Oh please, look whos talking about their own beliefs. You have done that quite a bit in other peoples threads.

Its unethical because he didnt create the original material. Show me where the guy owns the copyright to Toy Story and the other films included in his conception? How dense can you be not to understand that? It doesnt matter what he created from it. Its no different than me stealing your camera or your content without your permission and me making a movie out of it. Think you would be pissed off? I bet you would. Its unethical. At one point did he interject his own content?

This is why the law sucks. It allows people to take whatever they want and put together want they want whether they OWN the content or not.

As far as hijacking threads, people in glass houses Jay....

Very eloquent, Patrick. Look who's talking about being dense!

By the way, show me the threads I've hi-jacked, please.

Dude, Im not about to get in a pissing match with you. You always seem to do this same thing when someone doesn't agree with you. You lob stuff at people and then act innocent when it gets thrown back. Jay, I like you, you're a nice guy but you really need to understand that not everyone shares your view nor do they share mine.

Your post referred to a guy who made a piece talking about fair use that I feel is unethical. Im sure Disney feels the exact same way. Oh but you'll say then why doesn't Disney sue him? Because if they do and lose, then it sets a precedent that will be covered and then next thing you know, someone will take Good Dog content and "create" their own piece out of your content that you worked hard making or that someone else paid you to make.

I will give you the fact that it was intelligent and well put together. If it were his own content that he did this to or if it were Disney who edited or gave permission, then I have no problems.

Just because things are legal don't always mean they are ethical. Its legal for 15 year olds in Louisiana to have sex and get married, doesnt mean the 30 year old guy who does that is ethical.

Heres on thread you hi jacked.

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?Forum=4&MessageID=522554

It was the thread of prayers to the victims and families of the Va Tech shooter and you decide to argue with Serena about your rights to own a gun, etc...

You started the "pissing match," hot shot, not me.

It's not a matter of sharing views. Not only have you missed the point of the video, you missed the point of thread, and you miss the point of Fair Use, even after it was clearly explained to you by several people. You've sucked the life out of the thread and taken a fun, intelligent, well-thoughtout, well-executed little video and attempted to twist it into some hugh diabolical crime by some evil thief. If you're so convinced that Mr. Faden is an evil, stealing, thief, then contact him at Bucknell University and tell him what you think. Point out the errors of his ways. Contact Disney, too, and see what they have to say on the issue.

When you resort to name calling and accuse me of doing the something I haven't done... I don't appreciate that.Either put up or shut up, Patrick. You accused me of something, I challenged you to prove it and you back down so fast it's enough to made a person's head spin. That shows your true colors.

You use analogies that have no similarity to the subject, which goes to show you have no real understanding of the Fair Use doctrine whatsoever. Instead of ranting and raving, why not do some research? Read up on it and its evloution. You just might learn something.

Okay. You've made you point of view known. Fine. Move on.

As for me, I'm done here.

Okay, I lied. I'm not done here.

I did not hi-jack that thread. You posted your thoughts about your surprise at what people do to one another.

Serena's the one that hi-jacked the thread. She came in and started commenting on the Second Ammendment and suggesting how we, in the U.S., should exercise more gun control. That had nothing whatsoever to do with your original posting. Besides, there were two other replies to her statements before I got involved. I was just responding along with the others. So look again, because the thread was already hi-jacked before I got there.

You show me where "I" was the one who initiate the hi-jacking of the thread and monopolized it with my singular point of view, and I'll apologize.

Dude, you contributed to the hi jack. Does it matter if you fire the first shot that injures someone or the last shot that kills them?

Plain and simple, I post my thoughts on this topic. Dont like it? Sorry, it comes with the territory.

It's not your thoughts, it's your childlish approach.

Now I'm done.

You know Im not even gonna play this any more. You're seriously not even worth it.

I don't really know whether this falls under parody or educational use. It was pretty stupid, didn't really educate anybody ( it actually gives wrong information ) and wasn't funny at all ( aren't parodies supposed to be funny? ).

It managed to be more boring than the worst of Disney's crap. Proving once again why people use other people's work and whine about copyrights. They have no talent to create anything of their own.

Patrick,
I recommend you spend a few minutes viewing the 6 amendments to copyright law that specifically allow teachers to circumvent DRM for purposes of teaching. It's not a question of "doing it isn't ethical." It's legal. End of story.
[url "http://www.copyright.gov/1201/"[/url]
The Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) during the next three years.

1. Audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors.

IMO, it doesn't get much more clear than the above.

Spot, I am familiar with that as you posted it when it first hit.

But how does this fall under the classroom when its on the net for others to see when they arent in the classroom. Thats where its fuzzy for me. In a classroom instructed setting, no problem. Putting it on the internet for mass consumption by those not in the class seems like that it would be outside of the category. Not being argumentative, just trying to understand better.

It's still political or legal commentary, and in this specific case, a parodical. It has elements of satirical as well. Disney might try to shut this down, but they don't stand a prayer because the people that built it thought it out well.
It doesn't matter where it is seen, transferred, viewed, or heard.
This is likely going to become a new form of filmmaking genre, as it's legal, relatively easy, and artistic.

I'd be really interested if this assembly of clips was put on a DVD and sold by a third party as an educational tool. I wonder how its creators would react, and whether they would try to stop the sale by arguing that the edit is their own creative work.

It pays to watch and read. It's released under the creative commons licence. You'd need to check the exact provisions of the variant they're using but it's quite likely they'd have no problem at all with this.

Bob.

>It pays to watch and read.<

I did watch and read, thank you. At no point did I see a notice that answered the hypothetical question I posed.