JackKieser

@ The Coop: Sometimes a tune up is good every now and then, eh? @ PriZm: Potentialities are always there, though. OCR's release of *insert mix here* could interfere with the possible release of *Company here*'s OST album on iTunes. We could theoretically do this all day. @ Fenrir: Whatever. Go ahead and do what you want. You're arguments aren't even on topic, so I'm done with you now. Have fun at your movie.

Man, every time I see that combo my heart swells just a little bit. And the celebration at the end makes it SO MUCH better.

Yeah... Except I've said things since then. Again, your flagrant disregard for anything other than what helps your case is insufferable. At least when I've made mistakes in here, I've admitted to being imperfect. Why can't you just admit that you're grasping and move on, especially when I explicitly correct you? Oh, and you're sarcasm is SO amusing. Plus, I've edited the OP so that you aren't so emotionally scarred / because I admit to ambiguity and am not perfect. C WUT I DID THAR?

That's fine; if you have the right to keep coming in, so do I. I don't see why you'd, especially as a moderator, say "stop posting" if someone wasn't breaking any explicit rules or anything. That's... not very "moderator-ly".

That goes both ways; if you already know my point, why are you coming into the thread? @JJT: I don't think he's a troll. That's the point; I have no reason to think he is, so me making that assertion without evidence to back it up (or inhuman mind reading skills) would be asinine. I know I've made my point. Majority of my recent posts have been me defending myself from posts like Fenrir's, which I shouldn't have to do, but oh well. This is the internets; that's to be expected.

Bullsh*t. I'm calling it now. I could say that you are only disagreeing with me because you're a troll and you want to incite a flame war. You know why I don't? Because not only is it a baseless claim, but I can't read your mind over the internet, therefore I can only assume that the words you type are the truth ([sarcasm] tags notwithstanding). So, tell me, what am I thinking, oh knowledgeable one? Go ahead: read my mind. Prove that my constant assertions of "I don't agree with this law because I think it is exploitation", which you can find me saying in this thread (go ahead, actually read it) are lies masking my true intentions of not being able to live without a Charizard skinned to look like Ridley and my wishes to go all Emo and start cutting if big bad Nintendo doesn't give me my way. Do it. Prove it. Short answer: you can't and you're being insufferable. At least Sephfire and those like him aren't insufferable when they disagree (again, thanks to level-headed people like you).

Well, I'm so glad you know my intentions SO WELL. I want law changed because I don't think it's right that I can own something without "owning it". Plain and simple. ]EE['s problems were the catalyst that made me take a look at this facet of law and made me realize how unjust it is. How many times must I repeat something before you thickies get it? (Note: "thickies" in this case refers to people like Fenrir who think they have the psychic abilities necessary to intrinsically "know" 100% what I'm thinking over the internet.)

Ok... See this is what gets me. Let's say I want something changed. One person rarely has the power to change something like law, so the logical course of action would be to inform others and hope that they'll want to have things changed, too. But, according to your implication, I'm dumb for coming here and talking about this because none of you agree with me. Well, I wasn't aware that reality was based on how many people agree. Remember that in 1870, most people agreed that black people shouldn't have the right to vote; I guess the majority was right there, too? Just because a majority agrees, that doesn't make it the best way to do things. But no, because you don't agree with me, I must be misguided trying to talk about this. It's law, I have to deal with it, and it's worthless me trying to inform people and create discourse on a topic I think should be changed. Sorry, I'll try not to be so foolish next time? Really. Come on.

Sephfire hit it the closest as far as I'm concerned (thanks for the level headedness ). The only difference is that he says "them's the breaks", where as I say "them's the breaks now, but we should be able to make thems not the breaks." Obviously you guys are content with law as it is now. That's perfectly fine, and I'm not going to demean anyone in this thread for that. I'm (and most proponents of a more "open source" way of thinking, for lack of a better term) just not content, and so I wanted to open up a dialog. Let it be known that I don't defend breaking copyright by making textures of copyrighted characters (Megaman, Ridley, etc.), but the fact that modding is still a restricted act just upsets me to no end. The fact that you can own something without actually 'owning' it is totally wrong, as far as I'm concerned, and should be changed.

That's one song. That one song is not indicative of the site as a whole. That song is protected; every other one without some sort of satire, however, is still in the gray area.

Yes, because it's about winning? Not really. Oh, and parody only is applicable when some form of satire is in use, which isn't the case here.

I just wanted to respond to this before I go to sleep. Again, I don't think you've quite been getting my side of the message here. I understand that, for instance, modding and homebrew is breaking the law. I understand that Nintendo takes a firm stance against it. I understand that. I really do get that it's against the law. I don't think that it should be. I disagree with a basic tenant of these laws, namely that you don't have the right to mod something for personal use that you yourself legally acquired. I think that is blatant exploitation of the consumer. Me modding my system is my own business. If I have the parts and the know-how to mod my Wii to play DVD's, then I should have the right to do so; saves me money. If everyone has the same capabilities, that's the invisible hand of the market moving Nintendo to make a Wii that plays DVD's for cheaper than it takes me to mod the current gen hardware. If not, they lose money. Their loss for not following the consumer. Not everyone is going to agree with me. That's fine; this is a socially progressive way of thinking. But I (and people who do agree) have beef with the current system, and would like it to be changed. I'm sorry if you see that as being stubborn, but we could easily peg you as stubbornly sticking to convention, so it goes both ways. Demeaning each other, either way, gets us nowhere, so try not to do that. 'Night guys.

Because what I found says that it constitutes an infringement if the derivative work holds part of the original work. I'm sure well-paid lawyers could make a good enough case to convince a judge/jury. The point is that gray area is not good. "Next to nil" =/= "nil". Personally, that's not good enough for me, but it may be good enough for you. Which is fine; if that's the case, though, there's still no reason that we can't strive to make the gray area "nil". I want no gray area, and contrary to popular belief, I think the way to do that is to give the people more rights, not the current copyright holders.

Oh GNU... how open source is the way to go. Haha... If I was going to try to change something on OCR, I'd go to DJP, but as it stands, I'm just trying to get a dialogue going on the scope of copyright law. Discourse is healthy. Thanks for posting Mr. Stallman's stuff, though.

Ugh, legal-speak makes my head hurt. When it says 'sounds', what does it mean exactly? And are there specific clauses in terms of music composition, as opposed to just sound recording? Oh, and just for clarity, fair use says "factors to be considered", which means that a judge has to make the call. We can't judge fair use without a... judge. You know what I mean. EDIT: This is what I found in a quick search.

And just because they won't, that doesn't mean that they can't. We can go in circles all day/night (depending on time zone). Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't like there even being the possibility. I'm not much of a betting person, and the way things are, the good nature of people is the only thing keeping CEO's from collecting their checks, and I don't trust 'the good nature of people'. EDIT @ The Coop: I totally understand. At that point, it comes down to a difference in ideology. I know that, for instance, ]EE[ breaks copyright by making hacks of unoriginal characters, and I can never defend that. But, as it stands, they can't even make hacks for original characters because they don't 'own' their Brawl discs (I'm making Paul Rudd's "Role Models" face right now), and I don't agree with that at all. In terms of OCR, I think that a completely different part of copyright law is too harsh, that being derivative works. I don't see how OCR is in a legal gray area, but off-brand Fruit Loops aren't. All or nothing, you know? If that is 'far enough away' from copyrighted material to be safe from prosecution, then OCR should be, too. And so, I think 'derivative works' laws should be re-worked to give the public more rights. (BTW, I lol'ed hard at that Blast Processing bit.) Oh, and nail on the head with the "why not release when it's done?!" thing.

Yeah, I'll admit that I might have used a word a tad too strong. May bad, but I'm totally willing to admit that I made a mistake. As for your question, I don't think so? I'm really not sure, but one would assume that the definition of a word is public domain, and thus can't be copyrighted. A word, in and of itself, can be trademarked, but I'm not sure if that would fit in this case.

Again, just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't. The law allows it; the game companies just choose not to exercise their rights to shut OCR down. I don't think they should have those rights, which is where I disagree with current law.

@Dyne: And that I disagree with. I think that if I own something, I should have the right to modify it in any way I want, as long as it remains mine. And others should modify their property if they so choose. I think that the distinction between "you own the item" and "you own the idea" is dumb. I didn't buy a disc that happens to have bytes on it, I bought the disc because of the bytes. If I want to change it, it's mine to do as I please. Also, MLK broke the law with his sit ins. The point is that civil discourse usually is breaking the law. You usually can't change the law without it being broken first. @AS: No. That is ONE ASPECT of ]EE['s problems. I disagree for sure with most of their problems, but that is one facet I'm still working out. I'm sorry that I come to conclusions over time? Oh, and ]EE[, under the changes I would hope to see to law, wouldn't have been distributing actual changed Brawl .ISO's, or even the means to change the .ISO, just the changes to be made. A fine distinction, but an important one. After all, I can tell you, "Hey, I found out that if you add this cherry flavor to Coke, you get cherry flavored Coke!", and I can even give you the flavoring if I have it on me, but I'm still not giving you Cherry Coke. Fine distinction. @Darkesword: I do have a point, and I've said it a lot: I don't agree with current copyright laws. Also, that was a LOT of sarcasm I was getting. @Bleck: See, under current copyright law, you don't HAVE to make money off of something in order for it to be copyright infringement. Just one of the drawbacks of our current system. EDIT: Damn, AS got it. Well done research, AS!

The part of copyright law that says that I can't change the bytes on a Brawl disc that I own. Also, I think that backups should be legal, as long as they aren't distributed. No, I read it. It just doesn't apply to anything that OCR does, and even if it does, I don't agree with the policy. With the exception of security, encryption shouldn't be a problem. Although, I'm still coming to a concrete decision on how I feel about content encryption, so that is likely to change in the future. Yes, because I disagree with the part of the laws that make it an infringing act. The use of characters they don't own I accept. The modding of a game they bought and the making of backups, I do not. There was enough sarcasm pointed at me for me to consider that 'livid'. It really wasn't warranted. It's not like I insulted your mothers or something. Nixon said in the Frost interviews something along the lines that if the President does something, it automatically isn't illegal, insinuating that the President is above the law. Which translates (in this context) to "It's the law, so it can't be wrong." The problem is that it isn't a line that hasn't been crossed. According to law, the very existence of a remix that is being distributed without express consent is copyright infringement. The line has already been crossed. I, obviously, disagree with this and would like 'derivative works' laws to be re-worked, though I'm still wrestling with how. I'm not naive enough to think I have all the answers right at this second. Now, food time. @AS: I didn't compare the specifics. At a base level, we could super-simplify all copyright infringement down to "they broke copyright law", and just leave it at that. Obviously, at a deeper level, that can't be done, and later in the thread, I explained that. And, I already said I don't agree with the part of the law that says you can't modify things you own. That includes modchips, the HBC, hacks, anything. I own it; as long as I don't give it to someone else, I should be free to do as I please with it.

Whoops, DP. Sorry guys. I apologize.

Of course, the difference would be that I'm modding something that not only I already possess, but something I'm not giving away modified afterward, whereas in the case of piracy I am acquiring distributed data that I don't yet own. Quite different. And, information is different than action. Am I, by saying 'this is how you modify something', making someone else modify it? No, I am not. Of course, the way I see it, modifying something you already possess (without the intention of giving the modified product to another person) should be ok anyway, so giving away the how-to wouldn't be a problem either. The point is that I don't think there should be a difference between the physical copy of Brawl and the bytes on the disc. Oh, by the way, have you ever changed the volume settings on a song you got on iTunes? Technically, that's illegal then, because you don't own the bytes that make the song, and so you don't have the right to change the waveform to a volume that doesn't (or does) hurt your ears. The technicalities of our current system can get quite ridiculous. @AS: Ah ah ah! I said there that they both broke copyright law, but did I compare the manner in which they did? No, not in that post. Sorry. The whole point is that I don't agree with current law that states that changing the bytes on your Brawl disc is 'piracy'. Downloading a game you don't possess should never be a protected action, but either changing a game you already own or downloading a game you ALREADY OWN shouldn't be restricted actions. That's why I disagree. It's not that I ignored your point on piracy... it's that I just flat-out disagree with the law.

Go ahead, man. Sarcasm is so useful here.

Hahaha.... WOW, have you guys misinterpreted. I really feel bad now, not for anything I said, but that you all have misread the intentions of the thread SO MUCH. One bit at a time. Because AS called upon the internet: Activism is "an intentional action to bring about social or political change." Change of law IS political change, so this is activism. Doesn't have to be PETA to be activism; some activism (like just starting a debate or educating) is small in nature. Two, I'm NOT comparing OCR and ]EE[. They are both breaking copyright law, though in different ways. Those different ways, however, stem partially from the same starting point, that being 'derivative work'. So, they aren't a 1:1 match, but one perceived problem in copyright law brings about two seperate, yet partially related, problems. ]EE['s is worse. Not only have I, but nearly person talking about this hsa stated that ]EE['s 'law-breaking' is blatant copyright infringment. THAT BEING SAID, I obviously disagree with the current state of copyright law. Is it necessary? YES! Of COURSE it is. But not in the state it is in now. It gives too many rights to IP holders and not enough rights to the public. I should be able to do whatever I want to my Brawl disc (and any data on it) as long as I don't distribute, and you should be able to make arrangements until the cows come home without fear of legal action as long as you don't sell anything. We're, believe it or not, on the same side here. So, really, the fact that you're all getting so livid about this thread is seriously confusing to me. Really, it is. I hope you aren't the same people saying "Oh, it's dumb to impeach Bush," or (the more Nixonian in nature) "The law can't be wrong because it's the law." It's just a little discourse here; no reason to get yourselves all worked up.

...No...... not quite. Again, I'm just trying to get a little information out there on a perceived problem in a law. I'm... sorry for trying to educate people? Again, I'm not sure why the sarcasm is needed. Oh, by the way, I have quite the OCR collection on my hard drive; I've been here MUCH longer than I have been at ]EE[; were I to choose between, I'd choose OCR in a heartbeat. So, I don't see how this is someone weeping because '[my] site is down'.