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. |
·