egafd.com

they weren't selling the songs, merely using the songs as a backdrop to the videos they had produced. This did not encourage creativity, it KILLED it

Too bloody right I say. there are spoilsport artists who will never allow their music to be sampled (some use the word rape) i would love to use a lot of commercial music also but I respect the artists right to not use it in such a way that they would not like ie The Doors were furious their music was used to sell cars despite the band saying they were paid very well (this scene is in the film as well)

Its the same as you objecting to any of your friends or fmaily being in porn when the decision is theres to make

It just is simply no ones right to sell or give it away or otherwise edit, rediffuse by any means electronically and all that blah as it says in the small print of the product. in effect, when someone buys a product they are beholden to a contract they havent agreed to but should observe the license for sale is with respect of those rights in mind

If I gave you something and told you not to lend it to someone else but found out you did you would rightly take me as an angry person right?

Its the same thing. For upsetting me you might think I will compensate Terry with a beer to apologise. Its the same thing.

Guys we can really argue this around the houses all day if we havent already !happy!

The reason we are here at this point arguing this is because the situation went from a mild problem to wildly out of control.

Interestingly I was listening to the latest podcast from the BBFC which had an interview with a rep from FACT who explained the reason for their beginnings was because of the saturated piracy of ET on home video in 1982. They have an interesting take on this thats similar to what you are arguing against and is almost similar to ATVOD trying to impose heavy fines on websites for not complying with their rule 11.

I guess its all about everyone getting shafted now. it just depends how you want to view it which is why i feel we should agree to just disagree. im not selling this to you and youre not to me. We're just trying to get those who see it our way to agree with us

Of course the freeloaders see themselves as innocent and...well we've been here before already

OEJ said: ?Too bloody right I say. there are spoilsport artists who will never allow their music to be sampled (some use the word rape) i would love to use a lot of commercial music also but I respect the artists right to not use it in such a way that they would not like ie The Doors were furious their music was used to sell cars despite the band saying they were paid very well (this scene is in the film as well)?

The words you mention are ?to sell cars?. And you saying you would love to use a lot of commercial music would be to promote what you sell. I think what Hickster was saying is that people who make YouTube videos are not selling. The video is the interest, and the music just accompanies it.

OEJ said: ?Guys we can really argue this around the houses all day if we havent already?

It really boils down to one thing in this disagreement. Is copyright infringement theft? Simple answer is no. There is a Court for theft and a Court for civil matters. The Law has decided. Until that changes, end of.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201302 ... ions.shtml

Although a US case and particularly California, this case does make a serious point from a US Judge about claimants arguments when it comes to this method of monitoring.

The upshot is the lawyer faces a possible jail sentence for bringing a case to Court based on a ?hunch?, i.e. no fact.

Analogies are popular here. I will quote the Judges analogy here:

?To allege copyright infringement based on an IP snapshot is akin to alleging theft based on a single surveillance camera shot: a photo of a child reaching for candy from a display does not automatically mean he stole it. No Court would allow a lawsuit to be filed based on that amount of evidence?

Yes this is the US, and yes this is just California. But I?m inclined to agree with the Judges words.

We all agree that copyright infringement is wrong. We disagree on the methods that are done to prevent it.

"No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land"

"but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land"

The laws of an NPO application is different than the laws of bringing someone to justice in Court.

It's funny that the Magna Carta was the thirteenth century and the modern concept of copyright law came from the eighteenth century.

GEIL are accusing a subscriber. That is not justice. "The law of the land" is justice.

That is the trouble with scam artists. They can give so much legal crap to "Prove" a point, but we live in a land of law.

I think what Hickster was saying is that people who make YouTube videos are not selling. The video is the interest, and the music just accompanies it.


It is copyright infringement in that the music is being used against how the artist may not want to have their music used. If youre left wing but your music is being used to promote right wing agenda is a good example of this.Furthermore, some people may not want their music being used to promote anything.they reserve that right


Is copyright infringement theft? Simple answer is no. There is a Court for theft and a Court for civil matters. The Law has decided. Until that changes, end of.

Depends on how disgruntled the infringed see their works being infringed. Hence I used the phrase some people see their work as being raped as an explicit term for the same thing

You may feel that people not making money out of a song is ok but there is also tarnishing an artists reputation by being overused and in association with things the artist has no belief in as well

That is the trouble with scam artists. They can give so much legal crap to "Prove" a point, but we live in a land of law.


