You could argue that. However, if a studio found it, I doubt your argument would hold up. Like the mom in Minnesota who faces $1 million in fines for sharing four songs on Kazaa back when it was popular.

I know you all are going to disagree with the message of this video regarding non-rivalrous goods and services,
but the animation and tune by Nina Paley are SO damned cute
(as all her animations are):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=related

Isn't there some kind of "cuteness" loophole to copyright law?

Of course, copying isn't murder, either. It's not child molestation, arson, or smoking marijuana. But, even if it's not theft, it can still hurt one's trust.
Well, at least, that's the point one should make - rather than always trying to call it theft.

The discussion of copyright within the wam community seems never to end. There is always two sides of this discussion with one side believing that ownership completely resides in the procession of the material creator the other side thinking since they have paid for the clip they have right to share said content. For me its a large gray because both sides have valid points. The biggest issue that no one seems to talk about is what happens to material that is no longer avail for purchase. Examples include a good portion of the messyfun lib, wtf productions, wammonkey, and etc. The biggest worry I have centers around the fact that unless such great material is avail to masses at some point what is left to inspire the next generation of wam producers. How many of us have seen an original Rob messyfun video and thought to ourselves I wish i could be that man.

P.S. I firmly believe that without the producers and their content we wouldn’t have the great community we have now.

It's not a grey area at all. I have copyrighted my material. That means by law you have to have my consent to make a copy of it.

It's pretty damn simple. It's marked on the website and the stores. By purchasing a copy of the material you are agreeing to the terms and conditions.

It's black and white.

If i get arrested for smoking cannibis, it doesn't matter if I believe it should be perfectly legal to smoke a joint... fact is, it is not.

I don't disagree with SOPA because it protects my material, I disagree with it because it fundamentally fucks up the internet and gives the wrong people too much power.

I would rather have to deal with people copying and putting my films up publicly on the internet than all of us suffer under something as ludicrous as SOPA.

So, if anyone would rather obtain a free copy of my material and can sleep well knowing that paying a couple of bucks for it instead would increase the amount and quality of films I can put out, then I will deal with it. But that person wakes up the next morning an arsehole - and I don't. It's money lost that I could be sinking in to paying models and making more videos.

What would happen if you went to work and one day your boss decided he wasn't going to pay for your services? Ever walked into a Starbucks and just taken a coffee without paying for it?

Yeah. There are people that will throw $5 down on a coffee from a corporate giant, but will happily take a copy of a $7 specialized video from me simply because they can. Self employed sole trader me.

 

That is where it gets fucking silly. How could anyone with a straight face suggest she cost the record company $250,000 per song?

Oh, of course. The R.R.I.A rather well payed legal team.

 

Exactly what Noisey said x 2. Thanks for saving me typing time.

I was going to copy what he said...but I wasn't sure that was legal.

Robby
WAMma Lamma Pie
www.wammalamapie.com

www.shepiestheguy.com

I strongly believe that copyright always belongs to the producer. My only point is I am afraid that in future when greats like lenny retire and other the content will not be around to encourage the next generation. Also someone had to mention both sides lol.

That's in the lap of the gods. It always is. It's not anyones decision but his.


When I retire, I may just open up my material. I may sell everything and it has a new owner. I may leave the business to family. I may make it disappear because I don't want it out there.

Who knows? It is nobodies decision but the owners.

 

You have my full consent to use my words as long as attribution is given.


As a gentlemen, I am sure you would split any revenue generated with my person.

 

I assume I can summarize your position, noise, that it's not really
{violating copyright is illegal} that matters to you, nor the real or hypothetical loss of money that comes from a potential lost sale - it's the violation of trust, right?

As a producer, you could put absolutely ANY condition on the sale of a video:

this video is to be played ONLY on Tuesdays, and viewed ONLY by people under 5-feet tall

and now I have to obey that condition, since I agreed to it.

I experience the same dilemma when I want to freecycle things:
I want to put a condition that this item NOT be used to promote religion
or meat and that it be recycled properly: e.g. GreenMedia in Missouri.

Problem is: one must put a value on all possible violations of trust,
and one must provide a logically consistent algorithm for what to do to them:

e.g. I think violating my trust that items I give away must be properly be recycled afterwards and not dumped in the garbage is worse
than violating a video producer's trust demanding that the customer play the video only on Tuesdays for short people, for some reason.

I am aware that all violations of trust share equally the property that they are logical inconsistencies; a person promised you they'd do/not do a thing, then they did/did not do that thing. One illegal thing is no more illegal than another illegal thing. Not recycling television sets and computer monitors (and I see idiots break that law here in the USA, which I think is a good law) is just as illegal as genocide.

But, in the practical physical world, we must rank who we want to sue first vs last (if at all): i.e. come up with a logically consistent sorting algorithm.

But, you also need logically consistent algorithms for deciding for proving that someone broke your trust. There is one producer on the UMD who came out with a pie video last year which I would like to buy, but he is SO legalistic and ready-to-sue that I don't trust him to trust his customers, which has caused me not to buy his work.

