i am trying to understand your arguement

according to wikipedia
even if you were correct (which the scholarly information proves your not) and brothers Grimm didn't combine 3 different stories into there own revision, it is a proven fact that stepmother version was a re written version of the original story (first published)

you argued that disney had a right to take the final step mother version of the story. The one re-written from the oral story first published (assuming your completely false assessment)

now your argueing that disney re-written VERSION deserves copyright protection.

i am just asking you to explain why brothers grimm re-written version is not worth of protection but disney's is.

i know the true answer, grimms re-written version (both the merged story, and the unique re-write) were copyrighted work. The copyright expired and that why disney could legally use it, no stealing it.

your the one who is arguing it was always public domain, your just not explaining why the grimm re-write was not copyright worthy.

I still disagree, 10 million to these guys is nothing. I think they would rather go after the 75 Million, have a judgment and show their pride. What's 10 million after legal fees and split by however many labels. Not a whole lot. Again, this is just my opinion.

I'll write slow so you can understand then...

And I'll put it in musical context.

12 bar blues. Nobody knows who first put those chords together. Was it in Africa? Or later in the slave fields? Or sometime in the early 1900's? Where? When? Who? Nobody knows.

Does Robert Johnson hold the copyright to 12 bar blues? No. Muddy Waters? No. Any of the first recorded blues masters? No.

Simple twist here and there with those same chords, that same meter, that same cadence, and it is a different song.

Do you understand that?

No, you can't say that with a straight face about taking a brand new song and doing that.
But some things have been passed down since the beginning of man. Stories, fables, songs, nursery rhymes, etc.

Snow White is a fairytale gideongallery. It is no more able to be credited to the Brothers Grimm than playing an open G tuned blues can be credited to Muddy Waters.

Now how about getting BACK to the original subject Mr. "Circular" Argument.

It is WRONG to take somebodies original song straight from the damn album and put it in your movie without permission AND payment.

You know, you CLAIM to have some bands that you now are showing your magical formula to become millionaires by having their shit stolen. I hope you are telling them that IF somehow they really do make the big time, you are going to have no problem having their music stolen and used by anybody who wants to at any time.

really how does RK use of the music cost the industry a single sale.

i have already shown that fair use can be commercial (micheal moore, weird al, vcr, as long as it indirect) which this is since they are not selling the music only using it to tell a story.

the nature of the work is music which is irrelevent since music doesn't have any special copyright status when it comes to sampling

they only used a portion of the song

the last condition is the only one left

so how many people can you prove didn't buy the full song because a portion was used in an RK porn video.

vs how many who did because the song is now associated with getting a blow job in their mind.

bullshit, name one heavy played club song that liciences it for porn videos, playing something else CHANGES the story. Playing a custom created song CHANGES the story.

this is not using copyright material as generic background music to a fuck scene, this is using music in a contextual way to tell a story.



that is the legal definition of sampling, the ones you are using are the specific ones derived from that generic definition to fit a specific case, they don't apply to RK because the specifics of that case don't apply, not because the definition is "wrong".




produce just one such case, where a judge specifically said parody was only legal because it was a sample of the copyright material.



the exclusive right of the copyright act is to sell, to commercially profit from, not to prevent expressions that you disagree with.

so no they are not legally allowed to do this.

you keep trying to make the arguement that it only fair use if you don't profit even though i have presented countless examples where people profited from fair use.


fine produce just 1 that says it fair use because you didn't make money, if you made money it would be infringement


produce 1 top 40 dance song that licienced for porn video.

just because another porn story can be told with unrecognizable music doesn't mean this story can be.

if the story has to be changed when you licience the music then that censorship plain and simple.

Gideongallery...you are just stupid. The end.

