davebenham
join:2002-01-31
Round Lake, IL
| reply to Logan 5
Re: Dag
I don't think US copyright law prevents usage of images in this manner. Even if it did, the economic impact of his use of the image is nil, as previously stated. The economic impact of illegal file sharing is millions of times greater. There is really no comparison between the two. |
|
k_mumm
join:2001-06-14
Laramie, WY
| reply to Fountainhead
Sure it didn't cost them any money. I won't argue that it did but on the other hand downloading a movie/song doesn't cost someone money. It may have lost a sale but there is no way to prove that everyone who downloads a movie would have paid for it. So it is impossible to put a value on how much this pirating is costing the industry.
Basically by your logic it's ok to infringe on someones copyright when they aren't offering what you want for sale. Sorry that argument just doesn't hold water. |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | reply to Fountainhead
Drivel like that still assumes that everyone who downloads a movie would go to the theatre if they couldn't download it. That's not true at all.
Some movies are worth supporting, but others(Gigli, not that I downloaded it anyways), aren't. |
|
Deathsadvoca
join:2003-08-20
South Lyon, MI
clubs: | reply to Cozworth
Its slightly harder to make DVD copys. The average person would not know how to do it (Especially since dvdxcopy is not availible). |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Fountainhead
said by Fountainhead  :
My use of this avatar has not cost Mike Judge or MTV money. And if they begin selling avatars, I will gladly pay them a fee. I think we need to keep things in perspective.
Just because the avatar is not for sale doesn't mean you can take "COPYRIGHTED" material and use it for yourself. Under your interpretation of the rules, you are in violation of copyright law UNLESS you can prove your avatar is a parody (which it is not.)
You seem to forget, even Fox TV was going after fan websites of the Simpsons and other Fox shows because they claimed it was hurting them not being able to control everything about their shows.
Sure bash those breaking the law but rationalize your own crime.  |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Fountainhead
said by Fountainhead :
I didn't say my use of the avatar is legal.
I said that the sale of images for avatars is currently not a business engaged in by MTV or Mike Judge and if they were to form a business by which I could pay them for the use, I would.
Much like a ringtone.
The use of this avatar has cost them zero cents.
First off, again, just because you can't buy it doesn't mean you can just take and use it. Look at TV shows. I like the show Max Headroom and it is NOT available on tape or DVD. Should I just be allowed to copy it for my collection? Legally, NO. That would be taking future profits from the producers of the show. Just because you say you would buy the avatar from Mike Judge and MTV doesn't mean your current use is legal or acceptable.
Same thing goes for ringtones. Verizon Wireless has publicly stated that they do not allow their customers to transfer their own ringtones into their phones because of copyright issues. They make them use their "Get it Now" service. Most other wireless phone makers think the same thing. Why do you think it costs $1-$2 just for a ringtone? The airtime is negligible at best. Even though the ringtone is (in most instances) a midi file, the melody is still the same and the author is still entitled to royalties.
Also, look at the DirectTV case in Canada. At first, the courts ruled that those making decoders for DirectTV were not breaking the law because they thought, as you do, that you cannot steal what is not sold. Later, the Canadian courts reversed themselves. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | reply to Deathsadvoca
Dvdxcopy sucked. Their are so much better. And its not hard to find the old versions. Also it wouldn't make it any harder to copy dvds because those that have older version of course would still have it. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to Fountainhead
said by Fountainhead :
My use of this avatar has not cost Mike Judge or MTV money. And if they begin selling avatars, I will gladly pay them a fee. I think we need to keep things in perspective.
I heard that argument before. "My downloading this movie doesn't cost the movie industry any money. If they began selling movie downloads, I will gladly pay them a fee."
said by Fountainhead :
On the other hand, the pirating and sharing of movies costs the industry billions of dollars.
If pirating is costing the industry billions, why is it that the cold hard facts show that more people are seeing movies this year than last year and that the overall amount taken in for movies every week is higher than movies per week a year ago? Please don't spread lies easily crushed by reading about the weekly box office on cnn.
said by Fountainhead :
Go ahead... continue down this path and fight for it as if you are entitled to copy movies and share them... and in the end, these industries will crumble...
According to sales the industries are doing better.
said by Fountainhead :
Congratulations... you win.
Well at least you got one thing right in your mindless rant. |
|
xdeadhead
220, 221, Whatever It Takes.
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA | reply to Deathsadvoca
netflix, dvd decrypter, dvd-shrink and nero 6
burn and return.