I'm not sure which I find more shocking.

What seems to me to be the double standard regarding copyrighted WAM material and material copyrighted by a big TV studio.

Or Dr Zoidberg putting smoking marijuana and child molestation together in the same context. (did i mis-read that?)

Glad that we all agree on one thing, that the mods do an amazing job here.

On a similar (though more moral rather than legal consideration) I'd be interested tok now how many users here have pirate software or mp3s? I have to admit I do, though not a lot (I fully accept the amount I have / use hasno relevance to the moral consideration).

Interesting topic.

You mean you can recycle TVs?!? No way.

Damn, and I just took 300 TVs to the landfill last week!

Your assumption is misplaced. You should go back and read my previous posts.




The point is I HAVE to trust people not to violate copyright. I have two choices. I either sell videos with DRM that ties the video file to one computer or with no DRM.

I find DRM unacceptable to foist on a paying customer, so it's really no choice.

DRM (Digital Rights Management) does nothing much but be a pain in the arse for people that are honest. DRM is always broken pretty quickly and then the file is infinitely copyable again for the people that want to give it away.

If Sony can't lock up Blue Ray (Which has hardware as an obstacle as well as software), how am I going to lock up my files?

I am only going to lock it up for the people that purchased it! I am really not happy about making honest people suffer the hassle of DRM when dishonest people can just walk right through it. That would be absurdly unfair.

The problem is along with authors and musicians I make something that is not tangible, it can't be held in your hand. Almost everything else someone makes is a physical item. If you make T-Shirts and sell them, it's pretty easy to control making sure you get payment (SOPA was also designed to combat counterfeiting but we will ignore that for a moment - it's much harder to do).

If you walked into a shop then walked out with a CD without paying for it you would be arrested.

Yes, I could put any condition I liked on my material. Have you actually read the EULA on the operating system you are using on your computer that you agreed to, or any of the software?

But I don't except for you are not to make copies for another person or display it publicly. If you want to make a back up, go ahead.

However, if you buy a DVD or BlueRay you have agreed to not make ANY copies. If you lose that DVD, touch shit according to the M.P.A.A.

Personally, I think that's absurd and where my disadvantage is I can't physically enforce not pirating my material I can give my consent to your making back up copies of my videos so if your hard drive on your computer dies or you accidentally delete the first copy you have, you still have the movie you paid for.


I also agree you need a reasonable algorithm for enforcing the law. The woman being sued $250,000 per track in lost revenue is just absurd. I can't do anything about that, you will have to take that up with the legal system and the record industry. All I can do is be as fair as possible to my customers. If enough music, video and book producers do the same the law will eventually follow.



Just because I make videos does not mean I want to act like a dick and use the laws the huge commercial businesses do. It doesn't mean I agree with the laws entirely.

This a whole new world, the big commercial houses are trying desperately to hold on to a broken and outdated business model.

I think i may have said it already, but i will say it again:


The best way to combat piracy is to make your material easily available at a reasonable price.

 

I always preferred to shoot the tubes out and burn the plastic... the black smoke smells so delightfully acrid.

What else are you supposed to with them? Sit and look at them??!!??

 

Yes, I did. Please re-read what I said on this subject.

The messyfun library is still on the members site. Always has been. Never been a time when it hasn't been. I've never understood therefore, why people say that something is completely unavailable. When it is.
Some of the scenes that Rob shot, however, are lost. They were not converted over by George in time and the footage wasn't able to be restored, and a few of them were already past help by the time George and I bought the company years ago.
But, with few exceptions, it's all pretty much on the members site. Still

 

I Missed the WAMMONKEY stuff and i really want it... but i can't EVER have it now.... And that is SAD! wouldnt mind paying for it..... its very sad.... WAM clips should never disappear... What about if gungegirls go and BIG_Dave goes.... No of those clips will be remembered for the future if they aren't allowed to be passed on and forward.... I don't see the problem with that Sad moment for WAM it this happens

 

Very major problem with passing old stuff forward without the producer's permission - it denies new producers the chance to create great new material.

If something you want to see isn't being filmed by anyone else, buy a camera, hire some models, and shoot it for sale yourself. It's not hard to do, and doesn't need megabucks equipment. A £600 camcorder and/or £500 still camera, some £25 halogen lights from a DIY store, a couple of willing models, and a room you can hose down afterwards are all you need to get into the WAM business. Ok you also need a computer to edit the footage and a UMD account to sell it but as you're posting here already I'm assuming those are already covered.

Shoot outdoors and you don't even need the room. Just pick a warm day!

There is no excuse for piracy of WAM material within the WAM fetish community, it hurts all of us when freeloaders deny income to current and future producers. Sorry if this sounds harsh but if we want great new material to be created now and in the future, we all need to ensure that it's still worth producers while to be doing it. There are far more profitable things that can be done with the same money, WAM is something people do because they love it, most producers barely break even on shoots. Taking away their ability to make more material is plain wrong.