what type of vounteering stuff is there to do? i treid to volunteer at skimbash as a judge but i never got a response. if someone asked me i could easily devote a couple days to the event doing whatever. i'm sure i speak for many others when i say i'd be glad to help. anything to spread the stoke.
Originally Posted by Aaron Peluso
Damn Straight Peluso. I'm planning my trip now for next year. I'm going to get involved in any way I can. I don't care if I rake sand all weekend.
S3
i already have it planned the drive with 2 of my friends. so you can count on me. what would you want us to do.
Anybody have any ideas for a more reliable, I guess I should say, sponsor next year?
thenextskimboarder.wordpress.com
Joe will chime in if he wants to give more details. But basically Joe and I went on to the allyance site and searched around and found about 5 of his best photos, some of the cover of skimmag, that they wrote copyright allyance over all of them. Joe has never been compensated in over about 6 months... not to mention they still have not takin down the photos. Theres more info about Joe trying to get the money from them, but thats his story to tell.
you guys wrote them i assume? isn't that illegal?
"This is for everybody in this city who's had homes that used to be wet," he said after receiving the NFC championship trophy. "This is for the city of New Orleans." -Sean Payton
u tell em samcollett
someone give me his address and i'll gladly send him $1
Yea. wrote them, called them... and the conversation that was held from what Joe tells me wasnt pretty. But thats for Joe to tell.
thats' crazy. are the pictures still up thor?
"This is for everybody in this city who's had homes that used to be wet," he said after receiving the NFC championship trophy. "This is for the city of New Orleans." -Sean Payton
I would like to volunteer for the vic (can we still call it that?)
---->( My cancer Q&A blog: Cancer for Dummies )<----
--->My Photography <---
"Clouds bring the f-stop blues" -Jack Johnson
Copyright infringement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the original copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it. The slang term bootleg (derived from the use of the shank of a boot for the purposes of smuggling) is often used to describe illicitly copied material.
In many jurisdictions, such as the United States, copyright infringement is a strict liability tort or crime. This means that the plaintiff or prosecutor must only prove that the act of copying or actus reus was committed by the defendant, and need not prove guilty intent or mens rea. Good faith, standing alone, is no defense.
For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is often referred to as piracy or theft (an early reference was made by Alfred Tennyson in the preface to his poem "The Lover's Tale" in 1879 where he mentions that sections of this work "have of late been mercilessly pirated".) The legal basis for this usage dates from the same era, and has been consistently applied until the present time.[1] Critics of the use of "software piracy" to describe such practices contend that it unfairly compares a crime that makes no victim - except for those that would have profited from hypothetically lost sales - with the violent actions of organized thieves and murderers; it also confuses mere illegal copying of material with the intentional and malicious penetration of computer systems to which one does not legally have access. As a consequence, "software piracy" is a somewhat loaded term. "Theft" or "stealing" are considered even more inflammatory, as well as legally misleading.[2]
Methods of copyright infringement
The unlawful downloading and sharing of recorded music in the form of MP3 and other small, lossy audio files is still widespread, even after the demise of Napster and a series of infringement suits brought by the American recording industry against music-sharing individuals seemingly chosen at random. Promotional screener DVDs distributed by movie studios (often for consideration for awards) are a common source of unauthorised copying when movies are still in theatrical release, and the MPAA has attempted to restrict their use. Movies are also still copied by someone sneaking a camcorder into a movie theater and secretly taping the projection (also known as "CAM"), although such copies are often of lesser quality than officially released version of the film. Sharing copied music is legal in many countries, such as Canada, and parts of Europe, provided that this information is neither advertised, nor that the songs be sold.
Bootleg recordings are musical recordings that have not been officially released by the artist or their associated management or production companies. They may consist of demos, outtakes or other studio material, or of illicit recordings of live performances. Music enthusiasts may use the term "bootleg" to differentiate these otherwise unavailable recordings from "pirated" copies of commercially released material, but these recordings are still protected by copyright despite their lack of formal release, and their distribution is still against the law.
Penalties
Though many jurisdictions impose criminal penalties for certain blatant acts of copyright infringement and may try to stop certain infringing imports at the border, copyright infringement is still mainly prosecuted through private lawsuits by the copyright holder or their exclusive licensees. When successful, these lawsuits will typically impose monetary damages against the infringer as well as injunctions against future infringing uses.
