Copyright claim against KMC

Originally posted by Syren
What's wrong with you? It's not about being 'pwnt'.

uhh...yeah, you take this a bit too seriously. Obviously calling what he said "pwnt" doesn't mean I think He's the god of the internets and he just that guy like a b*tch. Usually, people here post that light heartedly to mean "good point" or "yeah, that was a good argument".

Originally posted by Syren
If you can't submit anything even halfway decent then do what I do and simply read and learn 😬

And asking for legit and/or applicable cases to this topic is hardly indecent. If I really wanted to learn about how the law is interpreted when it comes to copyright infringements on message boards, then I would search for myself and find them on the intertubez. I am more interested in what people here have to say and what arguments they come up with. I am here to be entertained.

and why the hostilities towards me all of sudden? I have NEVER been on your case about anything and I even taken up for you on more than one occasion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
uhh...yeah, you take this a bit too seriously. Obviously calling what he said "pwnt" doesn't mean I think He's the god of the internets and he just that guy like a b*tch. Usually, people here post that light heartedly to mean "good point" or "yeah, that was a good argument".

Not at all, I just don't think that a response such as your previous one is at all beneficial or even relevant to the discussion. In case you hadn't noticed, the topic is quite serious.

As for 'pwnt', it tends to have meaning only in the OTF or other areas of the forum which are just as light hearted. Not really in the GDF. Just sayin' 😬

And asking for legit and/or applicable cases to this topic is hardly indecent. If I really wanted to learn about how the law is interpreted when it comes to copyright infringements on message boards, then I would search for myself and find them on the intertubez. I am more interested in what people here have to say and what arguments they come up with. I am here to be entertained.

and why the hostilities towards me all of sudden? I have NEVER been on your case about anything and I even taken up for you on more than one occasion.

You're in the GDF to be entertained? Doesn't make sense 😛

No hostilities, please don't be sensitive about it. I genuinely felt that your response was immature. I think if it had been someone I actually knew to be a bit less than sophisticated in general, I wouldn't have commented. But I usually think your posts are quite intelligent. We all have our moments I suppose. Back to the OTF with you mmm

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I manage copyrighted works for the largest recruitment-advertising agency in the world, and as such, a thorough knowledge of copyright law is a function of my employment.

Your understanding of copyright infringement is wrong. One need not financially benefit from infringing a work to be responsible for statutory damages.

Your understanding of vicarious liability is wrong. When determining vicarious liability, a judge will examine whether one financially benefits from infringing a work, or whether he supervised the infringing of a work. One need only be responsible for one of these activities to be vicariously liable.

Well you aren't giving a very good account of your capability at the job then! The law on vicarious infringement is exceptionally clear. Look it up anywhere and examine any previous cases. Once more. Vicarious copyright infringement ONLY OCCURS if the infringer is benefitting finanically (which is why your distinction that a mod has the power to oversee things is meaningless).

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3BTK3OqV9KMC&pg=PA313&lpg=PA313&dq=vicarious+infringement&source=web&ots=iNTezgqMD_&sig=L3_DNsPrv18ZJRNINAjzQ0TtIso&hl=en

Relating specifically to ISP and BBS services, taken from previous cases.

Not to mention any number of links I can give you that give an absolute and straightforward definition of the matter.

http://www.quizlaw.com/copyrights/what_is_vicarious_infringement.php

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UtBY8RviNSAC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=vicarious+infringement&source=web&ots=x-1rJFG2e5&sig=hLWu12iJ4TVUI4c-HI56bJTeCP4&hl=en

http://www.buildingipvalue.com/n_us/92_96.htm

http://www.wiredsafety.org/safety/downloading_music_safety/dlm7.html

http://www.benedict.com/Digital/Internet/Fonovisa/Fonovisa.aspx

http://courseblog.cs.princeton.edu/spring05/cos491/?p=132

I could go on all day.. EVERY SINGLE ONE makes it clear that there must be a direct financial interest, and your attempt to distinguish the 'statutory' nature of the damages is a nonsense (you have to be held liable first before ANY kind of damages are considered).

Incidentally I did check this with my lawyer friends first, who I certainly have a hell of a lot more confidence in than I have in you. The judge does NOT decide whether it is one of those two things; he must determine it is BOTH (as stated by the Ninth Circuit here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ktufN9cPjbwC&pg=PA456&lpg=PA456&dq=vicarious+infringement+statutory+damages&source=web&ots=uss95MtyIp&sig=MNuoSPzVs6drwMaoLZB8ES_ty78&hl=en)- to quote:

"As for vicarious infringement, the defendants must have received 'direct financial benefit' as well as have had the 'right and ability to supervise the infringers', the ninth circuit said."

(The case continued to revolve around whether they had the ability to supervise or not; the ninth circuit said no but this was later overruled. But everyone was clear that it had to be BOTH areas satisifed).

