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

    You mention the endless viewing of Enya videos. But her audience pails into
    insignificance compared, for example, with that of Sacha Baron Cohen. See
    here for some details about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borat and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_G

    Cohen, plays the characters of Ali G, Borat, and Bruno the fashion reporter.
    His videos have been massively popular on Youtube. At least sixteen of his
    Borat videos have received more than 800,000 views, giving a total of about
    22 million views. His top video seems to be "Borat's Dating Service"
    receiving about 2.8 million views:

    (1,968,000 views)

    AND AGAIN here: (826,000 views)

    One of Borat's videos has received 1,893,480 views, and has been on Youtube
    for 10 months. It runs for more than 24 minutes.

    Now I assume that such a massive presence on Youtube, where possibly 30
    million viewings have taken place, must have been approved by the copyright
    owners? Perhaps Cohen has a license agreement? But in any event, Cohen must
    be aware of his massive following on Youtube so it looks like he has no
    problem with this situation? And I guess that Youtube wouldn't like these
    videos to be deleted either because they are so popular. Certainly, all
    Cohen's fans wouldn't like his videos to be deleted, so it seems everyone is
    happy, or are they?
     
    Colin B, Dec 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Colin B

    Frank ess Guest

    Seems to me that same USA "demographic" has decided marijuana
    possession and use should not be illegal; there may have been some
    movement in some parts of the country, an individual can still find
    her/himself in legal trouble if s/he's not wary of laws,
    circumstances, and consequences.
     
    Frank ess, Dec 14, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. "Frank ess" wrote ...
    But, I'll bet that even marijuana dealers believe in property rights!
    (When they're not stoned, at least)
     
    Richard Crowley, Dec 14, 2006
  4. Colin B

    J. Clarke Guest

    In what way?
    At one time the Constitution prohibited the sale and consumption of
    alcohol. If there is a consensus then the Constitution can be changed.
    The same was true of brewers, vintners, and distillers and they got shut
    down anyway.
    You've determined this how? And what happens when those "children and
    very young adults" get older?
    And it doesn't mean that they wouldn't, either.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 14, 2006
  5. Colin B

    PTravel Guest

    "The public" doesn't want video to be "freely copiable" to the extent that
    anyone can upload anything they want to Youtube. Elimination of a property
    interest in intellectual property would have a devasting effect -- it would
    eliminate any incentive to creation and the stream of
    professionally-produced content would evaporate. More than that, the United
    States economy has, increasingly, become a system whose only value is its
    intellectual property.

    The only ones who want video to be "freely copiable" in the sense the way
    that you're describing are a bunch of children and young adults who have no
    conception of the relationship between intellectual property and property
    interests.
    There isn't a consensus. Banning alcohol was a disastrous decision that was
    rapidly undone.
    It's a very different America now then it was in the 20s. Lobbyists didn't
    exist then.
    I've determined this by looking at what's on Youtube, who is making the
    arguments for "free downloading," and looking at who is getting sued. As to
    what happens to the children, presumably they'll get some education as well
    as some real world experience and understand that perpetual motion machines
    don't exist, and if the incentive for creation is eliminated from copyright
    there simply won't be anymore "tunes" to listen to.
    See above.
     
    PTravel, Dec 14, 2006
  6. Colin B

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I think the root of the problem is that the recording industry has
    ripped people off for so many years that most people have no sympathy
    for their position. They just don't seem to understand that the old way
    of doing business is gone forever. EVERY time a new technology has come
    along, they have moaned and groaned about how they are going to be put
    out of business, but still manage to make billions every year, and have
    more influence with Congress than 'big oil'. I am not, generally, a
    consumer of their products, and so watch this taking place with some
    amusement, and objectivity. Until the media providers understand that
    there is a great new opportunity for them to use technology to deliver
    their 'product' in a way that suits their buyers, the problem will not
    go away.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 14, 2006
  7. Colin B

    J. Clarke Guest

    You have a poll to present? No? Then on what basis do you make this
    claim?
    What would this effect be?
    You've never spent much time with artists, have you? They don't need no
    steenkeeng _incentive_. As for the "stream of professionally produced
    content" "evaporating", and I should care about this because?
    Uh, don't look now, but the Japanese own major chunks of that particular
    American "intellectual property".
    Again, you have a poll to present?
    So you're saying that there _was_ a "consensus" that alcohol should be
    banned and then that "consensus" changed? Do tell.
    Then why were newspapers writing diatribes against the practice of
    lobbying in 1869?
    Which tells you nothing about the beliefs of the public.
    And who is making these arguments and how did you determine their age and
    occupation?
    In other words you're assuming that the only people who have an opinion in
    the matter of the MPAA are those who post on youtube.
    There won't? Now, to your knowledge has _anybody_ ever listened to _all_
    the "tunes" that are out there and watched _all_ the TV and movies that
    are out there? Why is there this crying need for more "tunes"? And how,
    before there was such a thing as a "recording", did musicians and actors
    and the like make a living, anyway?

