EU Plots Pirate Bay Ban and Piracy Clampdown
 

Interesting........

Source: http://torrentfreak.com/eu-plots-pir...mpdown-090201/

this looks to be a huge step, we could see some big changes in the internet in the next couple years

I really hope so:thumbsup

as long as

1. timeshifted tv shows are a majority of bit torrent traffic
2. and even the us courts have recognized that timeshifting using a cloud is legal

this will be a dream.

think of how fast things could change overnight if torrents were shut down and rapidshare and megaupload were stopped?

the supply of warez and porn would change drastically overnight

What is going to stop people from anonymously seeding the p2p networks, and leaking their own works, just so they can go after people who share them?

You need to 'time shift' yourself to China.

There you will be with 'friends' with similar minds who think theft of copycatted material, patents, and technology is 'dandy'.

You do not pay for tv shows ass hat. The networks do via advertising. In reality, to keep up your end of the bargain. You need to watch the commercials. Cable or Satalite does not pay for your tv either. You are paying for the SERVICE of cable. Not unlimited use of shit on there. Same as a telephone, or other utility.


:disgust

Hope internet could turn into something better in the next couple of years...

and the only way you can legitimately make that bullshit arguement is to demand the criminalization of tivo and pvr.

Of course if you (and robbie) keep making the arguement that those technologies are good, arguing that i shouldn't be allowed to do the exact same thing using a cloud
(especially when the courts recognized that right) is just plain stupidity.

No asswipe. It is you who make that bullshit argument.

Paying for cable is a service. A subscription to receive a broadcast to be exact. Just because you pay to receive that service does not entitle you to copy everything, and make a profit off it. At not point do the media companies give you copyright permission of any kind.

Same with listening to the radio. Just because you receive the signal does not give you permission to record the latest songs, and then copy them, and rebroadcast or sell them.

Just because you paid to rent a movie at blockbuster does not give you the right to copy that DVD, and rebroadcast it, or make copies for others and profiteer from it.

Or even better one. I pay for a movie ticket, and I go into the theatre with a camera, and record the movie. I go home, digitize it, and rebroadcast it on torrents, tube sites, whatever because I am 'time shifting' my movie I bought for 8.95. Now I have the RIGHT to copy, and rebroadcast using youtube as my hard drive. :disgust

Your bullshit, fucked up logic goes something like this... I rent a movie from blockbuster. I then make a copy of it. I then show it at a movie theatre nightly for 300 people because I choose a movie theater as my time shifting, back up of the movie I rented.

That is how fucked up your argument is. Now, in reading that in words, any court of law would strike down your fucked up bullshit time shifting argument.

I can't wait until they do. Then you will have to find something else to do than troll message boards trying to get people worked up. While I admit I have not read all the threads on this board, I have yet to see a threat where a single people in this industry agrees with you or your argument.

joke
and too late, torrents are loosing popularity anyway..


rapidshare is more popular for porn downloads and leeching in general = no waiting time for the download.

so the only way you can dispute my arguement is to misrepresent it.
all your bullshit examples have one thing in common (which my timeshifting example does not) and that is that the people you are distributing to have NOT paid for the content also.

The person making the torrent file is not making money off the distribution period
just like the person recording the tv show with a vcr was not making money off the distribution. Sony made 1k from selling the devices (just like the torrent sites) but their actions were not a contributory infringement because of the fair use of time shifting.

It established quite clearly i don't need the fucking permission of the copyright holder because fair use falls outside the scope of the copyright holders' conditional monopoly.




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

you mean like

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

where the appeals court recognized that you could timeshift using a cloud

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?n.../01/20/1320242

or the ruling against one download = 1 lost sale.

i hate to tell you this (well actually i don't) but the courts are not your friends in arguement.
The politicians being bought and paid for by the RIAA is your only hope, and unfortunately for you
1. 2.2 trillion dollars of business is dependent on fair use right staying where they are
2. people are starting to realize that all the belly aching by the RIAA is an attempt to turn a conditional monopoly (as it was intended) into sherman anti-trust violating true monopoly.

which of course puts the entire arguement back into the courts hands (which are not your friends on this issue).

