Thread: Wikipedia protest shutdown

  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    LOL, you obviously don't have kids.
    all notions of personal responsibility has been eschewed in favor of a perverted sense of entitlement that involves exploiting children


    judge gustav: mr dotbiz, you copied the x movie on to a blank dvd?
    mr dotbiz: yes, goddamn it, i did. it is my god given right
    judge gustav: why?
    mr dotbiz: my kid destroyed it
    judge gustav: how did you copy the movie?
    mr dotbiz: i bypassed the encryption with illegal software
    judge gustav: baliff, remand this communist into custody

  2. #302
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold View Post
    unfortunately i must agree with you, but not for what you may think.
    i do believe backups should be allowed, but only for historical reasons, to preserve history.

    as far as children go, i believe i've mentioned negligence isn't the fault of no one except the purchaser.
    my child would either take care of the DVD or they would do without.
    Actually there is nothing in the Fair Use doctrine that limits the reason for making a back up copy based on negligence, so yeah, advanced protection against the unfortunate occurrence of you're kid putting a peanut butter sandwich in the DVD tray and ruining both the DVD player and the DVD that was in it is still a valid reason to make an archive copy of a DVD you own.

  3. #303
    Fair use

    Although certain types of infringement scenarios are allowed as fair use and thus are effectively considered non-infringing, "personal use" copying is not explicitly mentioned as a type of fair use, and case law has not yet established otherwise.

    Circumvention of DVD copy protection

    In the case where media contents are protected using some effective copy protection scheme, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 makes it illegal to manufacture or distribute circumvention tools and use those tools for infringing purposes. In the 2009 case RealNetworks v. DVD CCA,[6] the final injunction reads, "while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies." This case made clear that manufacturing and distribution of circumvention tools was illegal, but use of those tools for non-infringing purposes, including fair use purposes, was not.

    The Librarian of Congress periodically issues rulings to exempt certain classes of works from the DMCA's prohibition on the circumvention of copy protection for non-infringing purposes. One such ruling in 2010 declared, among other things, that the Content Scramble System (CSS) commonly employed on commercial DVDs could be circumvented to enable non-infringing uses of the DVD's content.The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) hailed the ruling as enabling DVD excerpts to be used for the well-established fair-use activities of criticism and commentary, and for the creation of derivative works by video remix artists. However, the text of the ruling says the exemption can only be exercised by professional educators and their students, not the general public.

  4. #304


    judge gustav: mr dotbiz, you copied the x movie on to a blank dvd?
    mr dotbiz: yes, i did. For personal use as a backup
    judge gustav: why?
    mr dotbiz: In case my kid destroyed it like he did some others I paid for.
    judge gustav: how did you copy the movie?
    mr dotbiz: I purchased a DVD copy program.
    http://www.copyprotecteddvd.net/
    judge gustav: Fair enough, since in the cases where a court has ruled on consumer's right to copy digital media, they have never eliminated the right to make a digital copy for personal use or backup, and in two cases they've explicitly endorsed that right. You are free to go.

  5. #305
    Gustav, what part of: it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer. did you not understand?

    LOL

  6. #306
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Actually there is nothing in the Fair Use doctrine that limits the reason for making a back up copy based on negligence, so yeah, advanced protection against the unfortunate occurrence of you're kid putting a peanut butter sandwich in the DVD tray and ruining both the DVD player and the DVD that was in it is still a valid reason to make an archive copy of a DVD you own.

    in the year 2200, replicator tech is fully developed. and the home furnishing industry is in shambles

    mr dotbiz vs furniture ltd established the legal basis for replicating sofas under the doctrine of fair use. it had been affirmed that children frequent thrash furniture and parents are entitled to replace them by replication rather than purchasing a new set

  7. #307
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    ...I would never...

    You know most of those 'I would never' statements change once you have kids, right?
    i DO have kids, well men now.

  8. #308
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Gustav, what part of: it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer. did you not understand?

    LOL

    what part of "may" do you not understand?

  9. #309
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Gustav, what part of: it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer. did you not understand?

    LOL
    2 things.
    first "it may well be" is kind of vague when it comes to law.
    either it is or it isn't.
    if you want to include "the gray area" then you are talking justice, not law.

    second you do not own the movie that is still under copyright.

  10. #310
    peripatetic artisan parmalee's Avatar
    Posts
    1,970
    Getting back to adoucette's assertion that most musicians sign contracts (well, the one's that sell "reasonable quantities" do ):

    I made no effort to prove my contention that most musicians do NOT in fact sign contracts (as contracts are principally the purview of major labels, and very few independents operate with such) for obvious reasons: it's kinda hard to prove a negative. That is to say, there aren't a whole lot of stats for people who don't sign contracts.