I can't believe RK does not have a ace up their slieve, and have not consulted their lawyers prior to doing this. I see it as music industry trying to fish for a settlement by trying to scare RK into big lawyer fees and a long legal battle, nothing more. If this was as clear as some of you say here, they'd be sued way sooner.

again you still haven't answered the question

what you just said justifies the brother grimm re write (step mother version) to have the same copyright protection as disney's version (all or none i don't care)

you have not answered the question

why does disney re write justify copyright protection, while grimm re write does not.


and grimms re-write of the original story was as significant if not more significant then disney re-write of the grimm version.

i am not arguing that grimm had a right to take the public domain out of the public domain and lock it behind copyright, in fact given the original thread i was complaining about that very court ruling.

if disney had taken 1 of the three stories that were merged by the grimm brothers into a single snow white story, then and only then would you be able to make the arguement that you did.


but that not what we are talking about, if the music was openly licienced and RK simply took it to avoid paying the fair market fee, i would agree with you

this is about using copyright to censor free speach by refusing to licience the content at any price.

Gideon, what you are failing to realize is that copyright protects the creator/owner of he music from having it used in a fashion that they do agree with.

Here are three quick examples.

Moby. Moby licenses his music to a ton of products and companies, but he explicitly says he will not license his music to companies that make weapons or do any kind of animal testing/animal cruelty. If Smith and Wesson decided to use his song on a video they made, he could sue them and he would win. It makes no difference if they making money off the video or not, he doesn't want to be associated with them and he has that right.

Your girl Marie Digby. You bring this girl up every time people talk about music copyrights. So say Marie writes an original song that I like. I decide to use it in my newest movie Sodomy Sluts #4- Return of The Ass Fuckers. Marie decides she doesn't want to be affiliated with Sodomy Sluts #4. She can sue me and will win. It doesn't matter if I am not hurting her sales.

Political campaigns. Often politicians will adopt a "theme song", a song they play at all their rallies and appearance. Many times they don't ask permission to use this song, they just do it. There have been a few different cases in recent years where the artists didn't want to be affiliated with that politician and sued to make them stop using their song and won. Again, it makes no difference if they didn't cost the singer a sale or harm them in any way, the singer doesn't want it affiliated with that person and they have that right.

Remember copyright allows the copyright owner control over the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. It doesn't always have to be about money.

I know you don't care and I know you will give me a 12 point post on the VCR and the Diamond Rio and you will splatter 18 kinds of shit against the wall in a circular argument in an effort to confuse everyone into thinking you are right, but in this case you are wrong. If you use someone's music in your movie without getting permission/paying the licensing fee and they decide to sue, you are fucked. Especially when they use your music in a for profit venture which is exactly what is happening here.

For those interested in reading it, there's a copy of the complaint itself available via a link at the bottom of AVN's article about it.

It's interesting reading, and if you look closely at the details, you'll see there are some aspects of this that might be easier for a court to base its decision on than the First Amendment/fair use questions being discussed in this thread. :2 cents:

No it doesn't

section 106 of the act says
and section 107

you will notice that political agreement of principles/personal desire of the copyright holder is not one of the conditions.

fair use doesn't allow this type of exclusion, it is an abuse of the law that should be invalidated just like previous court established fair uses like timeshifting and format shifting.




again censorship is a completely different issue from loss of revenue.

fair use prevents the censorship aspect, it does not prevent the lost revenue aspect.


BTW
i find it interesting how you keep refusing to give me permission to exclude you from my work. As i pointed out in the previous thread (and here too) fair use would prevent me from invalidating your affiliate sales to any program that used my techniques(my copyright)

i asked you for permission to do that, to claim your money as my own. If you truly believe i as a copyright holder should have such a right, why do you refuse to give me such permission.

I glanced over it. There are a lot of songs there and they mention that there are many other songs used that don't belong to the company suing RK. I wonder if RK loses bad (or even settles) of the owners of those other songs will come in and join the party to get some quick cash.

WHAT WORK?????

YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING!!!

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

Oh my God this is fucking priceless! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Why do you people argue with that guy, he is right, everyone else is wrong.

It's easier to do than finding acid. Ever since Jerry Garcia died, there just hasn't been any good blotter...

actually if you read the filing it perfect for the first ammendment /fair use arguements made here

from the fact

1. that the music is contextually relevent to the story (i kissed the girl)
2. they only use it in that context and avoid using the music in the preview promo clips
3. use only title only promotion of the music (ala lenz vs universal)
4. and that the industry refuses to licience it to hard core (censorship vs income protection)

it almost a perfect fit.

Homegrown Video
 

For the record...

The Grimms were folklorists and linguists that collected stories for academic purposes, so there are multiple versions of "Snow White", "Cinderella" etc. and in fact there are versions with evil mom instead of evil stepmother and they were and still are criticized for being not "child" appropriate. Disney was able to revise the stories because the source material was folk tales that were not copywritten.

There are plenty of examples of music drawn from folk material in the same way and musicians are able to copyright their arrangements and recorded versions but not the original lyrics and tune.

I think the problem with RK is that they didn't get mechanical licensing to use the music in the manner that they did.

And for the record... just because GG is providing legal counterpoint in support of a potential defense of RK doesn't have to piss anyone off. Healthy debate is good for really understanding the issues involved, imo.

You really are dumb aren't you? Your post actually proves my point. The first quote you makes shows exactly what I said, that copyright holders get the right to control their product. These RK videos are not parody, news, commentary or research of for that matter any of the things that fall under fair use. Secondly, you posted yourself this part: (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

What if a singer who is portraying themselves as a wholesome christian and is going after that market ends up with their song on a porn movie? That could greatly damage the potential market value of the work. The same can be said for a politician using a song. If a band like Rage Against The Machine which makes their money by being anti-establishment suddenly has their song being played by a politician they are odds with, it could harm their brand and damage their value. What you fail to see is that there is more value to something than just the cash value of selling a CD or a MP3 download.



You are a fucking idiot. I knew I shouldn't have gotten myself into this thread.

Here is the reality of how the world works. If I am sending traffic to a company and suddenly they buy some magic formula from you that makes it so that the minute my visitor hits their website it becomes their visitor and I no longer get a commission, I'm going to move on to a different company. It isn't fair use that protects me from this happening, it is the free market. If a company did that sort of thing they would instantly lose all of their affiliates and those affiliates would go to their competitor.

Why would I ask you to exclude me from your work and give you permission to claim my money as your own? That is just an idiotic statement. Nobody would agree to that.

Since we are asking about unanswered questions. I am, assuming based on the posts in this thread, you have backed out of the deal with The Doc. All along he said he would give you anything you wanted and agree to just about any terms you wanted. All you had to do was send the traffic and supply 100 joins or more a day. At first you seemed like you were game. Hell, you even said you had gotten your lawyer to draw up papers and you had started building the sites to make this happen. Then suddenly when taken to task you started claiming you knew nothing about 100 joins a day and that you thought you were just going to show him how to do it and not have to do the grunt work yourself. All of a sudden you are backing out. Why? The reality is because your system doesn't work. You don't want to actually be involved because this way when it fails miserably you can simply say, "Well, he didn't do it correctly."

But I digress, we are, once again, spinning in circles which is exactly what you love to do.

wow still noticed you haven't answered the question

why does disney's re-write deserve copyright protection but grimm's does not (step-mother version)

In a different thread Gideon tried to argue that he could sell a "process" to a company that would allow them to take copyrighted control over all affiliate traffic and then since they now owned that traffic the would no longer have to pay commissions on sales. He claims only fair use prevents this from happening. He clearly knows nothing about the real world or the free market.

For the record that isn't what he's doing. He has an agenda in case you didn't notice that. There is no "debate". RK made a HUGE mistake by putting that music on their vids. End of story on that one. And they are gonna pay for that mistake.

Gideongallery is a form of amusement on here. You may have noticed that no matter what is being stolen...he is in favor of it everytime. Even on this subject, where he could have just simply said: "Yeah, they were wrong to do that"
He couldn't. The thief in his personal character just doesn't allow him to.

As far as being angry at him...I don't get mad at him anymore. I just enjoy reading his b.s.
But he has definitely trolled this community over and over and taunted people who were losing their very livelihoods to piracy while he gloated.

Just sayin'...
The clock is ticking on his beloved piracy. And so far he has failed to produce even one thing he claimed. Most recently TheDoc tried to do business with him and help him prove his "new revenue stream" of stealing everything.

He has completely FAILED to even get the project off the ground even though TheDoc was going to completely fund the project and do all the work for it.

He's a con man who is only here to push a pro-piracy agenda.

