Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Colin B, Dec 4, 2006.

  1. Colin B

    Colin B Guest

    Now that it's easy to put your digital photographs and movies on to a video
    sharing site, such as "youtube", the question of whether copyright
    infringements really harm the copyright holders is now a hot topic. See, for
    example, the article titled:

    Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders?

    http://fredhere.blogspot.com/

    What do you think of the arguments in this blog? Should copyright holders
    take a broad view and tolerate copyright infringements on youtube as is
    suggested in this blog?

    See also the youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/
     
    Colin B, Dec 4, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Colin B

    Skip Guest

    "Colin B" <Colin > wrote in message news:4573e69e$...
    > Now that it's easy to put your digital photographs and movies on to a
    > video sharing site, such as "youtube", the question of whether copyright
    > infringements really harm the copyright holders is now a hot topic. See,
    > for example, the article titled:
    >
    > Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders?
    >
    > http://fredhere.blogspot.com/
    >
    > What do you think of the arguments in this blog? Should copyright holders
    > take a broad view and tolerate copyright infringements on youtube as is
    > suggested in this blog?
    >
    > See also the youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/
    >
    >
    >
    >


    Only if proper attribution is given by the person who posts the copyrighted
    material. And, then, copyright infringement is arguable, at that point.
    Too often, material is put up without attribution, and there's no way for
    the viewer to hunt down and purchase the original, if so inclined.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Dec 4, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Colin B

    PTravel Guest

    "Colin B" <Colin > wrote in message news:4573e69e$...
    > Now that it's easy to put your digital photographs and movies on to a
    > video sharing site, such as "youtube", the question of whether copyright
    > infringements really harm the copyright holders is now a hot topic. See,
    > for example, the article titled:
    >
    > Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders?
    >
    > http://fredhere.blogspot.com/
    >
    > What do you think of the arguments in this blog? Should copyright holders
    > take a broad view and tolerate copyright infringements on youtube as is
    > suggested in this blog?
    >
    > See also the youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/


    Copyright is an exclusive right, meaning the reserved rights are owned,
    entirely, by the copyright owner. It doesn't matter whether infringements
    are "not all bad" or not -- copyright is, by definition, a right to exclude.
    Your argument is pointless as it would mean, among other things, amending
    the Constitution and ignoring several hundred years of intellectual property
    jurisprudence.



    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    PTravel, Dec 4, 2006
    #3
  4. Colin B

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "PTravel" <> writes:
    > Copyright is an exclusive right, meaning the reserved rights are owned,
    > entirely, by the copyright owner. It doesn't matter whether infringements
    > are "not all bad" or not -- copyright is, by definition, a right to exclude.
    > Your argument is pointless as it would mean, among other things, amending
    > the Constitution and ignoring several hundred years of intellectual property
    > jurisprudence.


    No amendment to the constitution would be needed to make all
    copyrights expire 24 hours after being issued, or to stop issuing them
    altogether. The scope of exclusivity has also changed steadily over
    the centuries since the Constitution was written, and that too could
    be set back to where it was without an amendment.
     
    Paul Rubin, Dec 4, 2006
    #4
  5. Colin B

    PTravel Guest

    "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "PTravel" <> writes:
    >> Copyright is an exclusive right, meaning the reserved rights are owned,
    >> entirely, by the copyright owner. It doesn't matter whether
    >> infringements
    >> are "not all bad" or not -- copyright is, by definition, a right to
    >> exclude.
    >> Your argument is pointless as it would mean, among other things, amending
    >> the Constitution and ignoring several hundred years of intellectual
    >> property
    >> jurisprudence.

    >
    > No amendment to the constitution would be needed to make all
    > copyrights expire 24 hours after being issued, or to stop issuing them
    > altogether.


    True, but that's not going to happen. Why in the world should a copyright
    expire after 24 hours, or not issue at all?

