running an "illegal" tube site just became a whole lot cheaper - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

Dirty Dane · 05-23-2010, 01:13 AM

Sorry to disappoint you gideongallery, but uploads to illegal porn tubes is not parody, "commentaries" or Michael Moore. YOU sir, are a moron

No matter how much you argue and scream (which big letters mean), nothing gonna change that. It can't be claimed as fair use.

Quote:

you really need to read the law and case law a little better because you are totally clueless about this concept.

Yeah? Show me how you deal with in your legal statements. If you hotlink or host something for the purpose of distribution and sale , you are subject to all laws regarding publishing, including 2257 or your local laws.

ottopottomouse · 05-23-2010, 03:07 AM

I've just wasted another ten minutes of my life and not learnt anything new apart from you can't sell tampons in the mens bogs

TheDoc · 05-23-2010, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

google steve smith playhouse

nuff said

You mean that "Canadian" tv show where they take a "full movie" and condense it down to 30 min's and replace character voices and such?

That's exactly what I said fair use was. It's a "sample" of the whole. It's NOT the entire movie, which would not be fair use.

Again, your examples are GREATLY different than Robbie's and you just got schooled in the subject you pretend to the be the master of.

"In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use"

"If you're copying an entire work, it's not fair use. While copying an entire work may make it harder to justify the amount and substantiality test, it does not make it impossible that a use is fair use."

gideongallery · 05-23-2010, 08:15 AM

[QUOTE=TheDoc;17166241]You mean that "Canadian" tv show where they take a "full movie" and condense it down to 30 min's and replace character voices and such?

That's exactly what I said fair use was. It's a "sample" of the whole. It's NOT the entire movie, which would not be fair use.

Again, your examples are GREATLY different than Robbie's and you just got schooled in the subject you pretend to the be the master of.

Quote:

actually he only changed the dialog of one character leaving every other characters dialog exactly the same
and the one of the earlier episode did the entire movie steve smith was interviewed about why he changed it to 30 minutes (difficulty of finding a movie that could be changed completely, easier to cut out part that were not consistent with the changed)

googles your friend use it.

"In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use"

"If you're copying an entire work, it's not fair use. While copying an entire work may make it harder to justify the amount and substantiality test, it does not make it impossible that a use is fair use."

your misrepresenting the quote to say the exact opposite of what it says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Quote:

the quote under the title Common misunderstandings

Fair use is commonly misunderstood because of its deliberate ambiguity. Here are some of the more common misunderstandings with explanations of why they are wrong:

If you're copying an entire work, it's not fair use. While copying an entire work may make it harder to justify the amount and substantiality test, it does not make it impossible that a use is fair use. For instance, in the Betamax case, it was ruled that copying a complete television show for time-shifting purposes is fair use.

you added the personal use thing that was not there
and you eliminated the italics that defined the first statement as being wrong.

TheDoc · 05-23-2010, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

your misrepresenting the quote to say the exact opposite of what it says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

you added the personal use thing that was not there
and you eliminated the italics that defined the first statement as being wrong.

My quotes are taken from Wiki... taken as a whole for the marker they covered, which very clearly states it's for personal use if taken as a whole.

"ALL" fair use falls under 4 factors or it's not fair use.

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Hello #3....

"If you're copying an entire work, it's not fair use. While copying an entire work may make it harder to justify the amount and substantiality test, it does not make it impossible that a use is fair use. For instance, in the Betamax case, it was ruled that copying a complete television show for time-shifting purposes is fair use."

^ This would be for personal use...

"For instance, the Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal in some circumstances to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use."

IE: It's okay to make a copy of a whole if it's for personal use. That makes it fair use.

The clip you posted is fair use because, again... it's a sample of the whole and a parody. They can't use the whole, it's not for personal use.

We done yet?

TheDoc · 05-23-2010, 08:41 AM

Gideon the point again... your example was vastly different than Robbie's.

Yours is actual fair use, taking a sample of actual copyrighted content and using part/sample of it to create a parody of said material.

Robbies, they create a new original product.. new actors, new funnies, new everything. It's not a copy of the original taken as a sample, it's a whole entire new whatever. Point: Actual creation.

As Robbie stated.. with his something new is created, with yours a monkey can create them which is why Youtube is littered with 100's of this stupid things... any monkey can do it.

TheDoc · 05-23-2010, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

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

Bump for an answer?

gideongallery · 05-23-2010, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

My quotes are taken from Wiki... taken as a whole for the marker they covered, which very clearly states it's for personal use if taken as a whole.

"ALL" fair use falls under 4 factors or it's not fair use.

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Hello #3....

no where in the law does it say that all four conditions must be met for it to be fair use

that is as big a misrepresentation as deliberately ignoring the 3 definition of monopoly so you can claim that your only a monopoly if you abuse something.

in fact the court ruling prove absolutely that is not true many fair use violate one or more of those conditions

timeshifting for example fails 3 of the four conditions

1. sony profited making money from both the vcr 1k each and the blank cassettes
2. it was a UNCHANGED copy (no contextual changes)
3. it was a complete copy.

the only one condition it met was that it did change the value of the copyrighted work because the sale had already happened.

the timeshifted sale (re-run) that was lost was not part of the intrinsic value of the copyrighted work but was instead monopoly profits from extending the copyright monopoly to the medium (blank tapes are not allowed)

Quote:

"If you're copying an entire work, it's not fair use. While copying an entire work may make it harder to justify the amount and substantiality test, it does not make it impossible that a use is fair use. For instance, in the Betamax case, it was ruled that copying a complete television show for time-shifting purposes is fair use."

