anti-piracy organization pirated the music for their anti-piracy video
 

you wouldn't steal music theme for your video

oh wait maybe you would

http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-co...mpaign-111201/

hahahahaha ouch back fire

This proves Gideongallery has been right all along!! :1orglaugh

Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!
Gideongallery wins!!

Gideongallery wins a big pile of shit!

http://potpiedeluxe.com/files/2010/0...814e7a.jpg.jpg

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

No matter what you do, you'll always just win a big pile of shit. Congrats! :thumbsup

never amazed lol good one

if i were the pirate bay i would buy out this guys copyright

and then sue every dvd producer who included the psa at the front of their video for statutory damages

ala the riaa/mpaa

25k per dvd sale

:1orglaugh

Wait... Gideon is supporting the copyright holders rights?

I'm confused

but wait, you don't support copyright! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh you're such a tool. really.

If they accidentally sued someone who was not guilty would you then want them to put this newly purchased product into the public domain for anyone to use as a form of punishment for wrongfully accusing someone?

idiot

you can't defend fair use without supporting copyright the very same act created both.

you are a world class moron

that the BALANCED punishment for using the new sopa rights to completely wipe a site from the internet

that not what suing for statutory damages does

the balance for that would be a right to be sued for statutory damages of 25k.


and yes would want that penalty to apply if they sued someone who had actually paid their liciencing fee.

of course if they bought the copyright, then that process would be as simple as looking at your records and confirming weather you got paid or not.

That is all I wanted to know. Your standard if a copyright holder decides to sue people and accidentally sues someone who is innocent is that you want them to forfeit their copyright and be made to put that content into the public domain as a punishment. I just wanted to make sure you were holding the same standards for you pirate friends as you do all copyright holders.

Unread Today, 04:24 PM

gideongallery
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.

reread it again moron

falsely sue for actual damages = counter suit for actual damages

falsely sue for statutory damages = counter suit for statutory damages

falsely wipe them off the internet = lose your copyright


pretty simple solution don't use the nuclear option unless your absolutely certain it not authorized.


i have never had a double standard that the point i don't change my position depending on who the accused is

i for example don't demand that a "pirate" get wiped out if they make only 1 mistake but at the same time complain about how unfair it is if sony lost their copyright for wrongfully take down (censor) 1 fair use authorized work. (like you did)

:1orglaugh

He's a total fucking idiot indeed.

In the past when people have talked about sending out blanket lawsuits against copyright violators you have advocated that if they wrongly sue someone who is innocent they should have t put their content into the public domain. I just wanted to make sure you were going to hold these guys to the same standard. But, as per usual, you rush to the defense of pirates at every opportunity.

then you should have no problem producing a quote

if you actually looked it was for bogus DMCA take down notices or automatic filtering that took down the content wrongfully

an act that censors the constitutionally protected right of free speech that i advocated voiding of the copyright

I have better things to do than to scour the board to produce a quote.

In the end it doesn't matter who is right or wrong. I was just a little bored and sometimes I get enjoyment out of poking you with a stick because I love seeing freeloaders and thieves justify their actions.

Freeboy masturbation material ....... Wack it gideon wack it!

.

ah got

your a lying scum bag doing your lying scum bag thing again.

can't make your argument with fact so you just make shit up.


btw

i find it funny that the scum bag with the double standard who argued that pirates should be punished the first time they "mistakenly" infringe but argue that it unreasonable to take away the copyright from copyright holders who "mistakenly" violate fair use

is accusing me having a double standard.

This is my position...just to be clear.

If a company (say for this example Sony) accidentally wrongly sues someone for copyright violation then I feel those who were wrongly sued are due their court costs and an amount of money that is reasonable for "pain and suffering." Now if Sony carried out gross misconduct and they went after people they knew likely were not guilty simply to scare them into settling then those people should be allowed to counter sue and should be awarded whatever damages the jury sees as fit. But Sony should not have to make its property public domain.

If a site owner puts something up that they know is infringing, they should be sued and a jury should decide what the punishment is. DMCA laws protect them from "accidentally" infringing because they create a legal pathway for copyright holders to have their content removed from the site. If that site doesn't remove it after DMCA (or in my opinion they continue to let it be posted again and again after being DMCA'd) they should be sued.

If they are grossly negligent and post things that they know people do not have the rights to download, they should be forced to stop operating until the case is resolved. That is how it works in the real world. If the police think I am using my car to traffic drugs, they will impound the car. If I'm found innocent I get the car back.

You can go to The Pirate Bay and do a search for Twilight Breaking Dawn and there are many different versions of it available for you to download at will. This is a movie that is only available in theaters. the only way for you to legally view it is to buy a ticket so everyone who is downloading that movie (or seeding it) is violating copyright and the site knows this and still allows it to happen. If the producers of that movie filed suit the site should be shut down until , at the very least, a hearing can be held to determine if the site owners were negligent.

Kane, don't waste your time arguing with that cheap fucking freeboy idiot :2 cents:

.

except that not what you defended

you defended damages only up to what would be considered actual damages

there is no emotional distress, i have to prove real economic loss and that all i am entitled too

even if i was put under intense emotional distress because of the wrongful accusation i get zilch for my pain and suffering because that not actual damages.

different uploaders may or may not have different rights to the content.
letting it get posted again and again is the only way those potential rights could be protected.


and if the police officer was committing gross fabrications (the equivalent to bald face lying and claiming you cleared all fair use rights/authorized distribution and swearing falsely that the site is a rogue site) that officer would face jail time.

bull crap there are countries that don't make it illegal to record a movie in a theater.

EU has established that 1 download != 1 lost sale



and if access shifting is established as a fair use, that locational restriction would just as invalid as demanding that people only watch tv shows on copyright authorised re runs.

how much is that studio going to pay all the independent musicians and creators who used the site to distribute there stuff

what is the fair value for the blocking of those peoples first amendment rights

under the current law that worth zero dollars.

remember the lose of copyright is dependent on the wronged person asking for that

if the copyright holder adequately pays off the wronged artist they don't lose anything.

it just like statutory damages for infringement, a penalty that only happens if you don't settle.

I'm done with him. It doesn't matter what I post he will never agree with me. It is just fun knowing that he is working himself into a fair use froth defending criminals.

so you expect me to agree with baldface lies like cherry disc (the first record company which signed semsonic) spent 500k to get them on the local radio station

or double standards like wanting sites to be taken down BEFORE there proven guilty, but no equal punishment for copyright holders censoring free speech AFTER they are proven guilty.