    > The scope of exclusivity has also changed steadily over
    > the centuries since the Constitution was written, and that too could
    > be set back to where it was without an amendment.


    I'm not quite sure what you mean by "set back to where it was." However,
    again, there is no reason to limit exclusivity, nor is it likely to happen.
     
    PTravel, Dec 4, 2006
    #5
  6. Colin B

    Colin B Guest

    "Bob Ford" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > I produce video for a very selective market and I have had people who
    > steal our stuff try to convince me that it exposes my work to more
    > people, some of whom may buy my products and besides that those who
    > have the pirated works would never have bought it from me in the first
    > place.
    >
    > To this I say emphatically.....BULLSHIT!!
    > If you don't plan to buy it legally then don't copy it either.
    >
    > That's what I think of the arguments in Freddy boys blog :-(
    >>
    >>See also the youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > Bob Ford
    > Images In Motion
    > www.imagesinmotion.com



    I think the point being made in Fred's blog http://fredhere.blogspot.com is
    that the QUALITY of the copy on youtube is nowhere near as good as the
    original, so people need to buy the original DVD to properly enjoy the movie
    etc. But if copyright holders think they are losing sales as a result of
    inferior and partial copies of their work that is uploaded without their
    consent to a site such as youtube, then I'm sure that their complaints to
    the site would result in the offending material being removed. However, if
    the copyright holder found that, after their work had been uploaded to
    youtube, a significant increase in sales took place, they may consider that
    the inferior copy served only to whet the appetite of viewers and could be
    regarded as successful advertising of their work.

    I think the youtube situation is quite different from those pirates who make
    exact copies of DVDs and then sell them illegally for personal gain. No one
    would condone this sort of copyright infringement, so there are different
    types of infringements, and I think Fred's blog is suggesting that the
    "youtube" infringements are at the low end of the scale. This would be
    because the person who uploaded the video gained nothing from doing it, and
    quite possibly the copyright holder lost no revenues, and in effect, gained
    free advertising.
     
    Colin B, Dec 5, 2006
    #6
  7. Colin B

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "PTravel" <> writes:
    > > No amendment to the constitution would be needed to make all
    > > copyrights expire 24 hours after being issued, or to stop issuing them
    > > altogether.

    >
    > True, but that's not going to happen. Why in the world should a copyright
    > expire after 24 hours, or not issue at all?


    Well, you were the one that brought up constitutional amendments. I'm
    pointing out that no amendment would be needed to make such a change.
    Whether such a change is desirable is a political question, and as
    with any such question, opinions vary.

    > I'm not quite sure what you mean by "set back to where it was."
    > However, again, there is no reason to limit exclusivity, nor is it
    > likely to happen.


    The scope of exclusivity conferred by a copyright has varied
    considerably (mostly increasing) over the centuries. We have not
    quite reached this point, but we are getting there:

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43029

    For a general introduction to the issues, see the book "Free Culture"
    by Prof. Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School, downloadable from

    http://free-culture.org
    http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf (pdf download link)
    http://free-culture.org/remixes/ (other formats)
     
    Paul Rubin, Dec 5, 2006
    #7
  8. Richard Crowley, Dec 5, 2006
    #8
  9. Colin B

    Colin B Guest

    "PTravel" <> wrote in message
    news:_EXch.10189$...
    >
    > "Colin B" <Colin > wrote in message
    > news:4573e69e$...
    >> Now that it's easy to put your digital photographs and movies on to a
    >> video sharing site, such as "youtube", the question of whether copyright
    >> infringements really harm the copyright holders is now a hot topic. See,
    >> for example, the article titled:
    >>
    >> Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright
    >> holders?
    >>
    >> http://fredhere.blogspot.com/
    >>
    >> What do you think of the arguments in this blog? Should copyright holders
    >> take a broad view and tolerate copyright infringements on youtube as is
    >> suggested in this blog?
    >>
    >> See also the youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/

    >
    > Copyright is an exclusive right, meaning the reserved rights are owned,
    > entirely, by the copyright owner. It doesn't matter whether infringements
    > are "not all bad" or not -- copyright is, by definition, a right to
    > exclude. Your argument is pointless as it would mean, among other things,
    > amending the Constitution and ignoring several hundred years of
    > intellectual property jurisprudence.


