how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
145 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| More than that... Google is going down a slippery slope when offering to censure content on YouTube by pre-filtering content. First, they are not liable for material posted on their site up until they receive a take-down notice from a legitimate copyright owner. Secondly, the pre-filtering system can be rigged to abuse or deny the free speech rights of citizens in the areas of protected parody and political speech.
Whatever happened to the truism that any publicity is good publicity, especially free publicity? Why doesn't it hold true when applied to copyright holders IP posted on YouTube?
The whole DMCA is a crock of shit when applied to non-commercial use of IP. Google/YouTube ought to ban any smartass anal-retentive copyright owners material from EVER appearing on any Google search, or Google controlled website, once the first takedown notice is delivered to YouTube. Make copyright owners PAY for any and all publicity/advertising everywhere on the wwweb, period. Fuck'em if they can't take a joke! | |
Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| Media companies already pay for their advertising on the web. They have ads posted on sister sites, TV guide and all over the place. Plus why do they need ads about their company when the shows do all the advertising for them? Also this isn't a joke. It's a matter of who owns what. I'm sure if you spent X amount of millions of dollars creating a show and putting it on TV and had to sell commercial time to pay for the channel YOU wouldn't want it to appear on YouTube or anything else for free to the public. You in return lose money from people not watching your channel; ie you lose ad revenue.
Free speech does not apply to uploading/stealing someone else's content and re-posting it else where for others.
And just to let you know Google isn't King of anything. Media companies have deeper pockets then Google will ever have and they can do without Google, they did without them long before they were created and will long after. You forget Time Warner is the largest media company in the world. They have UnCut video if they want to upload their shows; which is heavily advertised. | |
| said by hottboiinnc:Media companies already pay for their advertising on the web. They have ads posted on sister sites, TV guide and all over the place. Plus why do they need ads about their company when the shows do all the advertising for them? Also this isn't a joke. It's a matter of who owns what. I'm sure if you spent X amount of millions of dollars creating a show and putting it on TV and had to sell commercial time to pay for the channel YOU wouldn't want it to appear on YouTube or anything else for free to the public. You in return lose money from people not watching your channel; ie you lose ad revenue... And, you don't have a god damn clue about what YouTube does for copyright owners in terms of publicity they would otherwise NOT have. No one who posts a snippet of a performance, or of a TV show, does anything more than promote that performer or TV show by posting it. It potentially generates interest where none may have existed; i.e., FREE advertising/publicity. Presumably, the entire TV show will have been broadcast over the air, including commercials sold to advertisers to cover the costs of production, the recording of which falls under Fair Use. Reposting a cut from such a broadcast merely promotes interest in seeing any re-broadcast of the entire programming to people who otherwise may never have seen any of it at all. No one is STEALING anything.
Additionally, Free speech will be the first thing to suffer if pre-filtering is applied to postings on YouTube that may be parodies of whatever product/performer/production that is involved.
No one is talking about uploading complete programming to P2P torrents prior to release, or even after release.
If Time-Warner, or anyone else, wants to profit off the popular culture, then they had better be ready to share it around a little. | |
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Anything that is recorded by any media company is not allowed to be uploaded or re-distributed in any form. Read the copyright for them. It doesn't matter if its a 20 second or even 15 second clip. It's still stealing the that part of the show.
Also actors have NO say so in what happens to their shows once they sign on a contract. The Media company does. They paid the actor for the terms of the contract and thats that. The Media company owns the show that the actor was in. Not the actor. Commercials are also copyrighted. They're owned by the company that has their product in them. The product name is copyrighted or is trade marked.
And you'll never see a damn penny from Time Warner or Viacom in terms of their programming- get over it. | | |
|
 FiLPremium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | fair use, anyone? | |
1 edit | reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:Anything that is recorded by any media company is not allowed to be uploaded or re-distributed in any form. Read the copyright for them. It doesn't matter if its a 20 second or even 15 second clip. It's still stealing the that part of the show. Also actors have NO say so in what happens to their shows once they sign on a contract. The Media company does. They paid the actor for the terms of the contract and thats that. The Media company owns the show that the actor was in. Not the actor. Commercials are also copyrighted. They're owned by the company that has their product in them. The product name is copyrighted or is trade marked. And you'll never see a damn penny from Time Warner or Viacom in terms of their programming- get over it. And, once again, you entirely miss the point. NOBODY, except YOU and some copyright owners, gives a damn about copyright infringement vis a vis YouTube postings, most people just want to share their experiences with others. Furthermore, NO HARM is done to anyone by posting a snippet of a copyrighted work on YouTube. It only serves to popularize the greater work, and introduces the work to those who may have never otherwise known about it, thus providing free advertising/publicity leading to greater interest in the work in question. Non-commercial use of bits and pieces of a work, with attribution, doesn't harm anyone. Non-commercial copyright infringement is NOT STEALING, you myopic retard.
No one mentioned anything about actors, or production assistants, or first grips, electricians or any other trades people, nor has anyone suggested they have any control over the copyrights of the productions they work on.
Commercials advertise all manner of things to targeted demographic units, but they usually must pay for transmission through chosen media. On YouTube, deserving commercials are given a free ride, and reach a larger audience that focuses more attentive eyeballs on the messages conveyed therein. Can that be bad for the makers?
Who gives a fuck about Time-Warner, or Viacom? if they want to isolate themselves to a smaller market, so be it. I'm not looking to profit off Time-Warner or Viacom, or anyone else for that matter. I would say the same about people who post on YouTube. They are simply sharing their experiences with others. Don't like it, don't look.
As for the long term viability of DRM, or locked down, copyrighted work, there is none. It will fail because it ignores the underlying basis for a successful works popularity. Copyright nazis wouldn't have a thought in their pointy little heads if the cause they proselytize for was actually successful; i.e., every related thought they have was probably written and copyrighted by some self-appointed, self-aggrandizing propaganda entity or another (insert: RIAA/MPAA, as appropriate) before they assumed it was their own. | |
|
