BF2S Forums Piracy is just using the internet?

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Another example: a 10 year old makes a video of their pet doing silly things in the garden, they edit the video for comic effect and add a sound track (one of their favourite bands and for argument they bought the album). They upload the video to youtube, state where the song has come from (artist title etc, even a link to their website). The video goes viral and 300,000 people watch it before it is quickly deleted as part of a copyright claim.

At no point did the 10 year old claim or imply that the song was their work, they even supplied the source and a link for the artist. However technically the child has illegally distributed pirate material to 300,000 people and could be fined thousands of pounds for their offence. Morally / gut feeling that does not appear to be right, if anything copyright is being used to stifle creativity in this instance.

I agree with you that this example is sort of outrageous. It should be treated the same as written material. If sufficient credit is given and there is no plagiarism, it's completely legal.

You are publicly using someone's copyrighted work without their permission, ergo it is copyright infringement.

Not saying I agree nor disagree, it is how the law is.

Jaekus wrote:

You are publicly using someone's copyrighted work without their permission, ergo it is copyright infringement.

Not saying I agree nor disagree, it is how the law is.

If you're not using it for commercial purposes and give the author the proper credit, then it's not copyright infringement.

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

But the original point was that I dont have a Blue ray player, despite having a 1080p TV. Therefore irrelevant of whether it is free or not, I would rather download the full HD quality movie and watch it on my TV than buy the low quality DVD. Problem is that few legal sources host it in high quality, none of them use sensible compression and its always a slow naff link.

I agree with everything you said except the quoted part here. The only reason I don't agree with this is because it starts sounding like an "I am entitled to have whatever I want, and if I can't get it legally, then I must do it illegally." argument...

I didn't have a Blu-Ray Player until a few months ago. I still don't have one in my computer. But instead of feeling like I am entitled to have the same experience for free, I went out and bought a Blu-Ray player. If I wanted digital copies of my HD movies, I would buy a Blu-Ray player for my computer and rip my own stuff that I legally own.

I got an HD-DVD player as a gift back in 2007. I bought a bunch of HD-DVDs, including The Complete Matrix set that was $80. I don't feel like I am entitled to own it on Blu-Ray. I don't even feel like I am entitled to have a free digital copy of all of it without buying the HD-DVD-ROM to rip it... I feel like if I want to watch it, I need to go through the pain in the butt to hook up that HD-DVD player and watch it. OR, I need to buy a newer copy on Blu-Ray...

It sucks. It aggravates me... But I got a free HD player and I was dumb enough to buy into media for it, and that was my fault, knowing full well the format might not last. I don't feel like it is the market's fault and they owe me.


On to your other matter regarding using a band's music on youtube... Here is an alternate example of that: As long as you are legally standing where ever you are standing, you can photograph anything you can see from there. There are a couple restrictions to this here and there, but mostly it is true. (Main restrictions are private places that ban your cameras, or some federal/military buildings and such).

If you are standing on a street in New York City and take a picture of the busy sidewalk, you own the rights to that picture. You can post it online. You can sell it. You don't have to get permission from the people in it. If a woman is sunbathing topless on a public beach, you can take her picture. You can post it online. You don't have to have her consent. If you take a picture from the street of the Dallas Cowboys going into their stadium in their jerseys, you don't have to get permission from them, the NFL, or Jerry Jones...

(On this part, I know the laws might be different in different places) If I put security cameras on my house, I can film anything they can see from where they are. HOWEVER "sound" has a whole different set of laws due to the wiretap acts... I can't record sound on my security cameras without posting signs to notify people they are being recorded. I can record my conversation with you, without your knowledge... BUT, my wife can't record my conversation with you without either of us knowing... (At least one party has to know in Oklahoma).

This is a distinction that I don't really understand completely.

To wrap this back into everything: Why is it legal for me to take a picture of a model on the street who usually gets paid for her work, or a copyrighted logo that is publicly displayed, and post all of that online, but not legal to record the sound in my house and post it on the internet because a band was playing on the radio at the time?

Photographs are considered original works of art, but recordings are not. You can even take a photo of a painting and still own the rights to your photo because it is a new media. Paintings of paintings are fine (as long as you are not trying to pass it off as the original artist's work) because they are considered a new work of art. Photos of photos are a little different unless they have a different composition (Like a friend standing in front of a famous photo or something). All in all, so much is subject to interpretation that it is ridiculous. That is why you have idiots suing "The Hangover" because he copyrighted the tattoo he put on Mike Tyson's face, and they copied it onto another person... Tattoo piracy? Seriously?

I am mainly rambling. I understand this... I am tired. Hopefully some of this makes sense.