youtube, free speech and copyright infringement

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by beezel26, Mar 25, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. beezel26 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2003
    star 7
    right now you tube is hosting thousand of bits from the major networks without permision from them. Yet if NBC wanted to air something from CBS they would need permission. Yet because Youtube is a content provider not the actual one that uploads it they are not breaking the law. So they say. With the advertising they generate it makes it look pretty suspiciuos. Even though the advertisements are not on the video pages the videos generate traffic which interns gets the advertisements seen. So does Youtube deserve to be hauld into court by NBC. And the RIAA is actually cracking down on people singing along to their favorite songs on video. basically amateur videos.

    and one more thing, Youtube recently pulled down a video by an atheist that condemned and presented arguements against islam. But previously he did the same thing with christianity and it stayed.

    SO is there free speech issue or was youtube smart for avoiding another Danish incident.
  2. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    I think the difference is that no one's directly making money from this. Although I'm not sure how youtube generates revenue but it's not from the clips that it airs. Nor do the users make any profit.
  3. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    A quick lesson on US copyright law.

    First of all, YouTube is not a content provider. It is a service provider. There is a critical difference there. The content providers at YouTube are the users.

    Under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998), there is a "safe harbor" provision for service providers who do not exercise prior editorial control over content that is hosted with their service. What that means is that when they are notified by the copyright holder (or their authorized representative) that they are hosting infringing material, they are required to take it down and notify the user who uploaded it. Then, the user can submit an affidavit to the service provider certifying (under penalty of perjury) that the material is not infringing, and the provider must restore that material. At that point, it remains for the copyright holder to sue the user (not the service provider) for the infringement (if there was any - that is decided by the courts).

    YouTube has a very clear process for submitting these notifications, and they respond promptly to them when they receive them. (For one example, see this story.)

    In a way, it's no different than if you create a geocities account and use it to host copyrighted images or text. Geocities adds ads around your page, but they are not responsible for the content of your page itself. Geocities isn't encouraging you to upload copyrighted works (at least, not without permission), and they don't control what you actually upload. After the fact, they can remove it if they receive a complaint, but that's about it.

    All this is is the same basic principle applied to a different form of media (video instead of images or text).

    Kimball Kinnison
  4. Master_SweetPea Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2002
    star 4
    I think K_K just killed this thread but I want to just stir things up a bit.

    One other area of Copyright Law that I have a question about.

    RE-Selling an item.

    Reccently my wife was trying to sell a baby sleeper bed, that she bought but never used.

    She made several attempts to list it on an internet auction, but the corporation that makes the bed complained that she was infringing on thier copyright and the listing was removed. She even took photos where the brand name could not be seen, and made sure to use not licensed names in the listings, they complained again and again.
    If the product is legally owned why can you not accuarately descibe it?
    can you imagine ford or chevrolet complaining about copyright infringement because of ebay motors?
    I don't know if I have a point but I just wanted to add to the conversation. [face_clown]
  5. Al-Capone Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 24, 2007
    star 1
    You can sell it, just not at an auction.

    //Garage Sale
  6. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    I don't care. I just sit and enjoy the videos. You should too.;)
  7. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    And the RIAA is actually cracking down on people singing along to their favorite songs on video. basically amateur videos.

    You see that's just way out of line there for them. In fact many bands and artisit have really grown to enjoy Youtube for the simple fact that they can use it for a number of things. One of them being there music videos. Other being for live shows that people can see. Yet others are for there fans.

    One band the Trans Siberian Orchestra used Youtube to run a contest for there fans. Who ever did the best job at playing one of there songs and the winners got a guitars, bass guitars etc.

    So really they have very little leg room to stand on here when many bands and artisits are using it.
  8. beezel26 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2003
    star 7
    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050627-5042.html


    grockster vs hollywood. basically grockster lost not because they were a service provider but because they used the copywrite infringement as a means to advertise, every time a video was looked at it generatd advertising revenue. its ok to to be a the provider, its another thing to make money off of all the videos that are aired regardless of infringement or not.


    its the same for us, we cant post stuff that lucasfilm says not to because of copyrite, if we keep it up the moderators get into trouble because they chose to ignore it so more people would go looking for it and thus more users would see our advertisements making the site money.


    you tube chooses to ignore the copyrite infringement going on as long as its making money from advertising.

    if it couldnt advertise you better believe they would be alot more careful about what gets put on their website.

  9. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    ani that made no sense.

    Putting up a video on YouTubs as the non-copyright holder is illegal. No, you have no right to free speech that allows to upload or view these videos, sorry! :)

    Now from a market economics perspective, I think it's telling that the only people to truly get the direction the entertainment industry needs to take are people like Apple with iTunes, not the entertainment companies themselves. In most cases the most commonly copywritten pieces to be uploaded onto YouTube are TV show episodes and music videos.

    Clearly, there is massive demand for it.

    So, what do you do?

    You can take the Viacom approach which is "we're none-too-intelligent monoliths, die by our fist puny mortal" approach of taking out stupid lawsuits against Google, or you can just take the BBC approach. The Beeb hit Google up about BBC material being there sans permission and within days much, not all, of it was back with the BBC listed as a director. The quality wasn't as good, but it was there.

    There is clearly a demand in the market for this kind of media. Entertainment companies deserve to either fail and die as empires, or they need to adopt the vision of Steve Jobs and co and use these new technologies to their fullest advantage. Petulantly sulking and taking out lawsuits is fine but also starkly immature and blindly oblivious to market realities.

    If a BBC-like lead was followed then an enormously successful venture (YouTube) would simply encourage others to think outside the box. Viacom et al deserve to fail if they cannot adapt their thinking to the 1990s, much less today, and I'm grateful, if nothing else, that Apple has the courage to take the lead.

    E_S
  10. jedi_master_ousley Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2002
    star 8
    NBC has done that to some extent on youtube: http://youtube.com/nbc You cannot view full episodes, but they have a lot of clips and bonus stuff. Also, check out abc.com - you can view full television shows streamed on their site.
  11. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    The funny thing is that Viacom's lawsuit is mostly due to the clips of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, but ironically videos of those shows-- which add up to entire episodes-- are available for free on comedycentral.com.
  12. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    Putting up a video on YouTubs as the non-copyright holder is illegal. No, you have no right to free speech that allows to upload or view these videos, sorry!

    Yeah well not a lot of bands or artist really seem to be having a problem with it know are they. But it's not just that. The RIAA wants to go after people on Youtube fro a number of really dumb things.

    A great number of bands instead of running form Youtube are using it as what it is a tool for people to watch music videos and make home videos to put on the net. There is more music videos in the world then just the ones in the USA. The music world is not owned by the USA no matter what the RIAA says.

    about 98% of the bands I listen to don't have videos on MTV so where I'm I going to watch them? Simple online at Youtube.

    Really here it's about the USA mianstearm music if the recored companys are not doing so good well they may want to look at what they are putting out. I have not bought one CD from one USA mainstream band in years and I never will. All the music I by comes from band that are big in Europe, AISA, and so on.

    Sorry but the muisc in the USA stinks. And if I want to watch a video from Epica a band I like I will watch it at the only place I can Youtube and the band members don't care one bit.

  13. jedi_master_ousley Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2002
    star 8
    It would certainly make sense that most smaller bands wouldn't care - it gives them free publicity and advertising and likely generates more fans.
  14. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    And that's a very good thing. Even better when 98% of the bands I listen are not even on the radio in the USA and that I can't even find in of there CD's and have to go online to A) Buy there muisc. B) Watch there music. C) Find out about mroe bands like them.

    All the RIAA has done is made it very hard for people to hear new bands and get there hands on bands that are far better then what we have in the USA. I don't really care what the RIAA, MTV, or mainstream raido says I will keep donig what I'm doing and I won't support them until they stop putting out all this bad music.

    I will keep using Youtube and other places on the net to find the music I like if the RIAA has a problem with that well to bad I don't really know what to do there.
  15. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    That's a remarkably selfish, immature attitude there ani, well done. I love the entitlement mentality, you're right, you're owed access to this material.
  16. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    Why because I don't like the US music Industry wants me to do? Boohoo to them maybe if they would stop putting out Fall Out Boy, Lindsay Lohan, Good Charlotte, Simple Plan, Avril Lavigne, and The Pussycat Dolls. There crap that's a fact and I will not give them a dime of my money.

    I will give my money to Epica, After Forever, Nightwish, Children of Bodom, etc. It's just to bad the only place I can watch or hear the muisc is online. Such a shame that so much good music does not make it into the USA. That's not immature or selfish. It's just greed on the part of the US music Industry. Greed that I will not support until they stop putting out scuh crap music.

    If I want to watch any Epica music video where do you suggest I go to watch it? MTV? They don't play muisc videos and the ones they are do are from people I do not want to give my money to. I just won't give the US music Industry my money I'm a any unhappy customer.

    I want to hear music form After Foever and buy the music I have to go online to do that. Other wise I can watch the vidoes or get there music. Where else I'm I supposed to get and hear that music Ender. Please tell me becasue I can't find it any where in the US I can't find any of there music videos in the US and I can't hear any of there music on the raido.

    But according to you I'm selfish immature because I refuse to play the by the rules of the RIAA becasue if it was up to them I would nolonger be able to hear or find mnay of the bands I enjoy so yes as a customer I'm owed access better material then what I'm getting with the US music Industry.

