This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Turkey
Pages: 1 ... 838485 8687 ... 270
2521
« on: May 09, 2016, 05:45:40 PM »
"satisfying the safeguards"
"within standard safeguards"
Or
"within the safeguard standards"
2522
« on: May 09, 2016, 02:06:33 PM »
it is often deemed necessary for data processing in this field to be covered by a high level of data protection exceeding the safeguards found in general data protection instruments and prohibits the departure from fundamental principles without proper and adequate justification(125).
it is often deemed necessary for data processing in this field to be covered by a high level of data protection beholden to the safeguards found in general data protection instruments and prohibits the departure from fundamental principles without proper and adequate justification(125)
it is often deemed necessary for data processing in this field to be covered by a high level of data protection surpassing the safeguards found in general data protection instruments and prohibits the departure from fundamental principles without proper and adequate justification(125)
2523
« on: May 09, 2016, 07:47:08 AM »
Tfw killed the Dragon using Jewish tactics and received a certain something that made the game a walk in the park.
Yeah, you keep thinking that.
Oh? Just got through the Capra Demon on my 3rd try.. And that moth thing... As well as the gargoyles and that other fatboi on the castle wall
How long is this game?
You're maybe through 1/5th of it.
2525
« on: May 08, 2016, 10:14:35 PM »
No one else triggered by dual wielding Arthur Dayne?
I mean, it's like the writers are 15 year old weebs.
DABID TWO SWORDS DABID TWO SWORDS
>Sword of the Morning >doesn't even use his famous sword made out of a goddamn meteor, Dawn >actually holds one of his longswords like a dagger for part of the fight gg D&D
2526
« on: May 08, 2016, 10:08:43 PM »
There were 6 people that stabbed Jon but only 4 get hanged?
Killed by the wildlings maybe?
2527
« on: May 08, 2016, 09:52:06 PM »
Is it a single location, or could it be the overall plot?
If you rob a bank with a loaded gun, you'd get in trouble for either the gun or the bank robbery
you can break a single felony
That's pretty tough, since most felonies come along with several other related charges. That said, probably grand larceny or felony robbery, something money-related.
2528
« on: May 08, 2016, 05:56:22 PM »
what do you make of the point i brought up about LPs being commentaries, though
does it even matter
i was completely with you up until you mentioned that--i think some (not all) LPs are protected, but i could be incorrect
I haven't looked very far in LPs and fair use, but I don't believe LPs are generally considered fair use currently, but I think there's a strong argument for them being such. For example, think of any LP you follow -- would you watch that video without the commentary? If not, I think the "heart of the content" lies in the original commentary being added to the video, rather than the game itself. Or even beyond that, just seeing the players' perspective is itself a form of commentary. Sorry for being harsh earlier; I respect your opinion and didn't intend to be rude, but I was.
2529
« on: May 08, 2016, 05:45:40 PM »
Not really offended, just perplexed by your behaviour. I mean, I don't give a fuck one way or the other what you think and how you respond to people, I guess I just expected a bit more intellectual rigour and a little less condescension from you.
That's weird, because I thought I always argued with a tinge of condescension. All things being equal I think I was pretty patient with so many people saying the same wrong things over and over. Sorry if I seemed hostile.
2530
« on: May 08, 2016, 05:38:09 PM »
Where's this coming from exactly? There's having several heated disagreements with people and then there's being a passive aggressive prick about it. I expect this kind of snarky behaviour from Verb, not you.
I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to, but I don't think it was snarky or passive aggressive. I bluntly told him that he was wrong and didn't know what he was talking about in regards to citation and fair use. Sorry? I had to respond to what seemed like a dozen identical posts riddled with the same misconceptions. To anyone that was offended by my bluntness: just get over it, I guess. You know that I don't mean anything personally or insultingly and I would never lose respect for someone for participating in any side of a discussion.
2531
« on: May 08, 2016, 05:32:06 PM »
But in raising plagiarism, I do have to ask: is accidental plagiarism not a plausible argument? I can't say whether or not she didn't intentionally create the misconception that she herself recorded the video clips, but not citing the source is a form of plagiarism. If it isn't, in this instance, could you explain why so?
Plagiarism is the theft of someone's ideas or style -- copyright infringement is the theft of their content. If she stole someone's clips (by claiming them as her own or exceeding fair use criteria), that'd be copyright infringement. If she stole someone's published arguments about feminism in video games, or their style of video or mannerisms, etc, and it wasn't in a satirical capacity, that'd be plagiarism. So if she had (knowingly, and defining that can be a whole other can of worms) used an argument made by someone else in a video, then that's plagiarism.
2532
« on: May 08, 2016, 05:15:38 PM »
Have you read my source? I specifically made sure that it was from either a government or education source so that I could be sure of the information's authenticity.
It only mentions that if a work isn't transformative, isn't reasonable or customary, or is in bad faith, denial of credit (not lack thereof) may factor into the first facet of fair use. I've already provided a fair use walkthrough for this example. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.htmlRule 3: Giving the Author Credit Doesn't Let You Off the Hook
Some people mistakenly believe that they can use any material as long as they properly give the author credit. Not true. Giving credit and fair use are completely separate concepts. Either you have the right to use another author's material under the fair use rule or you don't. The fact that you attribute the material to the other author doesn't change that. Your source: Can I avoid infringement by crediting the source?
No. Copyright infringement and plagiarism are two different things. Plagiarism is the misappropriation of another's work, passing it off as your own without indicating the source. It is possible to plagiarize a work without infringing the copyright—for example if you take another’s ideas without proper attribution, even though you do not copy the language, or you borrow from a work whose copyright has expired. Conversely, it is possible to infringe without plagiarizing. Properly citing the work you are copying does not avoid liability for infringement. https://www.teachingcopyright.org/handout/fair-use-faqNote that attribution has little to do with fair use; unlike plagiarism, copyright infringement (or non-infringement) doesn't depend on whether you give credit to the source from which you copied. Fair use is decided by courts on a case-by-case basis after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright Act. I think I've more than thoroughly addressed this subject so I'm not going to respond to it further. Fair use tautologically rejects the need for any permission from the copyright holder.
2533
« on: May 08, 2016, 05:04:51 PM »
Still waiting on a single shred of evidence that Anita ever positively claimed someone else's footage as her own, because that's ultimately what the entire opposing argument hinges upon.
2534
« on: May 08, 2016, 04:55:30 PM »
Considering that Copyright isn't a black-and-white area, any bite for or against is relevant. The need for a citation for fair use is black and white. It's unnecessary. Fair use, by definition, is the usage of copyrighted content without permission of the copyright owner. Turkey, the copyright owner. Not her. Whether the copyright owner's work is factual or creative is irrelevant; it's the use that matters. ]If it is reasonable to do so, one should seek to gain permission to use a work first. Permission isn't necessary for fair use So why even use a LPer's footage? Who cares? It doesn't matter. Having an alternative view It's not alternative; it's incorrect. She doesn't require permission or a citation. but don't tell me that I haven't put any effort into researching this subject. I never did; I said you're wrong. Maybe you've put hours of effort into learning about this -- you're still wrong, and I encouraged you to learn more.
2535
« on: May 08, 2016, 04:36:14 PM »
She has not given credit to the author of the video. Doesn't disbar her, but doesn't help. Irrelevant he has in fact credited the copyright owner. No, he doesn't cite anybody at any time. Doesn't mean creative works (i.e. music, LPs, movies, etc) can't be used under fair use, but it's not as likely to qualify.
Her work is factual, not creative. If it is reasonable to do so, one should seek to gain permission to use a work first.
There is no reason for her to not seek permission in the first place. Sure there is; she has no obligation to do so. By using someone else's let's play, she is taking the heart of the work. No, she isn't, especially in the tiny clips she uses. fair use is a last resort protection Nope I really do wish that copyright was more clear-cut as a concept I do too, because then people like you wouldn't be completely wrong about it on here. such as crediting the source and attempting to get permission first, do very much help the case Those actions literally, legally, have absolutely zero bearing on fair use. Sorry, you just don't know what you're talking about at all. I urge you to step back from your preconceived idea of what fair use law entails, reexamine it using the source I provided, and try to come up with a better understanding of it.
2536
« on: May 08, 2016, 04:24:19 PM »
I'm not sure why people are bringing up copyright when it isn't even relevant.
The terms of service specifically mention that you are not allowed to use another users video without their permission and that's all that really matters. Copyright doesn't even play into it.
Please cite any instance where she has uploaded another user's video at all, let alone while claiming it as her own. I've already thoroughly covered why using clips is distinctly different from a video, and that YouTube clearly allows the use of others' clips in the same fair use capacity.
2537
« on: May 08, 2016, 04:17:24 PM »
Taking someone else's video and claiming it as your own is content theft, there's not really any way around it.
Where has she done this? Where has she uploaded somebody's video and called it her own? Where has she taken a clip of someone's video and called it her own? Don't say that it's somehow implied, because as I've made abundantly clear she has no obligation to credit anybody when using their clips. I'm asking for just a single instance where she has explicitly said of any clip, something along the lines of, "we recorded this clip ourselves in-game". The possibility of her videos somehow containing other people's work and she is profiting off of it without their consent is "faulty grounds" and has to do with a conflicting ideology?
It really is frustrating that so many people on here are speaking authoritatively about fair use without the slightest understanding of what it means. Here's a list of people that ought to do a quick bit of Googling before responding further: -Ian -LC -Mordo -Prime
2539
« on: May 08, 2016, 03:52:14 PM »
What film critic doesn't talk about the director, producer, publisher, etc? One of myriad examples: Music Video Sins. He uploads videos that he presumably took directly from YouTube, and without comment of the channel that originally uploaded it, uses it in a satirical, fair use role. Fair use does, in fact, require use to credit to owner of the property. That's why Nintendo can strong arm Let's Players for ad revenue. The reason why you can't just give Nintendo credit to keep them away is because their copyright (traditional) doesn't allow others to use their properties without permission and (more importantly) for making money off of it. Without delving into the depths of fair use law, I can assure you that of the four major principles that decide whether something is eligible for use, "giving credit" isn't one of them. https://www.teachingcopyright.org/handout/fair-use-faq(read below) Whether a use is fair will depend on the specific facts of the use. Note that attribution has little to do with fair use; unlike plagiarism, copyright infringement (or non-infringement) doesn't depend on whether you give credit to the source from which you copied. Fair use is decided by courts on a case-by-case basis after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright Act. Let's Play videos are typically not protected by fair play because they're not transformative, they're for-profit, and they use a substantial amount of licensed content. Your example is terrible, especially considering how controversial Nintendo's treatment of Let's Play content is.
2540
« on: May 08, 2016, 03:42:12 PM »
Using a third party tool to rip videos from youtube (something that is against the ToS) and then reuploading them inter the pretense that they were made by you is.
Can you cite a single instance in any of Anita's videos where she claims that the clips are her own?
2541
« on: May 08, 2016, 03:28:16 PM »
Media critics also give credit to the creator of the source material when they reference it. This isn't true at all, and doesn't factor into fair use policy or anywhere in YouTube's terms of use. Anita gives credit to the game's creator, but not the clip's creator. By not citing the clip's source, she's lying by omission She doesn't need to give credit anywhere. Fair use doesn't require that, nor does YouTube's terms of use. Whenever someone uploads a video and writes something like, "I don't own this content, the source is linked below", etc, it means nothing. "Lying by omission" is irrelevant to the discussion, and she has no obligation to say where she got her clips because those content creators have no claim to the rights of the game. Fair use frees her from all obligation to obtain permission from anyone. She could take a clip of 100% original content and use it in a satire or journalistic video without saying a word to the content's creator.
2542
« on: May 08, 2016, 03:18:22 PM »
All units of measurement are arbitrary. Imperial is a more natural system that is useful when relating measurements to human features, especially useful in cooking, and metric provides scalar precision that is useful in science.
2543
« on: May 08, 2016, 03:02:50 PM »
A video and clip can also be the same thing as a clip is just a short slice of a film or broadcast and a video is just a recording or broadcast of moving images and when taking YouTubes past actions into account it's clear that YouTube considers them to be synonymous as well. They clearly aren't, though; that's why film critics can show clips of movies but can't upload the entire movie. YouTube seems to make a pretty explicit distinction between uploading someone's video as one's own and sampling clips in a journalistic role. Look at literally any media critic -- they're doing the exact same thing Anita has done. It doesn't matter if some vlogger uploaded the clip; even if that person did own the rights to that clip (and they don't), it would still be subject to fair use. The defense of "well other people break the rules all the time" doesn't fly because those people should be getting suspended too, it's just impractical to catch everyone due to how absolutely massive youtube is.
They're not breaking the rules. I'm describing a well-established precedent for what others -- big or small -- have done within the terms of use. My argument is that she hasn't broken any rules, not that it's just okay for her to do so and get away with it.
2544
« on: May 08, 2016, 01:17:14 PM »
It's a violation of their community guidelines which is stated to be against the terms of service.
Only upload videos that you made or that you're authorized to use. This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos that someone else owns the copyright to, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, or videos made by other users, without necessary authorizations. Clips from other videos are neither music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, nor videos made by others. They aren't even really clips of videos made by others, since that person doesn't retain any rights to those clips. There are tons of videos out there that use clips of other peoples' original content as well, such as reaction videos or videos about YouTube drama; the terms of use clearly prohibit uploading someone else's video, but not the use of someone's clips in a different, original video.
2545
« on: May 08, 2016, 12:41:42 PM »
Shame she's back up because of her notoriety. If a smaller channel had been banned for stealing other peoples work and claiming it as their own they'd never have won their appeal.
Can someone actually talk about whether using others' clips is stealing? Content creators do not retain any rights to their clips as far as I'm aware, because all of that falls under whoever owns that intellectual property; in this case, it's the game's publisher. Content creators own the rights to their commentary and subsequent video, but I don't see how they could argue she stole their work unless she's copying other peoples' videos or arguments (which doesn't appear to be the case). And beyond that, if she's just using standalone clips, that would also fall under fair use because it's transformative and journalistic. http://newmediarights.org/fairuse/Spoiler Do you own the rights to each piece of media that you use in the documentary or online video?
No
If you don't own the content, do you have a license to use it?
No
Is the media released under a Creative Commons license?
No
Is the media you are reusing part of the public domain?
No
Is the purpose of the use criticism, commentary, reporting, teaching, research or parody?
Yes
Does your reuse transform the material in some way?
Yes
Is the use of the copyrighted media necessary to understand the meaning of your video?
Yes
Is the project for profit?
Yes
Is the content you reuse fact based or is it highly creative?
Factual
Was the content published?
Yes
Did you use only as much copyrighted content as was needed to make your point?
Yes
What percentage of the reused content was taken, and what percentage of the new work does it constitute?
Low
Is the content taken at the heart of the work?
No
Will your work negatively affect the sales of the content you reuse?
Yes
Is your video or product competing in the same market as the copyrighted content?
No
2546
« on: May 08, 2016, 12:09:51 PM »
For the covenants that pair you with others (watchdogs, faithfuls, sentinels, etc) I really wish it would be more aggressive. I have never been summoned for any of these despite wearing the covenants for hours in the right areas, and using a red eye orb defaults you to Rosaria's Fingers.
Red-eyeing with the corresponding covenant equipped should make you appear as the phantom of the covenant if you are in the right areas.
Or the specific covenant should have priority over red eyes. Something like that, anything like that and those covenants would vastly improve.
Yeah, or treat wearing the covenant as a constant red eye for that covenant, because it just doesn't work right now.
2547
« on: May 08, 2016, 12:07:03 PM »
Found it. Dunno how credible it is but again, it's from the guy that predicted episode 2 correctly.
Sounds pretty boring.
2548
« on: May 08, 2016, 11:37:59 AM »
Fuuuug I've just been given leaks to the new episode. It's gonna be another shit show if it's true smh.
Source plz
2549
« on: May 08, 2016, 11:26:04 AM »
this kills the meme
2550
« on: May 08, 2016, 10:33:01 AM »
Chinks got my SS and other government info last year anyway. Ruskies getting all the anime porn on my onedrive doesn't bother me.
 Putting strange CDs into your computer again?
Pages: 1 ... 838485 8687 ... 270
|
Show Posts
