Controversial opinions on metal

[Internally Deformed]

My thoughts exactly.

 

[MrTagoMago]

So Elric is HBB and both Elric and Hamburger boy are girls? That's what I'm getting here.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Elric aka Omni = girl

HBB = boy

 

[MrTagoMago]

Then why does Elrics profile say male?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The first subsection in the article where it lists conditions under which a sound recording may be obtained without it being an infringing act. Here it clearly states that the first requirement is that the source of the material must not be an infringing copy of the material.

Due to the fact that making a copy to distribute without license makes that copy an infringing copy of the material, this is obvious. When you download something from someone else, you make a copy of a file that they have for yourself on your computer's drive, as described here.

• 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.

That only defines what is definitely not infringement; the fact that certain acts are unquestionably not infringement does not necessarily require all other acts to be infringement.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Then why does Elrics profile say male?

She has identity issues.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

covert ops

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

That only defines what is definitely not infringement; the fact that certain acts are unquestionably not infringement does not necessarily require all other acts to be infringement.

That's the section that defines requirements for something to not be copyright infringement. It has to meet all of the requirements there in order to be legal. Your interpretation of the text conveniently ignores that fact.

You are incorrect and it's probably time for you to acknowledge that you were wrong.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Same section of the CMA:

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

• (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

This is another requirement that makes this doubly impossible to be legal. The individual who is obtaining a copy of something can only receive a copy of something that the individual (the same person receiving the copy) legally purchased or otherwise own the rights to.

Also relevant:

Copyright in
performer’s
performance
(1.03) Subsections (1.01) and (1.02) apply,
and are deemed to have applied, regardless of
whether the country in question became a Berne
Convention country, a WCT country or a WTO
Member before or after the coming into force of
those subsections.
6. Section 10 of the Act is repealed.
7. Subsection 13(2) of the Act is repealed.
8. The headings before section 15 of the
Act are replaced by the following:
PART II
COPYRIGHT IN PERFORMERS’
PERFORMANCES, SOUND RECORDINGS
AND COMMUNICATION SIGNALS AND
MORAL RIGHTS IN PERFORMERS’
PERFORMANCES
PERFORMERS’ RIGHTS
Copyright
9. (1) Section 15 of the Act is amended by
adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) Subject to subsections (2.1) and (2.2),
a performer’s copyright in the performer’s
performance consists of the sole right to do
the following acts in relation to the performer’s
performance or any substantial part of it and to
authorize any of those acts:
(a) if it is not fixed,
(i) to communicate it to the public by
telecommunication,
(ii) to perform it in public, if it is
communicated to the public by telecom-
munication otherwise than by communica-
tion signal, and
(b) if it is fixed in a sound recording, to
reproduce that fixation;
(c) to rent out a sound recording of it;

It's illegal to reproduce a copyrighted recording without the performer’s approval while the performer holds the copyright to the material.

Game over.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Fair enough, I think you're right that it is technically still considered a copyright infringement. Technically, it's also copyright infringement to make a backup copy of a CD, put the backup in a closet somewhere, sell the original CD, and forget the backup existed. There are many things that violate copyright that don't really relate to theft. What's your opinion on the streaming of copyrighted recordings?

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

I have no idea if the act of watching or listening to such a stream is illegal although I know the act of hosting the stream is definitely illegal. I preview music through YouTube quite often. I don't consider it to be so grievous as you don't obtain a permanent copy of something that you don't own.

As I stated earlier, my opinion of downloading does not stem from the practice being illegal, even though I view it as stealing and so does the law.

 

[MrTagoMago]

The best medicine for depression is pussy juices.

 

[Baroque]

Elric, are you a lawyer or just an inspector Javert type?

There are obviously moral implications aside from the legal ones. but I believe those moral dilemmas are nullified when a band is broken up and out of print. If only used expensive copies are available, how does buying one help the band in any way? It only helps the equivalent of scalpers stay in business. I do think currently active bands should be supported of course, and I regularly do so.

 

[CiG]

That was the longest, most boring shitfest of people retardedly trying to justify illegal downloading.

 

[Satanstoenail]

If Elric isn't Omni then that's the most convincing unintentional impression I've ever seen.

 

[CiG]

It is pretty weird how Omniesque this guy is, I noticed it before it became a UM meme too.

The worship of certain albums just cements it further. I'm interested to see Elric post a photo to disprove our feeling.

 

[Baroque]

It is pretty weird how Omniesque this guy is, I noticed it before it became a UM meme too.

The worship of certain albums just cements it further. I'm interested to see Elric post a photo to disprove our feeling.

Does that prove anything though? I might be more convinced if "he" writes UM on themselves somewhere like my JPL photo, but they could just as easily ask someone to do that for them also

 

[CiG]

Agreed, we should tell him to hold up a sign with a specific message on it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I have no idea if the act of watching or listening to such a stream is illegal although I know the act of hosting the stream is definitely illegal. I preview music through YouTube quite often. I don't consider it to be so grievous as you don't obtain a permanent copy of something that you don't own.

As I stated earlier, my opinion of downloading does not stem from the practice being illegal, even though I view it as stealing and so does the law.

So what does that opinion stem from?

When people upload rare stuff on YouTube, they usually do so without the artist's consent.

Also, if the owner of the music doesn't have plans to reissue the album or make it available, that should legally be in their hands to decide. You don't get to decide for them. Again, an issue of entitlement.

*cough* *cough*

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

I'm in no way absolving the people who put up videos. If you were asking what I thought about people hosting videos without consent, I would have to say they're also guilty of theft.

I'm talking about watching them and how I don't have a problem doing so if they're already available on such a site.

My opinion on downloaders stems from their entitlement. The availability to illegally download music also makes it more difficult for small labels and artists to operate on a financial level.