On the Topic of Copyright

[King_Vegita]

I just noticed the comments about the whole Evanescence issue through the news on the main site. I don't post often on these boards, but I think it might be a good idea now. Before starting, I should note that the actual events don't effect me in any way other than reading it. I don't pay attention to the band, nor have made any music video using their songs.

Chances are, the record companies have much better lawyers than this site could come up with, and would win the case. However, it should be noted that there is something called fair use. Not being produced for profit, giving proper credit (this is why this is important guys), and putting a large amount of your own work into the final product supports the idea that the work in question is indeed "fair use". There is no logical defense that anyone would play a music video over and over because they like the song, it's much too hefty and inconvenient when .mp3 files are so easy to get a hold of, legally and illegally. There is no logical fear of piracy that the courts would uphold.

If one is interested in reading the actual law involving it (I merely am using rehashes by experts and don't care to currently sift through it all, so my conclusion may be wrong) it is here, straight from the U.S. Government: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

There are also a series of legal precedents decided fairly arbitrarily by judges which tend to stand up for such small-scale non-commercial uses to be considered fair use.

I just feel that this should be recognized by people here, and even though the site does not wish to go through the lengthy and costly legal battle (and quite understandably so), it does not mean that the representatives of Evanescence are correct about the extent of their exclusive rights.

I should remind people though, that Evanescence does not to seem to be the ones who want to block this, their lawyers are. From the recap I read, the band member didn't know how to answer the question, and that is why the lawyers got involved at all, to be able to answer the question. Boycotting them really isn't getting to the root of the problem at all. Someone would have to settle this in court (preferably getting a cease and desist letter, then ceasing and desisting and then asking the courts for their opinion on the matter) with heavy legal fees, bigshot lawyers, and of course a long time of research...... putting their <explitive deleted> on the line, possibly having to declare bankruptcy afterwards. I may be exagerating the costs, but that's why you ask a lawyer before trying this. Something like this would have to be tried in courts, not in protesting Evanescence.... If you can't make a dent in other big stars for .mp3 trading, you're probably not going to make a dent here either.

And if I put this in the wrong forum, I apologize, this seemed like the best place I could put it.

[trythil]

Congratulations.

Not only did you rehash law, but you also said everything that has already been said.

Requesting a lock on this thread; it's redundant and unnecessary.

[trythil]

That first post went off too early; I apologize for that. I'm just getting a little tired of seeing all these threads that say basically the same thing.

Though, I feel it is important to ask you to stop dragging out the same tired defense:

However, it should be noted that there is something called fair use. Not being produced for profit, giving proper credit (this is why this is important guys), and putting a large amount of your own work into the final product supports the idea that the work in question is indeed "fair use".

"Fair use" is about as related to the case as licensing is: that is, it's in the "yes, everyone knows about it, and oh gee, that'd be nice" realm.

However, as you noted, there is a "but §106 -- notwithstanding the language of §107 -- has beaten the living fuck out of fair use so many times that fair use doesn't mean a damn thing anymore" clause tacked on to the end.

So, until we receive a largesse for The Good Old Legal Fistfight, it's wiser -- and, really, more accurate -- to assume that section 107 just doesn't exist in U.S. copyright law.

[sfitzok]

Before you lock this thread. i want to ask one question. i generally use the suggestion search, because i like exposure to new and interesting vids i might not find on my own. now, normally, when a video does not have a local DL option it is not included in the suggestion search method (which is good. i mean, i might love the vid, but if i cant watch it, whats the point of suggesting i do so, really) but the videos that no longer have links available are still popping up via this method. I understand that these did have local links, but because of threatened action by the representatives of some bands the site has removed all links to these. which is all well and good and i wont criticize anyone for doing what they felt was best. however, its irritating to be recommended something i cant download, so could someone re-classify these as videos that are not locally downloadable or something so they'll stop popping up when i ask for suggestions?? if this issue has already been posted on, gomen ne. i didnt feel up to sorting through 40 pages of flames to find it. and likewise if it's in the wrong place, im very sorry.

(as far as the legality goes, please stop yelling at the people that will boycott the bands involved, it is their right to cease to listen to the band. i happen to be one of them, but it isn't for malicious reasons or because i think it will change anything. it's simply a factor of geography and lifestyle. i have a cd player, a vcr, and a dvd player. i get crappy reception for both radio and television. so i dont listen to the radio, and i dont watch television. i listen to CD's and watch dvd's and vhs tapes. 90% of my exposure to new music comes from AMV's. so if the amv's with their music are not available, the chances of me being exposed to their new music is slim to none. if i dont hear it, i certainly wont buy it. if i made amv's (as many on this site do) i would make quite certain to avoid using anything of theirs, likely by deleting everything of theirs i had on my computer and selling the CD's i ripped them from, because frankly, i have a crappy memory, and better things to do with my time than remember who doesnt want me using their music. you can argue about fair use till youre blue in the face, but you must recall that these bands (or their legal representatives) have asked that their work not be used. or at least that any use of their work not be made available on this site. now, in my thinking, they undoubtedly know that no one makes amv's for profit and that this isnt intended as infringement. logical conclusion : they don't care. which makes any discussion that you dont intend to take to a court of law a moot point. relegate them to a point of non-existence in your mind and move on. as i will as soon as they stop getting suggested to me)

[derobert]

I'd suggest that by far the most effective way of dealing with US copyright law than blowing millions on a lawsuit which'd be a gamble at best is to go get together with your friends, and convince your representative and senator(s) that its an important issue to you, and that them getting your (and your friends' votes) depends on it.

[Undertow]

One other option is to move the server to Norway (i think) where the copyright laws don't apply. For some reason Norway (or another one of the scandanavian countries) ignores all international copyright laws and everyone is free to do as they please.

[trythil]

One other option is to move the server to Norway (i think) where the copyright laws don't apply. For some reason Norway (or another one of the scandanavian countries) ignores all international copyright laws and everyone is free to do as they please.

First: Huh? Norway is a party to the Berne Convention.

Second: This doesn't necessarily protect users of the system.

[808-buma]

well, to quote myself from another thread on the board...

and I think that this isn't a 'fair use' issue either, it's one of illegal distribution of copyrighted works...

Anime companies probably don't care too much as you aren't using the entire anime for your video. [added] If you wanted to see the whole anime (in DVD quality) you'd have to buy it[/added]

Music companies would be pissed because for the most part, a lot of AMV's use the whole song unedited and any schmo with a little bit of knowledge can download an AMV, demux the audio and have a digital, near perfect copy of the music for free...

[derobert]

One other option is to move the server to Norway (i think) where the copyright laws don't apply. For some reason Norway (or another one of the scandanavian countries) ignores all international copyright laws and everyone is free to do as they please.

First, I very much doubt your statement about Norway is true, especially with trythil's comment about them being part of Berne.

Second, where the servers happen to be isn't really that relevant, as Phade is in the US.

The only real solution is to change the law.