YouTube and Copyright

Forums › Online streaming services › YouTube and Copyright

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1526350 5-Apr-2016 14:13

MikeAqua:

In the OP example a song was playing on a radio in the hardly audible background of a YouTube clip. Advertising was enabled. The clip was blocked by YouTube. If this was a large release commercial film then either they would licence the song or risk being sued on release. In the case of the YouTube poster it is not worth sueing so they just use dcma to remove it from the net. Is that overkill or totally justified in your opinion?

roobarb

653 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1526369 5-Apr-2016 14:34

MikeAqua: Length of copyright is a red herring. Consumer price is not strongly affected by copyright in the longer term.

Value crashes before copyright expires. Copyright becomes a market share issue.

You are treating copyright in the manner of an economist where nothing can exist without ownership and price. What value would you assign to The Bible and the plays of Shakespear?

What is the price of Linux, which has copyright and is free?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1526393 5-Apr-2016 15:28

gzt:
MikeAqua:

In the OP example a song was playing on a radio in the hardly audible background of a YouTube clip. Advertising was enabled. The clip was blocked by YouTube. If this was a large release commercial film then either they would licence the song or risk being sued on release. In the case of the YouTube poster it is not worth sueing so they just use dcma to remove it from the net. Is that overkill or totally justified in your opinion?

Something like that I consider a prime example of overkill. Why can't someone have something playing in the background? It's not like anyone is going to copy it and sell it (not the background, anyway). Presumably the advertising is being sold because of the foreground content. Whatever is in the background is incidental. This is exactly the kind of thing the enforcement industry needs to lighten up on.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1526425 5-Apr-2016 15:54

I think claiming copyright over something which is legitimately broadcast or displayed in public is on thin ice at best.

gzt:
MikeAqua:

In the OP example a song was playing on a radio in the hardly audible background of a YouTube clip. Advertising was enabled. The clip was blocked by YouTube. If this was a large release commercial film then either they would licence the song or risk being sued on release. In the case of the YouTube poster it is not worth sueing so they just use dcma to remove it from the net. Is that overkill or totally justified in your opinion?

Mike

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1526439 5-Apr-2016 16:47

I don;t need to assign value to the plays of Shakespeare (I prefer his sonnets). Retailer and publishers worldwide have already done it. They don't own his works but they still place values on them.

Shakespeare (not copyrighted) can be bought for more than, less than or the same price as recently published copyrighted works ...

As I said, it isn't a market price issue it's a market share issue.

roobarb:

You are treating copyright in the manner of an economist where nothing can exist without ownership and price. What value would you assign to The Bible and the plays of Shakespear?

What is the price of Linux, which has copyright and is free?

Mike

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1526452 5-Apr-2016 17:37

Rikkitic:

gzt:
MikeAqua:

In the OP example a song was playing on a radio in the hardly audible background of a YouTube clip. Advertising was enabled. The clip was blocked by YouTube. If this was a large release commercial film then either they would licence the song or risk being sued on release. In the case of the YouTube poster it is not worth sueing so they just use dcma to remove it from the net. Is that overkill or totally justified in your opinion?

Something like that I consider a prime example of overkill. Why can't someone have something playing in the background? It's not like anyone is going to copy it and sell it (not the background, anyway). Presumably the advertising is being sold because of the foreground content. Whatever is in the background is incidental. This is exactly the kind of thing the enforcement industry needs to lighten up on.

I would think that the majority of videos on youtube have some form of copyright infringement under their interpretation. I mean how is it really any different to videoing company brands, for say an unboxing video, or background images/logos. Or going on a trip to disneyland and posting videos of content from teh park (eg rides, sounds, characters etc) > I can understand it where the people are making money off someone elses work, but nothing more, and often it actually leads to sales. eg someone hears a song on the radio, they then want to buy their own copy, or they see a furniture design and they want to buy one of their own.

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1526505 5-Apr-2016 20:22

I think the length of copyright is too long, but I'd have a whole lot less issue with it if the actual rights were heavily diluted to allow virtually any non commercial derivative works.

Take Mickey Mouse. Any fan fiction, fan made animation, fan forums, fan websites, fan written erotica, etc should be totally fair use. Someone shouldn't be able to directly copy a Mickey Mouse movie, or a commercial competitor shouldn't be able to make a Mickey Mouse movie without paying fees, but pretty much any non commercial use shouldn't be infringing.

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.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

TwoSeven

1623 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1526517 5-Apr-2016 20:43

I think a valid point was made earlier. Copyright and to a degree other IP protections don't prevent someone from using a work. It just means that in many cases one needs to obtain permission first, and in other case, pay for obtaining permission.

I suspect when someone uploads content to YouTube, they do so with the intent to grant viewing rights to an audience.

On the subject of Mr Mouse, I would suggest that there are other brand, trademarks and trade-names that would also have some application on top of just copyright.

