Controversial opinions on metal

[HamburgerBoy]

Is this you being autistically literal, or are you making the marginally less stupid observation that you're fine with your music collection the size it already is?

Either way, not everyone has two flat screen TV's, and not everyone is fine with listening to the same 10 or 12 trad metal bands over and over aud nauseum.

Being autistically literal is what she does.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Still Life is pretty nice. Has a few songs I really like. For some reason I prefer the more acoustic and dark proggy stuff on their metal albums, but when they do a full non-metal album it bores me.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Downloading music for personal use is not the only thing an ISP can notice. For example, seeding a torrent from which a thousand other people download.

Yes, I know. When did I ever say that they wouldn't do it for more than just downloading music?

They will still send you a notice for downloading music as outlined in the law that I described and the article that I linked, because it is copyright infringement according to the law. You have yet to explain how this is wrong.

If you can't do so, I don't need to discuss it further because I've already demonstrated that it's a legal requirement and part of Canadian copyright laws. They used to be more lax than they are now.

 

[Internally Deformed]

The new Opeth track sounds like it was written by 13 year olds, boring as hell.

I have to admit that it didn't really grip me, but it took me a few listens for their last two albums to sink in too. They also tend to put their less interesting tracks forward for radio play/music videos (Porcelain Heart was probably the least inspired track on Watersed), so I'm still holding out hope. The guitar tone on the new song was a definite improvement, too.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I never said they wouldn't do it for more than just downloading music. I'm looking for evidence that simply downloading is sufficient to constitute meaningful infringement. Per the section of the law you cited...

No statutory damages

(3) The owner of the copyright in a work, a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or a sound recording in respect of which paragraph (1)(a) has been contravened may not elect under section 38.1 to recover statutory damages from an individual who contravened that paragraph only for his or her own private purposes.

Even if a downloader receives a notification that they are infringing upon copyright, and you haven't demonstrated that yet, it doesn't mean it constitutes theft. Simply burning multiple backup copies of a CD you own can potentially be copyright infringement, but if no one enforces that law it doesn't particularly mean anything.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Canada law regarding copyright infringement for music recordings exempts personal copies made for your own personal use from a CD or other media that you own.

 

[ProphetofHatred]

I have to admit that it didn't really grip me, but it took me a few listens for their last two albums to sink in too. They also tend to put their less interesting tracks forward for radio play/music videos (Porcelain Heart was probably the least inspired track on Watersed), so I'm still holding out hope. The guitar tone on the new song was a definite improvement, too.

The guitars sound like shit honestly. Flubby and sloppy but I guess that's what they're going for.

 

[Internally Deformed]

The guitars sound like shit honestly. Flubby and sloppy but I guess that's what they're going for.

Are you one of those people who just hates everything Opeth has produced post-Ghost Reveries, or is it this track in particular you take issue with?

 

[Internally Deformed]

Someone just let off a boredom bomb.

 

[ProphetofHatred]

Are you one of those people who just hates everything Opeth has produced post-Ghost Reveries, or is it this track in particular you take issue with?

I thought the last album was decent overall, heritage was boring for me and I like basically everything else Opeth has done.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

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.

 

[Internally Deformed]

I thought the last album was decent overall, heritage was boring for me and I like basically everything else Opeth has done.

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.

 

[MrTagoMago]

Anal Cunt song titles are the best.

 

[Internally Deformed]

blah

I can only assume you're trying to bludgeon HBB into submission with sheer volume of text. Good luck with that.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

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.

 

[Krow]

I can only assume you're trying to bludgeon HBB into submission with sheer volume of text. Good luck with that.

HBB is the one that made her leave originally, chip is firmly on her shoulder.

 

[Internally Deformed]

HBB is the one that made her leave originally, chip is firmly on her shoulder.

How did she manage that? I can't imagine she did something interesting/controversial enough to get her banned.

 

[Satanstoenail]

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.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Ah.

 

[MrTagoMago]

Now I'm just confused.