The Technical Terms of downloaded footage.

CaTaClYsM · Post by **CaTaClYsM** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:08 pm

If you want to take that to court aganst the RIAA over the use of a song be my guest.

Mirumoto_Chris · Post by **Mirumoto_Chris** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:11 pm

Okay, I see your point. However, the thread is about footage, not audio.

CaTaClYsM · Post by **CaTaClYsM** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:24 pm

purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright

These are what it said were fair use. Art is not one of them. just because it barely fit's the ambiguous defenition of 1 of the factors doesn't mean it's legal. It needs to fit ALL 4 and then some for you to even have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a battle in court.

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:32 pm

Mirumoto_Chris wrote:Okay, I see your point. However, the thread is about footage, not audio.

Downloaded footage. ^.~

The thread started out talking about the legality of downloaded footage - then it moved to footage in general. Now - now, it's come to the legality of amvs in general, which includes the audio added to those anime videos. The problem is, no matter what aspect of amvs you talk about, it's all illegal. Downloaded footage is illegal, ripping official paid-for footage is illegal if there's an incription on the dvd, distributing that footage - whether dvd or downloaded - is illegal, and adding stollen music to that footage just makes it the sort of 'illegal' we have hotlisted in the US right now.

It's all illegal in one way or another. I guess the idea is to argue the varying legality of each of the 'law-breaking' uses. Some crimes are lesser ones. But I bet you get fined a lot more for breaking a dvd incription than you do for ripping a tag off a matress. ^_^; It's like those laws against spitting on the sidewalk - the laws don't stop people from doing it, but people are still breaking the law with each loogie they hack up.

CaTaClYsM · Post by **CaTaClYsM** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:40 pm

My point exactly. It's all illegal, so don't even waste your time arguing over it.

Now back to the ethics.

The sources of footage are now going to be ordered from best to worste, ethically.

1. DVD

2. Downloaded

3. Bootlegs

1 and 3 are not against the rules. 2 is. Why?

Unfound · Post by **Unfound** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:54 pm

Actually, its against the rules to talk about Bootlegs, so they're trying to discourage them at least. 2 is from the stand point that at least you're ethical enough to at least buy the DVDs to support the company. Neither 2 or 3 supports the original company that made the anime. Also, using d/led footage makes for crappy quality 8/10 (Not including Naruto).

Pwolf · Post by **Pwolf** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:57 pm

my thoughts...

the reason for that rule is for quality and also phades own personal opinion when he made the site. He doesn't like bootlegs or downloaded anime. If he had it his way, there would be no fansubbers or bootlegers (this is just a general uinderstanding of how i understand his point on this subject). For quality reason, at the time, downloaded footage looked like shit! so as a way to discourage people from using the downloaded anime as footage... you say it's bad.

That's the way i see it. I've used downloaded footage before, no one has come to me and said i'm a horrible person for doing it. The rule, in my opinion, is just a personal preference and something that you should think about. AMV's in general are illegal... that's that. it doesn't matter if you use footage that's bootleged, downloaded, or straight from the dvd/vhs... is't still illegal. that's something you have to realize and understand. I don't think that has anything to do with the rule in question. It's more of a moral thing... you buy the dvd, the company gets a profit... you download it, they get nothing.

Pwolf

CaTaClYsM · Post by **CaTaClYsM** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:10 pm

The rules say not to talk about them, but it isn't against the rules to use them. And people OPENLY ADMIT TO USING THEM IN THEIR VIDS. And for all intents and purposes HK DVD's HURT the anime industry more than fansubs ever could. You've got fansubs meant to develop a fanbase for a show so that it will get licenced. For source footage it may be unethical but they put alot of tiem and effort into subbing and distributing anime on their own dime so that a fanbase can be developed and get an anime licenced. Then you have the HK DVD's which are crappy rips of the R2 DVD's with crappy subs and are meant to pretty much steal the profits of the japanese and american copyright holders.

I mean, it's one thing to make a video with downloaded footage when you have no other alternative, it's another go go and buy a crappy HK DVD set (knowingly) for source footage. I don't see any of you nailing people to crosses for using HKs.

If you honestly expect anyone to follow the rules at least show a degree of consistency.

Akai Rurouni · Post by **Akai Rurouni** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:46 pm

CaTaClYsM wrote:
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright
These are what it said were fair use. Art is not one of them. just because it barely fit's the ambiguous defenition of 1 of the factors doesn't mean it's legal. It needs to fit ALL 4 and then some for you to even have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a battle in court.

Before I start, this post is about the copyright issues of using anime video in AMVs. It specifically excludes discussion of the music used, or any legal issues besides copyright (such as breaking DVD encryption).

Copyright law is fuzzy. The laws are ambiguous to varying degrees, and there have been a lot of rulings, not all of which seem to make sense...

So there are very few things in copyright law where you can say "this is what the law says, and that's that."

The examples of fair use listed there are not an exhaustive list. Being included in that list will help your case, but being excluded does not automaticlly discredit you work as "fair use".

Also, it does not necessarily need to meet all four items. Those items are guidelines, not a checklist. In addition, some items might be more imortant than others, and what's more the weighting of the items may not be the same in all cases! (I did mention that copyright law is ambiguous, didn't I?

)

That was also not the definative one-and-only list of copyright guidelines. I've seen other sets of copyright guidelines that word the guidelines differently, and even include other guidelines that were not listed here. (The one that comes to mind is "Is it a 'derivative work'?" - of course "derivative work" is not clearly defined anywhere either.)

So basically the decision comes down to considering all the factors that weigh in favor of the creator against all the factors that weigh against him/her.

Also, it is not illegal to tear the "Do Not Remove" tag off a matress. It's illegal for the _seller_ to remove it, not the end consumer.