    Nevertheless, in practice, it seems that copyright holders are taking a
    broad view because there are a HUGE number of what must surely be illegal
    copies of video clips from DVDs, TV shows etc. on youtube. Youtube seems to
    place the responsibility on the people uploading the videos to truthfully
    declare that permission has been obtained from the legal copyright holders.
    Although the copyright holders must know that their legal rights are
    constantly being infringed on this site, a lot of them seem to choose to do
    nothing about it. This may indicate that they are not really concerned about
    low quality video extracts from their work appearing on youtube because of
    the advertising value of these clips to the millions of people who visit
    this site. Why else could such huge numbers of "illegal" video clips not be
    deleted from youtube? Unless of course, people genuinely have received
    permission from the copyright holders to upload limited extracts from their
    work on to youtube.
     
    Colin B, Dec 5, 2006
    #9
  10. Colin B

    J. Clarke Guest

    Re: Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for thecopyright holders?

    On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:04:38 +1300, Colin B wrote:

    > "PTravel" <> wrote in message
    > news:_EXch.10189$...
    >>
    >> "Colin B" <Colin > wrote in message
    >> news:4573e69e$...
    >>> Now that it's easy to put your digital photographs and movies on to a
    >>> video sharing site, such as "youtube", the question of whether copyright
    >>> infringements really harm the copyright holders is now a hot topic. See,
    >>> for example, the article titled:
    >>>
    >>> Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright
    >>> holders?
    >>>
    >>> http://fredhere.blogspot.com/
    >>>
    >>> What do you think of the arguments in this blog? Should copyright holders
    >>> take a broad view and tolerate copyright infringements on youtube as is
    >>> suggested in this blog?
    >>>
    >>> See also the youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/

    >>
    >> Copyright is an exclusive right, meaning the reserved rights are owned,
    >> entirely, by the copyright owner. It doesn't matter whether infringements
    >> are "not all bad" or not -- copyright is, by definition, a right to
    >> exclude. Your argument is pointless as it would mean, among other things,
    >> amending the Constitution and ignoring several hundred years of
    >> intellectual property jurisprudence.

    >
    > Nevertheless, in practice, it seems that copyright holders are taking a
    > broad view because there are a HUGE number of what must surely be illegal
    > copies of video clips from DVDs, TV shows etc. on youtube. Youtube seems to
    > place the responsibility on the people uploading the videos to truthfully
    > declare that permission has been obtained from the legal copyright holders.
    > Although the copyright holders must know that their legal rights are
    > constantly being infringed on this site, a lot of them seem to choose to do
    > nothing about it. This may indicate that they are not really concerned about
    > low quality video extracts from their work appearing on youtube because of
    > the advertising value of these clips to the millions of people who visit
    > this site. Why else could such huge numbers of "illegal" video clips not be
    > deleted from youtube? Unless of course, people genuinely have received
    > permission from the copyright holders to upload limited extracts from their
    > work on to youtube.


    Perhaps because the copyright holders can't afford to hire a monitoring
    team large enough to track the whole of youtube?
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 5, 2006
    #10
  11. Colin B

    Steve King Guest

    "Colin B" <Colin > wrote in message news:4574fe04$...
    >
    > "Bob Ford" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> I produce video for a very selective market and I have had people who
    >> steal our stuff try to convince me that it exposes my work to more
    >> people, some of whom may buy my products and besides that those who
    >> have the pirated works would never have bought it from me in the first
    >> place.
    >>
    >> To this I say emphatically.....BULLSHIT!!
    >> If you don't plan to buy it legally then don't copy it either.
    >>
    >> That's what I think of the arguments in Freddy boys blog :-(
    >>>
    >>>See also the youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Bob Ford
    >> Images In Motion
    >> www.imagesinmotion.com

