Long time coming - they accept gb cheque!


I shall just give you the pic.


---- shall take it.


you could try less of the MKHD-videos

other than that I thnk you are alright, pal. :woman_scientist:


@TheGuyWhoLovesChill as previously discussed: could you please stop linking to, or embedding, copyright infringing material? It endangers the forum’s very existence. Thanks.


@TheGuyWhoLovesChill linked to a youtube hosted video. Linked. Liability rests with youtube if there is a copyright issue. If you ask me, the real problem is a chilling effect that stifles cultural exchange.


In some jurisdictions, the link is enough of an infringement. Copyright is not a chilling effect, it’s something that permits artists and creators to—when they choose to—exploit their work to whatever gain they see fit.

Also, we’ve politely asked Chill not to do that anymore. If you’ve got a problem with that, we can go sleddin’ and you can tell me why you think my farts are 10-ply.


Hi @neuro I am interested in your thoughts on this.

You have posted, admittedly very short, video clips from films that that are subject to copywrite most recently clips from “The Blues Brothers” which by the way is a film I love.

Where do you draw the line between what is acceptable to post and what is not?

As a lover of open source and freedom I would love it if @TheGuyWhoLovesChill , or anybody else, could post what they want.

You are correct here intellectual property is protected by law and while I am not always happy with it: these are the rules we have to live by.


There is a marked difference between me linking to a 15 second clip from The Blues Brothers and @TheGuyWhoLovesChill linking to an entire Mark Knopfler concert ripped from a TV broadcast.


I fully agree with you here, Your definition is about where I draw the line too. Glad to see you are helping to police the forum. We certainly do not want to see it shut down over this sort of thing.

@TheGuyWhoLovesChill being shut down is a real issue if any copy-write owner takes offence to what is on this site. I agree with @neuro here. Nobody wants to stop you from an active role in the community but please stop posting copyrighted material.


@Sarah_Scarlett true

Looks like we both wear the same sweat-shirt and never grew up :smile:

jumper its a


It’s a nice shirt. I do share the sentiment but I’m not sure the phrase “grow up” is correct (ever notice utterances like “oh, grow up” and “real mature! /s” are made disproportionately by preteens…just something to ponder). If the meaning is refusing to conform to societal norms then I wholeheartedly agree! :slight_smile:

I’m not liking how knowledge by consensus, and that being motivated mostly by fear, has been becoming our societal norm for quite some time now (despite warnings from Huxley, but hey,who has time to read books now…gah :() That may actually be the core issue (?).

Our society now demands adamant opinions immediately and many do not have the time to think about positions before adopting them. For example, did anyone consider that google uses a technology called content ID to vet the videos they host on youtube (and in some cases even pay the appropriate royalties if necessary) or that this site is protected by safe harbour laws (known as frameworks internationally) should any of us forum users actually do anything wrong?

Nobody is doing anything wrong from an ethical or legal perspective by sharing content from youtube here. Any content. In fact, personally, as a Canadian I’ve benefited greatly from people sharing their UK and European cultures on these forums. That’s not wrong and that should be encouraged. Especially derivative works; Some of the best pieces are just that. For example I wish someone would make a death metal cover (I’m talentless and can’t :() of The Rainbow Connection because that’s exactly what plays in my mind whenever I see a thread like this one.


Please see my response to s/he further down


Thank you for insulting my intelligence for insinuating that I generally don’t think about what I post before posting.

This is highly dependent on what content providers have provided fingerprints to YouTube, and how those fingerprints translate to varying versions of content. To specifically address the Mark Knopfler concert posted, his record label(s) may have provided fingerprints for the studio recorded versions of the songs performed, but the concert production company and/or the TV network may not have done so (or been able to).

DMCA Safe Harbor legislation protects website operators from prosecution over copyright infringement, yes, but the protections aren’t automatic. The site must be registered with the USPTO, have a DMCA Designated Agent assigned (usually a copyright attorney, at your own expense), and have a DMCA notice on the site advising copyright holders how to contact the site to request a takedown. To my knowledge, these things have not occurred for this site.

Safe Harbor protections are also legally fluid, as LiveJournal found out when a district court told them they weren’t protected because they used moderators.

I know it’s nice to dream about how the world could be, and should be, but some of us need to deal with the realities of the world as it exists right now, so at the very least out of courtesy for that, can we please refrain from the continued linking to and posting of egregiously infringing material to a) protect the integrity of the forum, and b) protect the owners of the forum from unnecessary risk and hassle?

I’m not saying this shit because I’m an arsehole or a fucking idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, I’m saying this shit because I actually like the people who run and inhabit this forum. Consider that please before you start assuming I’m some fucking tyrant (I’m not) abusing power (I have none) and trying to destroy people’s fun.


I understand that, as do I. At worst, the law views them as service provider intermediaries. Nowhere does the language refer to “infringer” as anything other than the original uploader. Meh, I’m not your mom though so if you truly give a shit you can do your own research. I suggest starting with Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter and eBay v.MercExchange. Or, y’know, just use common sense and ask yourself why there’s a share/embed button under youtube videos.

Let’s focus on what you’re saying here in these forms though. Am I right in construing your statements in the thread to @TheGuyWhoLovesChill as a constructive cease and desist? Further, that what constitutes infringement here is to be determined by a bunch of non lawyer/paralegals on a tech forum? I’m not going to ask on whose authority because as an independent site (not government, not registered not for profit, health related, etc. etc.) the owner(s) of the forum are within full rights to make and enforce almost any rules they wish.

Yet I would appreciate it greatly if you were to clarify just what you are proposing for the future of the Bad Voltage forums? I’d like you to state it publicly please.

Please do note I stepped in on the conversation stating that I thought chilling effects were the true problem…because this is exactly how they work :frowning:


YouTube was created so people could share their own videos, content that they themselves have created. Why is there a share button on every article on the New York Times site? So that people can create wholesale copies of copyrighted material?

Yes? I have asked politely, in fear for this community’s safety. Moderators have asked politely. A presenter has asked politely. At some point, repeatedly doing what multiple people have asked not to be done goes from being a community-minded content sharer to a committed wilful negligence actor.

That’s neither here nor there; what’s relevant is what can be actionable under the DMCA, and this site is not DMCA-compliant (and I’ll wager a shitload of others aren’t either). Safe Harbor applies to links to infringing content under 17 U.S.C. § 512(d), but the protections only apply once the actions I described previously are undertaken: agent registration, policy publication, etc.

The so-called “red flag test” also applies: in this scenario, as soon as someone operating or moderating this site becomes aware that infringing material is being hosted or linked to, 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(a)(iii) applies, and the material (or link to material) must be “expeditiously” removed or disabled, so as to remove “service provider” liability.

I’m proposing that people please stop fucking about and abide by what the community is asking.

And at some point, @TheGuyWhoLovesChill, you’re either going to have to stand up and apologise for what you did, or just straight up tell me to fuck off.


soz @neuro , but it was just laissez fiction.



What does that even mean?


an apology
end of.

go write the book now.


Your attitude is just horrendous.


Firstly, our conversation here on the thread has nothing to do with @TheGuyWhoLovesChill other than I don’t like it when I see someone shamed for something I do not believe them in the wrong for. I don’t know the guy at all, we’re not PMing or on IRC or anything. This is not coordinated. So if you’ve a problem with anything I’m saying, you’ve a problem with me exclusively. Tee hee, I’ll warn you it’s quite a line of people who’ve got a problem with me you’re going to have to get in though :wink: The ‘good’ (depending how you look at it) news is, it’s almost never reciprocal :slight_smile:

They’re there so that people can link to, share, the content. When you embed a youtube video, you are not making a wholesale copy of the video on your server and serving it yourself, you are merely linking to it. Further, a decade in, do you not think they’ve noticed people are uploading videos that they personally did not make? For example this video has been on youtube since 2009:

Does it make sense that youtube has simply not noticed it? That Children’s Workshop, known for fiercely protecting the Sesame Street brand, just doesn’t care? Or would it make more sense that the childrens workshop foundation is actually receiving royalties each time that video is viewed either on youtube or as embedded on a forum, blog, etc.? I hope you’ll agree that the latter makes the most sense because that is what is happening with content ID

“YouTube isn’t Napster – if somebody owns the copyright to a song within a video, and demands that the service take it down, it comes down. But first, YouTube offers a different approach: “Content ID.” That means if your wacky wedding video is set to Chris Brown’s “Forever,” Brown and his record label can agree to cover the thing with ads and take a cut of the royalties.”

Our technologies are expansive and we are being urged to keep up with that expansion. There are many facets of that statement but sometimes it’s a good thing, like in this case; Hoarding behaviour is being proven as no longer the only viable way to make money :slight_smile:

Ok, that is confirmed then. That happened.

Well, I’m not sure how one can both be willful and negligent, but I assume you mean you’ve interpreted passive resistance to your demands as hostility. I honestly don’t think the intent was hostile; We’re all friends here :slight_smile: In fact, it is my hope that the situation not being as black and white as simply pointing a finger at anyone who shares a youtube video and screaming “Pirate! You’ll bring doom upon us all!!!” becomes clear though my participation in this thread (i.e. most people don’t even know google pays royalties though youtube, etc.)

Yes, yes it very much is. In any legal related matter. I’m just going to have to ask you to take my word on that.

Do I think that level of protection is necessary? Do I interpret what’s being done on this forum as actionable at all? Personally, no. Again though, neither of us are lawyers. However, it’s 80 bucks to register if one of the forum owners wishes to register themselves and Bytemark, owner of the servers, is already.(I used to run (read:repeatedly break) a pump.io instance and used be a Bytemark customer myself). ‘Problem’ already solved :slight_smile:

We’re still in disagreement over whether an infringement is taking place by the posting of youtube videos here.

I was actually asking for a reason. I don’t care that much myself, but it seems that you’ve quite an interest in IP and how this community handles it. Let’s talk about that. Let’s all talk about it and I envision eventually we’ll come to an agreement on points that can become questions for some sort of poll that that the community can take. The community. I expect this community hasn’t a policy for dealing with IP yet as we are still able to post youtube videos, you’re allowed still to use your avitar featuring the likeness of Kevin Smith (Righteous!, BTW), etc. etc. Like I said before, this is a privately owned forum and the owners are free to make and enforce any rules they wish. Let’s not waste the time of some very busy people until we know what exact actions we as a community wish to request they take though. That was my reason for asking you to clarify what you’re proposing, and I’m asking you again please?



I shall pray for you, tonight.

@Sarah_Scarlett that link went days ago, thanks for the days of backing me up !

Please respect our code of conduct which is simple: don't be a dick.