copyrights go to far
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
ltdan676 wrote...
to Fiery_penguin_of_doom have you even read what i have said. god damn you dont get the point. hell i own the rights to allot i posted. like the music i had the rights to. they said its ok to post on youtube. hell they like that i was telling everyone about the band.I've read it (twice actually, since you don't use proper punctuation and misspell a lot). If you owned the rights to it I should be able to look up the rights within the copyright office. Which would prove that you own the rights to it.
They were doing their job.
You bitched about them doing their job.
You claim they go too far by taking your stuff down.
Shaggy rebutted that it is far easier for them to close everything rather than hunt and pick the few who actually have the rights and or permission from the creator which is very time consuming since it requires the creator to verify who has permission to their content.
Arizth pointed out that I was right and added on that Doujin themselves can/are an illegal representation of the work of somebody else.
You can argue that they are parodies and are protected but, that's not here or there.
You countered with some unrelated event where a douche used Youtube's report system to have a guy's original content taken down because he disagreed with it (not because it broke copyrights).
Shaggy Jebus drives the point I was trying to make home.
You whine about how your blog was taken down and how you feel wronged. Then mention the bullshit about emails which serve no purpose in the conversation about copyright infringement.
And here we are.
Limewire, torrenting,etc,etc are all illegal methods of "sharing" content. Trying to justify your actions by saying that other people were doing it doesn't make you any less guilty.
The point is: You posted stuff you don't have the legal rights (if you did you could provide the papers/information required to prove that you have the rights to that product or that you had written permission from the creator of that content to post it on your blog. If you did, then we could look it up through the copyright office records. You didn't and they took it down. They didn't overstep their bounds, they stayed within their legal rights. Maybe they should have just asked you to remove the content like they did with Jacob but, you were probably didn't own the server you had "your" stuff on so they just contacted the people who hosted your site and just took it down.
Where did you have your blog (the site address or the hosting site address)? How much content did you illegally post? Did you own the sever that it was hosted on like Jacob & fakku (as in you bought a server and physically own that server and not just renting space)? Regardless if your "words" were there. You posted either images, pictures, art, music, videos,etc,etc,etc that somebody else created and that is what got you into trouble.
Just be thankful you weren't hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit.
you are just being rude go take a chill pill damn. your acting like its your personal mission to bitch at others for shit you guilty of as well.
i don't have the time and i don't care to debate this with you. i agree with Shaggy Jebus on this topic. i don't think he made your point clear at all. or he just said it better. he got what i was saying.
about the emails i was saying i am glad it happened now i am free. i was saying that it goes to far by overstepping there ground. they did not in fact have the rights to take it all down. you see i did have the right to allot of it. the music and pictures. the videos no but i am not the only one working on the site they put the videos up. in fact the videos were from megaporn so shit go after them. i guess its guilty by association.
also i don't feel guilty at all about downloading music or hentai. but once aging your the same as me are you not. i am just not a hypocrite
0
Spoiler:
No one told you to feel guilty.
It'd be a waste to do a companion breakdown to Firey's, since the only difference between the two is that mine would involve a lot more curses.
As for agreeing with Shaggy, I think you misread his post. He wasn't defending you, or your blog. He was simply pointing out how much simpler it is to flush it all, rather then pick out the rotten bits.
When you say you had the rights to the content...well, you keep saying that, and that's about all. I can say I own the fucking Pentagon, but they still won't let me within thirty miles without both some legal proof and a full cavity search for explosives. All that your blog seems to have hosted was hentai. Which is an illegal spin off of another's work. So, if the doujin's original artist had no right to it, where does your right to it come from?
I don't understand where you are coming from. You come here to bitch and whine about a takedown notice issued to your blog. Everyone points out the flaws in your argument. You respond with a "Fuck you, I don't like your opinion so shut up". What, exactly, do you hope to accomplish past this point?
