I'd know that voice anywhere, that's Thunderf00t. He's a bit of a character in the YouTube atheist community and forced a top young earth type there to post a groveling apology or go to court and maybe to jail some time back. He apologized. False DMCA complaints and slander are a bad idea, even if you do think you work for God.

You can get the original version of this on YouTube, has a HD version there so might be better quality. He's got some play lists worth checking out too on his account.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0zSCpsOSSw

This is a 1964 movie. The concept of copyright for works of art was meant to be protection for your lifetime. THe absurdity of corporations holding copyright in a rolling perpetuity is stupid. Corporations were never meant to hold copyrights (maybe patents).

At any rate, the videos are really a non-issue because the end up dead in very short time. Technically the admin were worried about enabling copyright violations, hence no full episodes, but I think that is ridiculous if you consider the amount of clips and tons of other stuff which violate DMCA.

Also, I'd recommend http://www.ovguide.com/ for watching full movies.

*discuss

This is insane... Do we really need two mythbusters poop clips? One is 3min, this one is 10min.

At 12/4 7:33pm I posted a link to the full version and suggested swapping out that embed.

12 hours later this was posted as a NEW submission.

Why can't we just improve the existing submissions without all this B.S. bloat. Dude, if you got a better embed, then send a link to the original submitter.

"Not a dupe because this is the full clip." lol.. Not technically, but still pretty lame.

At any rate, it will only be a week or three before Discovery has all these pulled from YT for DMCA violations.

I can say for years that I too detested iTunes for the DRM. But after a while, and given my patience with computing (which led me down the path of working in IT) I kinda gave in, bought a second hand iPod Nano, and have been happy since.

But to answering your questions:

1. I consider the old experiment of putting a frog in boiling water vs cold then slowing boiling them to death. The idea is the frog gets use to latter and won't jump out even when it's near death.

The RIAA, on the other hand, reacted like the former when presented with Napster. It existed, almost literally, under their noses. They had no "warming up" period to the idea of digitally available music. Because of the initial knee-jerk reaction they whole of the association is still reeling from the notion that anyone could rip them off in a few clicks. The slowness is due to the hard coding of the idea, in executive heads, that the control of the physical media the music is listened to on is paramount. Given that you can rip tracks from a CD or convert files from one format to another and from one device to another, this isn't possible. Draconian is my usual word for mentality because of this. They missed the boat for the digital age and are slowly dying at an industry because of it. A very slow death, but a death nonetheless.

2. All that above being said, your options right now are limited.

• Buy CDs, use software to legally rip them into mp3 or wav (windows media player can even do the former if you'd like automatically). Then store the CDs away for safe keeping. I've been doing this off and on for years myself and have quite a collection of MP3 files to show for it.
  
• Find the limited websites out there that sell DRM free music. I won't list any personally because I find their selection not worth buying from.
  
• Become a digital miscreant and convert files out of their DRM state. Out here in the states that violates the DMCA (Section 1201 if you are wondering. It signing into law is the only action I have yet to forgiven Bill Clinton for, and I even forgive him for the whole lying under oath about blowjobs). I cannot really get you in the right direction on this other than to tell you to google for something... gah, I can't remember... the HYMM of our fathers PROJECT makes for an interesting REQUIEM.

hmmm, with the new intellectual property laws, does Snapple now own all those facts?! Quick, someone buy up all the facts before Snapple rules the world!

If a Snapple cap is opened in the woods with no one around to see, is the property still protected by the DMCA section 5 paragraph 7?

Good on ya, mate. Your fix is perfectly fine!

In reply to this comment by burdturgler:
Alright, I fixed that the other day with the liveleak embed, but my youtube dmca dispute was finally resolved, so if you'd rather use that one you can grab the embed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRDKCr3I7Xc


In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
U da man! Thanks so much! I will fix it pronto (as soon as it hits the dead pool).

I will have to ask that original vid uploader, "Wha happened???"

Alright, I fixed that the other day with the liveleak embed, but my youtube dmca dispute was finally resolved, so if you'd rather use that one you can grab the embed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRDKCr3I7Xc


In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
U da man! Thanks so much! I will fix it pronto (as soon as it hits the dead pool).

I will have to ask that original vid uploader, "Wha happened???"

U da man! Thanks so much! I will fix it pronto (as soon as it hits the dead pool).

I will have to ask that original vid uploader, "Wha happened???"

In reply to this comment by burdturgler:
The bad news is, your fav sift is dead.
The good news is, I have it hosted for you here:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d0e_1224943026



I had it on youtube but now I'm in a DMCA dispute with them because they think it's part of Jay Leno's show and owned by NBC ... lol


In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
Wha?

In reply to this comment by burdturgler:
I have good news and I have bad news.
Which would you like first?

The bad news is, your fav sift is dead.
The good news is, I have it hosted for you here:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d0e_1224943026



I had it on youtube but now I'm in a DMCA dispute with them because they think it's part of Jay Leno's show and owned by NBC ... lol


In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
Wha?

In reply to this comment by burdturgler:
I have good news and I have bad news.
Which would you like first?

YouTube response via ArsTechnica article:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/p
ost/20081015-youtube-to-mccain-no-special-treatement-for-dmca-takedowns.html

I'm with YouTube on this -- YouTube has to comply with the law, and Election videos do not deserve special treatment. On top of that, YouTube claims that if they tried to pre-emptively evaluate which claims would eventually be thrown out via fair use, they could lose their safe harbor status. I agree, and that safe harbor status is absolutely essential.

I'm also with jwray on this -- Much of the DMCA is bullcrap, and notice-and-takedown should at the least become notice-and-notice. I don't agree with the entire Pirate Party platform, but I think there are a lot of good ideas there, and I hope they are able to win seats in the next Swedish Parliamentary election.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html

Fuck the DMCA, it treats the accused as guilty until proven innocent.
YouTube credulously follows dubious DMCA take down notices and doesn't do anything much against those who submit bogus ones. It's a copyright witch-hunt. Alleged copyright holders should have to get a court order first. Youtube should not be liable unless they refuse to comply with a court order. Copyright terms should be reduced to 20 years. Adopt the entire platform of the Swedish Pirate Party. Copyright paranoia impedes productivity and public discourse. Copyright protection should require registration with the Library of Congress for archival purposes, as it did before the mid 20th century, and at the expiration of the term of the copyright the copyrighted material should become publicly available for download from the archives. Any 2 minute clip from a TV show is FAIR USE. If it's legal to let your friend borrow a copyrighted book, it should be legal to send your friend some copyrighted music or whatever electronic files. Copyright cannot be enforced without inappropriate surveillance of private communications, so just let it go. There are better business models than suing everyone who tries to make derivative works or post little clips on YouTube. Fuck having to pay for something before you can even see whether it's really worth anything, or just to maintain interoperability within a framework of planned obsolescence. Any musician who's popular on P2P could also make a lot of money on concerts. Fuck movie theaters, get netflix. Microsoft still makes huge profits despite how easy it is to pirate their software.

Vote for the DMCA + post copyright material without a license => have your stuff taken down (and/or your house taken away).

Don't like the way the world is, then don't make it that way.

Recently, there were a whole bunch of DMCA takedown notices sent on behalf of Scientology to remove anti-Scientology videos. A number of counter-notices were filed, since none of the videos were at all infringing on Scientology copyrights.

I can't fathom the stupidity of that move. Anonymous consists mostly of college and high school students. As they graduate, get jobs, and otherwise become more busy, the Anonymous movement is going to dwindle--as it already significantly has. Sending out takedown notices like that is just going to revive anti-Scientology sentiment.

In the USA, ripping your own CDs is constitutionally protected fair use, but it may violate the DMCA, which is why the DMCA is partly unconstitutional.

Having dabbled in the music industry I can tell you that artists make almost 3 times as much from concerts as they do for albums. Unless your selling them yourselves at shows. But that's still money made at concerts. Record labels seem to make the majority of the profits when it comes to the work of a musician. The better the label is at selling your product the more money you both make but it still doesn't beat the money you make doing concerts.

What it record labels do is offer a trade, they have the capital and the resources to spread your bands name to millions of people. Doing that on your own as a indie artist is nearly impossible.

The internet has changed that somewhat. Now as an artist you don't need a record label you just need a lot of fans or band members who spend a good amount of time spreading your name on indie music sites (i.e. purevolume) or making a good myspace page.

The reason companys fail is because they would rather fight change then embrace it. For big record labels the industry has been the same for almost 40 years. And it's sometimes hard for corporate execs to find ways to adapt to a changing industry. (Hense organizations such as the RIAA,MPAA and DMCA are set up to keep the industry the way it is.)

Illegal downloading is a concern because it drives prices up. But driving up prices only increases illegal downloading. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing because it encourages artists to produce quality work and actually work for it. Take Mettalica for instance, the internet helped people realize that 90% of their work is utter crap. In order for them to survive they need to produce more hits and less filler. That's a tall order for artists who are in it for money and not the love of music.