Fucking Ridiculous Gideon
 

:jerkoff

As I said...

Troll on...

Furthermore asswipe. How about you stick to the facts.

I have not commented on those technologies, good or bad. So the only 'misrepresentation' is you putting words in my mouth. :disgust

and easier to bring down, since they are the ones actually hosting the files

Exactly right.
:thumbsup:thumbsup

ever time you make your snide little "have you heard about .... it called tivo" comments that is exactly what ou are doing.

I'm a bit surprised ISPs haven't been forced already to put a blocklist in for certain websites like TPB. That won't stop everyone but it would be a huge hit on their traffic and stop a large chunk of it. When joe blow finds it time consuming and hard to do he's likely to not bother doing it anymore.

I'm also surprised they haven't been removed from google. The people at google know they are linking to that shit too, they could block it if they wanted. I know there's special rules for search engines too... Funny what you can get away with when you have the cash for the best lawyers out there.

Someone will probably say you can't get in trouble for linking to sites with pirated content but that's not true. Well obviously for google it is. But I've seen more than a few court cases where people got busted for doing just that. Not long ago someone got in some serious crap for linking to family guy videos he wasn't hosting.

They'll probably use the same defense google does for youtube. They didn't upload it, it's only a file hosting service, so it's not their fault. They'll claim they remove any pirated stuff that they find or that's reported and likely get away with it. The good thing about rapidshare is you have to pay if you want your files now. Most p2p users won't be so quick to pop out their CC when they were getting shit for free.

You are really out of it. So here's what you're saying. I write a book. Someone goes and photocopies the whole book, and hands out free copies to everyone. What you're saying is that's NOT copyright infringement because the person is not making money off it? BS, because even if the person distributing the work is not making money, the person who CREATED the work is still LOSING money, therefore still able to sue.

I think you WISH things were the way you say it is, but perhaps you should ask a lawyer instead of assuming.

no that is not what i am saying
i am simply pointing out that significant difference between my timeshifting example (timeshifting content that i paid for) and the barefooties bullshit misrepresentation of what i was waying (infringement that cause economic harm).

you are doing the same thing. however you are ignoring a different pre-condition to make your bullshit analogy (the fact that in my example i bought a right to the content).

It is significant because as it has been repeatedly proven timeshifting does cause economic harm too.

My own worst enemy got tivoed to death because none of those potential ad views are counted/paid for either.
It doesn't matter because it is paid for by the timeshifter and the contract/licience(cable bill) does not/can not explictly require the watching of commercials (without violating anti-trust law)

oh and btw you are only losing money if you are selling book to the infringers marketplace, if you are not selling in that region then there is no economic damage and you can't sue for it.

see the second ruling i pointed out.

Way to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Once again asshat.... I have never talked ABOUT tivo. I do not own one. Nor have ever. I do not know a lot in regards to that stuff since I am not a big TV watcher. I typically wait for my shows to come out on DVD, and buy the box set.

As I said, if you are going to reference me. Make sure it is something I have actually SAID bitch.
:321GFY

Right.

Since you are not watching the commercials, then you essentially are not PAYING For anything you claim to pay for. That is how you, the TV watcher and consumer, fit into this puzzle. Your paying for cable is not giving you any copyright, or licensing you anything. You are paying for a membership essentially, or the signal, to receive cable channels. So the only bullshit here friend is you.

The rest of us just need to wear some waders when you are around.

so going to take a shit during the commercial break is a copyright violation now (since your not paying for that content)

and going to the kitchen to get food (same reason)

You are grasping at straws with that bullshit arguement

i suggest you re-read my post

there is no way the copyrightholder can make such a demand without violating anti-trust laws.

There is no way the cable company can make such a demand without violating anti-trust laws.

each would be an attempt to extend copyright monopoly beyond the bounds of copyright licience.