    But hey if we go by what your saying and the RIAA wants you have just killed off all the bands I like. Great job. [face_shame_on_you] I mean Epica can not compet money wise with Fall Out Boy. So Youtube is there for bands like Epica, After Forever, Kamelot, Stream of Passion and Leaves Eyes to compet and get there music out there.
  17. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Wow, Ani, did that rant at all hit the point, no.

    You have no right to that music. You need to understand this if we're going to move on.

    The short sighted idiocy of the entertainment industry does not infer upon you a right to access that material.

    So yes, you are indeed being the very epitome, the very picture of selfishness. How can you claim otherwise; you want to access that music, therefore you damned well will stuff everyone who gets in your way, tantrum pending.

    E_S
  18. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    Ender, when the economic system surrounding a product collapses, it is no surprise people will turn to extra-economic means of procuring that product.

    Also, copyright was instituted to encourage the production of creative works. Yet illegal downloading doesn't seem to have impeded such production, in fact, the combination of easily accessed material and the nichization of media seems to have accelerated it.

  19. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    Ok let's really look at this Fall out Boy is on a big recoard lable. They get there music played on MTV, the radio, on One Tree Hill and so on. They make millions.

    Then you have After Forever. They don't get played on MTV, the don't get played on the radio (well unless you live in Europe. But even then it's only in there home country). So someone from the USA hears there music and can only go online to get it and can only go online to watch there music videos. Take that stuff away how are people supposed to hear there music?

    How do I hear there music? I really like there music I hate the music Fall out Boy plays. Going by what you and the RIAA say you have just made so that no one out side of there home coutnry or Europe will ever hear of them because you can't access there music to even hear it.

    Copyrights are great but not when they are used to stop other bands to even be heard in the USA. After Forever does not have the economic means to compet with any of the big bands in the USA. They don't have the economic means for advertising and many other things. And even if they can make it to the USA to tour they play in dumps and don't even get half of what a band like Fall out Boy would get.

    So that's all well in good for Fall out Boy. To bad it hurts other bands and keeps them from ever wanting to come to the US. The US Recording Industry are not the rules of the music world. No matter what you say or what they say. The US is not the home of what is and is not good music. There is a whole other world of muisc out there that most people are not even hearing becuase the RIAA makes up rules to the point that it hurts bands on Indie labels and bands that don't even have a record deal.

    From the rules they have I woudl love to start my own band. But I would not want to for fear of my fans being sued for downloading one of my music videos.
  20. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Through sheer bloody mindedness or perhaps other reasons you don't get this, Ani.

    Maybe you need to realise this isn't just about you. :)

    If bands want to use YouTube to distribute their music, they can.

    However, angry, spoilt fans like yourself don't have that right. :)

    You still have no right to access copywritten material, I don't care how used to getting your own way you are. :)

    Flyer; I don't doubt that YouTube is the future, but the way to change the system isn't through being a spoilt brat and throwing the mother of all tantrums over your "right" to see this stuff online. People lack that right, and anyday soon Anidamni may realise this. And until corporations see this as in their interest, they're going to fight the destructive attitudes of the anidanamis of the world with a destructive energy of their own.

    As always, the middle ground is the way forward.

    Don't mention Fallout boy anymore Ani, Emo makes me angry :p

    E_S
  21. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    Through sheer bloody mindedness or perhaps other reasons you don't get this

    No you don't get it and you never will. The RIAA does not conratl the music Industry of the world.

    Peppermint Creeps

    This band is not on any major labels. They put out there music all on there own. Well I don't like them they have used Youtube, myspace heck the whole net to get new fans. If the RIAA wings bands like that lose becsaue that means they either sign to a major label or no one hears there music.

    It's a sad day when the RIAA hurts bands like this all for money. Fans have ever right to get the music of the bands they like out there to the public be it by using Youtube, myspace, or whatever they can. I will do whatever I can to get more people to know about Epica. If they radio does not want to play there muisc becuase they are not on a label. Well to bad for them I guess.

    Next best place just so happens to be the net and places like Youtube. If I can get just one person hooked on Epica just by leting them see any Epica video on Youtube and give them one more fan who will buy there CD's, t-shirts, and go to there shows. What's it to you and the RIAA?

    These bands want more fans and if they only way to get them in the US is through myspace and Youtube becuase of what the RIAA does then so be it.

  22. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    You missed one key part of that ruling.

    Grokster lost because they didn't demonstrate that their service that they provided had significant non-infringing uses. They basically created and marketed a content delivery service with the primary or sole intent of advocating copyright infringement.

    YouTube, on the other hand, has significant non-infringing uses. It is not marketed as a way to watch copyrighted TV shows and movies without permission, but as a place for individuals to publish and share their own works (or ones that they have properly licensed).

