You're way off on this one. They are going to get smashed in the wallet for this and whatever sign-ups they get will be a drop in the bucket compared to what they will have to pay out.

I wonder if the legal hammer will fall on any affiliates for promoting same?

I know the music behind a lot of the clips in my network is not "cutting edge" but at least it is all legal!

This case is more complex than you may think if the scenes were shot in a "public" place & not a studio / rented house etc.

So lets see: I read that some of the sites seized by feds the past days, were embedding copyright infringements. Isn't Google (Google VIDEO/index) doing the same?
And what about photos and text? When they cache, then THEY are the "uploaders" of that content to their own site. They scrape the content into their own domain/server, it's not submitted. Why is Google "protected" and not others?

The sites shut down in recent days by the Gov were selling counterfeit copies of zero release movies that haven't changed a medium. It's piracy without question.

Cache is part of the technical aspect of being online or you could get into trouble for having cp porn on your pc simply through your browser cache and something you never noticed on some site. That would be why Google and everyone doing this is protected.

My point was, if you're illegally using copyrighted music they will be coming for you, cuz the music industry is changing & they need the money to stay in business. I never suggested people should be allowed to steal. I'm in the music biz...that's the last thing I want to see. But content creators will never stop creating content, so there will always be someone to steal from. You don't need a 'dinosaur' for that... :1orglaugh

Besides, when was the last time 'dinosaurs' have released anything we want or is "useful"?

Ok Doc, if they were doing that there is no doubt.
But if you use a cache for something commercial (like wrapping ads around it) you also have some responsibility to check what cache is published? Is it really true that everyone doing this is protected? I think Google is "protected" because of their money.

Protected by what? It's a cache for a search result "you" are asking for (ie the user). They're protected as a provider/isp - when you notify them of infringements or problems, they remove it as required by law.

Cached sites were around long before Google came around.

Side note.... The music Industry posted record sales and income last year and this year is kicking ass for them too. This isn't about 'needing money' - 75 million is a drop in the bucket to them.

Ok, so that means any statement like "all text, graphics, content... on this website must not be duplicated" is in fact a useless statement for legal use, if I sent a bot to "cache" it into my own "search engine" with all my own ads wrapped on it?

Every browser duplicates it, lots of ISP's cache the Internet, let alone search sites and backbones, and so on.

The text, a website must not be duplicated is about stealing a copy of the site and putting that site online at a different location, domain, etc.

Googles cache and all others, allows the org site to be visited and if any changes took place the cache updates. At that, Google isn't displaying your Website around ads... they display samples of text or thumbnail samples, which lead to the full version as a sourced reference.

Fair use makes it legal and makes any other version/idea of that text to be.... useless.

lol at you dummies arguing with gideon.

so brothers grimm story were public domain because they were based on public domain

so why exactly does disney snow white deserve copyright protection then smart guy

your so desperate to try and make your bogus arguement that you are actually talking in circles.

Public domain is not a viral licience it like BSD licience in software not the GPL.

oh and btw i caught how you deliberately dodged the fact that the brother grimm REVISED the traditional story changing it from the mother to the step mother in the 5th revision.

if the traditional story was mother as the villian, then by definition the step mother version was not simply "published stories (traditional folk tales) that ALREADY EXISTED"

the fact that they changed it from mother to step mother, means it did not already exist.

i am not the one makeing circular arguements.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Does anyone here think that gideongallery is NOT making "circular" arguments?

First he comes into a discussion about using other people's music.
Then he changes it to say that Disney "stole" Snow White from the Brothers Grimm.
And now he changes that to ponder how Disney is able to protect their re-written VERSION (by a team of screenwriters) of the story.

Stay on point much gideongallery?

Again, you are showing your character. Double talk and gibberish. On and on. Over and over. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

"Time traveling vcrs" indeed! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

If anyone needs custom original soundtracks for their videos, I am available. Any style of music you like. :)

damn thats pretty crazy.

what are the chances of them folding because of this?

and if it fair use it not copyright infringement

that a circular proof

you argued that it was an infringement just because it wasn't licienced

the fact that fair use isn't licienced proves that statement to be false

you can't reverse the false condition by repeating a circular cycle of the arguement again.


i specified the context

this is not about the music industry trying to collect a fair fee, it not like they had an open licience that said give us 5% of the gross of every video featuring our song and then suing RK for not paying that licencing fee.