    I've seen above and it appears that you are a typical MPAA/RIAA shill who
    sees the end of the revenue stream from recordings as being the end of the
    universe. If the recording industry goes bankrupt, it won't be the end of
    music, but it will be the end of the boy-band du jour becoming filthy rich
    on the basis of marketing rather than talent, and no doubt you would have
    to go out and get a real job.

    Should have plonked you at "nonsense". Oh, well.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 14, 2006
  8. Colin B

    Steve King Guest

    PLONK!

    Steve King
     
    Steve King, Dec 14, 2006
  9. Colin B

    PTravel Guest

    This is turning into one of those silly internet arguments in which I refuse
    to participate. As a practicing IP attorney, I have a pretty good idea of
    the State of Intellectual Property, which includes how people use it and
    perceive it. Feel free not to take my word for it. If you want, go wager
    in Las Vegas that there will be a Copyright Revolution, eliminating property
    rights in protected expression. I'm sure you'll get very good odds.
    Read on MacDuff.
    I haven't? Then how do you explain my BA and MFA, 15 years of experience as
    a professional actor and 20 years as a member of the Lehman Engle Music
    Theatre Workshop -- a workshop for composers, lyricists and book authors.

    You've obviously little familiarity with how video is produced. Do you have
    any concept of how much it costs to produce a television show, music video
    or movie? Do you seriously think that any of the numerous craft guilds
    would have any interest in working for free?

    You, like many who harbor your beliefs, are thinking only about how nice it
    would be to be able to download pop music for free. Guess what -- it's a
    much bigger world of protected expression than is contained in Billboard's
    Top 40. Operas are not going to get produced for free. Symphony orchestras
    are not going to play for free. Musical theater is not going to be staged
    for free.
    Again, you're thinking only about pop music.

    Can I ask you a question? I don't mean this as a put down, but I'm really
    curious. How old are you? I ask because, as I noted, I find the views that
    you've expressed generally to be limited to younger people.
    Only my professional experience.
    As I said, it was a different America in the 20s.
    In 1970, there was something like 70 registered lobbyists in Washington.
    Today, there are thousands. More frightening is the fact that, today, the
    lobbyists draft legislation. That wasn't the practice even 30 years ago,
    much less 150.
    It tells me the demographic that would be interested in the "theory" of
    intellectual property that you propose.
    Not what I said but, as noted, I have no intention of getting into one of
    these stupid internet arguments, where "prove it" is supposed to be a
    substitute for rational rebuttal.
    Musicians and actors have always made a living by being paid for their work.
    Your proposal is that they no longer be paid. As for your contention that
    there is "enough" protected expression, that's just bizarre.
    And, with that, this conversation is over. I don't work for the MPAA/RIAA
    or any business remotely related to that. If you took 5 minutes out of your
    busy day downloading free tunes from peer-to-peer networks, you could find
    out very quickly who I work for and what I do. You, however, are simply a
    spoiled young person who thinks ad hominem attacks are an acceptable
    substitute for logic and facts.

    Grow up, sonny.
     
    PTravel, Dec 14, 2006
  10. Colin B

    Colin B Guest

    So, with regard to the Youtube debate, what are you suggesting is acceptable
    practice? Do you think that thousands (of probably young people) should be
    allowed to continue to flood internet with millions of copies of music
    videos and TV shows without getting approval from the copyright owners?
     
    Colin B, Dec 14, 2006
  11. Colin B

    Colin B Guest

    You say you are "looking at who is getting sued". Have you found any
    instances of uploaders to Youtube being sued? Have substantial damages been
    awarded in any of these cases?
     
    Colin B, Dec 14, 2006
  12. Colin B

    Colin B Guest

    Perhaps the media providers have been listening to you Ron! Four major TV
    networks are considering creating a jointly owned Web site to offer their
    programming online rather than have to chase down pirated clips on YouTube.

    http://news.com.com/TV+networks+may+form+anti-YouTube+cabal/2100-1025_3-6142345.html

    But I'm not sure why you think "the recording industry has ripped off people
    for so many years". Frankly, I'm stunned at the mass disobedience of
    copyright laws of a large number of people who upload video to YouTube. If
    the quality of this video was a little better, then couldn't this be a
    serious threat to the incomes of many recording artists? It's not all
    artists who are multi-millionaires!

    Even with the low quality of the video on Youtube, I guess many young people
    would think it is good enough, thus depriving some artists of much needed
    revenue from DVD and CD sales. In any event, we have been told in this
    thread that everyone who uploads video to YouTube that does not have the
    approval of the rights' owners can be sued. So is it worth the risk
    uploading "illegal" video, I certainly don't think so!
     
