Some Videos No Longer Available [Follow-up]

celibi87 · Post by **celibi87** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:56 pm

Zig-zag wrote:
BasharOfTheAges wrote:I feel indebted to you, as we all should...
Very true, this really hasn't been said enough. I thank you for fighting for us and keeping at lest the rest of the site up and not having the whole thing taken down. I pat you on the back! *patpat*

x3 i feel like i should give u a nice firm handshake or even a hug lol

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:13 pm

Hey,

BasharOfTheAges wrote:Phade, i'm glad you made the "it's the lawyer's job to do this" clear. A lot of people don't realize this. What i've been saying is that likewise, when this is dropped on the desks of any other band's lawyers, (s)he must do the same thing (at the very least). Then I pose the (rhetorical?) question; "Is it not within proper business procedures for any group such as wind-up records to inform their associates of current legal matters that they have undertaken that they found to be important enough to warrent a Cease and Desist order?" Nobody has answered this yet...

I am not entirely sure, but my guess is that since this is a small group of artists under the label, there is likely just the one attorney (maybe two) working for the whole group. My guess is also that the attorney cannot discuss the goings-on of their clients (the bands/label) to other attorneys because of the attorney-client privilege. This means that lawyers cannot discuss the case with others unless the others are directly involved with the case.

The labels themselves, on the other hand, can discuss with other labels what they have encountered. However, my guess is that labels don’t generally talk with each other that much and also the discussion must land on the desk of a lawyer before action can be taken.

Again, this is my guess as to how things work. I hope this helps.

Phade.

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:20 pm

Phade wrote:Hey,

BasharOfTheAges wrote:Phade, i'm glad you made the "it's the lawyer's job to do this" clear. A lot of people don't realize this. What i've been saying is that likewise, when this is dropped on the desks of any other band's lawyers, (s)he must do the same thing (at the very least). Then I pose the (rhetorical?) question; "Is it not within proper business procedures for any group such as wind-up records to inform their associates of current legal matters that they have undertaken that they found to be important enough to warrent a Cease and Desist order?" Nobody has answered this yet...
I am not entirely sure, but my guess is that since this is a small group of artists under the label, there is likely just the one attorney (maybe two) working for the whole group. My guess is also that the attorney cannot discuss the goings-on of their clients (the bands/label) to other attorneys because of the attorney-client privilege. This means that lawyers cannot discuss the case with others unless the others are directly involved with the case.

The labels themselves, on the other hand, can discuss with other labels what they have encountered. However, my guess is that labels don’t generally talk with each other that much and also the discussion must land on the desk of a lawyer before action can be taken.

Again, this is my guess as to how things work. I hope this helps.

Phade.

I didn't actually even consider the lawer in the mater of transfer (because of the attorney client privlege). I was more focused on the relationship between a company and their parent company (then later, the other offshoots to the parent company). Would Sony BGM not get ahold of the goings on of their child companies when lawers get involved? I assume at the very least a memo would go out.

Whether or not that memo gets buried under a mound of paperwork and lost in the seasonal rush is another story entirely though...

aguelo · Post by **aguelo** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:21 pm

LoL... too bad that a-m-v.org is not a foreing website

(i.e. non US-located website rofl)...

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:24 pm

aguelo wrote:LoL... too bad that a-m-v.org is not a foreing website (i.e. non US-located website rofl)...

If the people mainitaing the website are in the country, though, they can still be arrested / sued.

Inuyasha the 3rd · Post by **Inuyasha the 3rd** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:52 pm

Okay, this makes sense now. But however, I am still mad at the person who wrote that letter to the band asking if the video was made by them, that was just plain DUMB.

I just hope this legal BS stops. If more of this crap keeps happening, then im just going to be like "F*ck this, im done!". But maybe im just overeacting.

But yeah, Im glad those companies didnt force phade to shut this whole site down. If it wasnt for this site, I wouldnt have the motivation to even make an AMV.

So, even through all of this, I still support phade. I really should donate sometime when I get a job..

[Mike of the Desert] · Post by **[Mike of the Desert]** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:09 pm

Wow, thanks Phade, this really, really helps a lot. That is more than everything I asked to you privately, thanks. I read everything carefully and this is really helping, indeed I discovered to have misunderstood one or two things about this story before read this. All now is clean and clear, thanks a lot.

Great.

celibi87 wrote:
Zig-zag wrote:
BasharOfTheAges wrote:I feel indebted to you, as we all should...
Very true, this really hasn't been said enough. I thank you for fighting for us and keeping at lest the rest of the site up and not having the whole thing taken down. I pat you on the back! *patpat*
x3 i feel like i should give u a nice firm handshake or even a hug lol

x4, really. Thanks a lot for all, all the effort you're putting for this organization, this community, I sincerely feel all this, deep inside myself. Truly.

Coderjo · Post by **Coderjo** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:34 pm

Arigatomina wrote:As one of the 'boycotters,' I just want to state that my only reason for listening to 'new' music is for amv-making/watching. I'm not about to go telling other people to avoid certain artists. I'm simply not going to go out of my way to listen to their work, because any music I listen to has a chance of being used in an amv. They don't want that and I don't want that, so it's best all around for me to avoid them entirely. If Remedy or one of Creed's songs happens to play on 97.1 (they'd never play Evanescence) I'm not going to change the station. I just won't go looking for the cd so I can use the songs in an amv. The only reason I buy cds is to use songs for amvs. Why wouldn't I stop buying them for these artists? They asked me to stop. I respect that.

Making videos for your own enjoyment still falls under fair use. It is when you send them to others that is the problem.

KaneDragon · Post by **KaneDragon** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:35 pm

Inuyasha the 3rd wrote:Okay, this makes sense now. But however, I am still mad at the person who wrote that letter to the band asking if the video was made by them, that was just plain DUMB.

I told you the n00bs would kill us all! Who's laughing now?!

Should the warning be moved from the local download screen to somewhere where people getting Direct Downloads etc... would see it?

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:16 pm

Zig-zag wrote:*puts copyright on my AMVs*

And if anyone thinks I'm serious... I laugh at you.

Under international copyright law, you actually do own copyright on whatever original manipulations you made, so I don't see why you think that's funny.

It's the other material that's the problem.

Phade wrote:Their reply was that there are several large issues for a site like ours to obtain a license due to the nature of our site and the contract with the band. One issue (of many) is that the contract with the band requires the band to approve every use of their songs by third parties. This usually has to deal with movie sound tracks, commercials, and things like that. But in order for our site to receive a license, each and every video would have to be approved by the band themselves. Other issues apply to us by the laws and rules concerning copyright and songs distributed over the internet. (It becomes a big mess really quickly.)

There's no way to decentralize that and put the burden on the video creator?

Phade wrote:I have read about possible boycotts and petitions in various follow-up posts to this issue. If all 5 of you boycotters don’t buy the next Evanescence album because of the band’s desire to keep their copyright strong, you have completely missed the point of all this and will also not have your voices heard.

I'd like to say that I get the point, and that I do not appreciate the constant efforts of you and others to deface this particular course of action.

There is no incompatibility with understanding and accepting that legal representatives of these groups affected were and are legally empowered to do what they did, and then refusing to deal with them anymore in even an indirect way. Or, well, I challenge you to find me a contradiction.