ChangoLanzao

Do you like oppression, slavery and genocide? Do you think that WWII was unnecessary? Foul! Why did you chop the rest of his sentence out? "I really don’t like the people who support it who will never see or feel the effects of what they blindly wish upon others." Hating war in no way implies that one likes oppression, slavery and genocide.

Nice page (but filled with odd opinions.) "Never use a tobacco grad!" WTF?? Ok, tell that to a LOT of producers and photographers. "Do it in Photoshop?" Pushing colors and contrast makes for additional noise. Doesn't adding more glass in front of your lens degrade the image too? I think you can easily add a gradient layer in photoshop without adding an unacceptable amount of noise to an image. I don't know, to me it just seems a lot simpler to post-process in photoshop than to deal with the complexity and cost of using a grad in freefall. That's why it's never occured to me to use one. Perhaps I should give it a try.

I agree with you. I think Glenn Beck is shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

I'm in my avatar today, but I change it periodically, so I don't have any idea what it will look like more tahn a few months from now That's a really nice hawg you've got there skyrider!

For the grad filter to really make a positive difference, consistently in freefall don't you have to really pay attention to being level, either head-down or belly-to-earth (or whatever angle the grad filter is oriented), with your subject in the middle of the frame?

My YouTube vidis are HERE I use music licensed under Creative Commons Licensing, so it's legal to copy and repost, burn it on your own DVD, etc. I have lots more vidi's posted on Facebook too, but many are just your run-of-the-mill tandem vidi's. Pathetic Loser Skydiving Team on Facebook. DZ Photo and Video on Facebook.

Like the FAA jump pilot training video we use says: "Skydivers are difficult to see, but they are even harder to hit" :D

Just wondering if anyone can ID it for me. CLICKY

OK. I stand corrected. I was wrong in assuming that he didn't totally own all of the copyrights to the the album that he downloaded. Now I just need to get the thought out of my head of Lars walking into any record store, grabbing his album and walking out with it :-D :-D

When did I say that I thought it was a good idea to do it? What I think is a good idea for DZ's to do is to use Creative Commons By-Sa licensing. Why do you insist on telling me that I am implying that he does it all the time??? I never said or implied that. You are the one making that implication, not me. I don't think he does it all the time. As far as I know he did it only that one time. What he did was illegal. If I am an off-duty police officer driving my car, and I run a stop sign just to demonstrate to the passengers in my car how easy it is to break the law, does that mean that my action is more justifiable than if I were an average Joe running the stop sign because I felt the placement of the stop sign in that particular place is not justified and/or it didn't apply to me?

I didn't imply anything. I simply quoted his admission that he downloaded music from the internet for free (he obviously thought he was justified in doing so). Nonetheless, he broke the law. If you think that it's just a matter of degree, well that's fine. I have no problem with that A DZ or vidiot who syncs legally obtained music to a student's DVD without permission is also breaking the law. I think that is a matter of degree too. There are many people, not representatives of the RIAA and/or the MPAA. who feel that is justifiable too - which is why I think a DZ or vidiot will probably never be taken to court for that either.

Out of context???? I posted a quote that shows that Lars himself, in his own words, admitted to freely downloading music. It was just as illegal for him to do it as anyone else The only reason I cited the source, was so that you could see where I found this gem. I think you would be justified in discrediting the source if you so desire, but the quote I showed you is the entire context that stands by itself. It's a fact. Lars illegally downloads free music and openly admits to it. What part of the "context" of that is missing?