0
Arizth i got the fuck you first so i think i have the right to say fuck you back. even if i never said fuck you at all.
also i never said Shaggy Jebus was defending me. Fiery said i did not own any rights when i did. were Shaggy said there just lazy and take down everything to save time.
anyways i was not meaning to bitch the topic is copyrights go to far? not help me with my blog. no its just this is not the first time but the dmca has a right to do it in this case. but not the other ones.
the dmca gives the power to anyone not just the copyright holder to damned things be taking down. i think there should be more to it then that.
i don't like to fight about point less shit but the fact is i did not start a fight i just asked a question to see others views. the question is does copyrights go to far or maybe i should say does the dmca go to far.
i was using the blog as one example over the dmca overstepping and i used youtube as well.
also i never said Shaggy Jebus was defending me. Fiery said i did not own any rights when i did. were Shaggy said there just lazy and take down everything to save time.
anyways i was not meaning to bitch the topic is copyrights go to far? not help me with my blog. no its just this is not the first time but the dmca has a right to do it in this case. but not the other ones.
the dmca gives the power to anyone not just the copyright holder to damned things be taking down. i think there should be more to it then that.
i don't like to fight about point less shit but the fact is i did not start a fight i just asked a question to see others views. the question is does copyrights go to far or maybe i should say does the dmca go to far.
i was using the blog as one example over the dmca overstepping and i used youtube as well.
0
Ahhhhhhhhhh man I've never seen Fiery_penguin_of_doom so hot headed this is getting exciting.
I'll agree they go to far, but it like shaggy said it's to save time and money. Do we really need the goverment (I am assumming your american) wasting more money to pay employees and hire new ones. It's all about efficency like have the internet is copyrighted I for one am glad they cant keep up. Don't want more of them.
P.S. are you using. periods and want not. as a joke or something because. I have bad grammer. and cant spell very well but I. dont get how you could do .this. by accident.
I'll agree they go to far, but it like shaggy said it's to save time and money. Do we really need the goverment (I am assumming your american) wasting more money to pay employees and hire new ones. It's all about efficency like have the internet is copyrighted I for one am glad they cant keep up. Don't want more of them.
P.S. are you using. periods and want not. as a joke or something because. I have bad grammer. and cant spell very well but I. dont get how you could do .this. by accident.
0
ltdan676 wrote...
i don't have the time and i don't care to debate this with you.Then why the hell did you post it in the Serious Discussions-section?
ltdan676 wrote...
i don't like to fight about point less shit but the fact is i did not start a fight i just asked a question to see others views.Yes you did.
They just answered to your OP and pointed out that your reasoning is dumb as shit, and you didn't like that and started mumbling about YouTube.
0
To be fair KLoWn everyone else has gotten a little off topic. As he said before The threads about Copyrights going to far. Not copyrights being wrong just that they go to far. He is upset and has everyone against him (I know his pain) sometimes people lose their cool and can't explain things in infinite detail.
0
ltdan676 wrote...
you are just being rude go take a chill pill damn. your acting like its your personal mission to bitch at others for shit you guilty of as well.also i don't feel guilty at all about downloading music or hentai. but once aging your the same as me are you not. i am just not a hypocrite
First, I wasn't damning you. Just pointing out that your logic is flawed when you complained about the DMCA overstepping their bounds when they were within their legal rights to do so. It's the same sort of logic when people complain the cops are going too far when they arrest a guy for assaulting a cop.
You don't have the rights to the stuff you posted. Otherwise, you could prove to us that you owned the rights. Here is an example of what I mean by "owning the rights"
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Walt+Disney&Search_Code=NALL&PID=uqfpqYYEHQfO8zYjOQys2Sn79X5&SEQ=20090311154529&CNT=25&HIST=1
Everything on that list is owned by the Walt Disney Company. Any attempt to "share" of distribute their work without their written permission is breaking the law and The Walt Disney Company is well within their legal rights to make you take down anything you posted that has their creation it. Here is another example
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=matt+Groening&Search_Code=NALL&PID=uqfpqYYEHQfO8zYjOQys2Sn79X5&SEQ=20090311154529&CNT=25&HIST=1
Everything on that list is owned by Matt Groening as in he owns the legal rights to everything on that list. If you distributed anything on that list without his permission (such as Simpsons episodes, Futurama episodes) you are breaking the law and he would be within his legal rights to make you take it down.
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Metallica&Search_Code=NALL&PID=uqfpqYYEHQfO8zYjOQys2Sn79X5&SEQ=20090311154529&CNT=25&HIST=1
Last example; Everything on this list is owned by Metallica (how they split the rights is up to them). If you pirate a song from Limewire or get it through the Pirate Bay, you broke the law.
