dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8
share rss forum feed


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

2 edits

2 recommendations

reply to IamGimli

Re: New Canadian Bittorrent lawsuit: Who shared "Recoil&quo

said by IamGimli:

I didn't say he used "not guilty", I said he used "guilty" incorrectly.

said by IamGimli See ProfileNot guilty, that's a CRIMINAL COURT

You said right there that he use not guilty when you know full well that he was talking liability and just drawing a correlation but because you didn't have a relevant response you decided to be a troll instead.

I've made numerous posts as of late over the last couple of pages that you have not countered one point in. I've asked you for examples and am still waiting on those. You asked for examples, I provided some. You insist I do not know about contract law or the inner-workings of civil court, and I have refuted that time and again.

What we are left with is you sir, that have no clue the way contracts or liability works. You have no clue the way the law works, you have no examples to back up your statements on how a third party can use a contract in a court of law that they were not a party to, you started with the insults and repeated berrating of anyone who dares disagrees with you in this thread. You have been rude and condescending and have yet to make any valid points that haven't been dreamed up in that tiny little world that you hole yourself up in.

World-wide they are taking this stance that an IP is by no means proof of anything. Off the top of my head I can name quite a few countries that have taken this stance. Actually some, such as Switzerland and Portugal have gone even a step further and declared piracy for personal use is not only acceptable but perfectly legal for their citizens.

Don't even get me into the whole argument about how piracy supposedly hurts the pocketbooks of the copyright holders because most likely than not, someone who pirated the material would never, ever buy it in the first place, therefore equating a no difference to the rights holders. You could also take that one step further and once the pirate tries something out, he recommends it to his legit friends, thereby helping the rights holders by generating sales that never would have been there in the first place (there have been studies, one from Harvard, proving this).

Now either say something relevant in regards to copyright infringement instead of traffic court or bugger off cause you sir are just a rude, obnoxious, little troll.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

said by rednekcowboy:

You said right there that he use not guilty when you know full well that he was talking liability and just drawing a correlation but because you didn't have a relevant response you decided to be a troll instead.

Again, you're misinterpreting what I said, even after I explained it. Keep believing your fantasy if you wish but that's YOUR fantasy, not mine.

said by rednekcowboy:

I've made numerous posts as of late over the last couple of pages that you have not countered one point in. I've asked you for examples and am still waiting on those. You asked for examples, I provided some. You insist I do not know about contract law or the inner-workings of civil court, and I have refuted that time and again.

I haven't countered them again because I already countered them. Your examples have no influence on Canadian law and jurisprudence. Just because you keep repeating something wrong doesn't make it right. Besides, I won't stoop down to your level and try to counter insults.

said by rednekcowboy:

What we are left with is you sir, that have no clue the way contracts or liability works. You have no clue the way the law works, you have no examples to back up your statements on how a third party can use a contract in a court of law that they were not a party to

Again, that's your misinterpretation of what I said, I never said that a third party would introduce it, only that it would be introduced. You're again taking your fantasy for reality and then arguing with yourself.

said by rednekcowboy:

you started with the insults and repeated berrating of anyone who dares disagrees with you in this thread. You have been rude and condescending and have yet to make any valid points that haven't been dreamed up in that tiny little world that you hole yourself up in.

Whatever.

said by rednekcowboy:

World-wide they are taking this stance that an IP is by no means proof of anything. Off the top of my head I can name quite a few countries that have taken this stance. Actually some, such as Switzerland and Portugal have gone even a step further and declared piracy for personal use is not only acceptable but perfectly legal for their citizens.

One has no relation to the other, how could it be going "even a step further"?

Since I never said IPs were persons I wonder why you would make such an argument. Of course IPs aren't persons, just like license plates aren't persons, but tickets are still issued to car owners whose car go through red lights based on the data available on their license plate.

BTW "personal use" doesn't include broadcasting and sharing, which is what the Canadian court cases are about.

said by rednekcowboy:

Don't even get me into the whole argument about how piracy supposedly hurts the pocketbooks of the copyright holders because most likely than not, someone who pirated the material would never, ever buy it in the first place, therefore equating a no difference to the rights holders. You could also take that one step further and once the pirate tries something out, he recommends it to his legit friends, thereby helping the rights holders by generating sales that never would have been there in the first place (there have been studies, one from Harvard, proving this).

Which is why the Plaintiff still has to prove damages in civil court, unless he decides to ask for the statutory damages the Legislator included in section 38.1 of the Copyright Act.

said by rednekcowboy:

Now either say something relevant in regards to copyright infringement instead of traffic court or bugger off cause you sir are just a rude, obnoxious, little troll.

Again, right back at ya.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

2 edits

said by IamGimli:

said by rednekcowboy:

You said right there that he use not guilty when you know full well that he was talking liability and just drawing a correlation but because you didn't have a relevant response you decided to be a troll instead.

Again, you're misinterpreting what I said, even after I explained it. Keep believing your fantasy if you wish but that's YOUR fantasy, not mine.

said by rednekcowboy:

I've made numerous posts as of late over the last couple of pages that you have not countered one point in. I've asked you for examples and am still waiting on those. You asked for examples, I provided some. You insist I do not know about contract law or the inner-workings of civil court, and I have refuted that time and again.

I haven't countered them again because I already countered them. Your examples have no influence on Canadian law and jurisprudence. Just because you keep repeating something wrong doesn't make it right. Besides, I won't stoop down to your level and try to counter insults.

said by rednekcowboy:

What we are left with is you sir, that have no clue the way contracts or liability works. You have no clue the way the law works, you have no examples to back up your statements on how a third party can use a contract in a court of law that they were not a party to

Again, that's your misinterpretation of what I said, I never said that a third party would introduce it, only that it would be introduced. You're again taking your fantasy for reality and then arguing with yourself.

said by rednekcowboy:

you started with the insults and repeated berrating of anyone who dares disagrees with you in this thread. You have been rude and condescending and have yet to make any valid points that haven't been dreamed up in that tiny little world that you hole yourself up in.

Whatever.

said by rednekcowboy:

World-wide they are taking this stance that an IP is by no means proof of anything. Off the top of my head I can name quite a few countries that have taken this stance. Actually some, such as Switzerland and Portugal have gone even a step further and declared piracy for personal use is not only acceptable but perfectly legal for their citizens.

One has no relation to the other, how could it be going "even a step further"?

Since I never said IPs were persons I wonder why you would make such an argument. Of course IPs aren't persons, just like license plates aren't persons, but tickets are still issued to car owners whose car go through red lights based on the data available on their license plate.

BTW "personal use" doesn't include broadcasting and sharing, which is what the Canadian court cases are about.

said by rednekcowboy:

Don't even get me into the whole argument about how piracy supposedly hurts the pocketbooks of the copyright holders because most likely than not, someone who pirated the material would never, ever buy it in the first place, therefore equating a no difference to the rights holders. You could also take that one step further and once the pirate tries something out, he recommends it to his legit friends, thereby helping the rights holders by generating sales that never would have been there in the first place (there have been studies, one from Harvard, proving this).

Which is why the Plaintiff still has to prove damages in civil court, unless he decides to ask for the statutory damages the Legislator included in section 38.1 of the Copyright Act.

said by rednekcowboy:

Now either say something relevant in regards to copyright infringement instead of traffic court or bugger off cause you sir are just a rude, obnoxious, little troll.

Again, right back at ya.

So, after all that, just more hot air? How about some examples to prove what you are saying then, Mr. Smarty pants? Oh wait, that's right, there isn't any.....

AND yes Portugal has declared TORRENTING legal. They specifically mention it as it's a necessary means to an end. In order to get the file, you have to share the file.

Also, you are the one spouting off about IP is all they need and have been doing so the entire thread. Now that you're backed into a corner, you're changing your tune. I never said IP's were persons either, I said they don't prove anything. Again, you need to learn to read instead of just trolling.

Again, if you have nothing to offer, no proof to show, nothing other than your own statements and hot air, then what you are offering is completely worthless. My examples may not be from this country, but they are from countries that Canada closely follows (the US) in it's operations and they go to show the global climate on this particular issue.


Eleonora

@distributel.net
reply to IamGimli

Hi IamGimli
I'm kinda neutral to the argue you have guys!!!

My question is can I be sued for downloading illegal movie in August 2012 if a new law became effective November 7 , 2012

Are some of the Canadian Laws retroactive??

Thanks in advance!