fairusefriendly 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (88) comment rss

  • On the post: Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A Joke

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2012 @ 02:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Baby & Bathwater

    And who says that is automatically illegal

    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

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2012 @ 10:08am

    Re: Re: What a skillful bit of horsemanure.

    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.

  • On the post: Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A Joke

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2012 @ 09:43am

    Re: What a skillful bit of horsemanure.

    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.

  • On the post: Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A Joke

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2012 @ 08:44am

    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.

  • On the post: There Can Be No 'Balance' In The Entirely Unbalanced System Of Copyright

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 01 Mar, 2012 @ 01:12pm

    not really

    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.

  • On the post: Who Cares If Piracy Is 'Wrong' If Stopping It Is Impossible And Innovating Provides Better Solutions?

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 04:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

    which is exactly the same consequence if you PVR the show

    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?

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 04:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

    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.

  • On the post: Who Cares If Piracy Is 'Wrong' If Stopping It Is Impossible And Innovating Provides Better Solutions?

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 04:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

    your really need to read the copyright act

    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?

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Re: IP Advocates == Spoiled Children

    because people misunderstand fair use on both sides of the arguement.

    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

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 09:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    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).

  • On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 09:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    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.

  • On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 09:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    autoscopic 3d is 3d without glasses

  • On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 08:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    and copyright holders have a right to control the distribution of their content as long as those restrictions don't violate fair use.

    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

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 08:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    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.

  • On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 08:26am

    Re: Re: Re:

    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.

  • On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 08:18am

    Re: Re:

    1. The fact that something is a fair use doesn't force any business to do anything.

    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

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 29 Feb, 2012 @ 07:56am

    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"

  • On the post: Key Techdirt SOPA/PIPA Post Censored By Bogus DMCA Takedown Notice

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2012 @ 09:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    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: Would You Rather Be 'Right' Or Realistic?

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2012 @ 08:46am

    i find it interesting that this arguement is basically sense of entitlement vs sense of entitlement

    why should this author believe that a copyright holder should be entitled to dictate the use of content paid for. If the right to force people to watch a show on a specific day and at a specific time was ruled to not be a right granted by copyright (see timeshifting ruling) then why should they have a right to dictate at this specific location, or thru this specific medium. If (and only if) they choose to abdicate a medium why not grant users a fair use right to acquire such content (access shifting).

    The principle is the same, while they lose some revenue, it really revenue from extending the copyright monopoly to a medium not from actually licencing the content.

  • On the post: Key Techdirt SOPA/PIPA Post Censored By Bogus DMCA Takedown Notice

    fairusefriendly ( profile ), 27 Feb, 2012 @ 02:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    not really follow the first link

    one of the people who you get to have lunch with is a lawyer

    his day rate would fall under the legal expense of getting this resolved.

Next >>