Many infringement claims involve simple cases of copyright infringement where the copying is obvious. Others, however, are more difficult to resolve because copyright protection is not limited to exact copying. It is inevitable that creative and commercial works will take inspiration from the culture at large, and it is often challenging to determine when this "inspiration" has crossed the line into infringement, especially in the case of musical works. There also may be a question of whether the allegedly infringed work is even protected by copyright. Unprotected works may include, for example, compilations of facts that lack the requisite creativity to be covered by copyright, or those works that are in the public domain because the copyright term expired.
Copyright notices—often just a simple statement on the work itself of the year protection was acquired and by whom—are not always a good indication of whether a work is protected because most countries do not require such formalities, and so lack of notice does not mean lack of protection. Courts may also subsequently decide in the context of an infringement suit that the work did not meet the minimum criteria for copyright protection, even if the work had been previously registered by a government or private copyright agency. However, copyright notices give at least some indication of whom to contact if permission is needed, and when a copyright will expire, though the copyright terms of preexisting works are sometimes legislatively extended (as with the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act) or even restored after expiration (as with the Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection in the European Union).
To avoid infringement claims, the right to make use of a copyrighted work can be acquired through an explicit contract or license with the author or publisher, through purchasing a lawful copy (which may provide a number of rights to the purchaser, as under the first-sale doctrine), and for certain types of media, statutory licenses (such as for reproducing and recording musical works under U.S. copyright law). Even without going through such channels to get prior authorization for use of the copyrighted material, doctrines such as fair use or fair dealing may provide potentially broad defenses to infringement claims. The failure of a copyright holder to bring a timely lawsuit against known infringers may later block such a claim by establishing an implied license, as may other acts or omissions that could informally signal consent to use the work.
Copyright misuse, the exploitive or restrictive use of a copyright by its legal holder, is sometimes informally called reverse piracy.
[edit]
Justification
Copyright holders and anti-piracy organizations commonly release statistics showing their losses due to piracy in an attempt to deter the activity. For example, the MPAA estimates the global cost of film piracy in 2002 to be $3.5 billion.[3] Many, including those engaged in piracy, however, are often critical of these figures. It is unreasonable to assume that every download of a film represents a lost movie ticket or DVD purchase: a person who downloads a film may not necessarily have gone to the theater or have purchased a DVD had the download not been available. Furthermore, there are instances of films benefiting from the exposure, particularly independent and cult films.
In general, there are a number of rationales used by pirates to morally justify their actions. Not all those engaged in the activity bother to do so, reasoning that their money would not have made much difference, and is better used for material purposes. Many also question these claims' validity as rationales.
* Piracy is sometimes claimed as a form of boycott. For example, selective piracy of music published by major record labels can be used to protest the low percentage of total record sales that is paid back to artists.
* With the try before you buy mentality, if a downloaded album, film or piece of software is deemed useful the person will then buy it, otherwise it is deleted.
* Conversely, some choose to download only those products which they would otherwise be unable to afford, reasoning that in so doing they do not damage any company's profits. However, it bears consideration that the individual may have otherwise purchased a less expensive version instead.
* Many legitimate products are unavailable in parts of the world, as they are often too expensive for most of the local populace to afford. In much of the third world, even people who could normally afford to buy legitimate products can't do so, as pirated versions are the only versions available.
The moral downside of piracy is known as the free rider problem. Usually used by economists to describe the disadvantage of voluntary collective action, the concept is also applicable to piracy. Even when use of a product has no cost to the companies associated with its production as theft does, the lack of financial contribution from the pirate reduces the company's incentive to continue development.
[edit]
Legality
In most jurisdictions, copyright infringement may be established by reproduction of the copyrighted work. This reproduction can often be shown by the presence of an authorized electronic copy of the work on a server. Most common defenses to copyright infringement, such as the First sale doctrine and Fair use, do not fare well in courts.
The first sale doctrine is a defense to infringement of the distribution right. It permits a lawful purchaser of a copyrighted work to resell or otherwise dispose of it. This, however, is not a defense to the reproduction right.
