DSE

and i'll add 2 more 1. Purple Mike 2. Michal M 3. Obama 4. J-Sho 5. Andreea 6. Dan M -- no handlebars 7. Stu 8. Scott Gray 9. Chris Gray 10. MonkeyBoy 11. Taya 12. "One Ball" Rick 13. "responsible" Phil Peggs 14. Mark K. 15. "irresponsible" one and a half ball "Stoney" 16. Lurch "Most stylish debris cloud in history" 17-20. The CPI Regulars (Mark K apparently doesn't count) 21. Teh Skwrl. 22. Tony Uragallo 23. Simon 24. Steve H. 25. Kyle O 26. Soby 27. Paul Cain 28. Elana Cain 29. Veg Regg 30. Dave Patty With y'all there in spirit....can't fly for a while. Damn. This is one of the most fun boogies of the year, too.

And a damned good one (other than the coupla bux per use). Licensing GREAT stock can be as cheap as .10 per use.

you already know how I feel. But should at least make a public statement. Congrats! Welcome to the self-employed. You'll be smarter, more dedicated, more creative, and more lazy.

Various countries all have similar laws to the USA (all but two signed Berne), however, the UK and Australia have private use laws in place. Australia is in danger of losing theirs due to abuses. The short answer to your question is that no...there are no private use licenses for the USA similar to those in Oz or UK, because typical Fair Use laws cover the use. It gets muddy because a "professional" is creating the work AND replicating the work. This is how they've got us by the short n' curlies; Sync Duplication Mechanical all performed by a "professional." If you give the student an edited video with no music and tell them to put their own music on, it's perfectly legal for them to use ANYTHING they want.

it's not about the format, it's about the bitrate. Any format can contain any number of bitrates ie; AVI can contain an MPEG stream encoded at 1.5Mbps (looking horrible) or an MPEG stream encoded at 25Mbps (usually looking terrific). The delivery mechanism is ALWAYS the determining factor in what container and bitrate you choose, so you're asking an exceptionally open-ended question. You're using Vegas Movie Studio 8, and it is probably worth it for the upgrade since you're shooting AVCHD. Short answer....for *most* delivery, a 1280 x 720 at 10-15Mbps will give you a great HD image.

You DO have that right. If you want to have a copy of a song you bought on your computer, iPod, CD, whatever for your OWN use (effectively defined by being listenable on one device at a time), it's perfectly legal. There was a threat of a suit against a fairly well-known wedding videographer, and WEVA stepped in to help. This acted as a stop-gap, and as a result (3 years later) WEVA has secured discounts for their membership with ZOOM and they're working on other deals. BTW, WEVA membership is open to Skydiving videographers too....Wedding and EVENT Videographers Association. I'm really surprised at the question of "has this ever happened?" that comes up regularly. No one ever believed that Tenenbaum would ever see court. No one believed that Thomas Rasset would ever see a court. It's like a having a cutaway; stay in the game long enough and it's not a question of "if" but rather "when," IMO. Keep in mind, I've got nothing to gain by trying to help keep DZ's legit. It's true that at some point, my company will release a library of songs made specifically for skydiving videos...but that's a "someday" thing. I'm concerned about the DZ that becomes the test case for sync, replication, mechanical violation. A judgement remotely close to Tenenbaum or Thomas-Rasset would bury almost any DZ out there.

looks like a pretty good system. You'll actually appreciate 64 bit, even though there are still a few minor bugs with Vegas 64 bit and some drivers. It's FAST.

Rich, I believe Mike McGowan has a significant library of "carnage." You might contact him as a one-stop shoppe.

In addition to the derivative work, you have also; ignored mechanical/compulsory licensing fees ignored sync fees/restrictions ignored duplication of a master restriction At one level, this is such a simple topic that I just don't understand why more folks simply don't "get it." At another level, 300 years of copyright law have created a Gordian Knot.

Tenenbaum isn't an extreme case from my view point, and it's relevant because proving illegal use comes before chasing illegal use with add-ons. Skwrl may disagree (He's an attorney). Tenenbaum shows it's not only illegal to use P2P, but to replicate or provide opportunity to replicate music, which is exactly what a DZ is doing when creating a DVD containing copyrighted music (sync license issue aside). In other words, the repercussions for a DZ stand to be as great or greater than simple P2P, because more violations are involved. How you see skydiving videos as a "clear case for Fair Use" would be an interesting discussion. The WEVA community has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and hours trying to find that argument for wedding videos (identical in form to skydiving videos) and concluded they cannot make such an argument. As a result, they have signed discount agreements with ZOOM and other licensing groups that offer no differences than what has already been mentioned countless times here on this board. Skydiving videos (aside from illegal replication, illegal redistribution, and illegal sync licensing) will not likely fall under Fair Use no matter how much any of us wish it might.

Proud for you, Dale! Wingsuits a' comin' up, mate!

*** if you would know rolf, you would never have even thought about the possibility, he would like to "claim" something. I do know Rolf. The blog is there for the world to see (although the blog does get edited frequently when mentioned here on DZ.com)

So...if you jump one and hate it, you'll be more educated and better informed about your choices. As for me, I'll gratefully thank anyone who helps me become more informed and more educated. Pilots are great canopies. I happen to prefer my Storm.

Quite a bold statement you're making... Are you suggesting the Pilot is a dangerous canopy?

I never agree with you. Sounds like this is a good place to start. "Death Magnetic" is likely the death knell.

you'd need to computer control it, but the time compression/interleaving of frames converting frames to motion video can be done by nearly any NLE software either as a sequence or merge. Would be nice if you could do decent T/L with the CX, but it's a stripped-feature cam.

you can: Use Royalty Free Use Acid/Garage Band/Soundtrack/SmartSound libraries to create your own Use Sony CineScore.... Use Creative Commons licenses. There is no way at this point in time (other than some ridiculously limited selections via Zoom and similar sites) to use "on the radio/popular songs" and be copyright-cleared.

you didn't show me your "no drop toggles" but obviously I wish you had. Michael, having met you and experienced your enthusiasm first-hand, I suspect you're more a victim of "I don't have my own tools" than a loss of a love for the sport.

If you didn't need 8MP stills, I'd suggest the GoPro Hero. It's a great little camera for that kind thing. But it isn't even close to 8MP. DON'T confuse MP with quality of print. It's a factor, but not the only factor. Otherwise, look at the Canon G10, or modifying any number of USB-equipped Cybershot-type cams that you can custom create a USB switch.

THIS thread is for discussion of illegal use of music in tandem videos. A very narrow range of discussion for videographers on dropzones. Please keep the rhetoric and opinions of the RIAA motivation in the Speaker Corner where it belongs. If this thread strays from the tandem video discussion, there will be no choice but to lock it down.

Couldn't agree more. I identify my quality as a person with the quality of my work regardless of what I'm doing.

Nobody says by buying the book they own copyright. In fact a paperback book comes with the same "license to read". However, as it was said before multiple times, the fact the bookstore sold the bootlegged copy of a book does not give them permission to illegally break in your book storage and remove it. It does not matter whether the book is digital or paperback. Too early, I would say. The issue in that trial is not whether Tenenbaum violated copyright law - it is whether statutory damages provided by it are reasonable punishment, or "cruel and unusual". A couple more 1M verdicts for downloading of 20 songs 0.99 each, and it's very likely the Congress amends the law, or Supreme Court struck down statutory damages as "cruel and unusual". Since you insist on applying analog realities to IP (where they actually don't belong, and do not bear much relevance in the creation of laws and IP rights) I'll try another tack.... Amazon sold stolen goods. Plain and simple. If you own a pawnshop and receive stolen goods, the police have every right to retrieve those stolen goods and return them to the original owner without compensation to the pawnshop. If you as a private citizen receive stolen goods, the same rule applies; the stolen property can be taken from you and returned to the original owner. In this example, Amazon sold stolen goods and had they not retrieved the illegal copies of the books (analog or digital), then Amazon could likely be found guilty of aiding and abetting. Again, I'll say Amazon handled it badly, but they in fact, had to handle it somehow. Had they been smart enough to consult you, me, or Marg...maybe they'd have less of an issue and no lawsuits being filed against them. The "Dog ate my homework" action will likely never see court, and if it does, I'll bet the court's response is "too bad, so sad, sucks to be you." If you had a stolen university book that was filled with your personal sticky notes and the original owner retrieved it either through legal or illegal means, you'd be just as screwed as the Plaintiff is, and would probably recover just as much as he won't. As a very unrelated experience tonight, I watched a waitress get pissed off at a customer for not tipping her a coupla bucks. How dare a lowly waitress be pissed off that she didn't get her 5.00 tip but an artist should be expected to not be remunerated in any way. After all, the waitress just hands over food. An artist, author, musician enriches our lives, society, culture, and influences the very quality of every moment of our lives. The sad thing is that I'm sure a large component of this community would support the waitress receiving her tip before they'd support assuring that creatives receive compensation for their hard works. I've wondered before, and wonder again....how many people who toss opinions in this discussion have ever once registered a copyrighted work? Not having registered one certainly doesn't nullify one's right to an opinion, but having never registered a copyrightable Work would likely tend to create an uninformed opinion. Last I checked, I've got around 500 registered copyrights. And most of my work can be found on Pirate Bay (and iTunes, for those that are honest). Please buy my music and my books, I have high medical bills to pay. I'm a better writer, producer, and musician than I am a skydiver. good skydivers don't drop toggles, but good writers can drop pencils.

I couldn't agree more either. The problem is believing that the people that bought a license to read "Animal Farm" or "1984" had any ownership (implied as personal property) in any manuscript nor copyrighted work in the first place. I don't believe they did, and I'll wager the courts will find the same thing. Tenenbaum sure as shit found out this afternoon that he doesn't own the songs he thought he did. If I could have jumped, I'd have jumped for joy at that one. No one could have deserved it more than he. A PhD candidate from Boston University....he was no dumbass. And he had it coming.

What if, what if, what if....? This was the game that Tenenbaum played, too (read his depositions from 2008). Bottom line is, there is NO WAY anyone can legally create a skydiving tandem, four-way, whatever video using copyrighted music works distributed on a DVD. Now...if you want to make a list of songs that have been licensed for personal use to YouTube and try to run that gauntlet, go for it. But understand that YouTube has already said they will not attempt to protect you should the licensee determine your video is not of a personal nature. It would be very difficult for a video that opens with "Welcome to Skydive XXXX" to argue that the video is personal vs a commercial work. Neither you, nor the student (who merely has a license to listen to the music) has a legal right to sync video to that music. No, I don't think you'd have a case that would fall under Fair Use, because the student didn't create the video, it's not for education, parody, social commentary. Could it fall under DeMinimis? Absolutely. Possibly. Probably. Until Petty's or Van Halen's publisher realizes that there are 100,000 DVDs out there over the years with "FreeFallin'" or "Jump" on them. The question is, do you really want to be the DZ that becomes the case study for this sort of action? Tenenbaum thought he could beat the system....Just as Thomas-Rasset did. She was defended (very well, BTW) by a skydiver and was hit harder at her retrial. I suspect one of the reasons we're not seeing these cases by the boatloads right now are: -Waiting for more common applicable precedent to occur -Software being used to identify illegal usage is still in development -RIAA would rather not sue if it can be avoided. -Artists would rather not sue if it can be avoided. I am aware of peripheral details of a skydiving video being notified/charged with infringement, yes. Unfortunately, I don't have enough detail to intelligently comment on it. Either way....I sure wouldn't want to be the DZ that is used as the precedent, because there is no way in hell they'll win. P2P vs sync licenses is a much harder argument for the RIAA; there is only one actual law violated. Sync...there are at least three. FWIW, our DZ doesn't use any copyrighted works at all, and hasn't for three years.

This subject is a popular argument no matter whether you're in SC or anywhere else...but it still is very relevant to the videographer in skydiving. Please note this jury-trial decision of just a few hours ago if you're still convinced that you can't be nailed as a DZO or videographer.... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/o-tenenbaum-riaa-wins-675000-or-22500-per-song.ars Follows the previous case. There are now two precedents from two different angles... proving it's worth it to go after small time infringements. Consider royalty-free....because this issue isn't going away. A judgement like this one is easily more than enough to bury a DZ.