結婚しようよ

[burstandbloom]

Has anybody heard this song?
I can't find it anywhere, I really want to hear it again. I for some reason like it.
I don't think I listened to the orignal one though, my teacher played it for us in class and I think it was a newer version by someone else.

[coco]

Do lyrics start with " きみの かみが かた まで のびて" ?

[burstandbloom]

Yes, that's how it starts off. I have the lyrics, but they're not with me.
So you know what song I'm talking about then?

EDIT:
Here's the full lyrics in case you're interested, I found them on the internet. I still can't figure out who does the song or where I can find it for download or what not:

[removed]

Admin edit: lyrics removed

[coco]

結婚しようよ was made by 吉田拓郎よしだ・たくろう in 1971.
you can 試聴 in this site. ( No. 5)
吉田拓郎 is still popular among 団塊の世代.

coco wrote:
Do lyrics start with " きみの かみが かた まで のびて" ?

correction
×君の髪が
○僕の髪が

[paul_b]

coco wrote:
Please delete lyrics. (because of the Copyright)

Ah, good point.

[randomperson]

the best your going to get from us is the site coco give for the trail listen. since its copyrighted, we are not going to give out a link to where you can download from

[zengargoyle]

Shhhhh!

please don't. under DMCA common practice for public type forums, the requirement is to take down if copyright holder makes request. if you do that, no problem. if you try to *actively* search out such things, then because of the active search, you are now responsible outside of DMCA. this is what got Napster sued, cannned, bankrupt... because the queries went through a central location.

it's a sad thing, but the fact is that if you try to police things, then you are totally responsible. but if you don't try to police things, then all you have to do is remove when requested by copyright owner and you are now safe and in compliance with US law.

at my university, this is *exactly* the reason that we do not look into the contents of network traffic at our site. if we do look, then we are legally responsible if something slips through. as long as we don't look, we just have to respond appropriately to any DMCA request to remove disputed content.

this is what allows *any* indexing service to function. otherwise Google would be totally illegal because they cache possibly infringing content.

put in the rules: no infringing content.

and *leave* it at that. delete any posts that you come across that you think may be infringing. but if you go down the road of *looking* and *pointing out* infringing content then that is the action that creates the liability.

edit: IANAL, just from my understanding over the past few years, the *best* option is active *response* and not proactive action.

[burstandbloom]

burstandbloom wrote:


EDIT:
Here's the full lyrics in case you're interested, I found them on the internet. I still can't figure out who does the song or where I can find it for download or what not:

[removed]

Admin edit: lyrics removed

I guess I put that wrong I'm sorry. I wasn't really asking where to download it from. I don't want to to know that, I can get that on my own.
I just wanted to know who made it. Sorry I wasn't clear, and I apologize for the lyrics thing.
Thanks Coco for the answer.

[Infidel]

and *leave* it at that. delete any posts that you come across that you think may be infringing. but if you go down the road of *looking* and *pointing out* infringing content then that is the action that creates the liability.

It would probably be difficult arguing that mods aren't looking when they are posting in the thread.

I think it is already too late. So long as this forum is moderated, at all. The "see no evil" argument seems more appropriate for an unmoderated forum, like about.com.

[zengargoyle]

Infidel wrote:
It would probably be difficult arguing that mods aren't looking when they are posting in the thread.

I think it is already too late. So long as this forum is moderated, at all. The "see no evil" argument seems more appropriate for an unmoderated forum, like about.com.

don't think so. before the 'notice' of 'possible' infringing content, any reader, admin or not, can to rely on the good faith assumption that the poster is allowed to post what was posted. once the question of legitimacy is raised then it's a different matter. same point applies to other moderated places like Slashdot or Digg. truth is, "see no evil, hear no evil" is the best road to take. if there is a problem, all the forum owner has to do is remove the content and notify the poster, then if the poster wishes to claim any "right" to post the content, the forum owner can reinstate the content and then is required to provide the posters contact info to the complaintant. then the fight is between the complaintant and the poster and the forum will only have to remove the content under court order due to the outcome of the fight between the complaintant and the poster.

questioning the good faith assumption that that poster is within his/her rights to post the material brings liability. without an approval process where all posts are vetted by an administrator before publication there is no expectation that every single post will be read and checked by and administrator to determine compliance with relevant laws. this leaves the burden of compliance with the poster. once an admin is somehow involved with a question as to the compliance of a certain post, the burden of compliance is removed from the poster and placed on the site and it's owner/administration.

[burstandbloom]

well that started quite a fuss.
anyway, good jam though, good jam...