In the last post somebody pointed out only willful infringement... for full description...
Shadow16nh, Jun 16th, 2011 @ 4:59pm
This article grossly misrepresents the implications of the proposed bill.
People who upload innocuous covers to YouTube and those who may link to them elsewhere will be absolutely unaffected by it.
Read the bill more carefully and you’ll see that the “…10 or more public performances…” stipulation is only applicable in conjunction with one or more of the subsequent provisions.
You fail to note that this law only applies to *intentional* infringements where the total retail value of the performances exceeds $2,500 and the total fair market value of licenses for such use must exceed $5,000.
Please check your facts more thoroughly in the future before allowing yourself to take an alarmist stance."
I'll stand by the alarmist every time when intentional infringes are anybody with a regular cam or web-cam, making public performance with music they bought & making a living doing so. The same can be said for any service or performance art that uses music.
It's bad enough Happy Birthday is copyrighted. And yet, only enforced in a public.. or I mean private restraunts. This bill effectively reaches in to a private home and says you cant work for yourself.
I was going for joking levity in a stressful time when I mentioned the cam-girls and yet your basically saying go strip elsewhere, we want a clean internet neighborhood. Boggles the mind.
Considering we cant even figure out the age of consent and methods of coherence from state to state? Top of that in most countries your allowed to hunt at the age of 12 but not have sex or drink. Scratch that, you can drink at 12 in some countries. Oh, and don't get me started on people being stuck in sex offender tent cities because they decided to fall in love with a freshmen in high-school there graduating year. Fun fact, it was 10 originally in English common law and gradually grew from there.
It's amazing how many times I see the Eudophilia poster in the demotivationals.
Re: Re: Re: Copyright enforcement is simply just a lost cause anyway.
Wow I regret having thoughts 5 minutes later. In Nina's last post about how you don't need her permission on anything posted is something to bring up with Tom fulp as well.
other thought was that it was the crowd that called out the re-poster in YouTube and it was handled that way thankfully. Though I think Newgrounds didn't get the view count I may have because of the tard.
Re: Re: Copyright enforcement is simply just a lost cause anyway.
The only thing I do regret on posting music on newgrounds is the non-commercial use for many reason that Mike has brought up too many times to mention. However, I see one workaround and that is actually get the artist permission to do so.
Re: Copyright enforcement is simply just a lost cause anyway.
Considering I subscribe to the top 5 and my g-mail filter is set to have anything with newgrounds in the e-mail to send it to my newgrounds archive. Low behold my TechDirt label didn't get this one. Lulz, Yeah I'm with you.
Now the trick is to get Tom Fulp and gang to actually advertise the site to this end.
Today's modern music brought to you by the site that gave you Charlie the Unicorn (albeit the youtube upload made it popular without permission... ironically enough)
Speaking about the 90% I just had a week long discussion with my mother via FB about the red herring/distraction debate on immigration after posting the a RTR news cast on the marine's honor parade. How it came up still blows my mind and the conversation stopped rather came to any meaningful conclusion.
By the people & for it? ignore your surroundings at your peril.
I did mention in the past few weeks that Anonymous needed a PR campaign though the end game seems to fit there agenda which leaves most of us that take issue with these companies with a big fat smile on our face.
If said arguments given for said ruling are based in the best interest of the [company/public] you have my viewpoint quite clearly here.
As upholding the law on contract rights this is a big win and that is certainty in the public's best interest.
Though I'm still wondering if anybody is going to bring up a first amendment issue on fair-use in these cases. Or have I missed that story along the line? One question I have is it really in the best interest of the public that the business, or in this case the press, has power to squelch speech in any shape or form regardless of contribution?
In Fairness the terrorism thing, (ye know, with him that shall not be shown being horcruxed) was getting tired, the went back to an old stand-by, or rather the DOE toes were getting stepped on so they had to step it up and look useful. Like they did a short while ago on getting a warrant issued in a educat... i mean criminal case.
Because Homeland Securities' objectives can be one with minds a loan. (ya, I've been thinking about that one for a week now)