Controversial opinions on metal

Elric of Melniboné said:
11. (1) Section 18 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

  • Marginal note:Copyright in sound recordings
    (1.1) Subject to subsections (2.1) and (2.2), a sound recording maker’s copyright in the sound recording also includes the sole right to do the following acts in relation to the sound recording or any substantial part of it and to authorize any of those acts:
    • (a) to make it available to the public by telecommunication in a way that allows a member of the public to have access to it from a place and at a time individually chosen by that member of the public and to communicate it to the public by telecommunication in that way; and

    • (b) if it is in the form of a tangible object, to sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the tangible object, as long as that ownership has never previously been transferred in or outside Canada with the authorization of the owner of the copyright in the sound recording.

    • 17. Subsections 23(1) to (3) of the Act are replaced by the following:

      Marginal note:Term of copyright — performer’s performance
      • 23. (1) Subject to this Act, copyright in a performer’s performance subsists until the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which the performance occurs. However,
        • (a) if the performance is fixed in a sound recording before the copyright expires, the copyright continues until the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which the first fixation of the performance in a sound recording occurs; and

        • (b) if a sound recording in which the performance is fixed is published before the copyright expires, the copyright continues until the earlier of the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which the first publication of the sound recording occurs and the end of 99 years after the end of the calendar year in which the performance occurs.
      • Marginal note:Term of copyright — sound recording
        (1.1) Subject to this Act, copyright in a sound recording subsists until the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which the first fixation of the sound recording occurs. However, if the sound recording is published before the copyright expires, the copyright continues until the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which the first publication of the sound recording occurs.
        • (2.2) It is an infringement of copyright for any person to do any of the following acts with respect to anything that the person knows or should have known is a lesson, as defined in subsection 30.01(1), or a fixation of one:
          • (a) to sell it or to rent it out;

          • (b) to distribute it to an extent that the owner of the copyright in the work or other subject-matter that is included in the lesson is prejudicially affected;

          • (c) by way of trade, to distribute it, expose or offer it for sale or rental or exhibit it in public;

          • (d) to possess it for the purpose of doing anything referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (c);

          • (e) to communicate it by telecommunication to any person other than a person referred to in paragraph 30.01(3)(a); or

          • (f) to circumvent or contravene any measure taken in conformity with paragraph 30.01(6)(b), (c) or (d).
        • Marginal note:Infringement — provision of services
          (2.3) It is an infringement of copyright for a person, by means of the Internet or another digital network, to provide a service primarily for the purpose of enabling acts of copyright infringement if an actual infringement of copyright occurs by means of the Internet or another digital network as a result of the use of that service.

        • Marginal note:Factors
          (2.4) In determining whether a person has infringed copyright under subsection (2.3), the court may consider
          • (a) whether the person expressly or implicitly marketed or promoted the service as one that could be used to enable acts of copyright infringement;

          • (b) whether the person had knowledge that the service was used to enable a significant number of acts of copyright infringement;

          • (c) whether the service has significant uses other than to enable acts of copyright infringement;

          • (d) the person’s ability, as part of providing the service, to limit acts of copyright infringement, and any action taken by the person to do so;

          • (e) any benefits the person received as a result of enabling the acts of copyright infringement; and

          • (f) the economic viability of the provision of the service if it were not used to enable acts of copyright infringement.
          • 29.22 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to reproduce a work or other subject-matter or any substantial part of a work or other subject-matter if
            • (a) the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made is not an infringing copy;

            • (b) the individual legally obtained the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made, other than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns or is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced;

            • (c) the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection measure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented;

            • (d) the individual does not give the reproduction away; and

            • (e) the reproduction is used only for the individual’s private purposes.
Click to expand...
 
ProphetofHatred said:
I thought the last album was decent overall, heritage was boring for me and I like basically everything else Opeth has done.
Click to expand...

Yeah I guess that's about the same for me, although Heritage grew on me after some time. We'll see if the new album sucks or not, but my respect for Mikael Akerfeldt means I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
It clearly states in the law that:

A. Unlicensed distribution an copy of a sound recording is copyright infringement.

B. Obtaining a copy of a sound recording that is distributed in an unauthorized way is copyright infringement.

Due to his request for me to copy and paste relevant sections, those are included in that quote.
 
She threw a plate at him and stormed out of the forum and slammed the door during an intensely autistic argument about some singer sounding or not sounding like Ozzy Osbourne.
 
Elric of Melniboné said:
It clearly states in the law that:

A. Unlicensed distribution an copy of a sound recording is copyright infringement.

B. Obtaining a copy of a sound recording that is distributed in an unauthorized way is copyright infringement.

Due to his request for me to copy and paste relevant sections, those are included in that quote.
Click to expand...

Could you specifically point out where it says that regarding your point 'B'? "Distribute" appears only twice in the portion quoted, and both cases refer to a person distributing illegally, not obtaining a sound recording via an illegal distribution. I.e. the criminality of the act rests on the uploader/distributor, not the downloader.
 
Some women cant see the difference between the xbox 360 and the xbox one.You know, like the frame rate, detail and textures. To them its like ` havent you already got this game with cars racing around? A woman wont understand Ozzy. I mean a Woman with a legit opinion on Ozzy is a bit like a Dog that walks around on its hinder legs, very rare. Just saying. But I wish there were some who do understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EternalMetal
rusty water said:
Some women cant see the difference between the xbox 360 and the xbox one.You know, like the frame rate, detail and textures. To them its like ` havent you already got this game with cars racing around? A woman wont understand Ozzy. I mean a Woman with a legit opinion on Ozzy is a bit like a Dog that walks around on its hinder legs, very rare.
Click to expand...

Troll is obvious.
 
Krow said: HBB is the one that made her leave originally, chip is firmly on her shoulder.

You said: How did she manage that?

Which sounds like you are saying how did HBB make her leave, but you are referring to HBB as she. I don't know, maybe I'm just way too tired.
 
Phylactery said:
Krow said: HBB is the one that made her leave originally, chip is firmly on her shoulder.

You said: How did she manage that?

Which sounds like you are saying how did HBB make her leave, but you are referring to HBB as she. I don't know, maybe I'm just way too tired.
Click to expand...

It actually read how did he manage that at first, but then MrTago posted that he was confused, so I read back through my post and got confused myself about the he/she thing and edited it, and now I've confused you.

I blame Elric for the gender confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

genocide roach
what an atrocity the grammy's are
Replies
32
Views
1K
General Metal Discussion
ffanatic
F
Hammer of Might
Stupid comments you've heard about metal??
Replies
28
Views
1K
General Metal Discussion
Hammer of Might
H
S
What metal ubergroup had the best return to their roots- Metallica or Megadeth?
Replies
17
Views
864
General Metal Discussion
The Amazer
T
S
What metal ubergroup had the best return to their roots- Metallica or Megadeth?
Replies
2
Views
309
General Metal Discussion
Apathy
A
Scourge of Malice
Between the Buried and Me - "Alaska"
Replies
13
Views
883
General Metal Discussion
Night Mare
N
Top Bottom