    Anyhow, here's why--in the words of Steve Albini:

    The agent says a band on a major label can get a merchandising company to pay them an advance on T-shirt sales! ridiculous! There's a gold mine here! The lawyer should look over the merchandising contract, just to be safe. They get drunk at the signing party. Polaroids are taken and everybody looks thrilled. The label picked them up in a limo. They decided to go with the producer who used to be in Letterman's band. He had these technicians come in and tune the drums for them and tweak their amps and guitars. He had a guy bring in a slew of expensive old "vintage" microphones. Boy, were they "warm." He even had a guy come in and check the phase of all the equipment in the control room! Boy, was he professional. He used a bunch of equipment on them and by the end of it, they all agreed that it sounded very "punchy," yet "warm." All that hard work paid off. With the help of a video, the album went like hotcakes! They sold a quarter million copies! Here is the math that will explain just how fucked they are: These figures are representative of amounts that appear in record contracts daily. There's no need to skew the figures to make the scenario look bad, since real-life examples more than abound. income is bold and underlined, expenses are not.
    
    Advance: $ 250,000
    Manager's cut: $ 37,500
    Legal fees: $ 10,000
    Recording Budget: $ 150,000
    Producer's advance: $ 50,000
    Studio fee: $ 52,500
    Drum Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors": $ 3,000
    Recording tape: $ 8,000
    Equipment rental: $ 5,000
    Cartage and Transportation: $ 5,000
    Lodgings while in studio: $ 10,000
    Catering: $ 3,000
    Mastering: $ 10,000
    Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping tapes, misc. expenses: $ 2,000
    Video budget: $ 30,000
    Cameras: $ 8,000
    Crew: $ 5,000
    Processing and transfers: $ 3,000
    Off-line: $ 2,000
    On-line editing: $ 3,000
    Catering: $ 1,000
    Stage and construction: $ 3,000
    Copies, couriers, transportation: $ 2,000
    Director's fee: $ 3,000
    Album Artwork: $ 5,000
    Promotional photo shoot and duplication: $ 2,000
    Band fund: $ 15,000
    New fancy professional drum kit: $ 5,000
    New fancy professional guitars [2]: $ 3,000
    New fancy professional guitar amp rigs [2]: $ 4,000
    New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar: $ 1,000
    New fancy rack of lights bass amp: $ 1,000
    Rehearsal space rental: $ 500
    Big blowout party for their friends: $ 500
    Tour expense [5 weeks]: $ 50,875
    Bus: $ 25,000
    Crew [3]: $ 7,500
    Food and per diems: $ 7,875
    Fuel: $ 3,000
    Consumable supplies: $ 3,500
    Wardrobe: $ 1,000
    Promotion: $ 3,000
    Tour gross income: $ 50,000
    Agent's cut: $ 7,500
    Manager's cut: $ 7,500
    Merchandising advance: $ 20,000
    Manager's cut: $ 3,000
    Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
    Publishing advance: $ 20,000
    Manager's cut: $ 3,000
    Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
    Record sales: 250,000 @ $12 =
    $3,000,000
    Gross retail revenue Royalty: [13% of 90% of retail]:
    $ 351,000
    Less advance: $ 250,000
    Producer's points: [3% less $50,000 advance]:
    $ 40,000
    Promotional budget: $ 25,000
    Recoupable buyout from previous label: $ 50,000
    Net royalty: $ -14,000
    Record company income:

    Record wholesale price: $6.50 x 250,000 =
    $1,625,000 gross income
    Artist Royalties: $ 351,000
    Deficit from royalties: $ 14,000
    Manufacturing, packaging and distribution: @ $2.20 per record: $ 550,000
    Gross profit: $ 7l0,000

    The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.

    Record company: $ 710,000
    Producer: $ 90,000
    Manager: $ 51,000
    Studio: $ 52,500
    Previous label: $ 50,000
    Agent: $ 7,500
    Lawyer: $ 12,000
    Band member net income each: $ 4,031.25
    (From The Problem with Music. Bolding mine.)

    Of course, Albini doesn't provide citations, so I'm certain that adoucette will dispute all of this. Because, of course, he knows far more about the matter than some derd niffer--he's a "google scholar."

  11. #311
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post


    judge gustav: Fair enough, since in the cases where a court has ruled on consumer's right to copy digital media, they have never eliminated the right to make a digital copy for personal use or backup, and in two cases they've explicitly endorsed that right. You are free to go.

    wtf?
    i was under duress when i said that. i was being blackmailed by the mpaa mafia.
    they had....pictures

    -----
    adoucette the pinko liberal
    dont you just love it!