^ This would be for personal use...

bullshit
no where in the time-shifting ruling did it say it was only valid if it was personal use

if that were true and the right was only available for personal use
the copyright holders could have demanded that the recording device encoded the recording so it could only be played on the vcr it was recorded.

They could not make such a demand

my right to move a show from monday to tuesday exist even if the power goes out in my house and i failed to tape knight rider

it exist even if i have to borrow the tape from someone else (not personal) to full fill that right.

Quote:

"For instance, the Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal in some circumstances to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use."

IE: It's okay to make a copy of a whole if it's for personal use. That makes it fair use.

The clip you posted is fair use because, again... it's a sample of the whole and a parody. They can't use the whole, it's not for personal use.

We done yet?

just because non commercial personal use can be fair use does not mean it MUST be personal use to be fair use.

likewise just because the copying is for non commercial personal use doesn't automatically make it fair use.

if i were to borrow a cd from the library (assuming i was in the states and not canada since we have a piracy tax) and rip them for my personal use. That copy would still be an infringement even though it was personal use.

VGeorgie · 05-23-2010, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

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

You quote laws, which are nothing but the exact meaning of words.

Calling something a "right" that isn't infers a great deal of legal force upon it. IMO you use the word "right" intentionally, as a way to bolster your weak arguments.

Re adobe:

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

from the exact same post you are bitching about.

Again, you know nothing about Adobe's business model or the application of the protocol that spawned this thread. It's quite presumptuous to "volunteer" your ill-informed suggestions on how they might be able to make money with it. Why not suggest to Wrigley's they can turn a bit of extra cash by scraping up the used gum off sidewalks?

TheDoc · 05-23-2010, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

no where in the law does it say that all four conditions must be met for it to be fair use

that is as big a misrepresentation as deliberately ignoring the 3 definition of monopoly so you can claim that your only a monopoly if you abuse something.

in fact the court ruling prove absolutely that is not true many fair use violate one or more of those conditions

timeshifting for example fails 3 of the four conditions

1. sony profited making money from both the vcr 1k each and the blank cassettes
2. it was a UNCHANGED copy (no contextual changes)
3. it was a complete copy.

the only one condition it met was that it did change the value of the copyrighted work because the sale had already happened.

the timeshifted sale (re-run) that was lost was not part of the intrinsic value of the copyrighted work but was instead monopoly profits from extending the copyright monopoly to the medium (blank tapes are not allowed)

bullshit
no where in the time-shifting ruling did it say it was only valid if it was personal use

if that were true and the right was only available for personal use
the copyright holders could have demanded that the recording device encoded the recording so it could only be played on the vcr it was recorded.

They could not make such a demand

my right to move a show from monday to tuesday exist even if the power goes out in my house and i failed to tape knight rider

it exist even if i have to borrow the tape from someone else (not personal) to full fill that right.

just because non commercial personal use can be fair use does not mean it MUST be personal use to be fair use.

likewise just because the copying is for non commercial personal use doesn't automatically make it fair use.

if i were to borrow a cd from the library (assuming i was in the states and not canada since we have a piracy tax) and rip them for my personal use. That copy would still be an infringement even though it was personal use.

I never said they "must" be met, I said that fair use falls under 4 factors... We aren't talking about monopolies. We're talking about fair use, which has time shifting 'under it' for personal use, as quoted from wiki and a court case. Nobody demanded anything, they simply followed the law. I don't really care about the commercial/non-commercial use or what the mild twists of the law are based on what you do with content, that isn't related to the point at all.

Point was and still is... your example is vastly different than Robbies, and that's true.

TheDoc · 05-23-2010, 09:29 AM

And for the love of god, do you or don't you have a Website? It's a very basic 101 question asked by millions of people every day and very standard to share with other people in business.

Robbie · 05-23-2010, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

And for the love of god, do you or don't you have a Website? It's a very basic 101 question asked by millions of people every day and very standard to share with other people in business.

Let me answer for gideongallery:

You are an idiot. Sony beta, vcr, cloud, timeshifting, waynes world, fair use, safe harbor.

</gideongallery>

Did that pretty much cover it? Because if you ask him a direct question related to what he actually can do or has...you're just gonna get that group of words put together in different ways to form sentences punctuated by large fonts in all caps.

And nothing of any substance. I've been asking him over and over to simply address the fact that he is totally wrong about his ASSumption in his original post because of his ignorance. And he never answered. I asked him to address the problems with trying to do mainstream affiliate work on a porn site and he never answered.

And I have a feeling you won't get an answer either about his website that doesn't exist.

A person can get behind a keyboard and type anything they want. Proving it's true is a whole different challenge for a guy who is making it all up as they go along.

gideongallery · 05-23-2010, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

I never said they "must" be met, I said that fair use falls under 4 factors... We aren't talking about monopolies. We're talking about fair use, which has time shifting 'under it' for personal use, as quoted from wiki and a court case. Nobody demanded anything, they simply followed the law. I don't really care about the commercial/non-commercial use or what the mild twists of the law are based on what you do with content, that isn't related to the point at all.

you took a portion for audio recording for personal use and applyed it to timeshifting

the court case never said that either

in fact the recent extension of timeshifting in a cloud proves the exact opposite

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

if timeshifting was only valid for personal use
then cable vision providing timeshifting thru the public cloud for a monthly pvr fee would have been illegal.

your pulling the personal use condition out of your ass

Quote:

Point was and still is... your example is vastly different than Robbies, and that's true.

yeah i agree i am right and he is wrong huge difference

changing the subtitles of a clip to change the CONTEXT is fair use of parody
you don't have to create something from scratch to have the right to have your work called parody.

Agent 488 · 05-23-2010, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

And for the love of god, do you or don't you have a Website? It's a very basic 101 question asked by millions of people every day and very standard to share with other people in business.

http://brandingbugs.com/

gideongallery · 05-23-2010, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

And for the love of god, do you or don't you have a Website? It's a very basic 101 question asked by millions of people every day and very standard to share with other people in business.

answered before in a thread you were involced in

no we don't have a website

and since your pretending your not aware of that now i can only assume your going to rehash the previously made arguements so

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

your right it not like you can cold call one of the hundreds of independent recording studios that cater to independent musicians, and pitch then without the web site.

if only we had a device that could allow communication without the internet.

idiot

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonovanTrent

I would never trust someone whose business model is built around the Internet, but doesn't use the Internet to market their service. You're awful secretive for someone who has something that would supposedly be so beneficial to all of us. You have a captive audience, yet you fail to dazzle us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

well then your an idiot.

all the marketing is done on other peoples website
how many people downloaded a torrent you put up
how many people came to a video you posted on youtube.

sticky doesn't post all the specs about encrypted streaming on his web site
and in fact within this thread he refuses to give details about it because he thinks i want to crack it (i have already said how i would bypass it so that doesn't make sense).

it even worse in our case becaue we are talking about methodology not, technology. If we posted such a website it would be copied.

if i gave you the names of the customer, you would do a search for them and simply copy those techniques.

The only examples i have given are techniques that don't work any more (spike launching worked because napster was the only filesharing site) so they can't be copied.
and they are more than good enough to prove our skill set on a cold call

right now business model is best suited to secrecy. Once you build enough success examples to establish a critical mass, then we will.

TheDoc · 05-23-2010, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you took a portion for audio recording for personal use and applyed it to timeshifting

the court case never said that either

in fact the recent extension of timeshifting in a cloud proves the exact opposite

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

if timeshifting was only valid for personal use
then cable vision providing timeshifting thru the public cloud for a monthly pvr fee would have been illegal.

your pulling the personal use condition out of your ass

yeah i agree i am right and he is wrong huge difference

changing the subtitles of a clip to change the CONTEXT is fair use of parody
you don't have to create something from scratch to have the right to have your work called parody.

None that has to do with what I said, at all. Again we're talking about fair use which has time shifting within it. I'm simply quoting what wiki says and you're twisting it to make a new argument for yourself. It's rather stupid.

The argument with Robbie wasn't about wrong or right.. however if you're trying to be correct, your example failed as it's not related to what Robbie was talking about.

Robbie · 05-23-2010, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Let me answer for gideongallery:

You are an idiot. Sony beta, vcr, cloud, timeshifting, waynes world, fair use, safe harbor.

</gideongallery>

Did that pretty much cover it? Because if you ask him a direct question related to what he actually can do or has...you're just gonna get that group of words put together in different ways to form sentences punctuated by large fonts in all caps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

timeshifting

timeshifting in a cloud proves the exact opposite

timeshifting
timeshifting thru the public cloud

idiot

I called it perfectly!

So predictable. So boring. So wrong.

gideongallery · 05-23-2010, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

I never said they "must" be met, I said that fair use falls under 4 factors... We aren't talking about monopolies. We're talking about fair use, which has time shifting 'under it' for personal use, as quoted from wiki and a court case. Nobody demanded anything, they simply followed the law. I don't really care about the commercial/non-commercial use or what the mild twists of the law are based on what you do with content, that isn't related to the point at all.

Point was and still is... your example is vastly different than Robbies, and that's true.

but your claiming that a parody that uses an entire movie would not be considered fair use because it fails only 1 condition #3.

Quote:

The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. Yet see Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios for a case in which substantial copying?entire programs for private viewing?was upheld as fair use. Likewise, see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, where the Ninth Circuit held that copying an entire photo to use as a thumbnail in online search results did not weigh against fair use, "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use." Conversely, in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters,[11] the use of fewer than 400 words from President Ford's memoir by a political opinion magazine was interpreted as infringement because those few words represented "the heart of the book" and were, as such, substantial.