Yes. "Innocent" downloaders use the same justifications too.

Hes only a scam artist if he purported to represent those he said he is but he is actually representing them in a court of law being supervised and guided by the law unlike the ACS Law fiasco

--------
bpaw said: Is copyright infringement theft? Simple answer is no. There is a Court for theft and a Court for civil matters. The Law has decided. Until that changes, end of.

oej said: Depends on how disgruntled the infringed see their works being infringed. Hence I used the phrase some people see their work as being raped as an explicit term for the same thing
--------
It doesn't matter what some people think. In law, it isn't theft.

--------
bpaw said: That is the trouble with scam artists. They can give so much legal crap to "Prove" a point, but we live in a land of law.

oej said: Yes. "Innocent" downloaders use the same justifications too.

Hes only a scam artist if he purported to represent those he said he is but he is actually representing them in a court of law being supervised and guided by the law unlike the ACS Law fiasco
--------
Please! That was not by request. The original GEIL claim and letter were ACS:Law copies, and is in the judgement for everyone to read.

The Judge recognised major issues with regards "Innocent" people and that is why it changed to the way it is now. Why the Judge understands innocent people will be targeted and you don't is difficult to understand.

Next you will have me believing those emails I receive. You know the ones. Someone putting $14m in my bank account because of some Nigerian King dying, or those ?50 Rolex watches are genuine, or even that FedEx package was really for me.

Actually The GEIL letter was a "Steal" of Tilly Baily Irvines who of course licensed it from ACS:LAW.

@OEJ YOU know that Copyright Infringement is NOT theft, that is just your opinion, if you truly believed it was theft, then go to the police. Simple.

This Infringement vs theft argument is so puerile it is pointless discussing it.. It has been subject of intellectual discourse.. here http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func ... Id=2158125

but the issue is, that it is YOUR opinion that infringement is theft.

So far the only people we know who have broken any laws, are the previous Law Firms who have pursued this course that your colleague Mr Becker is now pursuing. They broke the rules and were severely punished.

The argument that Mr Becker states is therefore an absurd one, in which he to will flounder on the rocks of his own ego.

If infringement was theft, then a photo would be kidnap!

Oh and BTW, I dont give a toss about a musicians right to have his music used in the way he chooses, OUTSIDE of a money making situation. They have released the music to the public and that music should be used as is, as long as it is not for profit. THAT is how creativity flows.

Can you imagine if we went back 50 years and Mr Becker and his friend Mr Crossley, attempting to copyright guitar chords!!! You can only play that song if you dont use these chords, or pay us a license to use them.. That is how silly this has got now. People like them are the same as the people who sues the band "Men at Work", they are pathetic. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... Under.html

If its really that silly it will get thrown out but it hasnt, therefore....

Pop quiz hotshot! Which one is not a scam?

Is it one?
We have obtained the services of a parking expert who identified cars parked in parking zones without paying. Your car was identified as parking in a parking zone and we went to Court to get your name. We believe that you parking in a parking zone without paying have caused us damages because thousands of people could have parked in the space you occupied. Our evidence is absolute because we paid a ?parking witness? to see it, so we don?t have to produce that evidence to get your name.

Is it two?
We have obtained the services of a theft expert who identified thieves taking CDs from HMV without paying. Your jacket was identified as being worn by someone thieving a CD from HMV and we went to Court to get your name. We believe that you thieving a CD without paying from HMV have caused us damages because thousands of people could have bought that CD. Our evidence is absolute because we paid a ?thieving witness? to see it, so we don?t have to produce that evidence to get your name.

Is it three?
We have obtained the services of a forensic computer analyst to search for and identify internet addresses from which our copyright works (including the Work) are being made available on so called ?peer to peer? (P2P) internet sites for the purposes of making them available for download by third parties without our clients? consent or licence. Our forensic computer analyst has provided us with evidence that on the following UK date and time, [C], all or part of the Work was made available from the internet protocol (or IP) address [A], specifically for the purpose of downloading by third parties, and we went to Court to get your name. The act of file sharing the Work without the consent of ourselves has caused damage to our business. We contend that every copy of the Work that is downloaded represents a potential lost sale.

Sorry, you lose. Trick question you see. All three are scams! They all contain the same bullshit!