--
I am not Herbert. |
|
ghostpainter
I Write for the Apocalypse
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-25
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
clubs:
|  reply to Fountainhead
said by Fountainhead :
Here's an idea...
Dont illegally download music and film...
Suddenly.. no problem...
It's magic!
No the solution is to open Moive download sites like they have been promising to do...I would gladly pay ¢99 to $2.00 to ddl a first run movie...Why is that so hard??? |
|
reaver221
join:2003-05-08
Cincinnati, OH
| said by ghostpainter :
No the solution is to open Moive download sites like they have been promising to do...I would gladly pay ¢99 to $2.00 to ddl a first run movie...Why is that so hard???
Because you're not going to the theater to see it (~$8) and then maybe buying the DVD (~$20).
"Hey! Let me have your content at like 1/10 of the price! Why is that so hard?" |
|
ghostpainter
I Write for the Apocalypse
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-25
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
clubs:
| said by reaver221 :
said by ghostpainter :
No the solution is to open Moive download sites like they have been promising to do...I would gladly pay ¢99 to $2.00 to ddl a first run movie...Why is that so hard???
Because you're not going to the theater to see it (~$8) and then maybe buying the DVD (~$20).
"Hey! Let me have your content at like 1/10 of the price! Why is that so hard?"
Why is that so hard? A simple enough question, Why is that so Hard? |
|
reaver221
join:2003-05-08
Cincinnati, OH
| said by ghostpainter :
said by reaver221 :
said by ghostpainter :
No the solution is to open Moive download sites like they have been promising to do...I would gladly pay ¢99 to $2.00 to ddl a first run movie...Why is that so hard???
Because you're not going to the theater to see it (~$8) and then maybe buying the DVD (~$20).
"Hey! Let me have your content at like 1/10 of the price! Why is that so hard?"
Why is that so hard? A simple enough question, Why is that so Hard?
Because businesses are about making money. As much as high quality, downloadable $2 movies would rock, it's not going to happen. Businesses don't lower their prices just to be nice. |
|
z28kindaguy
Premium
join:2002-02-18
Brooklyn, MD
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to xdeadhead
said by xdeadhead :
netflix, dvd decrypter, dvd-shrink and nero 6
burn and return.
Word to that. 
--
Join Team Discovery today!|12.5 Ghz of Crunching Power. |
|
Logan 5
Some people go WAY over the top
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-25
The WasteLAN
·Pacific Bell - SBC
|  reply to davebenham
said by davebenham :
I don't think US copyright law prevents usage of images in this manner. Even if it did, the economic impact of his use of the image is nil, as previously stated. The economic impact of illegal file sharing is millions of times greater. There is really no comparison between the two.
Guess you can't or don't want to see things in perspective because you're WAY wrong on this one, so let me try to help you out.
Next time you watch a movie, or a program on tv, look for the little © symbol at the end of the credits. That means that the COPYRIGHT holder has exclusivity with regard to the character likeness thereof, mannerisms and just about anything else they care to protect.
To be able to use a likeness of a property like a Beavis, or Cartman from Southpark or whatever, one must pay a royalty fee to be able to legally use that likeness for whatver reason.
Failure to secure the proper licensing agreements can lead to civil or criminal penalty's up to or including jail time, fines and restution if it is determined that the illegal use of the trademarked or copyrighted item damaged the livelyhood or reputation of the trademark or copyright holder.
said by The header on the avatar page from BBR:
»/avatar
If your choice is likely to be popular or copyright (Dilbert, a famous band icon, symbols from popular games, disney characters, car logos), or is just not suitable for younger users of the site, then please think again as the moderators will just delete it before it is public.
copyright exists on the internet as well: You are responsible for observing any applicable copyright laws in choice and use of your avatar.
While this is OBVIOUSLY not enforced as aggressively as maybe it should be, just because you have the avatar that you have does not mean that BBR has somehow made it legal for you to be using it. The mods have better things to do than that, as they expect people to act somewhat civilizied and pleading ignorance of the law is not a good enough reason to be breaking it.
Economic impact is an irrelavent arguement as bottom line it is currently ILLEGAL under US copyright & trademark laws to use a likeness of anything copyrighted or trademarked with out the express written permission of the holder of the copyright or trademark.
