Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17166490)

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.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17166485)

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.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17166490)

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.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17166490)

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.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 16226684)

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bryanburnett/Telephone.jpg

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


idiot

Originally Posted by DonovanTrent (Post 16226699)

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.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 16226824)

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

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17166560)

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.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 17166559)

Let me answer for gideongallery:

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

</gideongallery>

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
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. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17166560)

timeshifting

timeshifting in a cloud proves the exact opposite

timeshifting
timeshifting thru the public cloud

idiot

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17166485)

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.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17165571)

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.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17166595)

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

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17166595)

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)

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17166616)

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

1. Sampling is it own fair use indpendent of parody
2. 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".

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17166567)

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.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 17166631)

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?

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17166624)

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.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17166851)

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
.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17166868)

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

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 17166867)

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?

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 17166872)

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.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17166879)

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).

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17166880)

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).

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17166879)

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.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 17166894)

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. :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by theking (Post 17166909)

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.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 17166921)

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.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 17166889)

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh 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.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17166948)

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.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 17166974)

Please do something then gideongallery. Do ANYTHING. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

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.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17167046)

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.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17166851)

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.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 17167051)

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

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. :1orglaugh

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?

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17167144)

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.