Alle rettigheder er forbeholdt TV2 Danmark, den enkelte sanger og artisten for original tracket.
http://v.tv2.dk/deltagere/kim-wagner/

Source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGoplUiOOJ4

Alle rettigheder er forbeholdt TV2 Danmark, den enkelte sanger og artisten for original tracket.
http://v.tv2.dk/deltagere/freja-kirk/

Source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvkj39NBMAI

Film clip for the song Bronte, from the Gotye album Making Mirrors
Buy Making Mirrors here http://www.smarturl.it/gotye

http://www.gotye.com/

http://www.facebook.com/gotye/

http://www.twitter.com/gotye/

Directed and animated by Ari Gibson at Mechanical Apple
Background art by Jason Pamment

Music credits:
Produced by Wally De Backer
Mixed by Francois Tetaz, assisted by Wally at
Moose Mastering, Richmond, VIC

Fretless Bass: Lucas Taranto
Drums, percussion, strings and steel drum samples,
lead and backing vocals: Wally

Contains a sample of Banana Boat Song as performed by
Leo Addeo and Orchestra.
Used courtesy of RCA/JIVE Label Group, a unit of Sony Music Entertainment

Contains a sample of Mozambique as performed by Les Baxter. Used courtesy of EMI Music Australia Pty Ltd

**************************
Now your bowl is empty
And your feet are cold
And your body cannot stop rocking
I know
It hurts to let go

Since the day we found you
You have been our friend
And your voice still
Echoes in the hallway of this house
But now
It’s the end

We will be with you
When you’re leaving
We will be with you
When you go
We will be with you
And hold you till you’re quiet
It hurts to let you go

We will be with you
You will stay with us

Source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le34ygtODfI

Drakkenstrike’s Sid Meier’s Civilization Components Breakdown Video Review in HD Part 2 of 2

Source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB7BYaERncc

Drakkenstrike’s Sid Meier’s Civilization Components Breakdown Video Review in HD Part 1 of 2

Source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eKe6oCt6EE

Vincent Browne takes on Klaus Masuch over the issue of the Irish people having to foot the bill for unguaranteed bondholders.

Source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAf7J4a_T1g

By Morten Blaabjerg, Ildhavet

Forfatter og debatredaktør m.v. Bjørn Bredal skriver 9. januar 2012 i en signatur i Politiken :

Ophavsret er en pest for kunst og idéer

Rettighedsindustrien har udviklet sig til det rene galimatias.

Af Bjørn Bredal, lederskribent

Der går en ødelæggende juridisk epidemi gennem det internationale kunstliv: ophavsret, copyright, royalty.

Under det lille symbol © gemmer sig et onde, hvis omfang de færreste gør sig klart, fordi det kun dukker op i den offentlige debat, hver gang nogen forlanger at blive bedre ’beskyttet’.

Men ophavsretten og hele den juridiske industri, der er knyttet til den, beskytter ikke, den dræber. Og det frygtelige er, at mange af de kunstnere og kreative mennesker, der forlanger mere ophavsret, ikke har tilstrækkelig distance til hele problematikken til at se, at de nærer et monster, som æder dem selv.

De ser sig blinde på deres eget lille hjørne af den ophavsretlige virkelighed og tror, at copyright grundlæggende er deres ven. Men den er deres og samfundets fjende.

Nu senest satte EU så ’beskyttelses’-perioden for musikoptagelser op fra 50 år til 70 år. Et lodret vanvid, som følger op på det samme vanvid, som i 1990’erne førte til udvidelse af ’beskyttelses’-perioden for døde komponister, forfattere, malere etc.: Kunstnerne dør – og så skal de beskyttes!

Logikken er til at græde over, og det var slemt nok, så længe ’beskyttelsen’ var 50 år: Vi taler helt enkelt om en syg mekanisme, der flytter penge over fra den levende kunst og de levende kunstnere til deres arvinger og især til hele den industri, der administrerer rettigheder.

Og nu får denne industri 20 år ekstra at gøre ondt med: indtil 70 år efter at den sidste Beatles er død (hvilket vil sige, at den sidste Beatles’ børn også er døde) vil der stadig sidde nogen og ’have rettighederne’ til The Beatles’ musik. Tænk, hvis de milliarder gik til den levende kunst.

Lige for tiden er det især filmindustrien, der forlanger sig bedre ’beskyttet’. Folk downloader film fra nettet uden at betale, og det går selvfølgelig ud over filmindustriens indtægter. Og muligvis er der ræson i at bremse den trafik på en eller anden måde – i nogle få år efter at en ny film har haft premiere.