If I was yelling, cussing, screaming, damning you it would be hypocritical but, I wasn't. You misread my words and gave them an "emotion" that wasn't there. I'm just saying that you shouldn't complain about them taking anything down when you were breaking the law in the first place. Yes, just about everything on this site is posted illegally and we shouldn't complain when Jacob is asked to remove certain items (I vaguely remember a video being taken down a few months back for copyright infringement). If you want to go into detail. Parodies are protected such as Weird Al's "White & Nerdy" which is a parody of "Ridin' Chamillionaire.
wiki wrote...
Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected from claims by the copyright owner of the original work under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 USC § 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.As for "Copyrights going too far". Why is it wrong for people who created something to own it? I hear this argument a lot from the type of people who buy one Metallica Album and believe they have "rights" to the rest of Metallica's music. If you went to work and made item (x) in order to sell it, it would be just as illegal for me to steal item (x) and distribute it which take money out of your pocket. What is so evil about musicians, artists, writers owning the things that they made? It is their intellectual property. In America we have a little concept called "property rights" and a owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer and exchange his or her property. It's not like even that hard to fire off an email to somebody saying "Hello, I would like permission to post item (x) on my website. I'll gladly give credit to the creator and even link visitors of my site to your site. Thank you".
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
As for "Copyrights going too far". Why is it wrong for people who created something to own it? I hear this argument a lot from the type of people who buy one Metallica Album and believe they have "rights" to the rest of Metallica's music. If you went to work and made item (x) in order to sell it, it would be just as illegal for me to steal item (x) and distribute it which take money out of your pocket. What is so evil about musicians, artists, writers owning the things that they made? It is their intellectual property. In America we have a little concept called "property rights" and a owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer and exchange his or her property. It's not like even that hard to fire off an email to somebody saying "Hello, I would like permission to post item (x) on my website. I'll gladly give credit to the creator and even link visitors of my site to your site. Thank you".I completely agree.
In this case, the enforcers of the copyright laws aren't going too far. As FpoD said earlier, you're lucky you didn't get any sort of punishment. All people who just have their stuff removed are lucky they don't get punished, because some people do get punished, and the punishments tend to be horribly severe. A few years back, I heard a story about a young girl who was being sued because she downloaded the song "Happy Birthday to You" for a birthday party. That is going too far. If anybody gets sued just for downloading music, it's going too far, because you could easily force the person to get rid of everything they have that they didn't pay for and not ruin that person's life. Because there are much worse things they could do to you, you can't say that deleting your posts is going too far.
0
ShaggyJebus wrote...
I heard a story about a young girl who was being sued because she downloaded the song "Happy Birthday to You" for a birthday party. That is going too far. If anybody gets sued just for downloading music, it's going too far, because you could easily force the person to get rid of everything they have that they didn't pay for and not ruin that person's life. Because there are much worse things they could do to you, you can't say that deleting your posts is going too far.That is going a little too far but, interestingly enough "Happy birthday to you" is copyrighted. Which means it is owned by someone (ASCAP or the Harry Fox agency if I remember correctly). This explains why restaurants don't have their employees sing "Happy Birthday" but, instead make their own "birthday" song.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
ShaggyJebus wrote...
I heard a story about a young girl who was being sued because she downloaded the song "Happy Birthday to You" for a birthday party. That is going too far. If anybody gets sued just for downloading music, it's going too far, because you could easily force the person to get rid of everything they have that they didn't pay for and not ruin that person's life. Because there are much worse things they could do to you, you can't say that deleting your posts is going too far.That is going a little too far but, interestingly enough "Happy birthday to you" is copyrighted. Which means it is owned by someone (ASCAP or the Harry Fox agency if I remember correctly). This explains why restaurants don't have their employees sing "Happy Birthday" but, instead make their own "birthday" song.
It's not just copyrighted; it costs a hell of a lot of money to be able to put it in a movie or TV show. That's why, if you pay attention, in TV shows, the song, "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" will be sung instead of "Happy Birthday to You" at birthday parties.
0
to KLoWn my blog was not what this topic was to be about.
i never heard of someone being sued for the birthday song.
that's just wrong but within there right.
to Fiery_penguin_of_doom the music i dont own the rights but i can post it. i emailed the band that i was going to upload some songs to youtube. they said thanks for getting the word out about the band. so i guess i can use they songs right.
i never heard of someone being sued for the birthday song.
that's just wrong but within there right.
to Fiery_penguin_of_doom the music i dont own the rights but i can post it. i emailed the band that i was going to upload some songs to youtube. they said thanks for getting the word out about the band. so i guess i can use they songs right.