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...

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1526632 6-Apr-2016 06:34

I have had the same issue, but usually that would come under fair usage wouldn't it?

I have appealed a discussion as my video was recorded at an ESNZ event who pay royalties for use of music in our freestyles.

The appeal was turned down even though I have the rights to use the music in the event where the video was recorded.

roobarb

653 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1527278 6-Apr-2016 19:52

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35969734

bbc: A website documenting public artworks in Sweden violated copyright laws, the country's supreme court has ruled.

Publishing photos taken in public violates copyright.

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1527302 6-Apr-2016 20:39

roobarb:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35969734

bbc: A website documenting public artworks in Sweden violated copyright laws, the country's supreme court has ruled.

Publishing photos taken in public violates copyright.

And a (clickbait) link from the same site has this perfect example of copywrite stupidity:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-35268906 sued by a monkey??

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1527583 7-Apr-2016 12:34

Why free? 'Fans want it' is not an argument, just an attitude of entitlement. Fans don't own IP. When as a fan you buy for example Mickey Mouse hat you get a presumed limited license to use the Disney IP embedded in the hat. That license does not entitle you to other uses of Disney's IP. Even if you are Mickey Mouse's biggest fan.

Private study has limited fair use exemptions which make sense because there is benefit: Education - we need people to be educated.

Hard to justify free use of private copyright for the derivative fan created dross that populates the internet. If it was useful the emulators would be able to pay for access to private copyright and sell their 'creations'. 50 Shades of whatever arose from fans fiction 'inspired' the twilight books. It has gone full commercial including film despite the hideous obstacle that is private copyright. So even poorly received material can justify accessing copyright on commercial terms.

It's hard to argue that the internet can ever be anything other than a commercial undertaking. Ads are everywhere, including in search engines.

Free access for fan usage would mean Disney have to tolerate usage of their copyright that may be harmful to their brand. Why should they not have control as a safety measure. Using your example which I have highlighted below, Disney may not be keen on Mickey Mouse being used in adult content for example.

Lias:

I think the length of copyright is too long, but I'd have a whole lot less issue with it if the actual rights were heavily diluted to allow virtually any non commercial derivative works.

Take Mickey Mouse. Any fan fiction, fan made animation, fan forums, fan websites, fan written erotica, etc should be totally fair use ...

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1527606 7-Apr-2016 12:56

I think South Park already did that. I often wonder how they get away with it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

roobarb

653 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1527618 7-Apr-2016 13:10

Rikkitic: I think South Park already did that. I often wonder how they get away with it.

Parody.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1527703 7-Apr-2016 14:35

I have been attacked for daring to venture an opinion here but I will risk another one. I once saw a nature documentary in which Canadian moose were being driven insane by mosquitoes during the arctic summer. The constant pricks of the millions of feeding insects had the moose kicking and jumping and bashing into things as they desperately tried to find relief.

I have also seen people behave in similar ways. Tiny irritations that in themselves are easily ignored can cause blind rage when they are constant and unrelieved. The victim then begins to lash out, striking anything in the way.

I sometimes wonder if the IP/copyright interests are not being affected in a similar fashion. Many attempts have been made to fence digital content and control access to it. All have failed. There simply is no way to make content available to some and keep it away from others. Anything that has actually worked, like DRM, has also affected legitimate users and for that reason has largely had to be abandoned. This must be very frustrating to the content owners.

I wonder how much has been invested in HDCP, with all of its secret keys and proprietary circuitry? Today there are dozens of devices, easily available for only a few dollars, that completely remove HDCP protection with no loss of quality. Any Blu-Ray can then be copied by one of the HDMI recorders currently on the market. Or you can plug one into your Sky decoder, connect your HDMI recorder to that, and bypass all the restrictions on what you are allowed to record and how long you are allowed to keep it. I was amused when I heard even the low-quality composite output of the Sky device was apparently copy-protected with Macrovision. I’m afraid that horse has already bolted. That must be very frustrating.

Torrenting is still alive and well but these days pirates also have plenty of other alternatives. The latest films are all over the Internet, sometimes before they are even released in the cinemas. That must be very frustrating.

The simple truth is that no lock can keep a burglar out. The best you can hope for is to make it hard enough that they choose a softer target. But if someone is really, really determined to break into your home, no security system in the world can stop them. That must be very frustrating.

I wonder if the industries that depend on copyright protection, especially film and music, aren’t just very frustrated by their inability to keep the genie in the bottle, and if they are not just blindly lashing out by cracking down on everything they can reach, like geo-unblocking and snippets on YouTube and radios in the background. Is all this draconian rights stuff, and the increasing sweep of legal protections and over-the-top penalties for non-compliance not just the random lashings of an industry driven mad by its inability to re-impose the good old days of physical CD sales and the ability to control what people consume and how they consume it? I’m not saying that it is, just asking the question.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6