    >
    >
    > I think the point being made in Fred's blog http://fredhere.blogspot.com
    > is that the QUALITY of the copy on youtube is nowhere near as good as the
    > original, so people need to buy the original DVD to properly enjoy the
    > movie etc. But if copyright holders think they are losing sales as a
    > result of inferior and partial copies of their work that is uploaded
    > without their consent to a site such as youtube, then I'm sure that their
    > complaints to the site would result in the offending material being
    > removed. However, if the copyright holder found that, after their work had
    > been uploaded to youtube, a significant increase in sales took place, they
    > may consider that the inferior copy served only to whet the appetite of
    > viewers and could be regarded as successful advertising of their work.
    >
    > I think the youtube situation is quite different from those pirates who
    > make exact copies of DVDs and then sell them illegally for personal gain.
    > No one would condone this sort of copyright infringement, so there are
    > different types of infringements, and I think Fred's blog is suggesting
    > that the "youtube" infringements are at the low end of the scale. This
    > would be because the person who uploaded the video gained nothing from
    > doing it, and quite possibly the copyright holder lost no revenues, and in
    > effect, gained free advertising.


    This is the "little bit pregnant" argument. One has either infringed on a
    copyright or not. As far as benefits to the copyright holder, that is for
    the copyright holder to decide, not the full range of individuals from
    children to psychopaths that post to You Tube. The quality of the copy has
    nothing to do with it. Nothing. Usurping the copyright holder's decision
    where and when to publish under what terms is a crime, which should be
    punished vigorously.

    Steve King
     
    Steve King, Dec 5, 2006
    #11
  12. Colin B

    Guest

    Steve King wrote:

    > This is the "little bit pregnant" argument. One has either infringed on a
    > copyright or not. As far as benefits to the copyright holder, that is for
    > the copyright holder to decide, not the full range of individuals from
    > children to psychopaths that post to You Tube. The quality of the copy has
    > nothing to do with it. Nothing.


    Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation (280 F.3d 934 (CA9 2002)) says
    otherwise.

    > Usurping the copyright holder's decision
    > where and when to publish under what terms is a crime, which should be
    > punished vigorously.


    Copyright infringement conducted on an industrial scale is a crime;
    uploading a video to YooToob would be merely a tort. Feel free to
    punish it "vigorously", but on your own dime, eh?
     
    , Dec 5, 2006
    #12
  13. Colin B

    Bill Guest

    Re: Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyrightholders?

    Very stern, Steve. Okay. Let's say we start looking at where Disney
    stole "Lion King" from-- and shall we punish Disney "vigorously"? How
    about all those movies and tv shows that recycle the same plot
    endlessly: Lucy/Gilligan/Archie/Monica thinks everyone has forgotten
    her birthday... How about I, IV, V in jazz or rock'n'roll?
    Compression in recording? The steadicam shot? The idea of a talking
    animal?

    The most ridiculous idea to come out of the digital age is that
    copyright is "absolute". It is not, never has been, and never was
    intended to be. For one thing, there has always been and always should
    be "fair use" even if all the Republicans in Washington are doing
    everything they can to eliminate it. Nobody creates in a vacuum, and
    nobody invents a new technology (musical instrument, paint, or language)
    everytime they create an "original" work of art. There is always some
    degree of borrowing, and that is the reason by no copyright is
    "absolute". You benefit from the work of others that came before you
    and the ones who follow benefit from your work.

    Those aren't "psychopaths"-- they are mostly kids who want to share the
    touchstones of modern culture with each other. They could be forgiven
    for thinking that that is exactly the aim of the music/television/film
    industry.