This is about using copyright to censor the story, to prevent the free expression. by refusing to licience the music at any price.

that why covers are fair use, because you take only a piece (the lyrics).

it not based on timing only (x seconds) but any piece

exactly censorship not income protection.


wrong a parody was protected because it was a parody. if what you were saying there would be no need to have a seperate parody fair use.

if what you were saying parody songs that take the ENTIRE COPYRIGHTED SCORE would be illegal, they are not.

parody is a completely different fair use then sampling.
they are not dependent on each other for protection under the statute.


this is not an issue of RK choosing not to pay an open licience (5% of gross etc) but the music industry preventing the story from being told by refusing to licience their music.


actually she did, the court ruled what she did was fair use.
what is currently being argued is how much money universal owes her under the counter liability of the DMCA for sending the bogus take down request.

RK is doing exactly the same thing, the music is in the background, it only a small portion, and the story makes no sense without the music (sex in the "dance" club vs kid dancing to music)

censorship is not ok. If this was RK refusing to pay a fair and open liciencing fee, one that was not an attempt to attach a fee so high it was impossible to pay then i would agree with you

this however is an attempt to use copyright law to censor. which is wrong, and what fair use is designed to stop.

"Sample" any of my work and I'll sue too. RK will lose this all around. Their inability to produce a "story" that "makes sense" without stealing the property of others is not an excuse. Saying "Well, we needed it because the story must be told!" is not a proper defense. It's not a parody and it's not "Fair Use" and you know it.

It's Copyright Theft.

Ouch! That's not good...

Not exactly, more like they must have enough money to settle at a price that is worth your time to sue.

In a case like this, the 7.5 million or what ever they are going for will never happen. They will go bankrupt if a judgment that high happened then no one would win. I could see this getting settled, probably a closed door thing for some where in the 2-5 million range, if they have enough money to be able to do that and still stay in business.

just my guess.

The music industry is looking to pick up a couple extra bucks, make a point and try to deter others from doing this.

Win, Lose or Settle its not gonna be cheap.

Not sure if the actual contents of the lawsuit were posted, but I found this:

http://misstilaomg.com/2010/07/08/ex...m-their-piece/

Simply put, it doesn't fall under the rules of fair use, at all or even a tiny bit.

They could have used legal music and still had free expression, it didn't limit them when the rest of the Industry is able to comply. Limiting the free expression/censorship of it, would be the entire Industry and unfortunately for RK and your argument, plenty of music studios do lic to our Industry.



They don't have pieces, pieces would be seconds and in a loop and either way, sampling is not this as defined by the Courts and is not what RK is doing and that's the overall point.


Whatever you want to think... Courts many times have said the Parody is a sampling of the work, otherwise it wouldn't be a parody, it would be Copyright theft due to stealing/publishing the original work. Again though, this argument means nothing - RK isn't creating any form of a Parody.


Again, the music industry is not preventing this, some studios are which they're are legally allowed to do.

I tried to find the ruling and couldn't... however other rulings have been made based on the same situation. End of the day, she is not profiting from it, she is not damaging the brand/image of them, she is not duplicating it and selling it as an org, she is not using trademarked/copyrighted terms to promote it...

It's so not the same, any idiot can understand that.

Again, nobody is censoring them. They have 10,000's of songs they could Lic, many for free but of course most cost money... nobody is limiting them, stopping them from expressing anything. I have personally Lic music for porn, so have many others - how do they know if they would deny them if they didn't even try?

What they are doing is violating basic copyrights that have been easily established in the Courts at every level.

Truly, it boggles my mind you're trying to argue this... for sure with the argument you're providing.

When you were a member? WTF, you are a big supporter of stolen content but yet you going to tell us that you paid to be a member of a porn site ? hunh? :upsidedow

I think you are a decimal point off:

Max Statuatory damages of $150k x 500 infringements= $75Million (not $7.5Million)

But if your estimate is altered for that decimal point that would be a $20 to $50M settlement.

Big names like these don't care about settlement, if the settle, they set a trend. They have the money to go all the way to prove a point, and they most likely will. It will be something I'm sure we'll all be keeping an eye on.

I've been saying that since day 1. I guess no one wants to listen or try it out. DMCA hinges on "user upload". Sue the tube site, and then they will be forced to produce records (accounts, ips, time / dates (logs) of each and every video that was uploaded to their site. Then they will be exposed as the people who uploaded it, therefore no DMCA protection.

It's not rocket science.

I bet you they will settle.

If they wanted to prove a point they would have picked a company with a smaller budget who couldn't fight them. They would have smashed them into the ground and won before a court case even started.

They picked a company big enough to fight them but with enough money to write a big fat check and still stay in business. If RK has to cough up 10 million, I think they proved a pretty big point. The music industry is more concerned about collecting these days then proving points though. To sue them and win 75 million or what ever, they will never see any of that money. They want to get paid and make a point.

Quote from page 15 of the complaint ".....recordings and musicial compositions are contained in the "full" versions of the Videos (accessible only to paid members of their website), defendants have stripped the music out of the "sample" version of those Videos (accessible for free to the public), replacing it with "stock" music.

""In other instantces the title of the song (or a variation of the title the song) also is used as the title of the Video or the song is used to set the 'theme' for the video or drive the action during the scene."

Ouch not just playing in the background, not simply just recording it.

So basically the music industry followed the law... they registered the copyrights, sent take down notices, and then filed legal action.

This is exactly what the law was designed to do...

Where do you find time to write this shit?

i am trying to understand your arguement

according to wikipedia
even if you were correct (which the scholarly information proves your not) and brothers Grimm didn't combine 3 different stories into there own revision, it is a proven fact that stepmother version was a re written version of the original story (first published)

you argued that disney had a right to take the final step mother version of the story. The one re-written from the oral story first published (assuming your completely false assessment)

now your argueing that disney re-written VERSION deserves copyright protection.

i am just asking you to explain why brothers grimm re-written version is not worth of protection but disney's is.

i know the true answer, grimms re-written version (both the merged story, and the unique re-write) were copyrighted work. The copyright expired and that why disney could legally use it, no stealing it.

your the one who is arguing it was always public domain, your just not explaining why the grimm re-write was not copyright worthy.

I still disagree, 10 million to these guys is nothing. I think they would rather go after the 75 Million, have a judgment and show their pride. What's 10 million after legal fees and split by however many labels. Not a whole lot. Again, this is just my opinion.

I'll write slow so you can understand then...

And I'll put it in musical context.

12 bar blues. Nobody knows who first put those chords together. Was it in Africa? Or later in the slave fields? Or sometime in the early 1900's? Where? When? Who? Nobody knows.

Does Robert Johnson hold the copyright to 12 bar blues? No. Muddy Waters? No. Any of the first recorded blues masters? No.

Simple twist here and there with those same chords, that same meter, that same cadence, and it is a different song.

Do you understand that?

No, you can't say that with a straight face about taking a brand new song and doing that.
But some things have been passed down since the beginning of man. Stories, fables, songs, nursery rhymes, etc.

Snow White is a fairytale gideongallery. It is no more able to be credited to the Brothers Grimm than playing an open G tuned blues can be credited to Muddy Waters.

Now how about getting BACK to the original subject Mr. "Circular" Argument.

It is WRONG to take somebodies original song straight from the damn album and put it in your movie without permission AND payment.

You know, you CLAIM to have some bands that you now are showing your magical formula to become millionaires by having their shit stolen. I hope you are telling them that IF somehow they really do make the big time, you are going to have no problem having their music stolen and used by anybody who wants to at any time.

really how does RK use of the music cost the industry a single sale.

i have already shown that fair use can be commercial (micheal moore, weird al, vcr, as long as it indirect) which this is since they are not selling the music only using it to tell a story.

the nature of the work is music which is irrelevent since music doesn't have any special copyright status when it comes to sampling

they only used a portion of the song

the last condition is the only one left

so how many people can you prove didn't buy the full song because a portion was used in an RK porn video.

vs how many who did because the song is now associated with getting a blow job in their mind.

bullshit, name one heavy played club song that liciences it for porn videos, playing something else CHANGES the story. Playing a custom created song CHANGES the story.

this is not using copyright material as generic background music to a fuck scene, this is using music in a contextual way to tell a story.



that is the legal definition of sampling, the ones you are using are the specific ones derived from that generic definition to fit a specific case, they don't apply to RK because the specifics of that case don't apply, not because the definition is "wrong".




produce just one such case, where a judge specifically said parody was only legal because it was a sample of the copyright material.



the exclusive right of the copyright act is to sell, to commercially profit from, not to prevent expressions that you disagree with.

so no they are not legally allowed to do this.

you keep trying to make the arguement that it only fair use if you don't profit even though i have presented countless examples where people profited from fair use.


fine produce just 1 that says it fair use because you didn't make money, if you made money it would be infringement


produce 1 top 40 dance song that licienced for porn video.

just because another porn story can be told with unrecognizable music doesn't mean this story can be.

if the story has to be changed when you licience the music then that censorship plain and simple.

