System management servers in corporations do that all the time. Your not installing a backup you backed up, your installing from a central common installation point.
The system restore is the common software/os/applications that are common to all the machines on the network.
Same principle should apply to tv shows(which you paid for..) etc.
Want to change the laws to say that you can't download stuff you didn't personally backup even though you own a valid licence to the content, and your talking about bankrupting the entire US economy.
so should the those people have a right to sue the US government and the RIAA for statutory damages of 25k per person who was denied from getting their files.
2. Given the wording of the safe harbor provision, taking the time to figure out that better way would make you potentially liable. If you didn't do a perfect job the first time, that knowledge would make you liable for all the imperfections.
it could raise privacy questions under US law (that part might be a stretch, since the uploads weren't private, but public).
just because a link can be made public doesn't mean that it WAS made public
I could for example use mega upload to put up a file i bought from my home, go to another machine at my work and download it so i could consume it there.
That would still be a private transaction because i never shared that link with anyone at all.
It also very difficult to tell the difference between that private act and me simply emailing the same file to someone who didn't pay for it.
you might want to read the mpaa testimony to congress after the supreme court validate timeshifting as a fair use.
Now, here is the next one: 87 percent, 86.8 percent of all these owners erase or skip commercials. I have here, Mr. Chairman, if you are not aware of how this works -- this is Panasonic. This is a little remote control device that you use on machines. It has on here channel, rewind, stop, fast forward, pause, fast advance, slow, up, down, and visual search, either going left or right.
Now, let me tell you what Sony says about this thing. These are not my words. They are right straight from McCann Erickson, whom you will hear from tomorrow, who is the advertising agency for Sony and here is what they say. They advertise a variable beta scan feature that lets you adjust the speed at which you can view the tape from 5 times up to 20 times the normal speed.
Now, what does that mean, Mr. Chairman? It means that when you are playing back a recording, which you made 2 days or whenever -- you are playing it back. You are sitting in your home in your easy chair and here comes the commercial and it is right in the middle of a Clint Eastwood film and you don't want to be interrupted. So, what do you do? You pop this beta scan and a 1-minute commercial disappears in 2 seconds.
Mr. RAILSBACK. Is that all bad?
Mr. VALENTI. If you are watching a Clint Eastwood film it is the most cheerful thing you can do. However, if you are an advertiser who has paid $280,000 a minute to advertise, he feels a very large pain in his stomach as well as in his checkbook because it destroys the reason for free television, the erasure, the blotting out, the fast forwarding, the visual searching, the variable beta scans. the technology is there and I am one who has a belief that before the next few years the Japanese will have built into their machines an automatic situation that kills the commercial.
Being advertised today in all the video magazines, and if any of you take video magazines, here is a marvelous little device called the Killer. It eliminates those black and white commercials. You put the Killer onto your Sony and it automatically takes out the commercial. You don't like the Killer, try the editor. The editor will do the same thing. It will wipe out commercials.
The technology is there in my judgment, in the next several years, where an integral part of the machine will be automatic Killer. But you don't need that now as long as you have this. Indeed, when my son is taping for his permanent collection, he sits there and pauses his machine and when he is finished with it, he has a marvelous Clint Eastwood movie and there is no sign of a commercial. It is a brand new movie and he can put three of those on one 6-hour tape.
There is a simple way to balance the copyright law
Make the penalty for violating fair use to be as serious as violating a copyright.
if fair use companies like the vcr had a right to sue for statutory damages of 25k when copyright holders come up with solutions that also violate fair use rights. Then they would be less likely to propose draconian solutions that are actually balanced in the first place.
If the act of extending the penalties for abusing copyright automatically increase the liability of false or bogus complaint They would be less likely to propose changes that are abusive.
you are paying for it thru your taxes, and thru the barter transaction that the government negotiated for you when they granted those stations a section of the spectrum.
cold hard cash is not the only form of payment, barter is a valid form of payment for copyright work if the copyright holder agreed to that barter transaction.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright
fair use is written as a blanket immunity clause by definition that exactly what it means.
that why it was legal to loan your friend a copy of knight rider that he failed to tape because the power went out.
If time shifting didn't give you blanket immunity, universal could have demanded that vcr recorded a flag that prevented the tape from playing in any OTHER VCR.
and that your opinion, under access shifting you could by the non autoscopic 3d version on DVD for $20, or stream the non autoscopic 3d version on your TV thru net flix.
You would not be forced to choose between not having it at all and paying $15 for it.
of course people who would want to see it in 3d would pay that market defined price. ($15 or whatever it would be after competition against other mediums were taken into account).
1. there is no way shape or form you can claim what i am arguing for is "any use" by definition the copyright holder has to choose to exclude a medium completely for access shifting to kick in.
2. there is only one definition of fair use (the legal one)
for you to claim that it not fair use you would have to document exactly which one of the 4 conditions that interpretation violates in the context of the currently established fair uses.
simply saying that it doesn't qualify does cut it.