Assuming you are talking about ninjavideo, TVshack, etc... You are mistaken. Those sites did not sell copies of new release movies. They did not sell anything. They streamed the movies from other sites like megavideo.com

Not looking to get into this debate, but the sites were shut down for streaming, not for selling things.

debate usually consist of people discussing topics and sometimes changing their views or acknowledging they are wrong. How do you debate with someone who knows everything and is never wrong?

Wouldn't it be funny if someone robbed his house and the police showed up and said " looks like a clear case of fair use to me". It looks like they "time stamped" his TV right out the front door. They didn't take all of his cash, just a "sample" out of his wallet.

LOL if he even has anything of value, his type usually more of the "everything in the world should be free because that is the only way I can get it" type.

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

the childhood tales was an merging of these stories, with annotations thad documented the merging and divergances.

actually history shows that the criticisms resulted in the changes, the revison by Grimm were in response to this criticisms.

the original fokelore was based on the monarchal rules of ascention which is why the mother was the villian. the cultural changes in society is what allowed the revision

disney was able to revise it because the copyright expired, mainly because of the change in copyright law (statute of Anne and subsequencely adopted laws in germany) which created the concept of literary public domain.

musical scores or tunes can be copyrighted
notes can't be. (g flat)
public domain weather it be oral or the literary public domain is useable as a base without autorization from copyright holder.

the derivation can be copyrighted. that the way the system works. The principle was that once the copyright expires that work would be added to the collection of useable public domain work.

thank you

Somebodies attorney had a brainfart


(c) Plaintiffs have taken active steps to conceal their infringement,
including from Plaintiffs or other music copyright owners. While Plaintiffs' sound
recordings and musical compositions are contained in the "full" versions of the
Videos (accessible only to paid members of their website), Defendants have
stripped the music out of the "sample" versions of those Videos (accessible for free
to the public), replacing it with "stock" music.

37. The harm to Plaintiffs is immediate, massive and obvious. In no
uncertain terms, Defendants have stolen Plaintiffs' sound recordings and musical
compositions and used them for a purpose that they know Plaintiffs and their
recording artists and/or songwriters would not consent to. Defendants have done
so in order to attract members to their website and thereby profit from the use.

I was referring to the part of the complaint wherein the plaintiff asserts that RK claims on its websites (in its terms and conditions) to own the rights to ALL the material displayed on their websites, including music and the soundtrack to the videos therein. (See the bottom of page 14 and top of page 15 of the complaint)

One thing on which I should hope we can agree here; the factual question of who holds the copyright to the songs in question is not subject to First Amendment arguments.

Once the plaintiff presents evidence in support of its allegation that the defense falsely represented its rights to the content at issue, I think that could impact whether the case ever even reaches the Constitutional and fair use questions at all.

My point is that the court may find grounds for deciding the case on "technical" points before reaching the more nuanced Constitutional ones. I'm not saying it will play out that way, just that it could. Many, many cases, both civil and criminal, that involve substantial questions of Constitutionality never reach those issues at all, and are decided on points that are relatively simple "black letter law" by comparison.

(Don't take my word for it, ask any 'con law' expert or academic, and they will tell you the same thing)

I suspect this case will settle before the court considers any of these points, anyway... but it is still an interesting set of questions we're talking about here.

you do realize those are all examples of how the use effect the ECONOMIC value of the content.

which is why i said the arguement would come down to these companies having to prove


but it doesn't matter your arguement just proved you wrong

you didn't make it based on desire not to have it featured but on the ECONOMIC loss

which is exactly the point i was making about fair use

it not about censorship it about ECONOMIC damage.

if i teach them how to change their content or their tours so that ratio jump from 1:1200 to 1:300 then my copyrighted material is responsible for that change.

if you want to use old non converting sponsors do so.

i can't use my copyright to claim your income, if copyright worked the way you did, i could simply say i don't want you to use my copyrighted material and i could sue you for sending traffic to those superior tours.

so fair use does specifically prevent that.

it was the condition to your agree to disagree condition, you said you were ok with it and now you are backing out.

which is sort of funny since your trying to misrepresent my consistant statement.


i agreed only to show him what to do and then walk away, the only condition is what i showed him if implemented as instructed would generate 100ish sales a day.

basically ther 543 building blocks that are available, i believe only 5 need to done to replace the income lost to "piracy" i agree to keep teaching until we make 100 sales/day if i am right it a great deal for me, if i am wrong i will have to give up more of the ip to get it done.

i stand behind that agreement

i will however not do all the work for nothing more than what i would get for being an affiliate (hell 100 sales a day would get me more as a whale).

