At 9/5/05 07:23 AM, JesseRay wrote: Hahahaha, So Newgrounders aren't so different from the outside world at all.

I wouldn't say that, there is a huge difference saying it to someones face and saying it on the internet.

After all, you can't get e-slapped or e-drink-poured-on-you.

At 7/4/05 05:38 PM, CalmLikeABomb74 wrote: I believe legalizing weed would kinda make it a lot less fun... i mean one of the fun aspects is knowing your just giving the government a big "Fuck you"

Man, you're such a rebel, fight the power!

N00B

At 9/5/05 12:33 AM, PsychoJester wrote: Sausage fest.

More like... AWESOME FEST!

LOL

Gw fig!

At 9/4/05 08:11 AM, Nephthys wrote: I didn't get any discounted drinks!

*sad faic*

I only got a few, idle got many. Guess you had to know Bjorn. After all, he wasn't meant to be doing it.

At 9/4/05 08:10 AM, Zen_Gaijin wrote:
How big was the area in which you where doing Radiobroadcasts?

My room, visible in some of the first photos.
Plenty big enough.

If idle, bobo and fig get back here (they are AWOL) we may be doing some more djing, who knows.

At 9/4/05 08:06 AM, Nephthys wrote: Last group photo.
The guy in the middle is some guy who knows idle.

Bjorn. (sp?)

Idles old housemate, who was working at the palace (where we were) at the time.
LOL, he's a quality charachter. He gets points for the discounted drinks, :)

If only the drinks had been cheaper, then we might have had some hilarious spewing pics as well as these totally wasted ones.

Can't go wrong with spewing pics, lol.

At 9/4/05 07:40 AM, Rhabdophobia wrote:
What will 80 cents get me?

Bobothehippo

At 9/4/05 07:31 AM, Nephthys wrote: Chrispington discovers that there is no spoon.

LOL

At 9/4/05 06:50 AM, Magic_Pie wrote: who the fuck gives a shit about some australian meet up do they even have computers in that shit hole and dont they fuck sheep there?

Who are you?

YOU'RE NOTHING!

NOOOOTHIIIIIING!

Yeah!

Just saw the topic.
OMG MORE PICS PLS.

OH KAY SET DONE NOW!

Tommorow is perhaps set time also.

LOL

OMG LISTEN PLS!

PS: HARRO FROM

NEPHYTHS
FIGMENTUM
BOBOTHEHIPPO
CHRICPINGTON
FORSTERBAR
IDLE

0mg bump

we are all dj'ing now!

www.radiogrounds.com

!!!!!

At 9/2/05 06:10 AM, -Valhalla- wrote: Did you take advantage of Dr0nk Nephthys yet?

She isn't here yet!
Will be here in about an hour stay tuned!

At 9/1/05 09:34 AM, forsterbar wrote: Perth is lame anyway. In fact... anything west of Sydney doesn't count really. I vote they dismantle all railways leading to any other part of Australia and use the scraps to to construct one to europe. I think you'd find most Sydneysiders would be with me on this one.

We need stalin, then we could get some iron curtain action happening.

Also, OMG MEETING INTERNET PEOPLES!
It's almost 8 am, I havn't slept, and it is today!

OH SNAP!
*runs to bed*

At 8/30/05 12:09 PM, jello_i wrote: ill try it

I pwned you!

LOL

At 8/30/05 08:40 AM, nish_ny wrote: Does any body that isnt retarded know the answer to my question. I think its something that should be in the FAQ personally.

I think the lowest is 25k.

Although.....

I have two full 3D submissions.
Check my profile, they both have 3d in the name.

And yes, it is harder than flash.

Yes, okay I am here!

MADMAXCOLLABKTHX

Thought of something else important:

Joint Works and Collective works.

Collective Works
Collective works are works in which multiple authours each created identifiably seperate parts, then combined those parts to form the final work.
An example of this is a song where someone writes the lyrics, and someone else writes the music. (would be credited Music by :Mr A, Lyrics by: Mr B)
The lyrics and music would be copyrighted seperately, so if the music composer wanted he could compose his own lyrics to his copyrighted music, and realease it.

Joint works
Joint works are works where the artists involved work together to create the product.
The composers then must decide what percentage everyone holds of the copyrights to the composition.
An example of this would be two people writing up lyrics and music together to form a complete song. (credits would read: music and lyrics by: Mr a And Mr B.)

Although I used audio as an example this goes for everything.

At 8/26/05 06:16 AM, Sikes wrote: In my post I stated that if someone were trying to make money of off my work I would take action too, yet here you're acting like I didn't. I don't think you really paid me much attention, and that's fair enough, but please don't take my words out of context.

You didn't say "off your work" you said "an idea i planned to get rich off of" which is not protected, as I said!

Looks like you didn't read your own post.
Please stop filling this thread with shit, it is not about you.

At 8/26/05 06:09 AM, Sikes wrote:
Apparently you didn't read what I said either, lol. Guess we're even. :P

I did read it. All of it.
And answered it.

At 8/26/05 05:41 AM, Sikes wrote:
this seems to be urging people to take action against anyone who makes a work with their ideas at all.

Ideas are not protected. Read the post please.

I know that all of that stuff sounds great, but most of the time when someone uses someone else's character in a flash it's just some preteen kid who's in awe of the series and draws a certain excitement from pretending to be part of it by creating his or her own fan work.

Well there would hardly be any reason to prosecute such a case as the leagal costs would be more than the artist would gain from having a little fanflash removed. Plus fan flashs can help the artist work become famous, so why prosecute?

What I'm trying to say is that I haven't seen anything on Newgrounds worthy of legal action, so this is good to know and all, but if we're serious about a career in this sort of stuff wouldn't we learn it in college?

How can you say that? Some of the flash on newgrounds is definatly worth protecting.
Other sites that don't credit artists or change the credits are violating the moral rights of the composer as well as infringing on thier copyright.
There are many sites that live on stolen flash, and the site owner is making money from which the flash artist should be getting income, and at the very least, credit an a link.
By law those site owners should be asking permission. Then the artist can dictate their own conditions for the licensing of thier rights, as well as demand income if they think thier work is good enough. The site owner must agree to the conditions if he wants to display the work.

Obviosly the site owner will only agree to your conditions if he thinks they are worth it. So good flash = better conditions.

To get legal on someone's ass over a flash seems dumb to me.

For people making money off my work, or altering the credits in any way, I would take action if it were hurting my income. They have to ask permission and accept my conditions.

At 8/25/05 05:50 PM, Denvish wrote:
The thing is, if it comes to a court case, it's not good enough just having copyright. You have to have proof that the copyright on the game is yours, otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on. I don't know the ins and outs of the law, but in the case of internet publishing (in this instance, NG), I would imagine that so long as you could prove that you were the only person with access to the account that submitted the Flash on a date prior to the 'stealing', you'd probably be OK.

But with something like music, you have no proof that you wrote or recorded a song until you take some action such as taking a tape to a lawyer, or emailing it to yourself recorded delivery, which gives you a definitive date that proves you are the author.

I don't know, has this berne thing ever been thrown out in a court of law? Because I can't see it standing up if there's no actual proof of authorship besides it.

Well copyright law is far from being a flawless system. Every country has its own laws as well as those layed down by the berne convention. Even so, there are hundreds of court cases round the world every day contesting copyright issues.

It is a horribly complex system of law but still cannont cover every possible copyright situation, and that is what judges are for.

But still, proving that you are creator or composer of any work (including musical) is not that hard. If you expect that someone might steal you work, publish a simple page on your site containing the lyrics and sheet music, with a date. Also put dates into any sound files you have for download, that would help a lot.
If someone wants to steal it and say they are the composer, you can take them to court. You have pretty strong evidence already, and possibly witnesses too. But basically any method that proves dates is good. Having your voice in (dated)recordings would also be great proof.

If the person steals it and voilates your rights as owner and creator within the country that you live in, (uk?) for example, burning cd's or playing your songs at a live gig, and they DO NOT do anything international (internet is always international) then they are only subject to your countries internal copyright laws, which I do not know.

Anyway, copyright law is trying to keep up with the evolution of the internet, but it will be blurry on emerging technologies for quite some time.

I hope I answered the question and didn't just rant.

Gotta sleep now but hopefully I will know enough to answer some more questions later.

At 8/25/05 05:26 PM, cybex wrote: So if an american wanted to copyrtight something they would have to pay $30, but you can for free because you live in australia?

In the other 95 countries that signed the berne convention his work is already copyrighted, but the berne does not govern internal matters. So, america decided it costs $30. Australia decided free.

What if you copyrighted it and then gave it to an american person for free, that would mean it's leagally theirs yeah? But they wouldn't have had to pay anything?

America would still have to protect my moral rights as creator of the work (burne convention), but the rights of the copyright holder (now the american) don't exist until you pay $30 "within america." (warning i have limited knowledge of american specific law). In any international matter the american still owns copyright without paying the internal $30 fee.

I'm british, do we have to pay?

Dunno, you will have a government agency in charge of it, check out thier website.

At 8/25/05 05:12 PM, stickmoose wrote: Hm, ya because I payed $30 to copyright my site.

If you read the posts since you would know that this will protect you within america. For anything international it was already protected by the berne convenion.