"Phade is a Spineless Coward"

[CHAMELEON_D_H]

In Israel we have this old "Law of empty tapes", witch forces dealers to sell video and audio tapes for recording purpeses in a higher price, and giving percentages to TV, movie and music companies. While tis seems very nice and reasonable (since what am I going to do with tapes? probably record stuff that's not my creation on them), the government still debates on passing this law for empty CD's, not to mention DVD's.

Maybe they'll put them together under optical storage media and save themselvs some time working on Blue-Ray\HD-DVD.

It is a nice idea though.

[Kalium]

Canada does that. In at least one case, it's been held that the blank media levy in Canada makes downloading music legal, since the levy goes to pay them for that.

[amvwizard]

he is a bitch we should destroy him

[Ainaelle]

Don't you feel you're being a bit too uptight about it around here? Also, where I can find a list of banned words - I'd like to avoid using them just in case, to not bring a ban upon myself (and to avoid my posts being edited by someone, because for some strange reason I'm not deemed worthy of editing them myself).

First, consult the org <a href="http://www.animemusicvideos.org/phpBB/v ... 289">Forum Rules</a>. Specifically, number seven. Read it carefully.

And? How mentioning a network name is telling anyone how to obtain anything from it? I'd have no complaints about it if the guy provided ee-dee-two-kay links or linked to a tee-oh-double err-ee-en-tee-es site, but that was way, way over the top. This post pretty much sums up what I think about this.
For crying out loud. You can obtain any sort of copyrighted content from The Internet. OMG, am I gonna be banned now?

Second, edit rights are too easy to abuse. There's a reason you don't have them.

Care to give some examples? All I can see are double/triple/quadruple posts from users who feel the need to clarify/expand their original posts, or to fix mistakes that severely change their message. And that's more abusive for the general quality of the forum than all abusive uses of edit function I can think of.
Honestly, I find pre-emptively assuming that I can't take care of myself and my posts and that I'm going to abuse anything in any way quite insulting.

The point is, it set a precedent. What band or titles are going to be blacklisted next? Perhaps you won't care about them either. But, a little bit here, a little bit there, and eventually you'll end up with... what?

What would you suggest? That we get ourselves shut down completely and ruin the lives of more than one person? No, this is a far preferable outcome.

No. I suggest to first disable access to the questionable content and then negotiate reasonably. As in provide the copyright holders with arguments on how keeping their actually works for their profit. On how giving the site their blessing to use their content in creative way would increase their popularity. On what's the site's stance on piracy, and how making AMVs is artistic creation, not copyright infringement. Etc. And ask if anything could be worked out.
As far as I know, only the first thing from what I listed was done. And after that came pretending that nothing ever happened.

As for your forecast of hellfire, chaos, and damnation, there haven't been any new C&Ds. Nor did Wind-Up come back and demand that AMVs using other artists of theirs be taken down. That's rather telling, since I know that more than one music industry person is aware of us.

I honestly hope you're right about this.

Anyway, there are plenty of precendents for how copyright owners deal with infringers. We were hardly the first, and we're not likely to be the last.

But you had a chance to change how they are being dealt with. Hiding your head in the sand is not going to change anything.

Finally, there was no precedent set by this case. Removal of content in accordance with copyright holders' demands is a common practice, and it certainly hasn't set any precedent for Phade's actions, as he's stated before Wind-Up that he's really not interested in dragging out legal battles.

It did set a precedent on how things are being dealt with when an actual C&D order comes. And, as I said above, IMO the standard was set pretty low. The administration doing what they're said and staying completely put, and the userbase being happy that they took away only that much makes the site look like a sitting duck. When another company complains, they will be expecting a same reaction. I believe there's a huge ground between doing what you're told and fighting a full scale legal battle - but what's done is done, too bad.

We also have quite a few organizations working to correct these problems. Electronic Frontier Foundation, Creative Commons, IP Justice, and the Center for Democracy and Technology are among the first come to mind; I'm sure there's more that I'm missing.

What's Poland doing?

No, seriously, I'd like to know. If your country is equally or more active in this area, I'd love to know about it.

As you probably can guess, Poland doesn't have much to say when it comes to global copyright (or any other actually) politics. The anti-patent thing was the only of such scale I can remember. There are groups similar to EFF, there are Open Source adovocates, finally there are consumers who, when asked, complain about unrealistic prices of music/movies/software, but other than that they just get what they want from p2p and are happy with it.

