Wikipedia protest shutdown

[adoucette]

Did you actually look at this link, Arthur?



IOW, the RIAA, BMI, ASCAP, a bunch of major labels, etc.

_________________


A bunch of musicans, Google, smaller companies which support independent music and musicians, et al.


Does this suggest anything to you?

Yes, there are artists on both sides of the issue.
To claim otherwise is dishonest.

[adoucette]

you didn't even open the link did you, the desenting report (written by 4 vs 5 BTW) states that SONY should be held liable EVEN THOUGH THERE DEVICE COULD BE USED FOR THINGS OTHER THAN ILLEGAL TIME SKIPPING. The only difference between that and the majority report was that the majority didn't agree that sony should be held liable for producing the technology. You might THINK you have a right to tape shows but that case clearly shows that the courts disagree. Ie YOUR A PIRATE

Asguard, you are WRONG.

The dissenting opinion is the opinion that did not prevail.

The legal RULING from the case is based only on the MAJORITY opinion.

The minority opinion allows those who did not prevail to state why they were against the Majority opinion, but it's NOT the law.

[CptBork]

When are all these entertainment industry moguls gonna pony up their cash to Einstein's estate for profiting off the lasers he helped invent? Great world we live in.

[adoucette]

Einstein's estate brings in ~$18 million a year.

The money goes to Jerusalem's Hebrew University, the beneficiary of his estate.

[Gustav]

we occupied
we won

scurry back under the rock you crawled out of, adoucette
your mpaa/riaa goons are waiting with their rubber hoses

[leopold]

Piracy involves MORE than just making a copy, for instance what MegaUpload was doing was piracy.

correct.
regardless of how you feel about the matter, making copies of movies and giving those copies away is illegal.

[leopold]

Copyright laws are also more complicated than they once were. I seem to recall that a copyright used to last for 25 years. Later extended to the life of the artist. I'm not sure how long they last anymore. I've heard rumors that the changes have been feuled by the Walt Disney Corp not wanting to lose control of Mickey Mouse - but that may be an urban legend.

copyright laws vary widely from country to country.
what might be under copyright here in the US might not be somewhere else.
what is still under copyright in other countries may have expired long ago here in the US.
what is needed in my opinion instead of SOPA is a unified copyright law.

Honestly, I don't think it is possible to stop online piracy through any technical means. Any protection scheme will be defeated eventually. But it is possible to raise people's awareness. Music, books, movies and software don't just materialize out of nowhere. Somebody somewhere worked to produce them.

it isn't just copyright we are talking about here.
i personally firmly believe in intellectual freedom.

stryder hit it on the head "CAP IT ALL" ism.
that was sweet stryder.

[parmalee]

I was providing guitar accompaniment for a lady recently and we did a string of house concerts interspersed with club dates. The house concerts were far more enjoyable and lucrative. We were fed and given a place to stay to boot. Not sure if it's a viable alternative for a full band.

I think it can be viable for a full band, albeit more of a challenge. I was in a band with 6 to 8 members some years back--with that many people it's difficult no matter what you do. And we also had to haul a trailer, because we had a double bass and cello.

Otherwise, I've worked in trios, duos, or solo, and we always mixed house shows with venue shows. After a while one figures out which cities tend to be better for house shows, and of course, the more "established" places are best. I've only worked with booking agents/agencies a few times, and mostly for Europe, but nowadays they are even booking a lot of house shows. I've done a few U.S. tours with foreign acts, and it's always kind of funny watching the reactions of those artists who have never toured the U.S. prior to everything from the "venue" to the pay to the sometimes egregious lack of hospitality.

I recently helped with a charity project that involved parodies of Beatle songs. The artist contacted the Harry Fox Agency and paid all mechanical licensing fees. I assumed that HFA then distributed the funds to Sir Paul and Yoko (or whoever owns the catalog now) - after taking their cut of course.

My understanding is that with most such scenarios involving mechanical royalties, the artist is actually getting nothing--see Gustav's post a couple of pages back.

Honestly, I don't think it is possible to stop online piracy through any technical means. Any protection scheme will be defeated eventually. But it is possible to raise people's awareness. Music, books, movies and software don't just materialize out of nowhere. Somebody somewhere worked to produce them.

I see this present day controversy over piracy, SOPA, etc. as somewhat more akin to that of previous days with bootlegging/ROiOs for a number of reasons. Part of it is that SOPA and other such attempts at combating piracy really complicate notions of "intellectual property" and what is and is not protected by copyright; for instance, one can be guilty of or complicit in copyright infringement by having a fragment of copyrighted material somewhere in the "background," like a video in which there is a wee little television screen somewhere in the backdrop showing a Hollywood film or tv show.

Also, the bootleg "industry" was always more one of trading than of selling; nevertheless, there was (is) often enough selling involved. But prior to the advent of cheap cassettes, the only means of making live recordings available was through pressing vinyl--and that wasn't and still isn't terribly cheap. Moreover, a number of the bootleg labels were using virgin vinyl, costing even more. I have a handful of books on the bootleg industry, and even from these it's not entirely clear whether or not anyone was actually making any profit (back in the 70's and early 80's, that is; it changed dramatically with cds). Trading that stuff is not problematic for me, but the idea of selling it is. Still, I have a fair bit of bootleg vinyl (but a lot more traded material)--I mean, a fair bit of live Pink Floyd 67-71 or King Crimson 69-74 is material that is either not available anywhere else (improv, songs like "Embryo," etc.) and also not copyrighted, and if I couldn't get it by trade...

Few artists would complain about bootlegging--whose gonna buy an overpriced, mediocre sounding bootleg who hasn't already purchased all of the proper releases? Likewise, bootlegging was enormously influential in establishing acts like Patti Smyth, Televison, Pere Ubu, etc. who had very few proper releases available. Again, it was something that the industry was mostly in a stir about.

[Gustav]

No, it's been decided in the courts.
Copies made for personal use are permissible.

http://www.best-dvd-burning-software...protection.asp

promoting software that circumvents copy protection is prohibited under dmca.
please do not encourage theft
if you want a backup copy, purchase it
thanks

Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA, wrote in a Los Angeles Times editorial, "The intent of these Web sites is clear. Break the encryption. Steal the product. The posting of the hacking code is akin to mass producing and distributing keys to a department store. The keys have only one real purpose: to allow a thief to open a locked door to steal the goods he targets."

think of all those hardworking people that you are throwing out on the street by encouraging the use of software that defeats copyright protection. think of the innocent little children that rely on their actor/musician moms and dads for their next meal and...... college tuition

[adoucette]

we occupied
we won

Yeah, helping this guy to live in a mansion in NZ off of other people's work is a real win Gustav

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01...ansion-police/

[parmalee]

It is a complicated issue, and it seems a lot of people never give it much thought. And, I'll admit, I have a hard time feeling sorry for the major record companies. They've been shafting performers and artists for years. But the technology has changed, many of the artists today are not using major record companies. They are doing it themselves.

Not only do I detest the practices of major labels, I also can't stand any of the shit they put out. I've been collecting music since I was 14 and have a fairly sizable collection, and yet I'm not sure if I have even a single release that was put out by a major label since perhaps 1984 or '85. And I would venture that at least half of my music is comprised of stuff that was put out after that time.

I've done some self-releases, but I mostly prefer to work with small labels. Perhaps most importantly, they pay for the release. But also, if they're fairly established, they've got the angle on distribution and manage to get my stuff into places that I would not be able--not only all over Europe and Asia, but Australia and New Zealand as well.

As for recording, with ensembles I prefer mostly to record in a studio with a proper engineer, but for solo stuff I'm satisfied with my own "skills" and primitive technologies.

[adoucette]

promoting software that circumvents copy protection is prohibited under dmca.
please do not encourage theft
if you want a backup copy, purchase it
thanks

Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA, wrote in a Los Angeles Times editorial, "The intent of these Web sites is clear. Break the encryption. Steal the product. The posting of the hacking code is akin to mass producing and distributing keys to a department store. The keys have only one real purpose: to allow a thief to open a locked door to steal the goods he targets."

think of all those hardworking people that you are throwing out on the street by encouraging the use of software that defeats copyright protection. think of the innocent little children that rely on their actor/musician moms and dads for their next meal and...... college tuition

Actually if you read the rulings, you can make a back-up copy of your own DVD for personal use.

What DMCA prevented is companies from selling software to break the encryption.

Turns out that you can get it for free.

http://www.techsupportalert.com/best...dvd-ripper.htm

And, if all you use the software for is making legal backup copies you aren't breaking any laws, nor are you doing anything unethical.

[Gustav]

again, circumventing copy protection for any purpose is an act of theft
why do you persist in advocating anti social acts?

[Gustav]

http://www.techsupportalert.com/best...dvd-ripper.htm

The most attractive feature is its ability to rip encrypted DVDs without packing with third-party DVD decrypter. I tested WinX DVD Ripper by ripping “X-Men: First Class” to MP4, a recently released DVD, and it worked without any problem. The ripping speed is also impressing. I wonder how it performs with your DVDs.

A reminder: as stated by the developer, this freeware can remove region code, CSS protection and Sony ARccOS, however, it doesn't support DVDs encrypted by Disney X-project DRM. Therefore if you have such DVDs, you need to upgrade to a Platinum edition.

this is really sad
the motion picture industry in a bid to protect proprietary content is been undermined by the pirate, adoucette by his incessant linkage to questionable software. just because it is free does not mean the makers of this software are not profiting from it

[adoucette]

again, circumventing copy protection for any purpose is an act of theft
why do you persist in advocating anti social acts?

Because I'm not advocating anti-social acts Gustav.

U.S. Copyright Law

The copyright laws set by the U.S. government make it quite clear that you cannot copy protected DVDs for the purpose of commercial sale. In other words, you can’t make copies of a DVD movie with the intention of selling those copies for monetary gain. However, the fair-use doctrine states that you can create copies of the media you’ve purchased for personal use, so long as it stays in your possession and is not publicly distributed.

This means that you are free to make copies of any DVD movies you’ve purchased on the off-chance that your original copy gets damaged or lost. Again, this law only applies in instances where you have actually purchased the media personally. It won’t apply if you’re borrowing a friend’s protected DVDs and burning them for your own use. You have to be in legal possession of a DVD to be entitled the privilege of backing up that commercial DVD.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

The basic message of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is that it is illegal to break the CSS copy-protection mechanism employed in commercial DVD movies. Since this in some ways contradicts U.S. Copyright Law, this creates some confusion as to what you can and can’t do. DMCA states that not only is it illegal to copy protected DVDs, but you cannot copy a commercial DVD, even for personal use, give a copied DVD to someone to use or watch copied DVD files on your computer.

In recent years, DMCA has slackened its stance on copying protected DVDs for personal use, though it stills remain adamant about the distribution of copied DVDs. The stance is now much the same as the U.S. Copyright Law, in that you can copy protected DVDs for personal use.

http://dvd-copy-software-review.topt...ted-dvds-.html

[leopold]

i'm not sure if i would concur with making a backup is theft.

i have made about 3 or 4 backups of my legally purchased DOOM95 game.
i do not feel like i have stolen anything.

edit:
another interesting point is the region code.
i remember when the monkey was still here he started a thread that requested a way to circumvent the region code.
when he was in the US he purchased some DVDs that he was taking back to finland with him and therefor would be unplayable.
i personally felt he had every right to circumvent the code in this situation.
due to sciforums policy he had to get the info through PM, apparently **. ********* gave it to him.
i stand behind the monkey AND **. ********* in this regard.

[gmilam]

My understanding is that with most such scenarios involving mechanical royalties, the artist is actually getting nothing--see Gustav's post a couple of pages back.

I need to do a little more research on this. I know my friend had to contact Harrissongs for mechanical licensing for the song Savoy Truffle, as HFA did not handle Harrison's stuff.

Also, the bootleg "industry" was always more one of trading than of selling; nevertheless, there was (is) often enough selling involved. But prior to the advent of cheap cassettes, the only means of making live recordings available was through pressing vinyl--and that wasn't and still isn't terribly cheap. Moreover, a number of the bootleg labels were using virgin vinyl, costing even more. I have a handful of books on the bootleg industry, and even from these it's not entirely clear whether or not anyone was actually making any profit (back in the 70's and early 80's, that is; it changed dramatically with cds). Trading that stuff is not problematic for me, but the idea of selling it is. Still, I have a fair bit of bootleg vinyl (but a lot more traded material)--I mean, a fair bit of live Pink Floyd 67-71 or King Crimson 69-74 is material that is either not available anywhere else (improv, songs like "Embryo," etc.) and also not copyrighted, and if I couldn't get it by trade...

Few artists would complain about bootlegging--whose gonna buy an overpriced, mediocre sounding bootleg who hasn't already purchased all of the proper releases? Likewise, bootlegging was enormously influential in establishing acts like Patti Smyth, Televison, Pere Ubu, etc. who had very few proper releases available. Again, it was something that the industry was mostly in a stir about.

I agree on this point. While in a somewhat gray area legally, those who collect RoIOs have usually bought everything the artist has officially released - sometimes more than once. And if some of these were officially available, we would probably buy it too.

Some artists might complain. Robert Fripp comes to mind. Then again, he has made many bootlegs of King Crimson available for purchase on his DGM site.

[Gustav]

Because I'm not advocating anti-social acts Gustav.

yes you are
the only reason why the dmca distorted the doctrine of fair use is because of rabid piracy advocates like you. it is a commercial product and the only right you have are to the instance of the actual purchase

movies are a product like any other and a warped sense of entitlement to an infinite number of copies can only be the product of a deranged and greedy mind

do we expect a light bulb to last forever? in the year 2200, with replication tech fully developed and functional, do we demand the manufacturer to allow us to replicate the light bulb...... just in case?

fair use is determined by the owners of content, not the consumer.
goddamn communist!!

[Gustav]

Yeah, helping this guy to live in a mansion in NZ off of other people's work is a real win Gustav

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01...ansion-police/

yeah
just one in a series of takedowns and convictions sans sopa and pipa, mind you

[adoucette]

yes you are
the only reason why the dmca distorted the doctrine of fair use is because of rabid piracy advocates like you. it is a commercial product and the only right you have are to the instance of the actual purchase

movies are a product like any other and a warped sense of entitlement to an infinite number of copies can only be the product of a deranged and greedy mind

do we expect a light bulb to last forever? in the year 2200, with replication tech fully developed and functional, do we demand the manufacturer to allow us to replicate the light bulb...... just in case?

fair use is determined by the owners of content, not the consumer.
goddamn communist!!

Nope.
Unlike your rants, I actually produce external support for my position.

And Fair Use is determined by the courts.

4. What's been recognized as fair use?

Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.

In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)

Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:

Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.

http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php