In addition, fair use is an equitable defense, but its application will vary greatly depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Most courts apply some form of balancing test examining the scope of infringement, the effect on the copyright owner's rights (eg. his or her ability to sell the work), the amount of the work copied, and the purpose of the infringement. Courts have been somewhat hostile to defendants asserting non-commercial use. In small scale cases, courts are more receptive to arguments regarding the effect on the copyright owner's market.
Important loopholes in the United States were closed with the passage of the No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act). Historically, the criminal copyright law required the infringement be for financial gain. Among other things, the NET Act altered the definition of financial gain to include bartering and trading. In addition, members of warez groups may also prosecuted for their participation in a criminal enterprise.
English law
In English law, any modification of data stored on a computer so that unauthorised access is gained to software packages, games, movies, and music would be a criminal offence under s3 Computer Misuse Act 1990. So, if a read-only music CD is placed in a PC drive and the contents loaded into the computer's memory for playing, any crack that allows the music to be copied and stored on the machine or an MP3 player would commit the offence in theory but, so far, there have been no prosecutions on this set of facts. More generally, ss16 and 20 Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 (as amended by the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002) protect copyrighted materials, and people who distribute and download copyrighted recordings without permission are liable to face civil actions for damages and penalties (the largest to date is £6,500, or $12,120.55). As in the United States, the enforcement agencies are able to identify the IP addresses and the ISPs are obliged to disclose the name and address of the owner of each such internet account.
[edit]
Criminal offences
For the most part, the criminal law is only used for commercial piracy with one exception, and an offence is committed when, knowing or reasonably suspecting that the files are illegal copies, and without the permission of the copyright owner, a person:
* makes unauthorised copies e.g. burning music files or films on to CD-Rs or DVD-Rs;
* distributes, sells or hires out unauthorised copies of CDs, VCDs and DVDs;
* on a larger scale, distributes unauthorised copies as a commercial enterprise on the internet;
* possesses unauthorised copies with a view to distributing, selling or hiring these to other people;
* while not dealing commercially, distributes unauthorised copies of software packages, books, music, games, and films on such a scale as to have an measurable impact on the copyright owner's business.
* stealing someone elses artwork and claiming it as yours.
The penalties for these "copyright theft" offences depend on the seriousness of the offences:
* before a magistrates' Court, the penalties for distributing pirated files are a maximum fine of £5,000 ($9,202) and/or six months imprisonment;
* in the Crown Court, the penalties for distributing pirated files are an unlimited fine and/or up to 10 years imprisonment.
Also note s24 Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 which creates a range of offences relating to the distribution of any device, product or component which is primarily designed, produced, or adapted for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of effective technological measures. When this is for non-commercial purposes, it requires there to be a measurable effect on the rights holder's business.
you knwo whats awesome? i almost deleted "from wikipedia" but then i realized how awesomely hypocritical that would have been
what is this i dont even
If what I've read is true, then it seems there's 2 scenarios:
1.) Allyance made a poor business decision and decided to make a very risky investment in a relatively obscure sport without proper due diligence, and the sport of skimboarding paid the price for that decision.
Or...
2.) Several skimboarders lured Allyance into the skim industry with lies and empty promises in order to cash in, and the sport of skimboarding paid for those lies.
Or... its a combination of the two.
Am I far off?
There's a good chance you've handled my ass-pennies. That gives me the edge.
Peluso.
Does it hurt really bad when you are wrong? I think it would.
This is a sad event in skimboard history, and Peluso is like Splinter from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Robs
Skim Invasion - Director of Operations
I will let you know when I find out.
If you sponsor something, the only way you should be making money is by SELLING YOUR PRODUCT at the event, not from donations, fees, etc.
All the money should go back into the event.
Sponsors get the advertisement, the sport gets the money.
They cheated the sport, this was supposed to be the world championship, where their was supposed to be TONS of money, not 900$ for 1st place.
Infact, maybe the fact that their was SUPPOSED to be a big cash prize lurred in some spectators, ive i didnt know anything about skimboarding and heard that there was a prize money of over 10k i would sure watch it.
900$ is not enough for a world champion; "The best of the best"
I would think that there had to be a contract between Allyance and someone else to describe what Allyance's obligations would be when putting on these tournaments. In this contract, the prize amounts should have been in writing. If they weren't, then someone messed up, but it doesn't mean that Allyance makes off with all the money for free. If someone in charge at Allyance told someone at other companies involved in this tournament that "we are going to do X (including furnishing prizes of X amount) as long as you do Y", then Allyance would probably be liable for it. I guess I have a hard time believing that nobody but those at Allyance knew what the prize amounts were going to be until they were handed out.
im wondering why 10th st. bros would be risking their rep and name to support a company that is not so legit or has nothing to do with water sports to begin with.
Jake, why the hell did you bother to post that?
-David Behar
i just watched to colbert report on wikiality...
and im sure everybody is readin that jake :d
just to say, we had 1000 euros in the Zap championship here in portugal, for the 1st place, and 5000 euros total as a prize money and we are so small in sponsorships and shit like that comparing to the US...
but i don't know shit about allyance or whatever, just making a comparison.
skimportugal.com all you need to know about portuguese skimboarding...and more.
[FONT="System"]may the skim be with you[/FONT]
Looks like only two of them are left up there... but thats still two that Joe hasnt been compensated for. One is the cover shot of BIll from like 2 skim mags ago (water housing one at aliso) and the other is one of BIll doing a huge shuvit grab air at the aliso contest warm up section last year...
The amount of the prize checks was not known till the last minute, hence the checks being made out by Victoria Skimboards.
kinda stinks for Vic that all this went down--very cool of them to pick up the slack.
Mike Cole
So...
Sport we all love, everyone knows each other by first names, you know most if not all of the skimmers at your home break, prizes and tour organization is sub par of frisbee golf, progress seems to be only made through trick variations with people getting bored rather than huge competition
VS
New sport brought about through "selling out", many more riders, less skimming available at peak hours, less friendly global atmosphere although you'll still know all your local buddies, decent and recognizable tour operation, prize money that can support an individual, progression through competition
That is what I got from this thread. To push the sport you have to be willing to take chances on a company that can bring it to the forefront, unfortunately in this case it wasn't the right match between Allyance's end goal and the skimboarding industry.
It really sucks that this past one turned out disappointing as far as administration goes, but look at the skimming - people are saying its the best its been, the judging was (reasonably) fair, and people travelled all over the world just to watch a couple scrawny kids play in the ocean. To be able to go to the next level of supporting oneself through skimboarding you're going to have to make some sacrifices, but there is always another way to look at it. You're still going to have those kids riding for the love of it, but they might have ads all over their spring suits.
I hope this doesn't sour the industry on outside help, because without a major promoter this will always be a "second tier surf" sport. That being said, this can be taken as a great learning experience for next year. At some point we have to man up.
Great Lake Skim.com
money.
i thought money and then i though progression of the sport. beaker and geo both love the sport beyond belief so i ruled out money im my mind. i decided on progression of the sport. if infact that was the case then Allyance lost money on buying part of the company in a sport they no longer are part of. Right?
so then they tried to get a share of the money back by ripping off the contest. does this make sense to anyone else or am i way off?
they were like say a Don King, sign a big name, wait till the big fight and then when the purse is divied up, take the biggest share and run and wipe his hands clean with the money. OucH!
seriously everyone should give trigg and tex and vic mass respect.....they busted their ass all weekend and the contest in my opinion was a huge success....excluding the prize money issues which was not their fault anyways
thanks again trig and everyone that contest was awesome
noogie
yeah, I say it should still be called the Vic this year
look at your checks
Steve Lerum
http://www.lerumphoto.com
I wanna know if jaimie still rides for allyance...id be fracking pissed.
blah, blah, blah, blah
Jake exactly wat does that legal mumbo jumbo mean?
mr. gramhsu daughter never eat bean-curd!!! taiwan people always want destroying china woman person vagina not marriage!
Whats sad is the winner in PCB gets more than that...
Robs
Skim Invasion - Director of Operations
Yeah he should definitly be pissed and for sure be done with them. The only reason I could see him continuing to ride for them would be if something fishy is going on off the books and maybe he got compensated in some way under the table. I really have know idea though just throwing that out there.
*Dustin Boone*
Square skimboards - rider
Bodega Bay Surf Shack - rider
Maybe Allyance incurred losses on other comps, in costs other than just prize money.
is it safe to say "Gayllyance"
Gay Dave, do you concur?
I'm just stoked I conned my way into two genuine Indonesian made Gayllyance boardshorts that are already starting to disintegrate on the art and the stitching!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks