Information about Youtube and WMG and what's going on.

[katsuya_kaiba_chan]

Yes, us. Define us.

Us people who love waffles with a undeniable hunger for them! WAFFLE RIGHTS NOW! /silly

A collage professor once did the math and under the current laws, the average person breaks the copyright laws in upwards of about 10 thousand dollar worth of rulings per day.

Like what I did just there to Hasteroth, I copied what he/she wrote. Right there, I just committed copyright infringement against Hasteroth according to the DMCA.
If you have ever turned up your car audio so the CD or MP3 you were playing can be heard outside your car, you are committing copyright infringement.
If you talked about last Sunday's football game over the watercooler at work, BINGO Copyright infringement!

The companies cannot say that the copyright laws are too lax with all of this in mind. Who's up for copyrighting breathing at a particular rate?

[LivingFlame]

Holy crap, there is so much wrong with that post.

Like what I did just there to Hasteroth, I copied what he/she wrote. Right there, I just committed copyright infringement against Hasteroth according to the DMCA.

Just because it's written like that doesn't make it copyrighted. What Hasteroth said - "Yes, us. Define us" - has no creative merit to it (i.e. it is not a creative work) and therefore cannot be copyrighted. Not to mention it's too short to be considered a creative work in the first place.

If you have ever turned up your car audio so the CD or MP3 you were playing can be heard outside your car, you are committing copyright infringement.

This is slightly debatable, but would likely not violate copyright, circumstances pending. If you are doing it purposely to entertain a large group of people, you may be in violation. If you are playing it for a few friends, you aren't. If you are driving down the street with your windows down, you aren't violating copyright.

It's a similar concept to having a few friends over and watching a movie you have bought with them. It's not considered a copyright violation. If you have a movie screening for your neighborhood, that's where you've probably crossed the line. (The line itself isn't clearly defined. A judge would have to decide such a detail on a fairly independent basis.)

If you talked about last Sunday's football game over the watercooler at work, BINGO Copyright infringement!

Discussing anything cannot be in violation of copyright. It's the same reason a news station can use clips from last Sunday's football game, or clips out of a concert, etc. Critical commentary falls under fair use. Besides that, facts cannot fall under copyright. Forming an opinion about said facts also cannot violate copyright as the facts couldn't be copyrighted in the first place. For something to be copyrighted, it has to be put in a tangible medium (video, writing, audio, etc.) and it must have creative merit.


You're teacher obviously doesn't know crap about copyright if this is the kind of thing he/she is teaching you.

[dragontamer5788]

Nothing wrong with that. I firmly believe it is right for companies to fight for what is good for them. Now is the time however for us consumers and "remix artists" to start fighting for what is good for us. Copyright law needs to change for the betterment of us now.

Yes, us. Define us.

From a grammatical point of view, I've already defined "us". See the above quote, my quote bolded for emphasis. I don't really know what your point is, or what you want me to elaborate on...

[katsuya_kaiba_chan]

You might be right, I might be wrong when it comes to what I said in that post. (I also might be completely out of my skull...wouldn't be the first or last time I wondered that.) I'm not saying it's legally enforceable right now, mostly because nobody wants to take the time or the money to inforce it, it's a waste of both, but seeing how messed up the patient system is as well as the copyright system....ehhh...you never really know. Anything can happen in the courts with enough money.
The digital copyright laws were made when the internet still had that fresh floppy-disk smell, they need to be updated. It was written back when Windows 98 was out, AOL was on top of the world, Napster was dishing out the free music, and our Anime was on glorious VHS where you paid 10 bucks more for subtitled with original Japanese dub. Today is a new internet and a new era with whole new technology and the laws need to evolve with the technology.

And I can prove how screwed up the copyright system is today with just two words:

"That's Hot."

Copyrighted by Paris Hilton.

[dragontamer5788]

Don't confuse Trademarks and Copyrights. I just googled the phrase, and there appears to be a TRADEMARK on "Thats Hot", which makes a lot of sense. (The rights granted with a Trademark are pretty restrictive in comparison to a copyright) Pretty much, no one else can use the phrase "Thats Hot" to describe perfumes, else it might be confused with Paris Hilton's line of perfumes and other cosmetics. Basically, the phrase is being used as a name, or a "face" of the product.

On the other hand, a Copyright wouldn't offer that kind of protection. "Thats Hot" also is far too short and in common use that there is no way copyright law would consider it a copyright. Copyrights must be on a creative work after all.

I think you (or your professor) is confusing Copyright with Trademarks.

[katsuya_kaiba_chan]

I'm just going to be quiet now...I'm thinking my lack of sleep is making me stupid today lol. Just ignore me please. *Crawls off to play 360*

[BasharOfTheAges]

If you have ever turned up your car audio so the CD or MP3 you were playing can be heard outside your car, you are committing copyright infringement.

This is slightly debatable, but would likely not violate copyright, circumstances pending. If you are doing it purposely to entertain a large group of people, you may be in violation. If you are playing it for a few friends, you aren't. If you are driving down the street with your windows down, you aren't violating copyright.

In England they have ruled in the opposite manner. Intent does not matter - if it's loud enough to hear and is in a public area, even if it's an over-the-air radio broadcast, it's a violation. (and in the case in question they sued police officers)

[LivingFlame]

Guess I should've mentioned in my post that I only speak for US copyright laws. I haven't studied international copyright laws, so I can't speak to that.

[BasharOfTheAges]

Guess I should've mentioned in my post that I only speak for US copyright laws. I haven't studied international copyright laws, so I can't speak to that.

Doesn't matter all that much - most copyright law is a series of localized "victories" for the content holders that they use to influence laws in other countries "because it worked so well in _______"

[hasteroth]

Anyways, I've never given a crap about copyright laws. I've never publicly screened anything but I have done what most people here have probably done.

I mean hey, when the choice is, pay for a movie you'll probably watch once or download it for free, the choice is obvious. Copyright laws are in fact too strict but in all the wrong places.

To use a comparison, it's like legalizing drugs, if they're legalized then they'll be taxed heavily like tobacco and alcohol. When there is a cheaper, underground tax-free (or even free) alternative, people usually choose the alternative.

And laziness also tends to be a factor, for me, I'm too damn lazy and impatient to actually go out and buy the music, or movie, or game , or anime, or whatever. Not to say I'm some kinda hikikimori or something. I actually go outside and I do exercise (I'm a black belt in shotokan karate). It's just when I want something I prefer the path that takes the least effort and is the fastest. Which often leads to downloading.