  12. #312
    peripatetic artisan parmalee's Avatar
    Posts
    1,970
    Considering adoucette's "expertise," I'd venture that he's actually been working with Albini for the past couple a decades...

  13. #313
    Quote Originally Posted by Gustav View Post
    what part of "may" do you not understand?
    Used like that, in "may well", I understand it's meaning perfectly.

    Since you think its illegal to copy DVDs for backup then simply show us a court case where an individual was found guilty of breaking this law.

  14. #314
    Quote Originally Posted by parmalee View Post
    Considering adoucette's "expertise," I'd venture that he's actually been working with Albini for the past couple a decades...
    Looking at what you posted you made it clear why you need a contract.

    Indeed, Albini is a producer and you know he isn't going to work without a contract.

    The POINT of his article is be wary of the big labels, they will screw you.
    Go to an independent LIKE HIM.

    But, regardless of who you go to, the POINT of a contract is to protect everyone's interest, and in the example you mentioned, the production of a record that is going to sell 250,000 copies, over $3,000,000 is involved and that is NOT done with a hand-shake.

    Ok, cut that by 1/5th, with say 50,000 records, that's still probably a quarter million being spent, again, NOT done with a hand shake.

    Don't believe me?

    Tell me anything you buy for that much with out a contract.

  15. #315
    peripatetic artisan parmalee's Avatar
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Looking at what you posted you made it clear why you need a contract.

    Indeed, Albini is a producer and you know he isn't going to work without a contract.
    Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't--I know a fair number of people who have recorded with him. Likewise, he adjusts his rates based upon how much he likes the artist and how much money they have access to.

    The POINT of his article is be wary of the big labels, they will screw you.
    Go to an independent LIKE HIM.

    But, regardless of who you go to, the POINT of a contract is to protect everyone's interest, and in the example you mentioned, the production of a record that is going to sell 250,000 copies, over $3,000,000 is involved and that is NOT done with a hand-shake.

    Ok, cut that by 1/5th, with say 50,000 records, that's still probably a quarter million being spent, again, NOT done with a hand shake.
    Really? How exactly do you know this, Arthur? I'm familiar with plenty of labels that replicate between one thousand and 20 thousand units--and none of them use written contracts.

  16. #316
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Used like that, in "may well", I understand it's meaning perfectly.

    Since you think its illegal to copy DVDs for backup then simply show us a court case where an individual was found guilty of breaking this law.

    disingenuous red herring
    you simply cannot parse the fact that "fair use" is useless when invoked in this particular instance against dmca

    “The court appreciates Real’s argument that a consumer has a right to make a backup copy of a DVD for their own personal use,” she wrote. “While it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally-owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.” In other words, as the law stands, no tool can legally perform what is likely a legal act. (judge patel)

    nothing has been resolved yet you pretend it has so you can justify piracy

  17. #317
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold View Post
    2 things.
    first "it may well be" is kind of vague when it comes to law.
    either it is or it isn't.
    if you want to include "the gray area" then you are talking justice, not law.

    second you do not own the movie that is still under copyright.
    Except the courts have ruled many times on this, even on digital copies and even on copies of software, and in every case they found that making digital copies for personal backup was allowed.

  18. #318
    Quote Originally Posted by Gustav View Post
    disingenuous red herring
    you simply cannot parse the fact that "fair use" is useless when invoked in this particular instance against dmca

    “The court appreciates Real’s argument that a consumer has a right to make a backup copy of a DVD for their own personal use,” she wrote. “While it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally-owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.” In other words, as the law stands, no tool can legally perform what is likely a legal act. (judge patel)

    nothing has been resolved yet you pretend it has so you can justify piracy
    Nope, she wasn't ruling on that issue.

  19. #319
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Except the courts have ruled many times on this, even on digital copies and even on copies of software, and in every case they found that making digital copies for personal backup was allowed.

    start citing and lets take a look

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Nope, she wasn't ruling on that issue.

    another red herring

  20. #320
    http://www.imaginelaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1181372.html

    So THAWK, back in your court.

    Cite a case where someone was found guilty of making a back up copy.

Similar Threads

  1. By Trooper in forum Politics
    Last Post: 01-17-12, 11:56 PM
    Replies: 12
  2. By dbnp48 in forum Computer Science & Culture
    Last Post: 02-27-11, 08:25 AM
    Replies: 6
  3. By Ziad S Homsi in forum World Events
    Last Post: 06-23-10, 04:13 PM
    Replies: 1746
  4. By James R in forum Ethics, Morality, & Justice
    Last Post: 11-21-09, 07:29 PM
    Replies: 28
  5. By madanthonywayne in forum Ethics, Morality, & Justice
    Last Post: 03-03-09, 01:37 AM
    Replies: 19

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •