how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
4750 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
| reply to No Foul
Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell said by No Foul :So I guess you don't agree that each and every Quebec resident would have bought a $860,000/month TV service from videotron...
why would they with all the houses that cancelled videotron, yet videotron never disconnected, or disconnected at the protector where anyone could easily plug themselves back in? | |
| You seem to recall a few things from back then. Let me test your memory....
Back in the early 2000's Videotron was sending tech out on the street to try an determine who was stealing their TV signals. Or to determine which houses were splitting the cable to get a free signal to another TV in a diff part of the house (Back then Videotron claimed it was illegal to split the cable).
So Videotron tech/reps would knock at peoples doors and claim to have authority to look at your cable hook-up.
Some people didn't know better and let the videotron tech in, which led to fines.
Other people knew their rights a bit better and told the techs to get lost.
Soon CHOM radio and CJAD were broadcasting how people have rights and shouldn't let these techs into their homes if they never called for service. And if a videotron piracy cop did come to your house just to say the owner isn't here and close the door.
So, it seems to me videotron has their own pirating problem that they couldn't fix.
You from the MTL or South Shore area? Do you recall this? Seems almost like yesterday to me. | | |
|
| reply to Vomio
said by Vomio:If your friend takes the video you made and gave him to watch and puts it on YouTube and gets a scrillion hits and makes googly bucks from it.
You as the creator and automatic copyright holder can set the lawyers on him for your cut or issue a DMCA take down notice to YouTube.
You have these amazing built-in mighty legal powers that you seem to be denying. You have copyright over your creations whether you think so or not.
No need to register or even note it on the work although although either or both will make life easier and cheaper if it goes to the courts.
IANAL
Way to entirely miss the point, I said MY OWN SERVER, not Youtube!!
Really, you guys have went out of your way of the original argument which was to say that Bell and Rogers were advertising the amount of movies and music you can download before SOME legal online video and music stores existed.
Again, forget about how you think everything has a fucking copyright (again everything DOESNT, there isnt some auto-copyright in EVERY country, AND in fact crossing certain borders can REMOVE copyright), you are dodging the real issue of infringement, and not EVERYTHING you download is copyright infringement, especially if its a home movie or some original song, and the owner EXPLICITLY gives it to you. | |
| Wow someone is upset, ay?
Hate to break it to you, but when these companies were advertising how many MP3's you can download, or how many movies you could download (which happened to be the same size as and Xvid for a CD), they were not talking about you kid singing happy birthday or the homemade movie you can download 40-times of a kid blowing out her birthday cake candles.
They lured people by how many copyrights materials they could download in X-minutes. Each one trying to outdo the other.
It's time for you to start to getting a clue of what went on by ALL ISP's in Canada since the 90's to the mid 2000's.
To deny this is to deny Canadian internet history & Canadian marketing history. | |
4 edits | No, you dont seem to understand how law works.
Innocent until proven guilty that whole thing about giving people the benefit of the doubt.... how do you think FTA equipment is still being sold to this day?!!
You have to PROVE that its ONLY PURPOSE is for illegal use.
In other words, when Rogers and Bell were giving you the amount of MP3's and movies you can download they were GIVING YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT that you werent downloading copyright infringed material whether you like it or not that is a sound argument.
And just because online MP3 and video purchasing wasnt mainstream, doesnt mean big porn companies, smaller companies or even independent people werent selling them.
Again, whether you like it or not, it is not your call, because there WAS INDEED legal media online, your argument (that Bell and Rogers were encouraging copyright infringement) is entirely false.
Basically your entire argument is logically the same as the old "Torrents are for Pirates" bit.
You cant just demonize a protocol simply because pirates chose to use it.
Logically that means if pirates are always choosing the best protocols, then legitimate business people are not allowed to distribute their media with this (best) protocol.
This is part of what net neutrality is. Treating protocols as what they are, tools. Like a chainsaw. Its meant to cut down trees.
A chainsaw doesnt kill people, the person operating it does. Why are there chainsaws for sale? because they have legal purposes too!
Also, if you want to add another entirely sound argument you are forgetting about a little thing called fair use. I am legally allowed to share my music with my friends, it is not infringement to do so.
So if I bought a CD in the "1990-mid 2000's", ripped a few songs and sent them to my friends it was ENTIRELY FAIR USE and legal. | |
| said by the cerberus:No, you dont seem to understand how law works.
That's all you needed to say (I didn't read the rest).
In other words, you don't have a clue how internet was marketed to people in Canada from the 90's to the mid-2000's. And are instead ranting on.
Videotron is guilty of this.
Bell is guilty of this.
Telus is guilty of this
The whole lot of them are guilty of this.
But you want to instead say you bought your internet based on how many times you could download that weird 700+ meg birthday movie that just managed to fit on a cd by fluke. Or you bought it based on those 30 birthday song MP3's you could download in 30-minutes. Umm... ok. heh.
When you start to get a clue that Canadian internet, when it started to ramp up in the 90's and continued in the early 2000's, was all based on warez and how fast you can get it, then maybe you could honestly have a conversation instead of some rant.
You are either clueless or on some pretend quest to twist history. | |
4 edits | NO! that is terribly false logic.
FIRST OF ALL, admitting you didnt read the rest PROVES your ignorance.
IGNORANCE IS BLISS ISNT IT?
Just like FTA, you have to prove the ONLY purpose is for piracy.
Because the NASA channel is up there for free, FTA equipment is LEGAL to use for FTA purposes, and LEGAL to be sold because of this.
THERE IS A LEGAL PURPOSE, so then they are innocent.
I know you dont like it, but its logically the same as the "Torrents are for Pirate" bit, which to simplify, is to blame tools not the operators.
said by Get Clue :When you start to get a clue that Canadian internet, when it started to ramp up in the 90's and continued in the early 2000's, was all based on warez and how fast you can get it, then maybe you could honestly have a conversation instead of some rant.
You are either clueless or on some pretend quest to twist history.
To make it PAINFULLY SIMPLE, a chainsaw doesnt kill people, the operator does.
The internet and protocols are tools too.
And of course you ignore the entire argument about fair use.
And that other thing that drove internet technologies and uses lots of bandwidth, charged money, sold legal video, you know, the PORN industry.
It used to be the "MP3's are for pirates" bit. your arguments are old and faulty. | |
|