    Several facts that speak in YouTube's favor on this are first, their DMCA takedown actions. When they are notified of infringement, they take it down. That speaks a lot for intent. Second, there is their marketing. Even the title of their main page is focuses on sharing personal creations ("YouTube - Broadcast Yourself."), not publishing unauthorized copyrighted material.

    Consider in the Grokster ruling the three points used to demonstrate encouragement of infringement:
    Of those three, only the third can really apply to YouTube.

    One of the key defenses is that second., YouTube has obviously "attempted ... to diminish the infringing activity with their [service]". When people make complaints, they remove the material. What more could they do to reduce the infringement?

    Your entire argument focuses on the third point, but getting money through advertising in and of itself does not constitute infringement. You need to demonstrate the intent to make people infringe and profit from it, something that does not apply in the YouTube case.

    Kimball Kinnison
  23. Django211 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 1999
    star 4
    NBC has done a unique job of dealing with YouTube that I think other companies will, & have, followed. They extended an olive branch to fans after receiving a lot of anger for removing SNL clips. Many NBC programs, along with a number of other network shows are available for download just after broadcast on iTunes. Much of the success of the US version of "The Office" has been attributed to iTunes. Whether companies want to admit it or not downloading, illegal & legal, is now a strategy that has to be taken into consideration for success in any media.

    I think a problem for companies is that technology is simply too advanced for any surefire way to prevent copying. When labels and even artists take a stand they can often face a public backlash. Take for example Metallica. They complained about illegal filesharing and took a huge hit from their fan base after their lawsuit against napster. They are considered sellouts by the very people who supported them. The argument being that it was fine for fans to make cassette copies of concerts and pass them out amongst themselves when they were nobodies, but once they became successful they got greedy and wanted to punish the same system that made them famous. Accurate or not that is the perception of the band. It seems NBC has learned from the likes of Metallica in trying to appeal to fans concerning downloading.
  24. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Yeah, um Ani, I don't think you want to go on record saying I don't get it since my father, you know, is on the board of CISAC and is the CIO of APRA, which is our equivalent of your ASCAP or BMI.

    I have not, for years now, gotten over how little you actually get of the world around you. Have you actually read a damned thing I've written here? Thought not.

    Let's try again Ani, and maybe it's my fault for assuming you were paying attention.

    You don't have a right to access music.

    I don't care if you believe that blowhard Jefferson that God itself handed those a right to everything to your naked mewling infant form because America is just that much better, you don't. Authors and composers of music do this for a simple reason - to make money. And if you believe the "We're not in it for the money, we're in it for the fans" crap you're gullible to the point of pity. I might as well get your email and pretend to be nigerian royalty.

    They do it for money because they're professional musicians. Even if they retain artistic integrity with their financial success, they still need income to, you know, eat. So all you're doing is depriving bands of their income. And for those esoteric bands nobody will be caring about in 5 years time either that you like, YouTube is a great way for them to get recognised but I can can guarantee you that their objective is $$$.

    Again, if you pretend otherwise, or if you believe they're in it for the fans, I'm a Nigerian prince, give me your bank details and credit card and I'll make you rich when I get my country back.

    Whilst it's incumbent on the industry to change as they're already cripplingly behind the times, that ONCE AGAIN does not confer a right on you to break the law because you're spoilt and want your music or you'll throw a tantrum.

    Now I realise this will be mostly in vain, since you seem to have trouble reading much less getting what I'm saying, but you have no right to the music. And until you realise this and the companies realise YouTube is their friend, not their enemy, we're going to be stuck in this crazy world where you have the greedy corporations on one side, the spoilt petulant consumers on the other, and me in the middle smacking both of you down.

    Honestly, ani, if you want change you do not do it by flipping off Goliath. THat only works in fiction.

    E_S
  25. darthdrago Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2003
    star 4
    Ani, you've gone to great lengths complaining about how much you hate what the RIAA is doing in pushing out certain bands. Fine. You prefer avenues like YouTube & MySpace to find new tunes & bands. Great. But you haven't yet explained how it is that you would then purchase those new bands' work.

    I have no problem using those means to listen to music. But remember, YouTube & MySpace generally provide streaming of music & video. They don't (usually) make it so that you can simply download that material straight to your PC. You'd still have to purchase that music from somewhere, whether on a physical compact disc, or electronically via internet download. And this would have to be in a manner that's authorized by the band/artist in question. Musicians/artists still desire control over how their stuff is made available to the public. On this point, Ender is absolutely correct: you don't have a right to possession of an artist's music, unleass it's through means that the artist approves of. That's part of the reason why copyright laws exist: not just to make record companies rich, but also for the legal protection of those same artists you love so much. They ALL want to profit from their music, however you want to define "profit". I'm sure you'd like to properly & fairly purchase music from bands you like, but remember, just because you want it, that doesn't mean that you have a right to own it. That's part of the reason why this discussion is reflected in the concept of intellectual property.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.