YouTube and Copyright

Forums › Online streaming services › YouTube and Copyright

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

1512 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1523472 31-Mar-2016 17:41

gzt: A big part of the problem is u.s law and enforcement applied to non-us content. You could look at hosting somewhere else.

Vimeo is great, I use it at odd times to upload certain content, Free plan gives you 500mb to upload with 1 HD upload per week, not bad if you are not uploading all the time or don't care if there is no HD content

Formerly worked at iStore NZ (Rest in Peace), Sky Network Television, Freeview, Apple, Spark New Zealand Trading Limited, DISH TV Technologies.

Travel Geek: Brazil, Chile, New Caledonia, United States, Fiji, Vanuatu, Australia, Cook Islands

roobarb

653 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1523473 31-Mar-2016 17:46

networkn: Let me know when you create something you gain income (or other benefit) from that is your original work, and someone comes along and copies it (Depriving you of some benefit), then let's talk....

Imagine if mathematics, science or mere facts were copyrightable, if you heard a joke and could never tell it to somebody else, if you could never share ideas.

The trajectory is that the US will make copyright endless, it will be continually extended to ensure Disney never looses Mickey Mouse. Through TPP we accept that.

TwoSeven

1623 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1523475 31-Mar-2016 17:50

I think the real issue is that I think people are poorly educated on copyright when it comes to creating their own media. Many people don't think at the time of publication if there is any affected sub-content that might need to be addressed.

Copyright is just one of many rights that can get granted when content is created. Distribution rights, performance rights, publication rights and a bunch of others exist - not only to the content, but also any sub-content. In this case, the music on the radio in the background has itself a bunch of rights on it.

I think if the recording had been made in a public place it would have been [generally] ok (there would likely have been no background music), however, in the case of the original post, I would probably have replaced the existing audio with a voice-over or at least put a fade on the music content.

I think YouTube have a pretty good policy on Copyright - one think I would point out when it comes to music is that it often represents the original artists or recording companies brand, so they tend to like to control how and when it is used. As a general rule, if in doubt, contact a clearing house or the copyright holder and get permission.

just my thoughts

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1523476 31-Mar-2016 17:51

roobarb:

networkn: Let me know when you create something you gain income (or other benefit) from that is your original work, and someone comes along and copies it (Depriving you of some benefit), then let's talk....

Imagine if mathematics, science or mere facts were copyrightable, if you heard a joke and could never tell it to somebody else, if you could never share ideas.

The trajectory is that the US will make copyright endless, it will be continually extended to ensure Disney never looses Mickey Mouse. Through TPP we accept that.

Sorry, that won't wash with me.

roobarb

653 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1523478 31-Mar-2016 17:53

TwoSeven: if in doubt, contact ... the copyright holder and get permission.

I did that once regarding some software dating back to the 1990s and they were as pleased as punch that it was being re-used.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1523480 31-Mar-2016 17:54

networkn:

Lias:

macuser:Copyright isn't a scam

I beg to differ. It's the biggest scam of all time.

Let me know when you create something you gain income (or other benefit) from that is your original work, and someone comes along and copies it (Depriving you of some benefit), then let's talk....

I have created content for income. I don't know if it has been copied or not but I do agree that copyright is a scam. More precisely, the way it is currently practised and enforced is a scam perpetuated to satisfy the interests of big predominately American corporate multinationals, as well as the parasitic enforcement industry that has grown up around it. As a result, you get ridiculous situations, like those mentioned in this thread, along with the mafia types going around to garages and small retail businesses to see if they happen to have a radio on. Content creators have a right to income protection. I do not dispute that. But the current system is corrupt, disproportionate, over the top, out of control, and excessive. It is driven by greed, not a desire for fairness. It is a scam. Full stop.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#1523483 31-Mar-2016 17:57

roobarb:

networkn: Let me know when you create something you gain income (or other benefit) from that is your original work, and someone comes along and copies it (Depriving you of some benefit), then let's talk....

Imagine if mathematics, science or mere facts were copyrightable, if you heard a joke and could never tell it to somebody else, if you could never share ideas.

The trajectory is that the US will make copyright endless, it will be continually extended to ensure Disney never looses Mickey Mouse. Through TPP we accept that.