I want you to prove me wrong. |
|
ghostpainter
I Write for the Apocalypse
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-25
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
clubs:
| said by Logan 5 :
said by davebenham :
I don't think US copyright law prevents usage of images in this manner. Even if it did, the economic impact of his use of the image is nil, as previously stated. The economic impact of illegal file sharing is millions of times greater. There is really no comparison between the two.
Guess you can't or don't want to see things in perspective because you're WAY wrong on this one, so let me try to help you out.
Next time you watch a movie, or a program on tv, look for the little © symbol at the end of the credits. That means that the COPYRIGHT holder has exclusivity with regard to the character likeness thereof, mannerisms and just about anything else they care to protect.
To be able to use a likeness of a property like a Beavis, or Cartman from Southpark or whatever, one must pay a royalty fee to be able to legally use that likeness for whatver reason.
Failure to secure the proper licensing agreements can lead to civil or criminal penalty's up to or including jail time, fines and restution if it is determined that the illegal use of the trademarked or copyrighted item damaged the livelyhood or reputation of the trademark or copyright holder.
said by The header on the avatar page from BBR:
»/avatar
If your choice is likely to be popular or copyright (Dilbert, a famous band icon, symbols from popular games, disney characters, car logos), or is just not suitable for younger users of the site, then please think again as the moderators will just delete it before it is public.
copyright exists on the internet as well: You are responsible for observing any applicable copyright laws in choice and use of your avatar.
While this is OBVIOUSLY not enforced as aggressively as maybe it should be, just because you have the avatar that you have does not mean that BBR has somehow made it legal for you to be using it. The mods have better things to do than that, as they expect people to act somewhat civilizied and pleading ignorance of the law is not a good enough reason to be breaking it.
Economic impact is an irrelavent arguement as bottom line it is currently ILLEGAL under US copyright & trademark laws to use a likeness of anything copyrighted or trademarked with out the express written permission of the holder of the copyright or trademark.
I want you to prove me wrong.
That is why RIAA and the MPAA are trying to overturn the Beta laws of the 70's as well....they want to make you taping on a VCR from a TV Illegal as well.... |
|
FutureMon
OW My Eyes
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Colorado Springs, CO
clubs:
1 edit | reply to k_mumm
said by k_mumm :
Sure it didn't cost them any money. I won't argue that it did but on the other hand downloading a movie/song doesn't cost someone money. It may have lost a sale but there is no way to prove that everyone who downloads a movie would have paid for it. So it is impossible to put a value on how much this pirating is costing the industry.
Basically by your logic it's ok to infringe on someones copyright when they aren't offering what you want for sale. Sorry that argument just doesn't hold water.
Damn straight.
I just sent Mattel a check for $1500 as an out-of-court settlement.
They were suing me because I had a Magic 8 Ball webpage.
Their grounds were that they suffered product market share "dilution" and loss of income due to my fraudulent use of their products' likeness.
Nevermind the fact that I wasn't using a pic of their product. I was using a real 8-ball off a pool table that I had modified into an animated GIF with a ? in it. Nevermind the fact that their product only had 20 answers, and mine had over 50 - out of which the only two that were the same were "Yes" and "No".
You can be sued for anything at any time. It's only a matter of how much money you have to throw at lawyers in your defense. Every single person who uses an avatar that is an image of someone else or someone elses work is at risk of being sued.
Imagine someone has an image of daffy duck as their avatar. They go around and post all sorts of lewd comments or are just generally up to no good with their attitude on boards all over the internet. I'm sure many of us know or have met in the past people who fit that description quite well.
However unfortunate it may be, some people may actually think that the person who posted those things was in some way affiliated with Warner Brothers, and file suit against them (Warner Brothers) for themselves or their children having been subjected to "whatever". That is Warner Brothers case against the copyright infringer, and they would be likely to win their case for damages.
Laugh now, but it could happen, if it hasn't already.
- FM
--
DCExec Member, Member of 'StarFire Seven' & Undisputed BBR Karaoke Champion! |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA | reply to Yowzaaah
roflmao yo ho ho an a bottle of rum
fire up my p2p proggy an download me some  |
|
Yowzaaah
Ours Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH
clubs:
1 edit | Nah...I'm a 1337 h4x0r p|r8:
Red Bull and Gin is as good as it gets,
I'm seeding 12 torrents and running freenet. |
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | reply to Fountainhead
Just another made up report that doesn't take into account the economy for one thing and just assumes like others have said that everyone just downloads the movie without seeing it in the theaters or buying the DVD. |
|