I thought this sounded like a rookie as well. Glad someone else saw it.

actually you need to read it again it says


that statement is not incompatible with a fair use defense,

if the highlighted portion of the text was missing then yes i would agree with you

however given club setting, the normal liciencing process for playing music in a club and the nature of the shoot. that phrasing is appropriate for the first ammendment/fair use defense.

They had 'non-licensed sections' which others have, that also allowed downloads and sold software to manage the download, to watch movies recorded from theaters that had thumb prints embedded in the movies showing these sites were the stream of the original source of the piracy based on location of the operators. So it wasn't user uploaded and wasn't licensed as well.

They were shut down for counterfeiting. Not the other forms of piracy.

We did not agree for you to show me anything... it was made clear that I don't need to know what you do nor do I care. I'm in it to make money, and the only way it's valuable to me as stated as well, is if you can produce 100+ sales a day.

I don't want a maybe, I need a for damn sure otherwise you're waisting my time.

I don't give a shit about 500 or 1000 points of anything, I build shit and get programs to make money based on my knowledge. If you can produce a 100 damn sales a day, 500, 1000, It's about making money... and if you need your ego stroked, I will get everyone on this board to call you Daddy if you like or buy you a whore if needed.

We all saw deal, it's about money... no reason to try and impress me with stupid steps. I have more than given up my contact info, I'm easy to reach.

i don't maintain the private trackers for the musicans i help i simply show them how to do it and give them the steps they need to follow, they can do it themselves or outsource it
but once i show them it part of their opp.

i don't want to waste my time doing all that day to day grunt work.

50% for doing all that work is a waste of time for me, it less then i would make as a standard affiliate.

your claiming you can do 100/day no problem just using the current methods, you want me to match that with what i know.

i have no problem with that as long as all the grunt work is done by your staff, if i show you how to setup a private tracker in the specific way to protect your content (better then streaming only, dmca to death) then your staff needs to maintain that.

And that is EASILY searchable right here on GFY. TheDoc NEVER asked to be "shown" anything and gideongallery made 10,000 excuses as to why he kept stalling...and then he backed those excuses up in 10,000 places on his infinite hard drive in a cloud.

gideongallery...you are exactly what we all knew: Full of shit. Nothing but a talker. You were given the opportunity to PROVE your theories and guess what? You can't. Because they don't work.

That's why NOBODY is paying you for your "expertise"
It's because you don't have any. You aren't in this business and you exist on GFY merely to troll.

And now that your bluff has been called...you keep talking in circles while the world laughs at you.

Oh, and good luck on marketing that "torrent recorder" you were so sure was gonna make you millions. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

It's been MONTHS since TheDoc tried to do this with you.

At first you made excuse after excuse that you needed all kinds of written agreements. Then you just disappeared.

Meanwhile TheDoc has given you his contact info over and over. But yet you don't do anything.

Nobody is fooled by you gideongallery. You are just a below average intelligence guy trying to feel "important" by stringing together big words that you copy/paste off of torrent "news" sites.

Please go get a job.

I'm not a Canadian citizen, but I can feel you sucking off of society all the way here in the U.S. like some sort of giant, fat parasite.

I see what you're getting at, but I'm not so sure the court is going to accept the clubs as meeting the definition of "supplier" here, particularly since the clubs in question do not own the copyright to the songs they play, and therefor the songs cannot be considered their "property."

Interesting stuff at any rate. If this case doesn't settle without full adjudication... a few years from now we may have our answers. Hehe.

I haven't read a word of these long-ass GideonGallery posts, but here's my take... whatever GideonGallery is saying is wrong.

GideonGallery, you are wrong. RK is going to lose or settle, they have a case against them that they cannot win.

this is a slam dunk case.

You yourself said that if a company refused to license the songs it was censorship. I didn't say that, you did. You said, "this is about using copyright to censor free speach by refusing to licience the content at any price."

Sorry dude, that isn't the case. A copyright holder has the right to just say no to someone and they can choose to not license their music to someone. If they choose to do this, it doesn't mean that person now gets to use it anyway.



Again, you are grasping at straws. If I am sending traffic to a sponsor and they use some magic formula you sell them to redesign the site and get better sign-up ratios they can't just suddenly say that they now own my traffic and aren't going to pay for it. This has nothing to do with copyright.

If they changed the marketing materials they provided me with they can and will copyright those materials. Again, this doesn't give them the right to just take my traffic and not pay for it, remember, they gave me the materials to market their site. I have their permission. In essence we have an agreement. I send traffic, if people buy a membership I get a commission for that sale. Fair use has nothing to do with it. If they decide to stop paying for my traffic for any reason, I will take it to a competitor and so will everyone else that they do that to. The market and competition protects me, not fair use.

I agreed to disagree with you because you think everything is fair use and I feel that the creators of content should be allowed to control how their content is used/distributed regardless of any economic impact. That is what I agree to disagree with you about. This has nothing to do with your magic formulas and "hypothetically" creating some system that makes it okay for a company just to take my traffic and not pay for it.

BTW if fair use protects me can you please notify, Ibill, Girls Gone Wild and Quickbuck and let them know that fair use forbids them from just deciding to screw over affiliates and not pay them. I'm sure once you point out to them that they are in violation of fair use agreements they will quickly cut checks to everyone that is owed money.








It was made pretty clear that he would build the site, handle the billing and run the site and provide you with anything you would need. Your job would be to send traffic that would create at least 100 joins per day. Basically, you would be an affiliate, but you would be the only affiliate. It is a chance to show all of us who laugh at you that you really know what you are doing. To show us all that you are right and we are all wrong.

Let's do the math: You get to 100 sales per day and let's say you agree upon a 50% split with Doc paying for the processing fees. So on $29.95 per month membership you would get $14.98 per sale, recurring each moth that person rebilled. That is $44,980 per month. Assume the second month that only 30% rebill. That means in month 2 you make your $44,980 plus $14,980 in rebills for $59,960. You keep that up for a full year and you are making 719K for the year and that is being conservative and assuming most people only stay a members for 1 month.

You are telling me your time isn't worth a paltry 719K? Hell, if you really can do this I would bet you could find a dozen companies willing to cut you a deal and pay you $35-40 per signup. That's 105-120K per month. If you really can do what you say, I'm sure there are plenty of companies out there that would offer you this. But your time isn't worth 1.2million per year?

I think we all know the truth here. You can send some traffic and you might get some sales, but in the end you know it will do nothing remotely close to these numbers and you don't want everyone on this board knowing it. We all realize that torrent traffic is made up almost entirely of freeloaders who don't want to pay for anything any will argue until their blue in the face about it being their right not to pay. Getting people to download and share your movies and getting them to buy your product are two different things.

Whoa can believe this...
 

Damn i can even imagine what the hell i would do if this lawsuit happened to me.
I probley would start transferring all funds offshore and claim bankruptcy and call it a day!!! Yikes.

ND's lawyers will argue that the end users intent wasn't to listen to the video, it was to watch the video. The music wasn't being used as the end result, the image content was. So the award will be a small percentage.

Why do people talk to Gideon?

that doesn't declare the club as the owner, the assigned record company would still own the copyright in that context

the club would only represent the duly authorized distributor.

the supplier would still be the record company. and the song would most certainly be thier property.

I gave my reason earlier:

.... which takes us back to whether the court will accept a construction as legally valid that defines a passive third-party with no constructive knowledge of the intended use of the IP in question to be a "content supplier," and/or believes for one instant that is what RK actually intended the passage in their T&C to mean.

I just think the court would be hostile to such a construction/interpretation; that's the crux of our disagreement here, methinks.

I'll run this question by a some of the attorneys I speak to regularly (heh... probably not to include Larry, all things considered) and see what they have to say. I probably won't be able to get any of them to go on the record with me about this, but I'll give it a shot.

The spirit of Jerry lives! LSD is making a comeback for use in psychotherapy...