Gideongallery...you are just stupid. The end.

I can't believe RK does not have a ace up their slieve, and have not consulted their lawyers prior to doing this. I see it as music industry trying to fish for a settlement by trying to scare RK into big lawyer fees and a long legal battle, nothing more. If this was as clear as some of you say here, they'd be sued way sooner.

again you still haven't answered the question

what you just said justifies the brother grimm re write (step mother version) to have the same copyright protection as disney's version (all or none i don't care)

you have not answered the question

why does disney re write justify copyright protection, while grimm re write does not.


and grimms re-write of the original story was as significant if not more significant then disney re-write of the grimm version.

i am not arguing that grimm had a right to take the public domain out of the public domain and lock it behind copyright, in fact given the original thread i was complaining about that very court ruling.

if disney had taken 1 of the three stories that were merged by the grimm brothers into a single snow white story, then and only then would you be able to make the arguement that you did.


but that not what we are talking about, if the music was openly licienced and RK simply took it to avoid paying the fair market fee, i would agree with you

this is about using copyright to censor free speach by refusing to licience the content at any price.

Gideon, what you are failing to realize is that copyright protects the creator/owner of he music from having it used in a fashion that they do agree with.

Here are three quick examples.

Moby. Moby licenses his music to a ton of products and companies, but he explicitly says he will not license his music to companies that make weapons or do any kind of animal testing/animal cruelty. If Smith and Wesson decided to use his song on a video they made, he could sue them and he would win. It makes no difference if they making money off the video or not, he doesn't want to be associated with them and he has that right.

Your girl Marie Digby. You bring this girl up every time people talk about music copyrights. So say Marie writes an original song that I like. I decide to use it in my newest movie Sodomy Sluts #4- Return of The Ass Fuckers. Marie decides she doesn't want to be affiliated with Sodomy Sluts #4. She can sue me and will win. It doesn't matter if I am not hurting her sales.

Political campaigns. Often politicians will adopt a "theme song", a song they play at all their rallies and appearance. Many times they don't ask permission to use this song, they just do it. There have been a few different cases in recent years where the artists didn't want to be affiliated with that politician and sued to make them stop using their song and won. Again, it makes no difference if they didn't cost the singer a sale or harm them in any way, the singer doesn't want it affiliated with that person and they have that right.

Remember copyright allows the copyright owner control over the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. It doesn't always have to be about money.

I know you don't care and I know you will give me a 12 point post on the VCR and the Diamond Rio and you will splatter 18 kinds of shit against the wall in a circular argument in an effort to confuse everyone into thinking you are right, but in this case you are wrong. If you use someone's music in your movie without getting permission/paying the licensing fee and they decide to sue, you are fucked. Especially when they use your music in a for profit venture which is exactly what is happening here.

For those interested in reading it, there's a copy of the complaint itself available via a link at the bottom of AVN's article about it.

It's interesting reading, and if you look closely at the details, you'll see there are some aspects of this that might be easier for a court to base its decision on than the First Amendment/fair use questions being discussed in this thread. :2 cents:

No it doesn't

section 106 of the act says
and section 107

you will notice that political agreement of principles/personal desire of the copyright holder is not one of the conditions.

fair use doesn't allow this type of exclusion, it is an abuse of the law that should be invalidated just like previous court established fair uses like timeshifting and format shifting.




again censorship is a completely different issue from loss of revenue.

fair use prevents the censorship aspect, it does not prevent the lost revenue aspect.


BTW
i find it interesting how you keep refusing to give me permission to exclude you from my work. As i pointed out in the previous thread (and here too) fair use would prevent me from invalidating your affiliate sales to any program that used my techniques(my copyright)

i asked you for permission to do that, to claim your money as my own. If you truly believe i as a copyright holder should have such a right, why do you refuse to give me such permission.