Before 1991, sampling in certain genres of music was accepted practice and such copyright considerations as these were viewed as largely irrelevant. The strict decision against rapper Biz Markie's appropriation of a Gilbert O'Sullivan song in the case Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc.[12] changed practices and opinions overnight. Samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation."[13] In other words, de minimis sampling was still considered fair and free because, traditionally, "the law does not care about trifles." The recent Sixth Circuit Court decision in the appeal to Bridgeport Music has reversed this standing, eliminating the de minimis defense for samples of recorded music, but stating that the decision did not apply to fair use.

misrepresenting "private viewing" and "personal use" closely related but not the same thing.
may actions (including public transmissions-- see cable vision case) are covered by the private viewing, that are explictly prevented by the term "personal use" (public anything)

gideongallery · 05-23-2010, 10:55 AM

Quote:

None that has to do with what I said, at all. Again we're talking about fair use which has time shifting within it. I'm simply quoting what wiki says and you're twisting it to make a new argument for yourself. It's rather stupid.

The argument with Robbie wasn't about wrong or right.. however if you're trying to be correct, your example failed as it's not related to what Robbie was talking about.

there are three different fair uses being discussed each has a different reason for you being wrong.

robbie claimed that a parody wasn't a parody becuase it wasn't created from scratch he was wrong because the courts ruled downfall parodies were parodies

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

That's a sample, part, or whatever they call it... made for the purpose of a parody, which is why it's fair use. If you ripped the entire movie and did that it would be copyright infringement.
Which is why all the examples Robbie are different.

you claimed it was only a parody because it was built on a sample but your wrong because

Sampling is it own fair use indpendent of parody
cover/parody songs take the entire copyright protected score and layer new lyric on top of them

you then shifted into timeshifting and argued it was only valid for the entire copy because it for personal use, but it not what the wiki or the court case said it said "private viewing" which the cablevision case clearly established was different (although closely related) to "personal use".

TheDoc · 05-23-2010, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

but your claiming that a parody that uses an entire movie would not be considered fair use because it fails only 1 condition #3.

I'm stating what Wiki says... the example you provided is fair use for the reasons listed throughout that article, one of them being #3 because that was the topic being disused at that moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

misrepresenting "private viewing" and "personal use" closely related but not the same thing.
may actions (including public transmissions-- see cable vision case) are covered by the private viewing, that are explictly prevented by the term "personal use" (public anything)

I quoted Wiki, I did not misrepresent any words. I'm not talking about copying something for private use or viewing... I simply stated what it said. However, this is about the topic of your example not relating to Robbie's, either way - this does not change the out come of your example being of a different thus you didn't prove anything wrong or make a valid statement.

TheDoc · 05-23-2010, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

there are three different fair uses being discussed each has a different reason for you being wrong.

robbie claimed that a parody wasn't a parody becuase it wasn't created from scratch he was wrong because the courts ruled downfall parodies were parodies

you claimed it was only a parody because it was built on a sample but your wrong because

Sampling is it own fair use indpendent of parody
cover/parody songs take the entire copyright protected score and layer new lyric on top of them

you then shifted into timeshifting and argued it was only valid for the entire copy because it for personal use, but it not what the wiki or the court case said it said "private viewing" which the cablevision case clearly established was different (although closely related) to "personal use".

I quoted the wiki as to the reason your example fell under fair use and why that is vastly different than Robbie's example.. whatever the various, the many reasons that make your example fair use, is why your example is not the same as what robbie gave.

Robbie · 05-23-2010, 11:03 AM

Bump for gideons gibberish non-answers that don't relate to the questions he is given.

EDIT:
Oh and one other thing...can we all agree that gideongallery's original post about how Adobe just made it cheaper for an illegit tube to stream stolen content is dead wrong?

TheDoc · 05-23-2010, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

answered before in a thread you were involced in

no we don't have a website

and since your pretending your not aware of that now i can only assume your going to rehash the previously made arguements so

right now business model is best suited to secrecy. Once you build enough success examples to establish a critical mass, then we will.

I once managed an office of cold callers that setup credit card machines for businesses that didn't have them. What're are you running a 2% lead and .5% sales rate doing this, and you do it without personal visits?

So, you're cold calling artists and pitching them a $5k up front offer about how good your Internet skills are at marketing, and you do this all without a Website? Amazing...

I assume you send these guys a package? Could I get one?

TheDoc · 05-23-2010, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Bump for gideons gibberish non-answers that don't relate to the questions he is given.

EDIT:
Oh and one other thing...can we all agree that gideongallery's original post about how Adobe just made it cheaper for an illegit tube to stream stolen content is dead wrong?

Hehe, he's left field with many simple reasons as to why.. he clearly had an agenda with the post and it totally misfired. One of the most basic reasons being it's not an open peer system that anyone can simply tap into, no reason to list the other 2 pages worth of reasons already posted here.

gideongallery · 05-23-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

I quoted the wiki as to the reason your example fell under fair use and why that is vastly different than Robbie's example.. whatever the various, the many reasons that make your example fair use, is why your example is not the same as what robbie gave.

no you didn't

you shifted from one fair use to another

robbie and i were talking about parody

he argued that parodies were not parodies unless they were created from scratch

downfall proved he was wrong

you switched fair uses and tried to argue that downfall example was fair use because it was a sample, actually trying to argue that all parodies must be sample to be valid.

you were wrong
i can take an entire score that is copyright protected / or an entire music video and layer in a parody track instead and it would still be covered by the fair use of parody

sampling is a complete different fair use.

you then changed fair use again trying to argue that the only fair uses that allow the entire file to be used was for personal use (misrepresenting private viewing as personal use)

again you were wrong because cablevision win proves that statement to be wrong too

personal use = private viewing.

Robbie · 05-23-2010, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

no you didn't

you shifted from one fair use to another

robbie and i were talking about parody

he argued that parodies were not parodies unless they were created from scratch

downfall proved he was wrong
.

That is NOT what happened in our conversation. Damn gideongallery. Are you even existing in the real world? Go back and READ what I said about REAL comedians having an art and a craft and that they would find downfall funny but would not in their professional opinions consider it to be true parody. And then I gave you the examples of professional parodies and pointed out that even though downfall is funny...it only required a person to have a funny idea, nothing more. Nothing new was created and it required no skills.

And then I pointed out that you don't have the skill set to do a REAL parody.

Look gideongallery...you could sample a guitar playing and call it "creating" music and the courts would agree with you. As a REAL musician I would say you didn't "create" anything.

Get it? Or are you just pretending to be this damn stupid for my entertainment?

Putting words over film footage that somebody else CREATED doesn't take any talent or require the effort needed to acquire the skill set necessary to shoot the footage in the first place.

And yet you praise that to high heaven and ignore the examples I gave of REAL creative parody such as SNL skits, Weird Al, and the Hustler parody series.

You truly are at the lowest levels aren't you?

gideongallery · 05-23-2010, 01:44 PM

downfall was protected as a parody because of the context change not becuase it was a sample from the movie

the same context change protects this video
even though the ENTIRE single ladies score was used

Robbie · 05-23-2010, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

downfall was protected as a parody because of the context change not becuase it was a sample from the movie

the same context change protects this video
even though the ENTIRE single ladies score was used

That IS a real parody and would be considered to be so by most professionals...even though it's not very good. Somebody actually did the work on it. I have no idea what delusional point you're trying to make here.

It's almost like you are having a conversation with yourself and answering imaginary questions instead of the ones being posed to you. This is funny...and kinda sad at the same time.

gideongallery · 05-23-2010, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

That is NOT what happened in our conversation. Damn gideongallery. Are you even existing in the real world? Go back and READ what I said about REAL comedians having an art and a craft and that they would find downfall funny but would not in their professional opinions consider it to be true parody. And then I gave you the examples of professional parodies and pointed out that even though downfall is funny...it only required a person to have a funny idea, nothing more. Nothing new was created and it required no skills.

And then I pointed out that you don't have the skill set to do a REAL parody.

Look gideongallery...you could sample a guitar playing and call it "creating" music and the courts would agree with you. As a REAL musician I would say you didn't "create" anything.

Get it? Or are you just pretending to be this damn stupid for my entertainment?

Putting words over film footage that somebody else CREATED doesn't take any talent or require the effort needed to acquire the skill set necessary to shoot the footage in the first place.

And yet you praise that to high heaven and ignore the examples I gave of REAL creative parody such as SNL skits, Weird Al, and the Hustler parody series.

You truly are at the lowest levels aren't you?

i didn't ignore the example i just said your take waynes world product placement and do it in porn was closer to the creativity of downfall parody

it not worthy of being considered true creativity like doing an snl skit.

copying an idea exactly and just changing the setting is no more creative then layering text on the bottom of someone elses video (it actually less)

creativity comes about when you create something brand new

that however does not change the fact that parody does not have to be creative to be REAL.

that what the court have to decide

your definition consider a person who holds a camera recording a bunch of no talent actors recreating a movie word for word as creative because that movie was shot from scratch.

mine says that copy catting bullshit

your definition says that changing a parody video into a DMCA takedown trap is not creative because they used someone elses content (it could have been a takedown trap if they didn't use someone elses content)

mine says that the radical change it it context, it use in a completely new way was creative.

but difference in our personal oppions on what is CREATIVE justifies the claim that parody is not REAL.

and since this arguement started because you claimed i didn't deserve the fair use protection of parody if i were to take your porn scene, layer in the parody song saggy and old (to the score of snows tender and fine) to protest the stupidity of 2257 documentation requirements for people who are clearly over the age of 18 (by quite a few years)

that the only issue i care about.

gideongallery · 05-23-2010, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

That IS a real parody and would be considered to be so by most professionals...even though it's not very good. Somebody actually did the work on it. I have no idea what delusional point you're trying to make here.

It's almost like you are having a conversation with yourself and answering imaginary questions instead of the ones being posed to you. This is funny...and kinda sad at the same time.

listen to the score you idiot
it the exact same instramental track as single ladies in it entirety.

the fair use of parody justifies taking that score even though it is protected by copyright (to a different artist then beyonce btw).

Robbie · 05-23-2010, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

i didn't ignore the example i just said your take waynes world product placement and do it in porn was closer to the creativity of downfall parody

it not worthy of being considered true creativity like doing an snl skit.

copying an idea exactly and just changing the setting is no more creative then layering text on the bottom of someone elses video (it actually less).

So you're saying that if and when I shoot my own footage with my own camera and write my own script and come up with some unique ways to have a little bit of humor with "claudia-marie.com" written on the bottom of her feet or something cheesy like that...then I'm not creating anything at all.