The cable bill pays for the content
the timeshifting ruling allows me to skip the commercials if a want to.

just because the technology has gotten better and doing those tasks does not take away the "fair use" rights granted by that court ruling.

No, here's what he's actually saying.

You write a book. I buy a copy of the book. My friend who lives next door buys a copy of your book. His copy of the book, that he paid for, is accidentally destroyed. I let him make a photocopy of my copy of the book.

How are you losing money?

because that person if they wanted the book after losing or destroying it would have to buy another copy.if you buy it once it doesnt give you rights for life. I lost a book I wasnt finished with ,I was pissed I went to amazon ordered another.

Well the case of a book is silly anyway, because nobody is going to copy an entire book, it's just not worth the time. I actually replied in the wrong thread, because I'm reading one about backups at the same time.

You mean to tell me that I'm not allowed, for instance, to make a backup of software I buy? If I lose my XP CD, I have to buy a brand new XP? I'm pretty sure that the law _specifically_ allows for me to make and recover from backup.

I use torrents to get US television shows (mostly HBO) which are not available where I live. I would have no problem with some commercials if the shows were available in some format. I think they could solve the problem by streaming the shows themselves online and profiting from some advertising (like South Park is doing). I would much rather watch an official version with some commercials then deal with the torrents.

Which is essentially gideon's ridiculous argument.

If someone buys a 1 month membership to your site. They copy everything. Then cancel. They have eternal rights to that content they bought for $24.95. As if they 'own' it (i.e. copyright).

It would be nice to see this board restricted to those actually IN the adult BUSINESS. Gideon's sole occupation is trolling a message board with the same old daily shtick.

One can dream.

If I buy a one month membership to your site, and you allow and offer content for me to download to my hard drive, then don't I have a right to backup and recover files to and from my hard drive?

Under your scenario if my computer crashes after my membership to your site expires, I can restore everything from a ghost image _EXCEPT_ your content? Ridiculous.

you know as well as I do. Thats not the case with torrents.You make a back up its just for you not 1 million of your friends.

Nice try. I did not make that argument. Gideon did.

Stick to the facts champ.

Exactly right.

Look I'm not trying to defend copy right theft through torrents. But Barefoot sissies is being ridiculous. The moment you sell me content that I'm allowed to download and presumably keep forever, I have certain rights to it. One of those is to restore from backup. If I get that copy from a torrent to so be it, and guess what, you have no standing what-so-ever for a copyright infringment claim against me.

But lets be honest how often does that actually happen?

I think you are busy drinking the Kool Aid. I never said you do not have the rights to back it up. It is the WAY in which you back it up. Hard drive versus torrent, youtube, etc. Something that allows others access to it, basically providing distribution.

What is ridiculous is your inability to actually read what I type, and secondly to try and put words in my mouth I did not say, imply, or infer.

My argument is, and has always been, the technology you use to 'back up', and that some of them allow access to other users, meaning you are distributing it. So your hard drive comment holds no water.

He didn't say you you own content (copyright) when you download it. He said that when you sell it to me I get certain rights that you can not take away from me. One of those is to restore lost files. If I do that from CD, DVD, Tape or Torrent, it's none of your business and there's nothing you can do about that.

Now obviously piratesbay and other torrent trackers don't have this sort of purpose. Their intent is clearly illegal, IMHO. I'm simply saying there are some legitimate purposes for Torrents and thus it might not be so black and white as you seem to think it is.

... and where exactly did I talk at length on my opinion on torrents, and their uses?

Stick to the facts sport. Stop taking 'liberties' on your interpretation of what I am saying.

If your method of back up allows illegal copies to get to others, than yes, it would be ANY content producers business. Once more, it does not hold water. Yourself, like a HD is fine. A torrent that allows anyone to copy it, different argument.

So basically you've got nothing to say and you're just saying it too loud? Got it. Thanks for the update, paluka.