    Colin B, Dec 14, 2006
  13. Colin B

    PTravel Guest

    I'm not aware of any such suits, but litigation isn't officially reported
    unless (1) it's a publishable appellate decision, or (2) it's a lower court
    ruling that the publishers of the official reporters find to be
    "interesting" or "significant." In other words, the only way I'd know is if
    it the media pick it up (or I wanted to spend some money on a Pacer or Lexis
    search AND Youtube was named as a party. As for damages, in a copyright
    action statutory damages are always available and can range to a maximum of
    $250,000 per infringement.
     
    PTravel, Dec 14, 2006
  14. Apparently you've never spent much time with the people who
    put the deals together to pay the artists so they have time to
    create "art" instead of waiting tables or mowing lawns.
    Which side are you arguing for?
    How old are you? Have you ever worked for a living?
    Never mind. Rhetorical question. Plonk
     
    Richard Crowley, Dec 15, 2006
  15. Colin B

    John Turco Guest

    Colin B wrote:


    Hello, Colin:

    Well, I've seen some eBay sellers, hawking homemade recordings of
    American football games (i.e., copyrighted, network television
    broadcasts thereof), and getting away with it, for several years.

    That's in spite of eBay's explicit rules against such illegal activity!


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Dec 17, 2006
  16. Colin B

    John Turco Guest

    <edited>

    Hello, PTravel:

    Prohibition was "rapidly undone?" I suppose it >was<, in relative terms,
    yet it still took 13 years of lawless behavior, to repeal it!


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Dec 17, 2006
  17. Colin B

    ptravel Guest

    amendment to the Constitution. However, the motivation for prohibition
    was also very different than that which compels the children and young
    people who think copyright is what stands between them and free tunes.
     
    ptravel, Dec 17, 2006
  18. Colin B

    Colin B Guest


    Because the copyright holders MUST be aware that large numbers of persons
    are publishing all or part of their work on internet, then they need to get
    together to devise ways of stopping this illegal behavior. If the copyright
    holders don't do this, it sends a message to the illegal uploaders that the
    copyright laws are toothless, or that nobody really cares about it. So,
    until the law is changed to make website owners jointly responsible along
    with the uploaders for publishing "illegal" material, then the copyright
    holders are going to lose out.

    This recent news article talks about how internet brings together the small
    contributions of millions of people and makes them matter. But as long as
    the web site owners continue publishing material that has not been copyright
    cleared, then this practice will become even more prevalent than it is now.

    http://news.com.com/Time+magazine+names+you+Person+of+the+Year/2100-1025_3-6144371.html
     
    Colin B, Dec 18, 2006
  19. Colin B

    Bill Funk Guest

    IMO, that points to the need to reconsider the whole idea of
    "copyright".
    There's no way, at present, for web presences like Youtube to check
    each uploaded video for copyright infringement. The technology doesn't
    allow this at a cost that the current funding can afford.
    I'm not in any way saying that intellectual property shouldn't be
    protected. But at the same time, as technology makes it so easy to
    post a 320x120 (or whatever size these videos are) video of a football
    game, the task of preventing it becomes unmanagable.
    At what point, legally, does a business become a venue instead of a
    publisher? (eBay is, legally, a venue, and not legally responsible for
    auctions posted unlerss and until it is legally notified of an illegal
    auction. Is Youtube a publisher or a venue?)
    At what point does it stop being practical to chase down violations?
    How much of a country's resources is a country supposed to put into
    stopping the unstopable? Is the UN going to step in and force
    countries to adopt a universal copyright law? If so, who enforces it?
    Something to think about.
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 18, 2006
  20. Colin B

    Colin B Guest

    I agree that the current laws don't seem to be effective in stopping people
    from posting material to internet, for which they don't have permission from
    the copyright holders. Even if these infringing uploaders are sued, or if
    Youtube is requested to remove the material, it can be readily reposted to
    Youtube by thousands of willing copyright breakers.

    So, perhaps the way ahead is for sites, such as Youtube, to pay copyright
    fees and / or licensing fees, out of the advertising revenue they receive.
    If video sharing sites show a willingness to share their profits with the
    legitimate rights owners, then this may give these people the additional
    revenue that they deserve as a result of the publication of their material
    on such web sites. This principle is discussed in this article:

    http://news.com.com/Google+shares+ad+wealth+with+videographers/2100-1024_3-6130881.html

    Even if video sharing sites do pay fees to the copyright holders, I believe
    they should still warn uploaders not to upload copyright infringing
    material. Infringing uploaders should be aware that video sharing sites are
    not their friends, see this article:

    http://news.com.com/YouTubes+no+friend+to+copyright+violators/2100-1030_3-6128252.html
     
    Colin B, Dec 19, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.