Fair Use?

[jamochawoke]

but by making it available to be downloaded by others ( putting it up on a site such as the Nexus) you have stepped beyond the intent of Fair use/fair dealing - NO MATTER WHETHER YOU PROFIT FROM IT OR NOT.

 

IF that were true YouTube would've ceased to exist long ago.

[Thandal]

but by making it available to be downloaded by others ( putting it up on a site such as the Nexus) you have stepped beyond the intent of Fair use/fair dealing - NO MATTER WHETHER YOU PROFIT FROM IT OR NOT.

 

IF that were true YouTube would've ceased to exist long ago.

That "If it's on YouTube, it must be ok to use it." nonsense has just got to stop.

YouTube is full of copyright infringing materials.

 

Their policy: "We don't remove it unless we get a request from the copyright holder."

 

The Nexus policy: "You must have permission, or we'll remove it for you. (Oh, and ban your account if it's particularly egregious, deliberate, or a repeated offense.)

 

The concept of "Fair Use" is so misused it has almost no meanning outside a courtroom. The generally accepted examples of where it applies include; commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. Mods don't fall under any of those! :armscrossed:

 

If you think so, (and misbehave as a result) you'll find yourself tossed overboard from the Good Ship Nexus.

[bben46]

When we can afford the army of lawyers that google provides to Youtube, (Google owns Youtube) then maybe we will be able to thumb our nose at the big content providers who sue youtube/google on a daily basis - they win some and lose some, but keep the lawyers on both sides in plenty of money.

 

Here is the latest in their war of lawyers. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/riaa-wants-to-issue-unlimited-takedowns-to-google/

 

Note that in ONE MONTH - MS took down 380,000 posts and NBC took down 209,000. The music people are screaming that google (YouTube) doesn't take infringers down fast enough and want full rights to take them down themselves. Google is fighting that.

 

Note that there are many take downs that are bogus - just removed on the say so of some big content provider when they really don't own the copyright at all.

[JimboUK]

Youtube also have licence agreements with a lot of content owners, that's why a lot of stuff on there has a "buy" link inserted into the description.

[Ghogiel]

RIAA is suing limewire for 73 TRILLION dollars. (yes that is more money than the GDP of all the countries in the world.)

 

So if you think those nubs, and those bodies like it, aren't completely batshit crazy and won't sue anything that moves for more money than exists, might be a surprise waiting. They will just look at the combined worth of the nexus sites, and just say MINE. And that will be that. They'll pursue jail time for granny who having a copy of an mp3 off a broken Beatles cd she no longer has or can prove she owned.

[jamochawoke]

I still don't see how what I am doing is any different than a techno artist sampling a recording for a 1 second blip, especially when it's heavily altered and mashed up.

[Lisnpuppy]

You don't have to understand..just obey. :tongue:

Seriously though....

[JimboUK]

I still don't see how what I am doing is any different than a techno artist sampling a recording for a 1 second blip, especially when it's heavily altered and mashed up.

 

Artists have been successfully sued for sampling, others have settled out of court.

[bben46]

Who told you life was fair? :rolleyes:

 

Fair use has nothing to do with being 'fair'. It's just a sop to make people think the big content owners are reasonable when they get to change what 'Fair Use' means to suit themselves. Their idea of fair use means thet they will give you a chance to settle out of court for whatever amount they think is reasonable - something on the order of $3000 per tune they find on you computer. Their 'proof' is that they found them on your computer. Now, How did they find them on your computer unless they illegally searched it? The court conveniently overlooks that part. And the judge 'conveniently ' finds a few extra bucks in his bank account. Google the Jamie Thomas trial to see this in action.

 

And Limewire being sued for more money than exists? How can a non crooked judge not throw that one out and slapp the people who brought it with a huge fine for wasting the court's time? Note: the judge did tell them it was too much and to go back and find a 'more reasonable' amount. http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f351/charonn0/ohgeez-1.gif

 

Now, ask Kim Schultz (AKA Km Dotcom) just how fair the US justice system is when they break their own laws to ruin a man and his business because the big content companies want him shut down - and don't care about silly things like laws.

[jamochawoke]

Lol. I'm not complaining about what's fair and what's not fair, you're the one who brought that up. I see what I am doing falling perfectly under Fair Use guidelines... You know, the actual law in discussion that Nexus policy is formed around. You tell me it is not for fear of suit. I haven't seen a proper argument that it is not. At all. No logical explanation, no laying out of the actual law that says it does not fall under Fair Use and is somehow unlike all other mods that are present on the Nexus that are like it.

 

I wanted a socratic dialogue to help me make a decision about what to do with my work and you gave me fear mongering, half-formed arguments, and "obey".

 

Wow.

 

If people actually listened to that they'd have never made any mods for fear of any of Bethesda's own assets being used and distributed, even if they are highly altered.

Edited June 5, 2012 by jamochawoke