Nervous Guy Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 It IS different depending on the item you use, you dipshit! If i hit you over the head with shovel, or hit you in the face with a styrofoam cooler, BELIEVE me, you will then know the difference. You're logic should really be documented. It is so amazing assinine sometimes that I really feel other people outside of TBD are really missing out here. 142608[/snapback] Reminds me of this dialog in Seinfeld: "You really need some help. A regular psychiatrist couldn't even help you. You need to go to, like, Vienna or something. You know what I mean? You need to get involved at the university level, like where Freud studied, and have all those people looking at you and checking up on you. That's the kind of help you need. Not the once-a-week for eighty bucks, no. You need a team. A team of psychiatrists working around the clock, thinking about you, having conferences, observing you like the way they did with the elephant man. That's what I'm talking about, because that's the only way you're going to get better." - Jerry, to George, in "The Pitch" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Technically making such copies are illegal. But a company has to measure whether to go after somene based on how much they "lost" over the deal and how much they could gain/lose from pursuing it. Just because you can figure out that someone is doing something illegal doesn't mean that you go after them. You have to pick your battles or risk losing money (and face) in chasing them down. A good example is the speed limit. It's posted at 55. A cop clocks you doing 57. Is he going to chase you down to give you a ticket (pending he sees no other issues in your driving)? No. We all know that generally a cop won't bother with you if you stay within 10 (conservatively) or 15 (pretty much true in NYS) MPH of the speed limit, because it is not worth the hassles...and so when you are driving you get frustrated when you get behind someone who is driving the speed limit. The same goes for making copies of games. If you are providing copies in the "handfuls" and are only charging for your costs, it hardly seems worth it for the NFL to "clamp down" on your pirating, especially since they don't offer every game for re-sale. But, if you put together your own highlight reel with accompanying soundtrack, and broadcast it on the web, you bet they will chase you down (as they did to a member of the Zone). 142573[/snapback] Thank you for providing the answer that BF is desperately looking for to justify the Artest situation. Throwing the plastic cup and copying protected DVDs are illegal acts. Note to BF - What actions are taken to remedy those wrongs is the distinction we're trying to hammer in your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 If i hit you over the head with shovel142608[/snapback] Like This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Why do I compare it with Artest? It has nothing to do with what I think about Artest really. I've moved past that. I just find it highly amusing that a crime such as theft is so clear cut in the eyes of these two and yet assault is different depending on the item you use. Many people here probably have Bills games on tape. Did you know that's illegal? I'm sure you do, but that doesn't stop you. I forgot though, it's so much easier to tell someone else how to run their life than it is to run your own. As for Nanker, they aren't out to get me, they just think they know it all. They don't. 142595[/snapback] I'll tell you what...you assault me with a plastic cup. I'll assault you with a speeding car. We'll see if those are different or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I'll tell you what...you assault me with a plastic cup. I'll assault you with a speeding car. We'll see if those are different or not. 142637[/snapback] It's almost not worth it anymore with him.... I don't think he can be saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 It's almost not worth it anymore with him.... I don't think he can be saved. 142641[/snapback] Steve...I've called you stupid before, but I want to apologize to you right now for ever, ever comparing your brand of stupidity to his. He's in a totally different universe. Yeah, I know that was a "slightly" backhanded apology...but I'm an !@#$. Live with it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Thank you for providing the answer that BF is desperately looking for to justify the Artest situation. Throwing the plastic cup and copying protected DVDs are illegal acts. Note to BF - What actions are taken to remedy those wrongs is the distinction we're trying to hammer in your head. 142626[/snapback] I have moved past Ron Artest and the brawl. I think he probably should have just shrugged it of or maybe said something to the guy. What I'm trying to say is that for someone to say that the movie industry should sue 15 year olds for pirating Spider Man and then say that Ron Artest should "shurg it off" because it was "just a cup" is contridictary. They are both petty crimes. I just find it very stupid when someone condones lawsuits against children for a petty crime, but wants to hang someone else for reacting to a petty crime. The logic is just flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Steve...I've called you stupid before, but I want to apologize to you right now for ever, ever comparing your brand of stupidity to his. He's in a totally different universe. Yeah, I know that was a "slightly" backhanded apology...but I'm an !@#$. Live with it... 142647[/snapback] Yeah he actually had a good tag line that I had to add to my sig. Who knows maybe we have the making of the next Ed. yes I know another back handed compliment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Steve...I've called you stupid before, but I want to apologize to you right now for ever, ever comparing your brand of stupidity to his. He's in a totally different universe. Yeah, I know that was a "slightly" backhanded apology...but I'm an !@#$. Live with it... 142647[/snapback] I'll accept it, whatever it was. I know I say some bizarre, mind numbing, even stupid things sometimes, but this is a whole new breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Why do I compare it with Artest? It has nothing to do with what I think about Artest really. 