So which one of the 4 principles is violated so severely that it completely invalidates the status of fair use.
1. if that were actually true , non 3d movies would outsell 3d movies. Rereleases in 3d would be epic failures that would not cover the cost of conversion. Both of those conditions have not happen yet
2. 3d that you have in the theater now is a pathetic subset of what could be there if best 3d technology were implemented.
The reason you have crappy 3d is because theaters are not forced to compete against dvd/pvr etc.
If they were forced to compete, then they would use the best technology available to maximize their competitive advantage.
2. they could choose to compete against all offering in medium and maintain their copyright control.
For example producing high quality (6 spectrum color movie broadcasts) or Glassesless 3D.
Quality so good that the crappy cam version found on torrents would not be a good enough substitute.
Of course if such technology percolated down from the theaters to the home market, the entire economy would benefit with the creation of all those new devices.
And if they did not, theaters would have a permanent competitive advantage which would technologically stop piracy by making an always inferior substitute.
Release windows are an abuse of copyright law
The concept of a fair use voiding it makes perfect sense.
If copyright holders don't have a right to force consumers to watch tv shows at a specific time and date (as the timeshifting rules prove)
Then there is no logical reason why they should have a right to force consumer to watch movies in a specific location. Similarly to time shifting if they try and enforce such a business model, they should lose the right to restrict competitors who want to provide unauthorized "access shifting"
and it would be nice if making a false DMCA takedown had the same penalty as infringing on a copyright, however copyright infringement has a statutory damages component and bogus DMCA do not.
That being said, maximizing/properly allocating the actual damages is the best you can do legally.
Tech dirt just happens to have accidentally created some liability for this bogus take down which they should exploit to establish the precedent. Considering court cost are one of the things that is explicitly covered it a freebie.
Add the fact that it a dirty porn company who is making the bogus complaint, the anti porn sentiment would actually make it the easiest fight.
On the post: Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A Joke
Re: Re: Exactly
My favorite episode of doctor who blink was on a filelocker, and i kept redownloading it every time i wanted to watch it.
Once i was done i deleted it.
second the law doesn't make them keep track and evaluate
in fact if they were stupid enough to do so, they would INCREASE their liability for any that they missed.
On the post: Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A Joke
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater
System management servers in corporations do that all the time. Your not installing a backup you backed up, your installing from a central common installation point.
The system restore is the common software/os/applications that are common to all the machines on the network.
Same principle should apply to tv shows(which you paid for..) etc.
Want to change the laws to say that you can't download stuff you didn't personally backup even though you own a valid licence to the content, and your talking about bankrupting the entire US economy.
On the post: Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A Joke
Re: Re: What a skillful bit of horsemanure.
On the post: Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A Joke
Re: What a skillful bit of horsemanure.
On the post: Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A Joke
just because a link can be made public doesn't mean that it WAS made public
I could for example use mega upload to put up a file i bought from my home, go to another machine at my work and download it so i could consume it there.
That would still be a private transaction because i never shared that link with anyone at all.
It also very difficult to tell the difference between that private act and me simply emailing the same file to someone who didn't pay for it.
On the post: There Can Be No 'Balance' In The Entirely Unbalanced System Of Copyright
Re: Uh no-- balance is possible and desirable
Now, here is the next one: 87 percent, 86.8 percent of all these owners erase or skip commercials. I have here, Mr. Chairman, if you are not aware of how this works -- this is Panasonic. This is a little remote control device that you use on machines. It has on here channel, rewind, stop, fast forward, pause, fast advance, slow, up, down, and visual search, either going left or right.
Now, let me tell you what Sony says about this thing. These are not my words. They are right straight from McCann Erickson, whom you will hear from tomorrow, who is the advertising agency for Sony and here is what they say. They advertise a variable beta scan feature that lets you adjust the speed at which you can view the tape from 5 times up to 20 times the normal speed.
Now, what does that mean, Mr. Chairman? It means that when you are playing back a recording, which you made 2 days or whenever -- you are playing it back. You are sitting in your home in your easy chair and here comes the commercial and it is right in the middle of a Clint Eastwood film and you don't want to be interrupted. So, what do you do? You pop this beta scan and a 1-minute commercial disappears in 2 seconds.
Mr. RAILSBACK. Is that all bad?
Mr. VALENTI. If you are watching a Clint Eastwood film it is the most cheerful thing you can do. However, if you are an advertiser who has paid $280,000 a minute to advertise, he feels a very large pain in his stomach as well as in his checkbook because it destroys the reason for free television, the erasure, the blotting out, the fast forwarding, the visual searching, the variable beta scans. the technology is there and I am one who has a belief that before the next few years the Japanese will have built into their machines an automatic situation that kills the commercial.
