Wikipedia protest shutdown

[Gustav]

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

[adoucette]

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.

[Gustav]

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.

[adoucette]

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.

[adoucette]

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

[Gustav]

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

[leopold]

...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.

[Gustav]

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?

[leopold]

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.

[parmalee]

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."

[Gustav]

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!

[parmalee]

Considering adoucette's "expertise," I'd venture that he's actually been working with Albini for the past couple a decades...

[adoucette]

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.

[adoucette]

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.

[parmalee]

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.

[Gustav]

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

[adoucette]

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.

[adoucette]

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.

[Gustav]

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

Nope, she wasn't ruling on that issue.

another red herring

[adoucette]

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.