Vi har alle en praktisk interesse i, at filmindustrien kan fungere og udvikle sine produkter akkurat ligesom medicinalindustrien og alle andre industrier: Hvis enhver blot kan kopiere den nyeste medicin eller den nyeste film, i samme øjeblik den kommer på markedet, bliver der jo aldrig råd til at udvikle den næste pille eller den næste film.

Så selvfølgelig skal vi have noget lovgivning omkring rettigheder, patenter og praktisk brug af nye ideer og produkter, herunder kunstneriske produkter. Men denne selvfølgelighed burde aldrig være andet end en undtagelse fra hovedreglen: Enhver offentlig idé er offentligt eje.

Så længe du har en idé inde i dit hoved, så er den din (’Tanker er toldfri’) – men slipper ideen ud af dit hoved, så tilhører den menneskeheden. Der er to niveauer her, et principielt og et praktisk. Principielt burde der ikke findes copyright overhovedet, hvis man spørger mig.

Gælder det ikke bare om, at så mange som muligt ser den nyeste film af Lars von Trier eller Susanne Bier? Er det ikke i samfundets interesse, at nye tanker, former, udtryk, ideer, fortællinger, sange, billeder kan blive til glæde for så mange som muligt så billigt som muligt og meget gerne gratis?

Det er frygtelig forkert, når fortalere for ’mere beskyttelse’ på et eller andet område straks sætter sig op på en høj moralsk hest og taler om ’tyveri’ og ’kriminalitet’ hos dem, der glad og gratis bruger løs af kunsten.

Billedsproget spærrer for udsigten til de praktiske problemer, der skal løses, og fører til det ødelæggende galimatias, som rettighedsindustrien er blevet.

Det er forfærdeligt, at Det Kongelige Teater ikke kan opføre en opera af Richard Strauss uden at betale en formue til den for længst døde komponists oldebørns advokater; at lærere på skoler og universiteter ikke kan vise et billede af Picasso uden at begå en ulovlighed; ja: eller at en gymnasielærer ikke kan vise den lille dumme kommentar, du læser netop nu, til sine elever, uden at gymnasiet skal betale royalty for det.

Jeg vil så meget hellere have, at 100 gymnasieelever læser min kommentar, end at jeg får et par hundrede kroner udbetalt fra et firma, der for tiden vokser fuldstændig vildt i sin egen ødelæggende logik og hedder Copydan eller Tekst og Node, eller hvad det aktuelle navn nu er for den rettighedsindustri, der søger at hindre, fordyre og forkrøble udbredelse af tanker og ideer.

Det er en skændsel i et demokratisk samfund, at en flok elever i en skoleklasse ikke kan sidde og diskutere en aviskommentar, se et filmklip eller lære om et maleri, uden at det skal koste skolen dyrt.

I småt og stort: © er altid et problem, meget sjældent en løsning.

Det eneste jeg er uenig med Bjørn i er, at vi ‘selvfølgelig’ skal have denne type skidteras i vores lovgivning. Jeg mener tværtimod som det vil være mange bekendt, selvfølgelig at vi skal helt af med den. Mange af argumenterne herfor kommer Bredal ind på i sit indlæg. Fantastisk at læse dette skarpskud fra Bjørn Bredal. (Via Claus Pedersen på Facebook)

Via Ildhavet

By Paul Sawers, The Next Web – January 13, 2012 at 06:33PM

A UK student has learned that he will be extradited to the US to face copyright infringement charges, after he created a website that helped people view films and TV shows for free.

US authorities claim that 23-year-old Sheffield undergraduate Richard O’Dwyer earned thousands of pounds by linking to and promoting copyrighted content, but he profited not by directly charging users but through hosting advertising on the TVShack website.

The main argument in the student’s defence case was that the site didn’t actually store copyrighted material, and it merely linked users to content held elsewhere, with his lawyer Ben Cooper citing both Google and Yahoo! as examples of other sites that do the same thing. Cooper also claimed that O’Dwyer would be the first UK citizen to be extradited for such an offence and was being used as a guinea pig for US copyright law.

Whilst the final decision is still pending appeals, O’Dwyer faces jail if he’s convicted of the allegations, which came as a result of a crackdown on copyright infringement by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The two charges – conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and criminal infringement of copyright – each carry up to five years sentences.

Police officers from the UK and America swooped on O’Dwyer’s home in South Yorkshire and seized equipment in November 2010, but no criminal charges followed from the UK authorities.

In May last year, however, the US Justice Department requested that Richard O’Dwyer be extradited to the US under the Extradition Act 2003, after the Southern District Court in New York brought two charges against him for copyright infringement regarding his website that was hosted at TVShack.net.

Following the extradition request, O’Dwyer was released on bail by UK authorities, and then he appeared in Westminster magistrates court for a preliminary hearing, at which point his lawyer opposed the ruling, arguing that any prosecution should take place in the UK, as TVShack was not hosted on American servers.

This is a key point of contention in the case. Even without looking at whether what O’Dwyer did was illegal or not, the involvement of US courts has baffled many parties.

The key facilitating factor that has let this case proceed to this stage, is the 2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty, which allows suspects to be extradited to the US without UK courts having to consider the evidence first. Conversely, UK prosecutors must submit their evidence to US courts before making an extradition request. Indeed, this has led to a number of civil liberties groups raising the question about why the UK Government hasn’t pushed to amend the Extradition Act 2003.

Isabella Sankey, director of policy for Liberty, has previously said: “Enacting the forum amendment would have been quite simple. It’s not that we’re arguing that in every case where activity has taken place here we shouldn’t allow people to be extradited. But we should at least be leaving our judges some discretion to look at the circumstances.”

By enigmax, TorrentFreak – January 13, 2012 at 06:22PM

In November last year, as part of his continuing struggle to avoid extradition to the United States, Richard O’Dwyer, the former administrator of the now defunct UK-based video links site TVShack, appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

The case was eventually adjourned, with accusations from Richard’s lawyer Ben Cooper that US authorities were unfairly trying to gain the upper hand through unreasonable delays. Nevertheless, all parties were back in court today to hear the judge’s ruling.

“There are said to be direct consequences of criminal activity by Richard O’Dwyer in the USA albeit by him never leaving the north of England,” District Judge Quentin Purdy said in his ruling. “Such a state of affairs does not demand a trial here if the competent UK authorities decline to act and does, in my judgment, permit one in the USA.”

“I reject all challenges advanced to this request. No bars or other challenge being raised or found, I send the case to the Secretary of State,” he concluded.

Richard’s most vocal supporter, his mother Julia, voiced her despair and continued with her criticism of the UK’s extradition treaty with the US.

“If [the US authorities] want to prosecute something they will. There’s no safeguards here for British citizens,” she said.

The Judge did not have the “technical brains to know about the whole thing,” she noted, adding: “That guy just lives and breathes extradition.”

Ben Cooper described Richard as an extradition and copyright law “guinea pig”, adding that he would launch an appeal.

Source: TVShack Admin Can Be Extradited To US, Judge Rules

By Mike Springer, Open Culture – January 13, 2012 at 06:10PM

In his 1998 essay, “Scorsese Learns From Those Who Went Before Him,” Roger Ebert writes, “There is no greater American filmmaker right now than Martin Scorsese, and hasn’t been for some time, perhaps since Welles and Hitchcock and Ford died, and yet to talk with him is like meeting this guy who hangs out all the time at the film society.”

Scorsese is a highly prolific filmmaker, but even while pressing ahead he is always looking back, revisiting the films that have inspired him since he was an asthmatic child haunting the theaters of New York City. In A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies, the great director says:

I’m often asked by younger filmmakers, Why do I need to look at old movies? I’ve made a number of pictures in the past 20 years. And the response I find that I have to give them is that I still consider myself a student. The more pictures I made in the last 20 years, the more I realized that I really don’t know. And I’m always looking for something or someone that I can learn from. I tell the younger filmmakers to do it like painters do. Study the old masters. Enrich your palette. Expand the canvas. There’s always so much more to learn.

A Personal Journey was completed in 1995. The three-part documentary formed the American part of The Century of Cinema series sponsored by the British Film Institute. The film was co-directed by Michael Henry Wilson, features a title sequence by Saul Bass and was cut by Scorsese’s longtime editor, Thelma Schoonmaker. In Scorsese on Scorsese, Wilson talked with Schoonmaker about the grueling experience of editing A Personal Journey at the same time she was racing to complete the three-hour Casino. Schoonmaker said:

It was too much! At one point, Marty asked me to abandon the documentary. He was terribly worried that I’d be slowed down by A Personal Journey, another monumental job, and that we wouldn’t be able to deliver Casino on time. I told him it was impossible to stop and he agreed. He even said that in the long term, A Journey would perhaps be more important than Casino.

You can watch a 133-minute version of A Personal Journey above, courtesy of the BFI. (Be patient and allow an extra moment for the film to load.) A deluxe edition of the original 225-minute documentary is available for purchase on DVD.

A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies is a post from: Open Culture. Visit us at openculture.com, or follow us on Facebook, Twitter and now Google Plus.