Gideon folds when faced with COMMON SENSE.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You believe yourself?

who the fuck has ever used a torrent for a back up. that's just retarded.

It never does. Nor do the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo like "n-1 points of redundancy." The first person you allow to copy a backup you made for yourself, in the cloud or elsewhere, is the first person you have illegally distributed the content to, and the first infringing copy you produced.

It also ignores that indexed P2P is hardly the most effective means to backups. It's about the slowest, most arcane, and least efficient means; while you can access your backups, so can everyone else connecting to you, costing you bandwidth and slowing down your network. This is really such a stupid argument I'm surprised anyone is willing to make it.

There is never fair use in *distributing* digital content you may have purchased to someone else, and this is exactly what happens the moment anyone other than the original purchaser accesses the file.

Or suing McDonalds for making you fat...

wait.:(

Not really, my lawyer can practice in NY and MD, smart ol jew he is.

no real winners

...and the winners...

:1orglaugh

wtf? they made a Far Cry movie?

link to download pls!

so it doesn't make sense when you deliberately violate the US supreme court ruling in Cablevision vs 20th century fox and look at it using the wrong POV.

it only sharing if you look at from the network prespective. The problem is that every fair use even timeshifting appears to be an infringement when you look at it from that point of view. The appeals court recognized this and when they changed the POV they realized it was no different using the cloud as a timeshifting device as a VCR.

That the issue here, the seeder is never sharing the file, when you look at it from the users POV. He is never giving ANYONE a copy of the working file, he is simply putting pieces of the file on multiple transient computers (fair use of cacheing). The leacher is not making copies when they download the pieces, because it still not a full working copy. It only when they REORDER it into a working copy does the action ever become an infringing, and then only when you don't have a fair use right to RECOVER the content.

I will say it again

leave the seeder alone
leave the tracker alone
leave the leecher with the fair use alone

Go after the leecher without the fair use right

btw if you want proof of this try playing a torrent that is only 20% complete and see how quickly it crashes your windows media player.

it doesn't become a complete working copy until the entire transaction is done, and the seeder has zero control about those actions after they handed out the pieces to each individual person.

Thats because he is licensed in both of those states. He studied an sat for two separate BAR exams to have a dual license.

And there are 2 or 3 states that if you are licensed in those states will let you practice in the state next door.


But the general rule is you need to take the BAR exam for every state you are gonna practice in. And that test is not easy.


My Brother who is licensed in the state of Florida has worked in California under my fathers California license. There are loops and exceptions, but nothing that covers all 50 states.




And to Gidion Gallery.... Really??? OK then.:thumbsup

Can someone explain to me, in layman's terms. why sites like, say, PornBB, PlanetSuzy and Perved deliberately set up a site for sharing copyrighted material, yet are immune to any action against them? The same with MegaUpload, Hotfile and Rapidshare, why is there not a clause saying a file cannot contain anything that is copyrighted? I'm in the publishing world and if anyone as much as borrows a sentence out of a book without permission they are jumped on and compensation has to be paid.

How come no-one fights back against these sites and put out malicious rumours about them? Like their files contain malware, their pop-ups download trojans. I'd rip their heads off if they were doing this to me. Surely if word gets around then the advertisers they attract would steer clear.

It's like when I've sent links of shared material to a model, it can take days and weeks for it to be removed, that's ridiculous that they go about doing that at their leisure, without fear of getting their balls tweaked!