Being advertised today in all the video magazines, and if any of you take video magazines, here is a marvelous little device called the Killer. It eliminates those black and white commercials. You put the Killer onto your Sony and it automatically takes out the commercial. You don't like the Killer, try the editor. The editor will do the same thing. It will wipe out commercials.
The technology is there in my judgment, in the next several years, where an integral part of the machine will be automatic Killer. But you don't need that now as long as you have this. Indeed, when my son is taping for his permanent collection, he sits there and pauses his machine and when he is finished with it, he has a marvelous Clint Eastwood movie and there is no sign of a commercial. It is a brand new movie and he can put three of those on one 6-hour tape.
On the post: There Can Be No 'Balance' In The Entirely Unbalanced System Of Copyright
not really
Make the penalty for violating fair use to be as serious as violating a copyright.
if fair use companies like the vcr had a right to sue for statutory damages of 25k when copyright holders come up with solutions that also violate fair use rights. Then they would be less likely to propose draconian solutions that are actually balanced in the first place.
If the act of extending the penalties for abusing copyright automatically increase the liability of false or bogus complaint They would be less likely to propose changes that are abusive.
On the post: Who Cares If Piracy Is 'Wrong' If Stopping It Is Impossible And Innovating Provides Better Solutions?
Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children
those commercials are not counted for payment purposes.
and the mpaa has known that fact since they complained about the vcr to congress
http://cryptome.org/hrcw-hear.htm
On the post: Who Cares If Piracy Is 'Wrong' If Stopping It Is Impossible And Innovating Provides Better Solutions?
Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children
cold hard cash is not the only form of payment, barter is a valid form of payment for copyright work if the copyright holder agreed to that barter transaction.
On the post: Who Cares If Piracy Is 'Wrong' If Stopping It Is Impossible And Innovating Provides Better Solutions?
Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright
fair use is written as a blanket immunity clause by definition that exactly what it means.
that why it was legal to loan your friend a copy of knight rider that he failed to tape because the power went out.
If time shifting didn't give you blanket immunity, universal could have demanded that vcr recorded a flag that prevented the tape from playing in any OTHER VCR.
On the post: Who Cares If Piracy Is 'Wrong' If Stopping It Is Impossible And Innovating Provides Better Solutions?
Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children
Using torrents to download a show you already paid for should fall under the fair use doctrine of timeshifting via a cloud
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud
using the torrents to download a show you didn't pay for is infringement because you don't have a right to time shift content you did pay for/given.
On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You would not be forced to choose between not having it at all and paying $15 for it.
of course people who would want to see it in 3d would pay that market defined price. ($15 or whatever it would be after competition against other mediums were taken into account).
On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2. there is only one definition of fair use (the legal one)
for you to claim that it not fair use you would have to document exactly which one of the 4 conditions that interpretation violates in the context of the currently established fair uses.
simply saying that it doesn't qualify does cut it.
So which one of the 4 principles is violated so severely that it completely invalidates the status of fair use.
On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Same principle if access shifting becomes a recognized fair use.
On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2. 3d that you have in the theater now is a pathetic subset of what could be there if best 3d technology were implemented.
The reason you have crappy 3d is because theaters are not forced to compete against dvd/pvr etc.
If they were forced to compete, then they would use the best technology available to maximize their competitive advantage.
On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure
Re: Re: Re:
For example producing high quality (6 spectrum color movie broadcasts) or Glassesless 3D.
Quality so good that the crappy cam version found on torrents would not be a good enough substitute.
Of course if such technology percolated down from the theaters to the home market, the entire economy would benefit with the creation of all those new devices.
And if they did not, theaters would have a permanent competitive advantage which would technologically stop piracy by making an always inferior substitute.
On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure
Re: Re:
Look at the time shifting and the VCR, copyright holders were not forced to provide on demand distribution of TV shows
They however were prevented from stopping a company (sony)who wanted to sell a device (betamax) that provided such service.
The same principle would apply if access shifting became a fair use.
A company (the pirate bay) would not be prevented from providing a service (torrents) that allowed access shifting.
If the copyright holder choose not to compete by offering something within that window, that their option.
Just like it was there option not to provide on demand services when the vcr first came out.
On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure
The concept of a fair use voiding it makes perfect sense.
If copyright holders don't have a right to force consumers to watch tv shows at a specific time and date (as the timeshifting rules prove)
Then there is no logical reason why they should have a right to force consumer to watch movies in a specific location. Similarly to time shifting if they try and enforce such a business model, they should lose the right to restrict competitors who want to provide unauthorized "access shifting"
On the post: Key Techdirt SOPA/PIPA Post Censored By Bogus DMCA Takedown Notice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That being said, maximizing/properly allocating the actual damages is the best you can do legally.
Tech dirt just happens to have accidentally created some liability for this bogus take down which they should exploit to establish the precedent. Considering court cost are one of the things that is explicitly covered it a freebie.
Add the fact that it a dirty porn company who is making the bogus complaint, the anti porn sentiment would actually make it the easiest fight.
Next >>