142595[/snapback] Then why did you bring up Artest earlier in the thread? Post # 49 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Steve...I've called you stupid before, but I want to apologize to you right now for ever, ever comparing your brand of stupidity to his. He's in a totally different universe. Yeah, I know that was a "slightly" backhanded apology...but I'm an !@#$. Live with it... 142647[/snapback] If I came and stole a DVD from your house would you have the same reaction as if I stole your car? I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I will disagree with the highlight reel thing though. Personally, I feel that that falls under "derivitive work" which is actually legal in our copyright laws. For example, Weird Al does parady songs of other famous songs. Legally, he doesn't need to ask any of the original artists for permission because it's considered a "derivitive work." (he does anyway, to be nice, but he doesn't have to). I'd consider a highlight reel to be considered the exact same thing (but I'm no lawyer).. I think the NFL would lose that case, but who knows, and since the NFL has lots of high-priced lawyers, you'd be fighting an uphill battle regardless of whether you were right or wrong.CW 142604[/snapback] I suggest that you read up on copyright laws if you're going to use them in any context. The premise of derivative work in the laws is to help protect the copyright holder from people doing exactly what you describe. Weird Al is free to parody the songs, as long as he pays a license fee for the someone else's original work that he's using to create his work. The words are his own, the music isn't. He pays royalties on the music. Same with NFL highlights. NFL reserves the ownership rights to any and all uses of its images and videos. You are not creating anything new. You are just repackaging their product. As an example, recall when NFL banned same day highlights of the Bills football games from Empire. It's their product, they have the final say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 If I came and stole a DVD from your house would you have the same reaction as if I stole your car? I doubt it. 142659[/snapback] Either way, you would have a .45 or 9mm slug in your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Agreed on the game copying and whether it's worth it to go after damages. Do a search on eBay, and you'll find tons of people selling NFL games on DVD and the NFL doesn't even care to go after THEM. I will disagree with the highlight reel thing though. Personally, I feel that that falls under "derivitive work" which is actually legal in our copyright laws. For example, Weird Al does parady songs of other famous songs. Legally, he doesn't need to ask any of the original artists for permission because it's considered a "derivitive work." (he does anyway, to be nice, but he doesn't have to). I'd consider a highlight reel to be considered the exact same thing (but I'm no lawyer).. I think the NFL would lose that case, but who knows, and since the NFL has lots of high-priced lawyers, you'd be fighting an uphill battle regardless of whether you were right or wrong. CW 142604[/snapback] Actually, "derivative works" deals with the right of the copyright owner to modify their original work. Parodies are more or less managed under "fair use" laws, as they do not exactly copy the copyrighted material and are provided as a social commentary on the material. The BangHaha cartoons are parody, and it doesn't actually use the voices and likenesses of the people involved, so it is "fair use." Whether they are liable for libel in some of the things they do is a subject for another debate. This situation is more akin to the "sampling," as it relates not to copyrights on "written works," but performance rights of a recorded version of said works. Remember the broadcast itself is copyright, and the NFL copyright notice clearly indicates that rebroadcast of portions without consent is prohibited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I'll accept it, whatever it was. I know I say some bizarre, mind numbing, even stupid things sometimes, but this is a whole new breed. 142656[/snapback] You know, if you just ignored the posts, this thread could remain the way it was in the beginning. For example, I'd like someone to comment on the "derivitive works" comment. If BF is the only one blathering on about the NBA, it should be easy to ignore. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Then why did you bring up Artest earlier in the thread? Post # 49 142657[/snapback] Because I find it funny that "theft is theft" but assault varies on the item you use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I have moved past Ron Artest and the brawl. I think he probably should have just shrugged it of or maybe said something to the guy. That's not what you said. You said he was assaulted, and was well within his right to "defend" himself. I just find it very stupid when someone [...] wants to hang someone else for reacting to a petty crime. 142651[/snapback] But That's not what you said!!!! You said he was assaulted, and was well within his right to "defend" himself. And you missed the point. Go back and find where suggested that Tracy's son should be convicted of a felony. I didn't...I just questioned her judgement in actively teaching him that committing a felony is okay. Of course, I already know your answer this: I'm a hypocrite because someone threw a cup at Artest. Whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 If I came and stole a DVD from your house would you have the same reaction as if I stole your car? I doubt it. 142659[/snapback] You're just digging yourself a deeper hole here. Might be time to retreat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Either way, you would have a .45 or 9mm slug in your head. 142661[/snapback] I thought street violence wasn't acceptable?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Weird Al is free to parody the songs, as long as he pays a license fee for the someone else's original work that he's using to create his work. The words are his own, the music isn't. He pays royalties on the music. Are you sure about that? I seem to recall reading somewhere awhile ago that this wasn't true. I don't have the reference anymore though and I could've misread it (or it could've been misrepresented itself). CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts