Re: Has Copyright owners actions affected your choice?
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:24 pm
"I'm talking about loss of earnings. They provide a service. Greed on their part?"
Yes
"Let snot confuse the word greed with profit. That seems to be the term people like to use these days because making money is usually frowned on by jealous people who dont make any (not meaning you because you are providing commentary)"
OK
"I want to see a return on my investment and if downloaders deny me that then i will have to seek another way of recouping my losses."
Agreed
"GEIL may only give me 25% but thats 25% more than i wouldve got if I didnt do anyhting about it and the 75% they make is all on them as it has cost them time and money going to and fro from the courts for over 2 years now"
Agreed
"I still dont see your argument"
OK
"We're going in circles now. Havent we said all we need to on this now? Or are you seriously looking for the perfect quote to go on your blogs that you can bend and twist to suit your agenda?"
I don't quote your words on any blogs. I do mention that I converse with a producer and give you a favourable light.
BTW, it is not your greed, but you said you defend GEIL. I look at words and actions. I mention greed as a leading point to my quotes from GEIL and the Judge at the NPO. But I will lead it up by a Wikipedia entry.
The motivation of any scam is greed.
Wikipedia:
?A confidence trick (also known as a scam) is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence. A confidence artist is an individual operating alone or in concert with others who exploits characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, na?vet?, or greed.?
Sums up a Letter Of Claim nicely!
------
GEIL original letter:
?Proposed Settlement
3. pay ?700.00 as compensation to GEIL for its losses.?
------
------
Judges comments at NPO application:
?133. I agree with counsel for Consumer Focus that the figure of ?700 is unsupportable. My reasons are as follows. First, the Claimants know that an unknown percentage of the Intended Defendants are not infringers at all. Intended Defendants who have not in fact committed any infringements are not liable to pay any sum.?
?134. Secondly, in the case of those Intended Defendants who are infringers, the Claimants have no idea about the scale of the infringements committed by each infringer. Some might have infringed on a very substantial scale indeed, while others might only have infringed to a minor extent.?
?135. Thirdly, Mr Becker suggests that the reasonable royalty should be assessed on the basis of a "time limited license [sic] to exploit a work by providing copies of it on an unlimited worldwide basis". This assumes that infringement by making available to the public occurs at the place where the uploading/seeding takes place, but that is not necessarily correct?
?138. Accordingly, I do not consider that the Claimants are justified in sending letters of claim to every Intended Defendant demanding the payment of ?700. What the Claimants ought to do is to proceed in the conventional manner, that is to say, to require the Intended Defendants who do not dispute liability to disclose such information as they are able to provide as to the extent to which they have engaged in P2P filesharing of the relevant Claimants' copyright works. In my view it would be acceptable for the Claimants to indicate that they are prepared to accept a lump sum in settlement of their claims, including the request for disclosure, but not to specify a figure in the initial letter. The settlement sum should be individually negotiated with each Intended Defendant.?
------
So if a subscriber admits the infringement, what are they likely to be asked to pay? My question is how can it be ?individually negotiated with each Intended Defendant?, considering ?the Claimants have no idea about the scale of the infringements committed by each infringer??
By the Judges opinion, the claim of ?700.00 is only justified if they have admitted to sharing about 20 copyright videos.
Considering that a number of people involved with the GEIL NPO have claimed that the acceptance of the NPO by the Judge is justification of their actions, they should also accept the words of the Judge in the NPO judgement.
My understanding recently has proven to me that is not the case.
Yes
"Let snot confuse the word greed with profit. That seems to be the term people like to use these days because making money is usually frowned on by jealous people who dont make any (not meaning you because you are providing commentary)"
OK
"I want to see a return on my investment and if downloaders deny me that then i will have to seek another way of recouping my losses."
Agreed
"GEIL may only give me 25% but thats 25% more than i wouldve got if I didnt do anyhting about it and the 75% they make is all on them as it has cost them time and money going to and fro from the courts for over 2 years now"
Agreed
"I still dont see your argument"
OK
"We're going in circles now. Havent we said all we need to on this now? Or are you seriously looking for the perfect quote to go on your blogs that you can bend and twist to suit your agenda?"
I don't quote your words on any blogs. I do mention that I converse with a producer and give you a favourable light.
BTW, it is not your greed, but you said you defend GEIL. I look at words and actions. I mention greed as a leading point to my quotes from GEIL and the Judge at the NPO. But I will lead it up by a Wikipedia entry.
The motivation of any scam is greed.
Wikipedia:
?A confidence trick (also known as a scam) is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence. A confidence artist is an individual operating alone or in concert with others who exploits characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, na?vet?, or greed.?
Sums up a Letter Of Claim nicely!
------
GEIL original letter:
?Proposed Settlement
3. pay ?700.00 as compensation to GEIL for its losses.?
------
------
Judges comments at NPO application:
?133. I agree with counsel for Consumer Focus that the figure of ?700 is unsupportable. My reasons are as follows. First, the Claimants know that an unknown percentage of the Intended Defendants are not infringers at all. Intended Defendants who have not in fact committed any infringements are not liable to pay any sum.?
?134. Secondly, in the case of those Intended Defendants who are infringers, the Claimants have no idea about the scale of the infringements committed by each infringer. Some might have infringed on a very substantial scale indeed, while others might only have infringed to a minor extent.?
?135. Thirdly, Mr Becker suggests that the reasonable royalty should be assessed on the basis of a "time limited license [sic] to exploit a work by providing copies of it on an unlimited worldwide basis". This assumes that infringement by making available to the public occurs at the place where the uploading/seeding takes place, but that is not necessarily correct?
?138. Accordingly, I do not consider that the Claimants are justified in sending letters of claim to every Intended Defendant demanding the payment of ?700. What the Claimants ought to do is to proceed in the conventional manner, that is to say, to require the Intended Defendants who do not dispute liability to disclose such information as they are able to provide as to the extent to which they have engaged in P2P filesharing of the relevant Claimants' copyright works. In my view it would be acceptable for the Claimants to indicate that they are prepared to accept a lump sum in settlement of their claims, including the request for disclosure, but not to specify a figure in the initial letter. The settlement sum should be individually negotiated with each Intended Defendant.?
------
So if a subscriber admits the infringement, what are they likely to be asked to pay? My question is how can it be ?individually negotiated with each Intended Defendant?, considering ?the Claimants have no idea about the scale of the infringements committed by each infringer??
By the Judges opinion, the claim of ?700.00 is only justified if they have admitted to sharing about 20 copyright videos.
Considering that a number of people involved with the GEIL NPO have claimed that the acceptance of the NPO by the Judge is justification of their actions, they should also accept the words of the Judge in the NPO judgement.
My understanding recently has proven to me that is not the case.
