair use is a doctrine, it's not a right. Fair use is a measured legal doctrine that tempers the rights of copyright holders. You might at least get this part of your argument correct.

Gideon, do you have a main website where musicians (and others) can check out your rates, plans, etc?

maybe if you stopped nitpicking about word phrases and actually read the post you would see the relevance


from the exact same post you are bitching about.

It does not matter what technology is used or where it's hosted. An infringement is still an infringement. If it happens out of physical reach, you do what laws enable you to do. If it's your neighbour, you punch him in the face.
It's that simple....

Let's see...even IF a video card/monitor distribution company were to allow you to market of off an adult site (which they don't), and even IF a consumer were to decide to buy a new set up like that from a porn vid instead of just going to bestbuy.com or amazon or just googling it up...

Then that would mean that after the time & money spent shooting a porn video, then the man hours of editing the scene, not to mention the costs of 2257 record keeping and the RISK of going to jail, and then the costs in time and money promoting it...
I'd get to make a whole 3 maybe 5% off upselling a fucking monitor or graphics card?

GG, I wouldn't get out of bed for that kind of money. :1orglaugh
And that's one example of your "new revenue stream"?

You are just fucking dumb. I used to think you were just ignorant. I'm changing that to STUPID.

That's not a "new revenue stream" That's just a waste of real estate on a web page upselling products that don't make a fraction of what I can make SELLING PORN.

Get it? That's what we do. We SELL PORN.

Goddamn what a dumbass you are.

dumbass it that an example of an solution even a world class moron should see
one of the supposedly non-existent revenue streams.

our instructions are about making small changes that bring you the income stream WHEN you content get shared.

so 15 minutes work is not worth and extra 5-10% to your bottom line.

good for you.

so when i showcase the techniques with doc i will price your licience according to your claimed income level.

Jesus you're stupid.

I make a LOT more money without piracy. I don't know how else to explain it to you. I'll try just one more time:

Mainstream affiliate programs almost UNIVERSALLY PROHIBIT YOU FROM PROMOTING ON ADULT SITES. It's against their TOS and they will shit can you. They also do NOT pay the high 50% + that porn sites payout to affiliates. They also go out of their way to steal your return customers by immediately emailing them "offers" without your ref code.

Goddamnit GideonGallery....I've been doing this longer than you've been an adult. I've been a VERY successful affiliate (even more money than the paysite) since the mid 1990's. I've promoted both porn and mainstream...and I just don't spend 2 seconds on mainstream anymore for the reasons I just gave you.

I SELL PORN. That tiny bit of side income you're talking about can not replace the millions of dollars to be made in porn.

You don't know what you're talking about, and when you sit here and argue with someone like me who has expertise in this field you show your stupidity. You should be listening to what I'm telling you and learning. Then you could be making money instead of being a broke jackass.

oh and you might want to check the context of the phrase "fair use right"
it in the context of when a court case establishs a new form of fair use (timeshifting/format shifting/etc) and the rights that new fair use grants a person to do (the right to move the viewing time from monday to tuesday/the right to change the format of the music you paid for/etc)

in that context that working is correct btw.

still doesn't change the fact that your nitpicking missed caused you to miss the point that was being made.

Back to armchair lawyering...

gideongallery: jackass of all trades, master of NONE

i dont get it

yeah we had this same arguement when we talked about product placement
you argued product placement would work in porn at all
until you realized that signage would work just as well to sell your own porn site.

then you claimed you were creative for copying waynes world.

i am sort of suprise you are so dumb you don't see how the same point applys here.

like i said good to know
i will make sure when i licience the techniques to you, i will price them up to the level of income you claim to be making. 500-600x what everyone else pays should be reasonable.

FUCKING IDIOT...

I NEVER wanted to do "product placement"

What I said was I could do like waynes world and promote the actual site that the vid is playing from and make it funny. That's not product placement.

Once again you are trying to sidestep what I just told you about that little upsell you're apparently basing your entire theories on.

Here is the reality since you don't know anything about marketing or online marketing or the porn business:
All of your longwinded ignorant posts come down to this...You are calling a shitty upsell with a low percentage payout a "new revenue stream"

You are NOT coming up with a way to increase sales to my paysite. You are just talking a shit upsell that doesn't payout as well.

In other words...you're both dumb and ignorant.

What a loser! No wonder you can't make any money.

Let's count all the ignorant things gideongallery has said just in this one thread:

1. Showed he has ZERO knowledge of streaming technology

2. Showed once again he has ZERO knowledge of how affiliate programs work

3. Showed again that he has ZERO knowledge of surfer habits and trends

4. Showed that he has ZERO knowledge of what mainstream affiliate programs will or won't allow.

5. Showed that he still has delusions of grandeur and thinks he is smarter than everyone who actually is in this business...when in reality he is hands down the dumbest poster on GFY (and that's not easy to do)

EDIT: Oh and I forgot about the fact that he also showed his skills using the "lawyer license" he got out of a box of cracker jacks

gideongallery, get your ass back in here and argue some more!

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

Fuck, I must be losing my touch