I can't say anything more or positive about it, unfortunately. Genral politics are beyond the scope of this discussion, but in fact, I'm looking forward to getting out of here (Poland, not ORG) ASAP. I mentioned the "American thing" because American willingness to give up their liberties has become sort of proverbial (which means not necessarily accurate) in certain free thought communities, and it fits most of what was said in this thread.

That's about it.

[Kalium]

And? How mentioning a network name is telling anyone how to obtain anything from it? I'd have no complaints about it if the guy provided ee-dee-two-kay links or linked to a tee-oh-double err-ee-en-tee-es site, but that was way, way over the top. This post pretty much sums up what I think about this.
For crying out loud. You can obtain any sort of copyrighted content from The Internet. OMG, am I gonna be banned now?

The Rules are The Rules. I didn't write them, I just help enforce them.

Care to give some examples? All I can see are double/triple/quadruple posts from users who feel the need to clarify/expand their original posts, or to fix mistakes that severely change their message. And that's more abusive for the general quality of the forum than all abusive uses of edit function I can think of.
Honestly, I find pre-emptively assuming that I can't take care of myself and my posts and that I'm going to abuse anything in any way quite insulting.

If you could be bothered to look around Site Feedback a bit, you'll find examples of this discussion at greater length. Including a discussion of how editing could be abused. In fact, it has happened, but the abusive edit was restored, so there's nothing to point you to. Anyway, we of the administration find multiple-posting preferable to edit abuses.

No. I suggest to first disable access to the questionable content and then negotiate reasonably. As in provide the copyright holders with arguments on how keeping their actually works for their profit. On how giving the site their blessing to use their content in creative way would increase their popularity. On what's the site's stance on piracy, and how making AMVs is artistic creation, not copyright infringement. Etc. And ask if anything could be worked out.
As far as I know, only the first thing from what I listed was done. And after that came pretending that nothing ever happened.

This is because the full proceedings have not been, and are not likely to be made public. Suffice to say, there were extended negotiations. Under US law, it's pretty clear that distributing AMVs is copyright infringement. The artistic value doesn't nullify that. Additionally, the record label has contractual obligations to live up to, which presumably include enforcement of their copyrights. Clearing the AMVs would be lengthy and expensive process, since it would have to involve the band approving of each and every one, among other things. It gets ugly. And expensive, since the proper licensing fees would have to be paid to assorted organizations. This would set a precedent, likely compelling the Org to go that route wholly, which more than likely would kill the Org entirely. The music industry does not take kindly to those such as us.

I honestly hope you're right about this.

I'm in a position to know. There haven't been any.

But you had a chance to change how they are being dealt with. Hiding your head in the sand is not going to change anything.

Consider yourself lucky you have a site to post this complaining of yours on. I'm not much happier about the outcome than you are, but at least I know what I have to be thankful for. We are very, very lucky that the Org still exists, and that Wind-Up didn't just up and destroy it. They well could have. They didn't. Eat, drink, and be merry, not necessarily in that order.

I believe there's a huge ground between doing what you're told and fighting a full scale legal battle - but what's done is done, too bad.

Where, pray tell, would the funding for such a fight come from? American legal fees are orders of magnitude higher than European ones. Plus the cost of lawyers.

[amvwizard]

I THINK WE SHOULD ALL SHOW OR THANKS TO PAHDE SOMEHOW

[Warlocket]

No. I suggest to first disable access to the questionable content and then negotiate reasonably. As in provide the copyright holders with arguments on how keeping their actually works for their profit. On how giving the site their blessing to use their content in creative way would increase their popularity. On what's the site's stance on piracy, and how making AMVs is artistic creation, not copyright infringement. Etc. And ask if anything could be worked out.
As far as I know, only the first thing from what I listed was done. And after that came pretending that nothing ever happened.

We are not in any position to negotiate and I doubt any copyright holder would see allowing people to download their stuff for free as 'profitable'. Yes, it's great advertising and there will be people who go out and buy the CD after hearing a song they like, though most will simply search this site for other songs by the same band and rip the audio. I posted it before in a similar thread, and I'll post it again: It is not that hard to rip audio.

Pretending that nothing happened is a way from preventing other labels from coming after us because if they do, we can't stop them. It may sound passive and cowardly, but it is the smart, and only, thing we can do.

[madbunny]

reading this guys rant is like reading someones rant about say.. speed limits, or double taxation.

Lots of mostly logical and supportable reasoning, but with a few key facts missing.

Lots of people say things that sound logical on their surface. Lets look at a blatant example.

"Words build bridges into unexplored regions."
and
"Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized."
and
"For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future"

1) Phade didn't cave in, he contacted the lawyers and worked to negotiate to the best of his ability.
1.5) The Old org didn't have the donut, or local hosting and all that. It was just a database, and if you had the links then yeeha for you for hosting it.

2) Why is he comparing the .org to Google? That's like comparing Microsoft (as a whole) to say... Ubisoft. Different priorities.

3) for someone to say that U-tube is an acceptable alternative to hosting, along with Torrent sharing is obviously missing something essential. One of the biggest things the .org users usually focus on it getting the best possible picture quality out of their video. It is expected these days. Just look at how much of the guides are about getting a better 'looking' product. Torrent sharing is nice... unless it's ONE guy hosting his own thing then it sucks. Big time.

4) .org members are free to leave anytime they want. Another thing, there are LOTS and LOTS of .org members that don't have any videos of their own.
4.5) while I haven't checked, I'm sure that a snapshot of site membership from the time of the C&D and now will show that it's actually increased.

5) Phade can do whatever he wants. This is his site, run with the help of a few mods.



Basically, his argument has enough points that are valid for him to continue to fall back on them every time you counter with logic. The fact remains, the .org is a COMMUNITY. We like to make videos and share them, if a roadblock comes up, we'll still do it, but it won't be as nice as it is now. What makes the .org what it is isn't 100% the videos. Just look at all the banner submissions, and journal junkies.

[Willen]

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

Anyway, there are plenty of precendents for how copyright owners deal with infringers. We were hardly the first, and we're not likely to be the last.

But you had a chance to change how they are being dealt with. Hiding your head in the sand is not going to change anything.

If a company like the original MP3.com or the original Napster got shut down, do you think a-m-v.org has got a snowball's chance in hell of staying alive if the RIAA really got serious? True, mp3.com was for-profit, but it did not make any money directly from users downloading music, just from ads. In fact, they had a service that paid artists if their songs were downloaded. But with the start of the My.MP3.com service, it was found guilty of distributing copyrighted music without the permission of the copyright holders, which resulted in the eventual shutdown of a publically traded company.

Napster, which had a better defense against the RIAA since they didn't actually host the files (unlike a-m-v.org), still got shut down because it facilitated the illegal trading of copyrighted music. Ironically, Napster's popularity was the cause of it's downfall.

Both companies made money off of advertising revenue, unlike the .org, so they actually had money to pay for lawyers. Does anyone believe that Phade, who only recently started using google ads to supplement user donations to run the site has enough money to mount a defense against the RIAA? An argument can be made for "fair use" in the usage of video sources, but the majority of the music in AMVs are unaltered songs, so the RIAA has the ammo they need to shut down the Donut if they wanted to.

"Hiding" is probably the best thing for the .org to do if we want to keep using Local downloads or even listings for off-site links. Sadly.

[Ainaelle]

And? How mentioning a network name is telling anyone how to obtain anything from it? I'd have no complaints about it if the guy provided ee-dee-two-kay links or linked to a tee-oh-double err-ee-en-tee-es site, but that was way, way over the top. This post pretty much sums up what I think about this.
For crying out loud. You can obtain any sort of copyrighted content from The Internet. OMG, am I gonna be banned now?

The Rules are The Rules. I didn't write them, I just help enforce them.

You didn't answer my question: how mentioning a network name is telling anyone how to obtain anything from it?

Care to give some examples? All I can see are double/triple/quadruple posts from users who feel the need to clarify/expand their original posts, or to fix mistakes that severely change their message. And that's more abusive for the general quality of the forum than all abusive uses of edit function I can think of.
Honestly, I find pre-emptively assuming that I can't take care of myself and my posts and that I'm going to abuse anything in any way quite insulting.

