Zig-zag wrote:*puts copyright on my AMVs*
And if anyone thinks I'm serious... I laugh at you.
Under international copyright law, you actually
do own copyright on whatever original manipulations you made, so I don't see why you think that's funny.
It's the other material that's the problem.
Phade wrote:Their reply was that there are several large issues for a site like ours to obtain a license due to the nature of our site and the contract with the band. One issue (of many) is that the contract with the band requires the band to approve every use of their songs by third parties. This usually has to deal with movie sound tracks, commercials, and things like that. But in order for our site to receive a license, each and every video would have to be approved by the band themselves. Other issues apply to us by the laws and rules concerning copyright and songs distributed over the internet. (It becomes a big mess really quickly.)
There's no way to decentralize that and put the burden on the video creator?
Phade wrote:I have read about possible boycotts and petitions in various follow-up posts to this issue. If all 5 of you boycotters don’t buy the next Evanescence album because of the band’s desire to keep their copyright strong, you have completely missed the point of all this and will also not have your voices heard.
I'd like to say that I
get the point, and that I do
not appreciate the constant efforts of you and others to deface this particular course of action.
There is no incompatibility with understanding and accepting that legal representatives of these groups affected were and are legally empowered to do what they did, and then refusing to deal with them anymore in even an indirect way. Or, well, I challenge you to find me a contradiction.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 512 character limit.