Controversial opinions on metal

[Internally Deformed]

mr.Internally Deformed you appear to be obsessed with the word `Troll`. For some reason I shall endeavour to pinpoint you have to regularly assign the word `Troll` to posters whom join in the discussion.

Yeah maybe, or maybe you're just a troll.

 

[Phylactery]

I hope it is a troll tbh. Never heard someone define "underground" as "grannies haven't heard of them" before.

 

[rusty water]

Yeah maybe, or maybe you're just a troll.

I was reading your latest ten page arguement idiocy with the guy who was presenting clear facts to you, once again, tonight. You go from that to calling a person a `Troll` twice.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

No, Elric/Omni. HBB's anecdote about wearing the same worn through pair of cargo pants throughout the entirety of high school clued me in to his gender pretty early on.

what about the fact that his username is hamburgerBOY?

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

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.

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.

 

[Internally Deformed]

I was reading your latest ten page arguement idiocy with the guy who was presenting clear facts to you, once again, tonight. You go from that to calling a person a `Troll` twice.

Not sure if you're referencing TB or Elric here, but either way you be trollin (that makes three).

what about the fact that his username is hamburgerBOY?

Rght, because he's a boy who likes hamburgers.

Well shit, maybe he is a boy who likes hamburgers.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

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.

... and the 12th and final(hopefully) round begins

 

[rusty water]

Not sure if you're referencing TB or Elric here, but either way you be trollin (that makes three).



Rght, because he's a boy who likes hamburgers.

Well shit, maybe he is a boy who likes hamburgers.

Yeah youre not sure because you argue and argue with people whom present clear facts to you, Probably youve had several tonight, but to help you a little I was referring to your very latest one, where you argue against facts like a Dunce.

 

[Internally Deformed]

You'd think if they wanted piracy to be illegal they'd just write something like: "owning a copy of a recording without having paid for said recording is illegal".

I guess not.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Yeah youre not sure because you argue and argue with people whom present clear facts to you, Probably youve had several tonight, but to help you a little I was referring to your very latest one, where you argue against facts like a Dunce.

So wait, what fact is it you're presenting again? I've lost track.

 

[rusty water]

So wait, what fact is it you're presenting again? I've lost track.

I aint getting in a ten page arguement with a Dunce.

 

[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.