That's not what he said. His point was that it's prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to legally use Metallica's music on his videos ETA: It's ironic that anyone here actually thinks Metallica is a good example :-D :-D :-D Here's the source: CLICKY

I beg to differ with you. I think that the Recording Industry lawyers and lobbyists have demonstrated that they would welcome the opportunity have the laws written so that they could extort a royalty each time a song or video is played if they could get away with it. Not necessarily. I sell most of my best photos as RF stock. One of them was chosen to be on the cover of your book by your publisher My cut of the extended license was $10. Of course I'd be delighted if you would, out of the goodness of your heart, send me $0.50 for each copy of your book that was printed Another of my photos was printed in Parachutist, and I was paid $15.00 for it. I could care less how many people reprinted a copy of it to post on their refrigerators or to show their friends. Of course, It would be disconcerting to see anyone selling my images as their own work. It's unlikely though, since I do control the distribution of the high-resolution versions, but you never know. This right already exists. You can copy a purchased song/CD/album/tape to as many mechanical devices as you wish for your own use, in other words, so it can only be listened to on one device at a time. Making copies for your friends isn't personal use. It's theft. Making a copy of your iTunes download to a CD for the car, the iPod for jogging, your computer for listening at work, your laptop for listening at home, an SD card for listening in the RV, or syncing to a personal video of yourself is all perfectly legal. The key words: "On one device at a time" That's B.S. Why? It serves no purpose other than to make it difficult to make copies. I still remember what a pain in the ass it was to use that piece of crap SONY MD mini-disk player/recorder I bought a few years ago! I will never forgive SONY Music for that here is where we significantly depart in agreement. If you make a copy of a song I wrote, recorded, and sell through iTunes for yourself and your various listening devices, GREAT! Thank you! But when you make a copy for your buddy and he makes copies for his various listening devices, you've just stolen from me. The argument might be made "well, Jim-Bob never would have bought your music in the first place, so I did you a favor by giving him a copy." How is it a favor to me that Jim-Bob is listening to my music but I was not compensated for his enjoyment of my hard work? Sorry, but I can't agree at all with this. "Regardless of who stole the work, you should be allowed to enjoy it?" Doesn't work that way in the analog world, and certainly shouldn't work that way in the digital world. That's not the case I was referring to. I agree with you totally that it is wrong to make copies to give to your friends or to distribute on the internet. As I stated a couple of times in previous notes in this thread, the scenario I was referring to is the example that champu gave about putting music on a DVD for a student who has already legally obtained a copy of the music! The student has a licensed copy already. He should not be made to feel that he is a criminal for having the music on his skydiving video that he uses for personal use only. I don't think it should matter whether he sync'ed it on there himself, or if the DZ did it for him. He has legally obtained the music in the first place. Period. Of course he should not be allowed to upload the video to YouTube or distibute a copy freely to his friends. That is an entirely separate issue. You're absolutely right. The copyright holder has no control over where you listen, how many times you listen, watch, or even replicate for personal use. They never have had this right, and likely never will. The only exception is if you want to play music at a public gathering such as a bar...then you need to be a member of ASCAP, SESAC, or BMI. I've read "To Kill a Mockingbird" at least 100 times in my life (no exaggeration). I've worn out at least 4-5 copies. But since I paid for it once, should I be allowed to walk into Barnes and Noble and simply take a copy from the shelf because I paid for it once? I wore out my VHS copy of Norman Kent's "Willing to Fly" as well. Does Norman owe me a free DVD now because I paid for it once? IMO, you should have the right to make a photocopy of the book for your own use, as a "backup" for when you wear out the original. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly legal for you to lend the book to all of your friends to read. Why? Because the book publishing industry was never able to practically prevent you from doing that in the olden days Things are much different now. Almost anyone who uses a computer, listens to music, or watches DVD's nowadays is potentially a criminal. My guess is that Norm Kent wouldn't give a hoot if you made a backup copy of the original, legally obtained, copy of the VHS tape. Of course, chances are that the Industry fixed it so that your VHS recorder made it very difficult or impossible for you to use your VHS recorder to copy it You should have made a backup copy. IMO, since you legally obtained the original, it shouldn't be criminal for you to have a friend make you a backup copy now. Of course, if I were you I'd go ahead and purchase the DVD, since it's a great movie and the quality of the DVD would be better I disagree with that first sentence. There are lots of skydiving videos that are non-commercial and personal. You must be referring only to tandem videos or something, since you mentiond the vidiot being hired to shoot, edit, and deliver. Of course, in that case it's a commercial product that contains an unauthorized duplication. But it shouldn't be illegal for the DZ to sync music that the student has already legally obtained onto the DVD for them. That should be considered a "fair use" IMO. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that the student should have no right to give copies to his friends or upload it to YouTube in that case. This is precisely why I think that DZ's should be using RF or Creative Commons BY-SA licensed music and just avoid the other stuff entirely. All of my tandem videos use CC by-sa licensing. I roll credits at the end and I, in turn, license the videos as CC BY-SA so that the student is free to upload to YouTube, FaceBook, their own web site, etc, and it's perfectly legal. They are even allowed to edit and make a derivative work and sell it commercially if they wish as long as they give the proper credits and attributions.

I agree with this. Auto focus works well in the plane for close-ups as well as in the air. I use the Cannon 15 EF lens on my XT for free fall shots (this gives the result of a 22mm wide-angle because of the small sensor) and I can use it on my 5DII on the ground for really nice fish eye. I have not convinced myself yet that it would be prudent to put the 5DII on my helmet and jump with it. It is way too expensive and I periodically PLF on landings as necessary The XT has been holding up very well to the abuse.

I have to disagree a little with this. IMO the most important factor is composition I've seen some kickass images taking with cell phones and point-and-shoots under the worst lighting and exposure conditions

Where I have a problem with this is that if it were up to the Music Industry, these rights would be perpetual and without limits. They've already managed to extend to 70 years the length of time that a copyright is valid. If we left it up to SONY and their lawyers, copyrights would last forever, and if it could be done, they would implant chips in our brains so that they could collect a royalty every time we listened to one of their copyrighted songs. There have to be limits. I think we need to draw the line at least where an individual who has legally obtained a work, to make as many copies as they want for PERSONAL USE, be it on DVD, CD, Hard Disk, on paper, in their brains ... whatever, regardless of who made the copy for them as long as they are not claiming the work as their own, they give credit whenever possible to the artist, and they don't try to profit monetarily from it. I don't think the copyright holder should have the right to control how many times I listen to a song, how many times I read a book, how many times I can watch a movie that I have obtained legally. The copyright holder should also not have the right to tell me where or on how many devices I can do this either. I have the right to make as many copies (backups) of a DVD as I want for PERSONAL USE. I know that some lawyers think otherwise, but it is unenforceable because enforcement requires my right to privacy to be violated. Our rights to Privacy and our right to Freedom of Speech should always trump the copyright holders' rights as far as I'm concerned.

Have you visited jamendo.com? There is a lot of good music there, you just have to put in some time and sample it to find music to your liking. It is free. If you search for music that you can use for commercial purposes and music that you can modify, adapt, or build upon (CLICKY), there's lots of stuff that you can sync in tandem videos. If you want to find music that you can sync to personal non-commercial videos, then just uncheck the box for music that can be used for commercial purposes (CLICKY) in the Advanced search, you'll get an even larger selection to chose from. There is some really good music of all genres on Jamendo.Com and it is free and legal to use under Creative Commons licensing.

Then I'm guessing you haven't been involved in much IP law. I'm no attorney, but I've seen my share of this stuff. The RIAA, or the MPAA, or whomever, will gladly sue if they think they can make an example out of someone. And in this case, they definitely could. You're guessing correctly So you've seen your share; can you mention a few of the cases? I'd really like to read about them. Honestly. Any links? Now there's a topic for SC!

Sure. Lots of people feel this way. But don't confuse that with "fair use", which has a very specific, convuluted, messy meaning. I totally agree. The definition of "fair use" needs to be clarified and lined up more closely with what The People think is fair. Yup ... that pretty much sums it up for me. I just need to wait for an opportunity to be on a jury so that I can actually make a contribution to the change , I don't think my congressman would be much help. Yeah ... I don't want to go there either. I'm just not sure it's desirable to invoke the still unsettled SONY vs. Tennenbaum case in order to perpetuate fear of the RIAA. Instead, I think DZO's and vidiots should be encouraged to properly use royalty free and creative commons licensed music that is legal to sync in their videos. No, I wasn't asking how often. I actually would like to know if they EVER went after a WEVA wedding photographer in the SONY v. Tenenbaum way, actually going to a jury asking for astronomical punitive damages?

I think people don't "get it" because they feel that the laws (which overly complex and strongly favor the large industries) are fundamentally unfair especially when it pertains to personal, non-commercial uses. You are correct in stating that at one level it is such a simple topic ... if I legally purchase a song, I should have the right to make as many copies as I want for my own personal use. Simple. I should also have the right to listen to it while I watch my tandem video. Whether or not it is playing through my stereo or if I burn it on to the DVD makes no difference to the copyright owner and I should not be made to feel like a criminal for doing this. This is how I feel about it and I suspect that many people would agree with this point of view. I know full well that the music industry and their lawyers wouldn't agree and that the courts probably would not interpret the currently existing laws in my favor. That's why I always use Creative Commons by-sa, licensed music in my videos and I think all DZ's should do the same; avoiding music which carries prohibitively expensive restrictions, mechanical/compulsory licensing fees, sync fees/restrictions, and duplication of a master restrictions entirely If everyone could just avoid buying and listening to that kind of music, perhaps the world would be a fairer place It seems to me that the SONY v. Tenenbaum case isn't about these issues that I think are closer to home for the skydiving community. It is about an individual illegally obtaining/downloading music and/or illegally distributing it and being singled out by the RIAA in order to put fear in the public mind. I don't think that the RIAA would go after a DZ or a member of WEVA in this way because there would be too high a risk that the issue of "fair use" would come up and the jury might not be sympathetic to the RIAA. Has the RIAA ever "nailed" a member of WEVA? Should DZ's and videographers really worry about being nailed in the SONY v. Tenenbaum way?

That's not what I said. I wasn't referring to skydiving videos in general. I was referring to the specific hypothetical case that champu mantioned. If a person legally purchases music, he has the right to listen to it while he watches his tandem video. Right? So ... what's the difference in terms of damages to the music author if the legally purchased music is sync'ed on the DVD? Nothing. That's all I am saying.

I was referring to the very specific hypothetical case that champu pointed out above: ETA: Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that this is a prudent thing for a DZ or a vidiot to do. I think this should be a "fair use." I'm not a lawyer and I don't know if this has ever actually been tested, but I am pretty confident that a jury of my peers, given the opportunity to deliberate on it, would agree that it is fair use. It's just my opinion and I do not think that I am in the minority on this. Anyway, the case that DSE mentioned to get this thread going has nothing to do with sync rights. It is an extreme case in which the defendant had a history of being sued for distributing music over the internet. Also, the judge prevented the jury from even considering fair use (among a host of other topics). The case is not resolved yet, but it is serving the purpose of putting fear and loathing in many people's hearts ;-)

This is an extreme case that isn't settled yet. I don't think it really applies to what DZ's are doing with tandem videos. Not to say that I think it's legal in general to sync music without a license, but I think that in the hypothetical case that champu mentioned above, a strong case could be made that it is "fair use". I have the feeling that the RIAA would not be too anxious to prosecute a case in front of a jury that involved a clear argument for fair use.

The switch should be one of these, with the three contacts. You need to use the center contact (normally open) and the one on the left (common). The one all the way to the right is normally closed. CLICKY for PIC ETA: Note the tiny clearance between the NO and the NC contacts inside the switch. If saliva gets in there, the switch will short, so make sure and put a good condom on it for field use