Scientific American Article

(ADDED TO THREAD FOR SAKE OF BREVITY IN OTHERWISE HEAVY TRIP THREAD)

On a (somewhat) related note... Lester Grinspoon is a good friend of my father's from his Harvard days.

Lester and dad disagree strongly about the merits (or lack thereof) of marijuana and LSD use, but they remain very close friends. There might be a lesson in that fact for Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals.... hell, maybe even Robbie and Gideon!

OK, now I'm the one who is 'reaching.' :1orglaugh

I sometimes wonder that myself. I guess I like poking him with a stick. It might be like a cruel form of entertainment.

do you see any economic loss declarations like the ones you made up in your counter arguement

NO

so in this case

that exactly what fair use allows you to do.
when copyright is used as a censorship/monopoly extention instead of protect income of the content that exactly what fair use has done every single time

sony didn't get permission from universal
diamond rio did not get permission from the RIAA.


i will say it again

if i could simply deny you the use of my copyright material for any reason i wanted then i want you to prove you believe what you believe is just as good a reason as any other.

your right if you wanted to send traffic to inferior tours, or other sponsors you could.



but that exactly the point if i don't want you to gain an advantage from my IP i should have a right to take away the income you make from using that IP without my permission.

Even if there is no economic impact to that banning.

if you sent traffic to a tour using my IP without my permission you would be infringing on my copyright

that the stupidest statement you have made, just because fair use prevents me from banning you for non economic impact reasons, doesn't mean that a program can screw you for another reason.

this is one specific case, where you want to profit from my copyrighted work (and licienced derivation) and my ability to stop you even though i can't show economic damage from that selective economic censorship.

You argued i should have the right. If you truly believed i have that right anyway, you should have a problem agreeing to give me that right.





exactly what i agreed to,

if maintaining the tracker, submitting the torrents, sending out the letter, and any other grunt work necessary was what i need he would do it.

when i said

he responded with

he said produce not personally send 100 sales
if i teach him something new and that technique generates an average of 20 sales a day, i produced 20 sales a day even if he did all the work of maintaining it because without that tutoring those sales would not have happened.




and that what he tried to reclassify it as after i sent him the document spelling out exactly what the deal was.

he claimed he never recieved it. now i know why.




ok so after working like a dog for a year i get 719k i put that in the bank at 10% that translates into $71,900 a year forever.

i just taught 30 people, even with all of the upfront fees going event and support cost (renting room, support site , etc) my profits is about 5k per year per student. or 150k per year forever. it only takes me a week to teach these guys (5 days actually)


now lets talk upside, first of all i would be competing with myself in that situation, so it would get harder and harder with each new site.

second the number of students i teach is getting larger each time, so even with 2+ months of prep time between classes the total number of residual incomes is growing quickly.

IF i can get enough students so that the size is statistically accurate (1500 min) and the average income levels are stable then i can prove we can produce results superior to signing with a record company. when that happens i will be teaching in front of class in the 100s
even if that increased competition cause our average to drop to say $3200 (what our fee would be for an average recording artist) that still a shit load more money then i would earn proving my point to you.

add the fact that stuff i am showing these guys will work for tv shows, and those licience out in the 2-3 million an episode mark. and the maximum upside is conservatively 100 millions not just 1-2 million.

now if the deal was what i agreed to orginally it worth the risk, i could show doc the 5 things that i talked about in a week, 719k/ year for a weeks work is worth my time that worth doing even if it cost me a weeks worth of training.





offer still stands as originally agreed to, only thing holding it up is docs attempt to redefine it as something else.

but they are not defining the club as the content supplier

the club broadcast system would simply be the medium.

you don't consider all the servers that exist between your server and my computer "content suppliers"

it would be a significant stretch of the phrasing to make that declaration.

I caught that too I think there were a couple of mentions about them intentionally concealing it by only showing it to their paying members, but then turning it around a few paragraphs later calming they were using it to drive traffic to their sites. I was also shocked at how much of the complaint was devoted to just a general attack on the evils of porn and Reality Kings in general. They went so far as to claim in the complaint the site was a fraud because it used professional porn actresses instead of real amateurs. It makes me think there isn?t as much substance here as they claim.