If you could be bothered to look around Site Feedback a bit, you'll find examples of this discussion at greater length. Including a discussion of how editing could be abused. In fact, it has happened, but the abusive edit was restored, so there's nothing to point you to. Anyway, we of the administration find multiple-posting preferable to edit abuses.

Well, I bothered to look around there. Actually, I did a search for "edit" keyword and checked all threads that were discussing the lack of edit fuction (based on subject, including those with vague subjects). Here's what I found out:

- that questions to have the edit function on date back to 2002. So the mythical abusive edits you talk about happened at least 4 years ago (3 years and 9 months, if you want to nitpick). I could point out that that was over a year before you joined, but I realise you could have used a different account or re-registered since then.
- that someone editing his post after replies were made to make those replies look stupid or out of place is The Biggest Fucking Deal In The World Ever.
- that only way to prevent this is to disable the edit function entirely.
- that this was and is the one and only remotely valid argument against allowing edit function ever "discussed" in those threads.
- that people here are considered too stupid to figure out that someone edited his post upon seeing out of place replies (and that's assuming no one quoted the original post in the reply).
- that some other people think they are smarter and funny because they can say "preview = edit, lol".
- that making the "This post was edited by $user on $date" line non-optional is too much of a bother.

Let's say that's it. So, could you please appreciate the 2+ hours I spent reading those threads and provide me with:
a) ACTUAL examples of world-crumbling abusive edits?
b) ACTUAL valid reasons for disabling the edit function entirely, i.e. other than assumption that all people here are by their very nature stupid and abusive?

Also, please think about that, if so many people independently ask for one function and provide similar arguments, doesn't that mean that this function is actually needed. Thank you.

My opinion (bolded in the quote above) is still valid, and even stronger now.

No. I suggest to first disable access to the questionable content and then negotiate reasonably. As in provide the copyright holders with arguments on how keeping their actually works for their profit. On how giving the site their blessing to use their content in creative way would increase their popularity. On what's the site's stance on piracy, and how making AMVs is artistic creation, not copyright infringement. Etc. And ask if anything could be worked out.
As far as I know, only the first thing from what I listed was done. And after that came pretending that nothing ever happened.

This is because the full proceedings have not been, and are not likely to be made public. Suffice to say, there were extended negotiations.

Well, that's a shame. Being transparent does not hurt, and can only increase your credibility. And in this specific case prevent me from complaining that nothing was done. Unless you have something to hide, which is what attempts to control information usually hint at.

Under US law, it's pretty clear that distributing AMVs is copyright infringement. The artistic value doesn't nullify that. Additionally, the record label has contractual obligations to live up to, which presumably include enforcement of their copyrights. Clearing the AMVs would be lengthy and expensive process, since it would have to involve the band approving of each and every one, among other things. It gets ugly. And expensive, since the proper licensing fees would have to be paid to assorted organizations. This would set a precedent, likely compelling the Org to go that route wholly, which more than likely would kill the Org entirely. The music industry does not take kindly to those such as us.

I can't see how is this related to what I wrote above.

I honestly hope you're right about this.

I'm in a position to know. There haven't been any.

You're in a position to know that there WON'T be any in the future, really? That's good to hear.

But you had a chance to change how they are being dealt with. Hiding your head in the sand is not going to change anything.

Consider yourself lucky you have a site to post this complaining of yours on. I'm not much happier about the outcome than you are, but at least I know what I have to be thankful for. We are very, very lucky that the Org still exists, and that Wind-Up didn't just up and destroy it. They well could have. They didn't. Eat, drink, and be merry, not necessarily in that order.

I already stated what I think about that mentality, but let me repeat: I am very happy this site exists and provides all it's services. But I am NOT happy that this site's administration decided to act like an abuse victim, which hides and hopes nobody will notice to hurt it even more. I believe that hiding is what actually might bring doom upon this site, rather than making it clear that you don't support infringement or piracy to those who might think you are.

I believe there's a huge ground between doing what you're told and fighting a full scale legal battle - but what's done is done, too bad.

Where, pray tell, would the funding for such a fight come from? American legal fees are orders of magnitude higher than European ones. Plus the cost of lawyers.

You didn't understand me. I didn't say that you should go into a legal battle, but that there are other options than being completely submissive. A reasonable talk, stating your arguments, asking to reconsider and work out a middle-ground solution does not cost any money.