    People of good sense want to find a balance that allows creative people
    to profit properly from their work while preserving open cultural
    dialogue and keeping history in the public domain. It is absolutely
    wrong, for example, that "Eye on the Prize" is going to become
    unavailable to an entire generation of students because of the greed of
    copyright owners and their congressional toadies.

    Steve King wrote:

    >
    > This is the "little bit pregnant" argument. One has either infringed on a
    > copyright or not. As far as benefits to the copyright holder, that is for
    > the copyright holder to decide, not the full range of individuals from
    > children to psychopaths that post to You Tube. The quality of the copy has
    > nothing to do with it. Nothing. Usurping the copyright holder's decision
    > where and when to publish under what terms is a crime, which should be
    > punished vigorously.
    >
    > Steve King
    >
    >
     
    Bill, Dec 5, 2006
    #13
  14. Colin B

    jeremy Guest

    "Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > The most ridiculous idea to come out of the digital age is that copyright
    > is "absolute". It is not, never has been, and never was intended to be.


    That argument may express your sentiments, but it is legally unsound.

    Let me get this straight:

    You want to be allowed to lift someone else's images off of web sites and
    re-post them on other sites of your choice? Perhaps you want to alter them
    or try to improve them first? Ever hear of a "Derivative Copy?" The
    copyright law addresses that.

    Who has conferred upon you the right to take someone else's intellectual
    property and to recycle it as you see fit, without the creator's knowledge
    or permission? Where in the copyright law does it say that the right to
    reproduce the work of another is not absolute?
     
    jeremy, Dec 5, 2006
    #14
  15. Colin B

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:53:22 GMT, "jeremy" <> wrote:

    >"Bill" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >
    >>
    >> The most ridiculous idea to come out of the digital age is that copyright
    >> is "absolute". It is not, never has been, and never was intended to be.

    >
    >That argument may express your sentiments, but it is legally unsound.
    >
    >Let me get this straight:
    >
    >You want to be allowed to lift someone else's images off of web sites and
    >re-post them on other sites of your choice? Perhaps you want to alter them
    >or try to improve them first? Ever hear of a "Derivative Copy?" The
    >copyright law addresses that.
    >
    >Who has conferred upon you the right to take someone else's intellectual
    >property and to recycle it as you see fit, without the creator's knowledge
    >or permission?


    No one said he did, much less Bill.
    >Where in the copyright law does it say that the right to
    >reproduce the work of another is not absolute?
    >

    Ever hear of "fair use"?
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 5, 2006
    #15
  16. Colin B

    Guest

    Bill wrote:

    > Very stern, Steve. Okay. Let's say we start looking at where Disney
    > stole "Lion King" from-- and shall we punish Disney "vigorously"? How
    > about all those movies and tv shows that recycle the same plot
    > endlessly: Lucy/Gilligan/Archie/Monica thinks everyone has forgotten
    > her birthday... How about I, IV, V in jazz or rock'n'roll?
    > Compression in recording? The steadicam shot? The idea of a talking
    > animal?


    You appear to be confusing patent with copyright. Or something.

    > The most ridiculous idea to come out of the digital age is that
    > copyright is "absolute". It is not, never has been, and never was
    > intended to be. For one thing, there has always been and always should
    > be "fair use" even if all the Republicans in Washington are doing
    > everything they can to eliminate it. Nobody creates in a vacuum, and
    > nobody invents a new technology (musical instrument, paint, or language)
    > everytime they create an "original" work of art. There is always some
    > degree of borrowing, and that is the reason by no copyright is
    > "absolute". You benefit from the work of others that came before you
    > and the ones who follow benefit from your work.


    I don't think anyone has argued copyright is "absolute", but if you
    want to tilt at that windmill, who am I to stop you?

    > Those aren't "psychopaths"-- they are mostly kids who want to share the
    > touchstones of modern culture with each other. They could be forgiven
    > for thinking that that is exactly the aim of the music/television/film
    > industry.