Maybe you've heard of a thing called a Patent, where an application of science, or a specific mathematical algorithm is copyrightable... :)

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1523484 31-Mar-2016 17:58

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Lias:

macuser:Copyright isn't a scam

I beg to differ. It's the biggest scam of all time.

Let me know when you create something you gain income (or other benefit) from that is your original work, and someone comes along and copies it (Depriving you of some benefit), then let's talk....

I have created content for income. I don't know if it has been copied or not but I do agree that copyright is a scam. More precisely, the way it is currently practised and enforced is a scam perpetuated to satisfy the interests of big predominately American corporate multinationals, as well as the parasitic enforcement industry that has grown up around it. As a result, you get ridiculous situations, like those mentioned in this thread, along with the mafia types going around to garages and small retail businesses to see if they happen to have a radio on. Content creators have a right to income protection. I do not dispute that. But the current system is corrupt, disproportionate, over the top, out of control, and excessive. It is driven by greed, not a desire for fairness. It is a scam. Full stop.

What Nonsense! You can't (credibly) disregard an idea because it's implementation doesn't work flawlessly in every situation.

Yes there is an over zealous approach to enforcement, but the idea (to my mind) is sound.

roobarb

653 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1523487 31-Mar-2016 18:01

macuser: Maybe you've heard of a thing called a Patent, where an application of science, or a specific mathematical algorithm is copyrightable... :)

You can't patent maths and in NZ you can't patent software. However software is covered by copyright.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1523491 31-Mar-2016 18:09

networkn:

What Nonsense! You can't (credibly) disregard an idea because it's implementation doesn't work flawlessly in every situation.

Yes there is an over zealous approach to enforcement, but the idea (to my mind) is sound.

The system is broken. It is subject to constant abuse. Enforcement is not fair or reasonable. People don't take piracy seriously because those hysterically complaining about it have so little credibility. When intellectual property and its protection is redefined in a manner that is seen to be fair and reasonable, people will respect it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

roobarb

653 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1523496 31-Mar-2016 18:18

Consider the number of threads on this site dedicated to bypassing Netflix or BBC region enforcement.

Personally, I am on the side of Netflix and the BBC. They are the provider, they get to set the terms and conditions.

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1523497 31-Mar-2016 18:22

networkn:

What Nonsense! You can't (credibly) disregard an idea because it's implementation doesn't work flawlessly in every situation.

Yes there is an over zealous approach to enforcement, but the idea (to my mind) is sound.

It's not that it doesn't work in every situation, it's a concept that's hundreds of years out of date that was invented to give a monopoly on printed books in the 16th century, and even then in it's original form was for only 2 years. If copyright was valid for only 2 years now, it would be an improvement but still a horribly broken concept in an age of remixing and constant derivative works.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#1523500 31-Mar-2016 18:32

macuser:

Copyright isn't a scam and is really useful for retaining an income as a creative.

That is an interesting statement, because I would have thought that for many copyright works, after the works have been done, there is no further income from those works. There are exceptions such as things that can be easily duplicated, like recordings and printed works, and some IP. But if you create an artwork that you sell, you do still have copyright, but there is no future earning you can make from that work. Any profit (or loss) is made by the person reselling the work in the future. I believe in copyright but think it should expire after a period of time, the same with trademarks.

roobarb

653 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1523501 31-Mar-2016 18:35

Pharrell Williams and Blurred Lines should not have been considered breach of copyright, it should have been a crime against humanity.

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1523502 31-Mar-2016 18:43

Lias:

networkn:

What Nonsense! You can't (credibly) disregard an idea because it's implementation doesn't work flawlessly in every situation.

Yes there is an over zealous approach to enforcement, but the idea (to my mind) is sound.

It's not that it doesn't work in every situation, it's a concept that's hundreds of years out of date that was invented to give a monopoly on printed books in the 16th century, and even then in it's original form was for only 2 years. If copyright was valid for only 2 years now, it would be an improvement but still a horribly broken concept in an age of remixing and constant derivative works.

Heh, I don't see any compelling evidence in your argument. How would you replace the current system?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6