But if you take somebody else's footage and change the words...you're a creative genius.

Ok. Welcome to "gideongalley world"

Robbie · 05-23-2010, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

listen to the score you idiot
it the exact same instramental track as single ladies in it entirety.

the fair use of parody justifies taking that score even though it is protected by copyright (to a different artist then beyonce btw).

Yep, and he recorded it himself. Just like Weird Al has been doing for years...as I ALREADY said in an earlier post.

You truly are not in touch with reality are you? This is pretty funny.

Robbie · 05-23-2010, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

if i were to take your porn scene, layer in the parody song saggy and old (to the score of snows tender and fine) to protest the stupidity of 2257 documentation requirements for people who are clearly over the age of 18 (by quite a few years)

that the only issue i care about.

And if you were to ASK my permission to do so and put a link back to the site...I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. But if you did it without asking me, then I would come after you with all the ability I have for you infringing on my trademark and I'd make your miserable life a living hell (even more than it already is)

How's that for your answer?

theking · 05-23-2010, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Yep, and he recorded it himself. Just like Weird Al has been doing for years...as I ALREADY said in an earlier post.

You truly are not in touch with reality are you? This is pretty funny.

One thing is certain...you are not funny...nor are you serious...but have in fact become quiet boring, I don't know why Gideon is allowing himself to be trolled by you

I have been following the thread...to be educated...but it has become ridiculous...so much for being educated.

Robbie · 05-23-2010, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

One thing is certain...you are not funny...nor are you serious...but have in fact become quiet boring, I don't know why Gideon is allowing himself to be trolled by you

I have been following the thread...to be educated...but it has become ridiculous...so much for being educated.

I'm not trying to be "funny" Gideongallery comes to this forum with only ONE agenda And that is to defend piracy.

He isn't in this business, he's not a lawyer, he's just some guy who loves to get everything for free and finds it funny to shove it in our faces. I for one don't like it.

And if you feel gideongallery can educate you...then I don't think you are really reading what he says. But good luck bro. I hope gideongallery educating you will help you make a dollar. It certainly hasn't made him any money.

Serge Litehead · 05-23-2010, 02:28 PM

Gideons business model: create content, get it into public domain and then try to make up for it up-selling somebody else's products for low commissions

fuck where's my free cable, free movie theathers, free dvds? those guys missing big time on this perfect business model

theking · 05-23-2010, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm not trying to be "funny" Gideongallery comes to this forum with only ONE agenda And that is to defend piracy.

He isn't in this business, he's not a lawyer, he's just some guy who loves to get everything for free and finds it funny to shove it in our faces. I for one don't like it.

And if you feel gideongallery can educate you...then I don't think you are really reading what he says. But good luck bro. I hope gideongallery educating you will help you make a dollar. It certainly hasn't made him any money.

I think he may be trying to defend what is legal fair use and what is not legal fair use and attempts to use the law involving what and what is not legal fair use...as he understands the law...to clarify what is legal fair use and what is not...an area in which I confess ignorance. There are other things to learn other than learn how to make money. I have more money than I will use in my lifetime...but knowledge still has benifit to me.

gideongallery · 05-23-2010, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

So you're saying that if and when I shoot my own footage with my own camera and write my own script and come up with some unique ways to have a little bit of humor with "claudia-marie.com" written on the bottom of her feet or something cheesy like that...then I'm not creating anything at all.

go back and look at the original post
you were arguing how creative you were for making fun of product placement while showcase all kinds of stuff with claudia-marie.com stamped on it (doing over the top product placement)

showcase domain stuff stamped on everything has been done by dozens of porn site that not new

wayne's world pitch was exactly that decrying product placement straight face while doing over the top product placement

swapping out pizza hut pizza slice for a glass with claudia-marie.com isn't creative, it not new.

Quote:

But if you take somebody else's footage and change the words...you're a creative genius.

Ok. Welcome to "gideongalley world"

i didn't say all downfall parodies were creative i said the eff one was

it not the swapping out the words that make it creative the 39 people who made a video that just bitched about something else were as creative as you were when you stole the wayne's world and adapted it to porn.

The creative genius was turning a parody into a trap
they had to write a legal brief that justified the fair use of that content
documenting how it didn't cost the producers income (but actually made them money)
how it the takedowns were censorship
that documented how act was not infringing
how the DMCA counter notification created a liability
and how they as an organization would actually fight against such an abuse
they had to then write a text script that covered those key legal points in a way that it could perfectly coinside with the video playback.
so that if the video was actually watched as it was supposed to be for a valid takedown request the copyright holder would have know not to send the letter.

That brilliant
that creative.
it a hell of a lot more creative then simply saying wayne's world decryed product placement while doing over the top product placement

i can do the same thing in porn.

Serge Litehead · 05-23-2010, 02:41 PM

according to Gideon's logic book authors are also idiots and morons - they don't need publishing contracts! they don't need royalties! they are missing making fortunes with product placements! and publishing books must be free too they can use every second page for adverts!! what an idiots!!

Robbie · 05-23-2010, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

go back and look at the original post
you were arguing how creative you were for making fun of product placement while showcase all kinds of stuff with claudia-marie.com stamped on it (doing over the top product placement)

showcase domain stuff stamped on everything has been done by dozens of porn site that not new

wayne's world pitch was exactly that decrying product placement straight face while doing over the top product placement

swapping out pizza hut pizza slice for a glass with claudia-marie.com isn't creative, it not new.

i didn't say all downfall parodies were creative i said the eff one was

it not the swapping out the words that make it creative the 39 people who made a video that just bitched about something else were as creative as you were when you stole the wayne's world and adapted it to porn.

The creative genius was turning a parody into a trap
they had to write a legal brief that justified the fair use of that content
documenting how it didn't cost the producers income (but actually made them money)
how it the takedowns were censorship
that documented how act was not infringing
how the DMCA counter notification created a liability
and how they as an organization would actually fight against such an abuse
they had to then write a text script that covered those key legal points in a way that it could perfectly coinside with the video playback.
so that if the video was actually watched as it was supposed to be for a valid takedown request the copyright holder would have know not to send the letter.

That brilliant
that creative.
it a hell of a lot more creative then simply saying wayne's world decryed product placement while doing over the top product placement

i can do the same thing in porn.

Please do something then gideongallery. Do ANYTHING.

You've been talking shit since you got here and you still have not achieved even ONE thing.

You can't. You don't have the skills or knowledge necessary to do anything other than write that gibberish that adds up to nothing.

You are NOT a lawyer. Yet you have argued with actual attorneys on here and told them that they don't understand the law (pornlaw)

You are not a musician, and yet you have tried to tell me how the music industry works.

You are not in the porn biz but yet you have tried to tell all of us that we don't know what we're doing...and yet we have all had a lot of success while you have had NONE.

Can you not come out of that fog of "crazy" that you have been in and see the irony of all of that?

You are totally clueless and have zero experience in any of these fields.

And yet like so many clowns in the past have done...you think you can walk in and tell experts in their fields how to do it better?

Dude, if you had even ONE good idea I would be all over it with you. But all I see is you scrambling desperately to defend piracy and getting everything for free.

gideongallery · 05-23-2010, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Please do something then gideongallery. Do ANYTHING.

You've been talking shit since you got here and you still have not achieved even ONE thing.

You can't. You don't have the skills or knowledge necessary to do anything other than write that gibberish that adds up to nothing.

You are NOT a lawyer. Yet you have argued with actual attorneys on here and told them that they don't understand the law (pornlaw)

You are not a musician, and yet you have tried to tell me how the music industry works.

You are not in the porn biz but yet you have tried to tell all of us that we don't know what we're doing...and yet we have all had a lot of success while you have had NONE.

Can you not come out of that fog of "crazy" that you have been in and see the irony of all of that?

You are totally clueless and have zero experience in any of these fields.

And yet like so many clowns in the past have done...you think you can walk in and tell experts in their fields how to do it better?

Dude, if you had even ONE good idea I would be all over it with you. But all I see is you scrambling desperately to defend piracy and getting everything for free.

i have a couple of legal hoops to jump thru before i do the thing with doc.
like i said we are agreed you will pay 10,000 x as much as everyone else for the same training.
but in your mind it not a problem since everything i know how to do will not work.

Robbie · 05-23-2010, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

i have a couple of legal hoops to jump thru before i do the thing with doc.
like i said we are agreed you will pay 10,000 x as much as everyone else for the same training.
but in your mind it not a problem since everything i know how to do will not work.

I have never "agreed" to anything with you. But keep dreaming. And keep making up excuses on why you can't actually implement your brilliant scheme that was hatched from your completely inexperienced feverish little mind.

I can't wait to pay ten thousand times as much as everyone else to learn your marketing ninja ways. Surely gideongallery is the smartest guy in the world who has never done anything.

EDIT: Can I get a mathematician to help me out with calculating what I'm going to pay gideongallery for his genius marketing tips?

What is 10,000 X ZERO?

TheDoc · 05-23-2010, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

no you didn't

you shifted from one fair use to another

robbie and i were talking about parody

he argued that parodies were not parodies unless they were created from scratch

downfall proved he was wrong

you switched fair uses and tried to argue that downfall example was fair use because it was a sample, actually trying to argue that all parodies must be sample to be valid.

you were wrong
i can take an entire score that is copyright protected / or an entire music video and layer in a parody track instead and it would still be covered by the fair use of parody

sampling is a complete different fair use.

you then changed fair use again trying to argue that the only fair uses that allow the entire file to be used was for personal use (misrepresenting private viewing as personal use)

again you were wrong because cablevision win proves that statement to be wrong too

personal use = private viewing.

Yes, I used exact quotes from wiki, and repeated the same quotes... without question. I simply stated why yours is a valid example of fair use - which you agree with, but because it's not "your view point" of fair use, you argue it.

Truly, I have never seen anyone go so off on something so stupid and try to twist it so many ways... it's remarkable.

Again as my first comment says, "Which is why all the examples Robbie are different" it makes no difference why your example is fair use. One is actually creating something original, the other is ripping some else's work because they're incapable of creating anything original - which is why I said what I did.

Maybe if you didn't try to twist every post to make yourself feel right, we might actually get to the point before another page passes by.....

Agent 488 · 05-23-2010, 04:48 PM

someone post a pic of a tranny.

TheDoc · 05-23-2010, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I have never "agreed" to anything with you. But keep dreaming. And keep making up excuses on why you can't actually implement your brilliant scheme that was hatched from your completely inexperienced feverish little mind.

I can't wait to pay ten thousand times as much as everyone else to learn your marketing ninja ways. Surely gideongallery is the smartest guy in the world who has never done anything.

EDIT: Can I get a mathematician to help me out with calculating what I'm going to pay gideongallery for his genius marketing tips?

What is 10,000 X ZERO?

In this post he said your price is now 10,000, I think that means it went up for $5k to $10k... then he said 10,000 x - so not really sure if your price is now 10k, 50 million or 100 million.

With the results he claims, I'm sure the price comes with a full money back guarantee. That is one of his factors for making sales, so I'm sure he has one.

Robbie · 05-23-2010, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

In this post he said your price is now 10,000, I think that means it went up for $5k to $10k... then he said 10,000 x - so not really sure if your price is now 10k, 50 million or 100 million.

With the results he claims, I'm sure the price comes with a full money back guarantee. That is one of his factors for making sales, so I'm sure he has one.

I'm sure we will all be lining up for his "training"

Just like all the mainstream companies have already and all the bands in the music industry.

Wait. What? He has never been able to convince a mainstream company to try his methods?

And say what? His cold calls to musicians babbling nonsense hasn't gotten anybody in the music biz to hand him 5 grand either and sign away a percentage for life to him? WTF? Don't they realize he's the next Colonel Tom Parker?

So what we are really looking at here is this:
Some anonymous tool on the internet. He talks a lot of shit. He has NO website up to promote his "services". He has no clients for these alleged "services". He has never successfully implemented these ideas in the real world.

And yet HE will tell ME that I don't know what I'm doing.

Sounds about right. gideongallery fits in with 99% of the other surfers here on GFY with delusional visions of grandeur.

Dirty Dane · 05-23-2010, 05:45 PM

Looking forward to see when you finished the porn tube, with parody porn, hosted by the visitors

DatingGameExpert · 05-23-2010, 11:08 PM

Fuck me, you guys must love eachother to be going back and forth like this.

Can we get back to talking about the tubes etc now and save the bitching back and forth shit for like...gmail (between you fags)?

05-23-2010, 03:07 AM	#152
ottopottomouse She is ugly, bad luck. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 13,177	I've just wasted another ten minutes of my life and not learnt anything new apart from you can't sell tampons in the mens bogs __________________ ↑ see post ↑ 13101

05-23-2010, 08:41 AM	#156
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	Gideon the point again... your example was vastly different than Robbie's. Yours is actual fair use, taking a sample of actual copyrighted content and using part/sample of it to create a parody of said material. Robbies, they create a new original product.. new actors, new funnies, new everything. It's not a copy of the original taken as a sample, it's a whole entire new whatever. Point: Actual creation. As Robbie stated.. with his something new is created, with yours a monkey can create them which is why Youtube is littered with 100's of this stupid things... any monkey can do it. __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation Last edited by TheDoc; 05-23-2010 at 08:48 AM..

05-23-2010, 09:29 AM	#161
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	And for the love of god, do you or don't you have a Website? It's a very basic 101 question asked by millions of people every day and very standard to share with other people in business. __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation

05-23-2010, 11:03 AM	#172
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	Bump for gideons gibberish non-answers that don't relate to the questions he is given. EDIT: Oh and one other thing...can we all agree that gideongallery's original post about how Adobe just made it cheaper for an illegit tube to stream stolen content is dead wrong? __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com Last edited by Robbie; 05-23-2010 at 11:05 AM..

05-23-2010, 01:44 PM	#177
gideongallery Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 7,082	downfall was protected as a parody because of the context change not becuase it was a sample from the movie the same context change protects this video even though the ENTIRE single ladies score was used __________________ “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

05-23-2010, 02:28 PM	#186
Serge Litehead Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Behind the scenes Posts: 5,190	Gideons business model: create content, get it into public domain and then try to make up for it up-selling somebody else's products for low commissions fuck where's my free cable, free movie theathers, free dvds? those guys missing big time on this perfect business model __________________ SilverCrocodile.com Adult web design since '05

05-23-2010, 02:41 PM	#189
Serge Litehead Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Behind the scenes Posts: 5,190	according to Gideon's logic book authors are also idiots and morons - they don't need publishing contracts! they don't need royalties! they are missing making fortunes with product placements! and publishing books must be free too they can use every second page for adverts!! what an idiots!! __________________ SilverCrocodile.com Adult web design since '05 Last edited by Serge Litehead; 05-23-2010 at 02:43 PM..

05-23-2010, 04:48 PM	#194
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	someone post a pic of a tranny.

05-23-2010, 05:45 PM	#197
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	Looking forward to see when you finished the porn tube, with parody porn, hosted by the visitors

05-23-2010, 11:08 PM	#198
DatingGameExpert Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Posts: 1,089	Fuck me, you guys must love eachother to be going back and forth like this. Can we get back to talking about the tubes etc now and save the bitching back and forth shit for like...gmail (between you fags)?