    Frankly, people who are uploading episodes of TeeVee programs need to
    be subject to extreme punishment ... for exercising poor taste. The
    Internet is a marvel of the modern world, created and maintained by an
    army of technical elites, and some doughhead in Peoria is using it to
    "share" a "touchstone" of "modern culture" (cough!)? Call me less than
    impressed.

    > People of good sense want to find a balance that allows creative people
    > to profit properly from their work while preserving open cultural
    > dialogue and keeping history in the public domain. It is absolutely
    > wrong, for example, that "Eye on the Prize" is going to become
    > unavailable to an entire generation of students because of the greed of
    > copyright owners and their congressional toadies.


    Short of vast quantities of IP lawyer blood flowing in the streets, the
    current Copyright Cartel will not be broken. You seem like an idealist
    to me: I suggest you subvert the system from within. Instead of
    absorbing the brain-killing crap from Hollywood and its analogs, why
    not create it and license it under the GFDL, CC-by-SA, or similar?
    Rather than spend $5k on a wide-screen TeeVee to view this shit, why
    not cough up the dough for the recorder instead? Question: is it
    possible to create a movie (short, long) via the wiki process? I don't
    think anyone knows the answer. Why not find out instead of making
    yourself look silly on USENET?
     
    , Dec 5, 2006
    #16
  17. Colin B

    Bill Guest

    Re: Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyrightholders?

    jeremy wrote:

    > You want to be allowed to lift someone else's images off of web sites and
    > re-post them on other sites of your choice? Perhaps you want to alter them
    > or try to improve them first? Ever hear of a "Derivative Copy?" The
    > copyright law addresses that.


    I never said that. But, at the moment, if I take a picture of someone
    else's building, I might or might not have the right to use that photo
    commercially. If copyright were absolute, there would be no question:
    can't use it. But I can use a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge. But I
    can't use a picture of the Empire State Building (?!).
    >
    > Who has conferred upon you the right to take someone else's intellectual
    > property and to recycle it as you see fit, without the creator's knowledge
    > or permission? Where in the copyright law does it say that the right to
    > reproduce the work of another is not absolute?


    Do you mean the right to NOT have your work reproduced?

    For one thing-- the most obvious-- reviewers can freely quote from books
    and articles (with obvious limitations) for the purpose of review and
    discussion. For another thing, you can quote extensively for the
    purpose of satire and parody (thank you "Mad Magazine" for that), though
    that right is being eroded. And another: journalists generally have
    different rules when writing stories about copyrighted material. And
    another, schools and educational institutions have some rights of
    research and discussion. And yet another: in Canada, it is perfectly
    legal to borrow a CD and copy it. You paid for it when you bought the
    blank media. That is the law. And yet another: it is perfectly legal
    to tape a television program so you can watch it later.

    Please resist the temptation to create straw men here. I never said
    there shouldn't be copyright. My whole point is that there is a
    reasonable middle ground on this debate. To me it's reasonable that if
    an architect designs a public building that everyone can see every day,
    he gives up the right to control the use of a photographic image of that
    building. It would be too ridiculous to demand that people taking
    pictures or film or video should have to pay the owner of every building
    in view. That's unreasonable. But if you insist on "absolute"
    copyright, that's where we end up.
     
    Bill, Dec 5, 2006
    #17
  18. Colin B

    PTravel Guest

    "Colin B" <Colin > wrote in message news:45753623$...
    >
    > "PTravel" <> wrote in message
    > news:_EXch.10189$...
    >>
    >> "Colin B" <Colin > wrote in message
    >> news:4573e69e$...
    >>> Now that it's easy to put your digital photographs and movies on to a
    >>> video sharing site, such as "youtube", the question of whether copyright
    >>> infringements really harm the copyright holders is now a hot topic. See,
    >>> for example, the article titled:
    >>>
    >>> Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright
    >>> holders?
    >>>
    >>> http://fredhere.blogspot.com/
    >>>
    >>> What do you think of the arguments in this blog? Should copyright
    >>> holders take a broad view and tolerate copyright infringements on
    >>> youtube as is suggested in this blog?
    >>>
    >>> See also the youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/

    >>
    >> Copyright is an exclusive right, meaning the reserved rights are owned,
    >> entirely, by the copyright owner. It doesn't matter whether
    >> infringements are "not all bad" or not -- copyright is, by definition, a
    >> right to exclude. Your argument is pointless as it would mean, among
    >> other things, amending the Constitution and ignoring several hundred
    >> years of intellectual property jurisprudence.