I am amazed you don't know this; in ALL previous cases related to the net and copyright infringement (things like Napster etc.) it has been a central tenent of the point that BOTH things must be satisified for vicarious liability, not one or the other. Grokster at one point avoided vicarious liability on the grounds that although it was making money it could not be expected to supervise- the judge in the case laid out plainly how it needed to be both (MGM Studios Inc. et al v Grokster Limited)

You're talking garbage. You are simply plain wrong, and it absolutely does not matter what your job is. I am truly shocked by your behaviour here, and in trying to constantly defend what is so very obviously and demonstrably wrong. There is an absolute and damning torrent of evidence against you- all the references say you are wrong, and all the previous cases say you are wrong.

Don't dig yourself any further into this ludicrous hole.

And finally... how about this link from the US Government Copyright Law website?

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072204.html

Quote: "Thus, vicarious liability requires two elements: (1) the right and ability to supervise or control the infringing activity; and (2) a direct financial benefit from that activity."

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not to mention any number of links I can give you that give an absolute and straightforward definition of the matter.

http://www.quizlaw.com/copyrights/what_is_vicarious_infringement.php

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UtBY8RviNSAC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=vicarious+infringement&source=web&ots=x-1rJFG2e5&sig=hLWu12iJ4TVUI4c-HI56bJTeCP4&hl=en

http://www.buildingipvalue.com/n_us/92_96.htm

http://www.wiredsafety.org/safety/downloading_music_safety/dlm7.html

http://www.benedict.com/Digital/Internet/Fonovisa/Fonovisa.aspx

http://courseblog.cs.princeton.edu/spring05/cos491/?p=132

I could go on all day.. [b]EVERY SINGLE ONE makes it clear that there must be a direct financial interest, and your attempt to distinguish the 'statutory' nature of the damages is a nonsense (you have to be held liable first before ANY kind of damages are considered).[/b]

EVERY SINGLE ONE of these cases were prosecuted under Section 506 of the Copyright Act, thereby excluding statutes that do not require that a defendant be shown to have sought to personally profit from the infringing activity.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Incidentally I did check this with my lawyer friends first, who I certainly have a hell of a lot more confidence in than I have in you. The judge does NOT decide whether it is one of those two things; he must determine it is BOTH (as stated by the Ninth Circuit here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ktufN9cPjbwC&pg=PA456&lpg=PA456&dq=vicarious+infringement+statutory+damages&source=web&ots=uss95MtyIp&sig=MNuoSPzVs6drwMaoLZB8ES_ty78&hl=en)- to quote:

"As for vicarious infringement, the defendants must have received 'direct financial benefit' [b]as well as have had the 'right and ability to supervise the infringers', the ninth circuit said."

(The case continued to revolve around whether they had the ability to supervise or not; the ninth circuit said no but this was later overruled. But everyone was clear that it had to be BOTH areas satisifed).

I am amazed you don't know this; in ALL previous cases related to the net and copyright infringement (things like Napster etc.) it has been a central tenent of the point that BOTH things must be satisified for vicarious liability, not one or the other. Grokster at one point avoided vicarious liability on the grounds that although it was making money it could not be expected to supervise- the judge in the case laid out plainly how it needed to be both (MGM Studios Inc. et al v Grokster Limited)

You're talking garbage. You are simply plain wrong, and it absolutely does not matter what your job is. I am truly shocked by your behaviour here, and in trying to constantly defend what is so very obviously and demonstrably wrong. There is an absolute and damning torrent of evidence against you- all the references say you are wrong, and all the previous cases say you are wrong.

Don't dig yourself any further into this ludicrous hole.[/b]

In A&M Records v. Napster, the Ninth Circuit Court found Napster vicariously liable, declaring, “[Napster bears] the burden of policing its system,” even though the entity did not benefit directly or financially from the infringing activity.

In MGM Studios v. Grokster, not only did the District Court for the Central District of California acknowledge that its decision may not be correct, but it was later reversed by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, whether or not one need directly financially benefit to be vicariously liable for copyright infringement is a moot argument as KMC does derive a financial benefit from the infringing activity of its members; this activity, e.g. avatars, signatures, comic book scans, screen captures, movie trailers, YouTube videos, etc. is a draw for members, and at least a portion of the value of KMC is the size of its user base.

It's like Commander Data got into an argument with C-3P0.

Originally posted by Devil King
It's like Commander Data got into an argument with C-3P0.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, I don't think that either Data or C-3PO were, beyond a shadow of a doubt, convinced that they were always 100% right.

Date C-3P0 for 6 years and you'll realize that's a false statement.

Originally posted by Devil King
Date C-3P0 for 6 years and you'll realize that's a false statement.

No

Originally posted by Devil King
It's like Commander Data got into an argument with C-3P0.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[b]EVERY SINGLE ONE of these cases were prosecuted under Section 506 of the Copyright Act, thereby excluding statutes that do not require that a defendant be shown to have sought to personally profit from the infringing activity.

In A&M Records v. Napster, the Ninth Circuit Court found Napster vicariously liable, declaring, “[Napster bears] the burden of policing its system,” even though the entity did not benefit directly or financially from the infringing activity.

In MGM Studios v. Grokster, not only did the District Court for the Central District of California acknowledge that its decision may not be correct, but it was later reversed by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, whether or not one need directly financially benefit to be vicariously liable for copyright infringement is a moot argument as KMC does derive a financial benefit from the infringing activity of its members; this activity, e.g. avatars, signatures, comic book scans, screen captures, movie trailers, YouTube videos, etc. is a draw for members, and at least a portion of the value of KMC is the size of its user base. [/B]

I think you owned him!

👆

Originally posted by Devil King
It's like Commander Data got into an argument with C-3P0.

C-3PO was the gay robot from Star Wars right?

Originally posted by Big Len
I think you owned him!

👆

Course you do. It's your job to make inflammatory statements without backing them up. At least Adam rationalizes his opinions.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Course you do. It's your job to make inflammatory statements without backing them up. At least Adam rationalizes his opinions.

Don't be cwoss. He powned him. 😮‍💨

cwoss?

If you're trying to say 'cross' I'm not even involved in the discussion anymore and stopped reading a while ago. I just don't like trolls.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
cwoss?

If you're trying to say 'cross' I'm not even involved in the discussion anymore and stopped reading a while ago. I just don't like trolls.

Yes, that's the word, cwoss..... Look why dislike anyone or anything. Why take messages seriously. Enjoy life, and don't be cwoss.

😮‍💨

Originally posted by Big Len
C-3PO was the gay robot from Star Wars right?

Programmed for homo ecstacy, ten million forms of gay positioning

For my golden shower you must pay a fee, but R2D2 gives it up for free

R2D2 watch your language, always having sex with robotic strangers....

YouTube video

Originally posted by Syren
Not at all, I just don't think that a response such as your previous one is at all beneficial or even relevant to the discussion. In case you hadn't noticed, the topic is quite serious.

This is the internets. People say "pwnt" "pwn3d", "pwned" when a good argument is presented.

Originally posted by Syren
As for 'pwnt', it tends to have meaning only in the OTF or other areas of the forum which are just as light hearted. Not really in the GDF. Just sayin' 😬

In your opinion. I make proclamations of "ownage" anywhere on the internets...I've done it on a medical sight when a doctor presented a new technique for attaching a severed arm. He presented a new technique and it worked. Someone criticized it, he backed up his claim VERY well...I put down a "pwned". ya see...I am consistent with my immaturity. 😉

This is the result for all posts in the GDF alone with "pwn":

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/search.php?action=showresults&q=pwn+forumid%3A11

I felt justified using it in the GDF; I didn't think its reception would be poor by any means.

Originally posted by Syren
You're in the GDF to be entertained? Doesn't make sense 😛

Right..who would have thunk it...Coming to a movie website for entertainment. 😖hifty: (Yes...I'm a smartass...its like an addiction.)

Originally posted by Syren
No hostilities, please don't be sensitive about it. I genuinely felt that your response was immature.

OMG.........I was told not to be sensitive by a girl. I was just pwnt....but it hurts so goood. flirt

Originally posted by Syren
I think if it had been someone I actually knew to be a bit less than sophisticated in general, I wouldn't have commented. But I usually think your posts are quite intelligent.

You give me too much credit. 😮 When I am serious, yes...my posts can be informative and insightful. IRL, I am much more immature than I let my internet persona reveal.

Originally posted by Syren
We all have our moments I suppose. Back to the OTF with you mmm

AHA!

Back to the real topic.

Adam_Poe's original post was NOT intended to be fear-mongering. It was, at the worst, pontification. Since he is a professional when it comes to these things, he literally has an expert opinion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is the internets. People say "pwnt" "pwn3d", "pwned" when a good argument is presented.

In your opinion. I make proclamations of "ownage" anywhere on the internets...I've done it on a medical sight when a doctor presented a new technique for attaching a severed arm. He presented a new technique and it worked. Someone criticized it, he backed up his claim VERY well...I put down a "pwned". ya see...I am consistent with my immaturity. 😉

This is the result for all posts in the GDF alone with "pwn":

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/search.php?action=showresults&q=pwn+forumid%3A11

I felt justified using it in the GDF; I didn't think its reception would be poor by any means.

Right..who would have thunk it...Coming to a movie website for entertainment. 😖hifty: (Yes...I'm a smartass...its like an addiction.)

OMG.........I was told not to be sensitive by a girl. I was just pwnt....but it hurts so goood. flirt

You give me too much credit. 😮 When I am serious, yes...my posts can be informative and insightful. IRL, I am much more immature than I let my internet persona reveal.

AHA!

Back to the real topic.

Adam_Poe's original post was NOT intended to be fear-mongering. It was, at the worst, pontification. Since he is a professional when it comes to these things, he literally has an expert opinion.

I guess you owned her!

😖hifty:

🙄

So, anyone got anything interesting to add? 😛