    >
    > Nevertheless, in practice, it seems that copyright holders are taking a
    > broad view because there are a HUGE number of what must surely be illegal
    > copies of video clips from DVDs, TV shows etc. on youtube. Youtube seems
    > to place the responsibility on the people uploading the videos to
    > truthfully declare that permission has been obtained from the legal
    > copyright holders. Although the copyright holders must know that their
    > legal rights are constantly being infringed on this site, a lot of them
    > seem to choose to do nothing about it. This may indicate that they are not
    > really concerned about low quality video extracts from their work
    > appearing on youtube because of the advertising value of these clips to
    > the millions of people who visit this site. Why else could such huge
    > numbers of "illegal" video clips not be deleted from youtube? Unless of
    > course, people genuinely have received permission from the copyright
    > holders to upload limited extracts from their work on to youtube.


    Federal law exempts websites like Youtube from liability for infringing
    material uploaded by their users without their knowledge. Once notified of
    infringement Youtube has an obligation to delete the infringing material or
    face liability. What would you have the content owners do? Sue every
    single person who uploads infringing material, one at a time? The content
    owners notify Youtube, per statute, and the infringement is removed.

    I would suspect that a considerable number of infringements are undetected
    by the content owners. It is not their responsibility to monitor Youtube's
    daily uploads. That does not mean, either logically or legally, that
    content owners have consented to the infringement.


    >
     
    PTravel, Dec 5, 2006
    #18
  19. Colin B

    Bill Guest

    Re: Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyrightholders?

    The answer is yes. It's already happened with the Star Trek franchise.
    The owners have graciously decided not to persecute the perpetrators
    of these fan-made movies, including a very good one, "Star Wrek: In the
    Pirkinning".

    wrote:

    Question: is it
    > possible to create a movie (short, long) via the wiki process? I don't
    > think anyone knows the answer. Why not find out instead of making
    > yourself look silly on USENET?
    >


    I didn't know I looked silly. I'll work on it.
     
    Bill, Dec 5, 2006
    #19
  20. Colin B

    J. Clarke Guest

    Re: Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for thecopyright holders?

    On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:53:22 +0000, jeremy wrote:

    > "Bill" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>
    >> The most ridiculous idea to come out of the digital age is that copyright
    >> is "absolute". It is not, never has been, and never was intended to be.

    >
    > That argument may express your sentiments, but it is legally unsound.
    >
    > Let me get this straight:
    >
    > You want to be allowed to lift someone else's images off of web sites and
    > re-post them on other sites of your choice? Perhaps you want to alter them
    > or try to improve them first? Ever hear of a "Derivative Copy?" The
    > copyright law addresses that.
    >
    > Who has conferred upon you the right to take someone else's intellectual
    > property and to recycle it as you see fit, without the creator's knowledge
    > or permission? Where in the copyright law does it say that the right to
    > reproduce the work of another is not absolute?


    Two questions, what constitutes "fair use" and at what point does the
    ubiquity of violation of a law render any attempt to enforce it "selective
    enforcement"?
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 5, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. rishil
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    775
    Guest
    Mar 27, 2007
  2. www.BradReese.Com
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,322
  3. www.BradReese.Com
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    459
    www.BradReese.Com
    Sep 27, 2007
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,420
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Bob Larter

    Re: The mother of all copyright infringements

    Bob Larter, Oct 15, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    336
    Bob Larter
    Oct 15, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page