mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Midwest
4 edits | reply to r81984
Re: Beginging of the end
I'm a former lawyer (changed careers), but I still keep up with things. At risk of all the "free advice" jokes, I'll try to contribute something here.
said by r81984  :You Tube is not selling any content so there are no royalties to sue over, and if you cannot prove YouTube cost your company money in lost sales...
You do not need to be making money to violate copyright law. Revenue has nothing to do with it. If you are duplicating or distributing copyrighted material without the holder's permission, you are breaking the law, period. If you photocopy some pages out of a library book, you are committing a copyright infringement even if no money changes hands.
Furthermore, the holder is losing money when you are giving away free downloads. Under the law, this is known as "denial of benefit." It is based on the fact that the person you gave the material to would otherwise have to pay for it...so the copyright holder is losing a sale because of you.
The bottom line is that the copyright holders did not give explicit permission to distribute these clips, so they have every right to go after YouTube and can sue for damages even if the defendant never made a penny.
If YouTube were my client, I would counsel them to remove all copyrighted material immediately, even the stuff they were not specifically asked to remove.
Hope this helps.
mocycler |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Go_Offline
"And has led to the common person becoming a common criminal. (Whether you AGREE with the law doesn't negate it.)"
And that is the crux of the matter. Copyright laws have made EVERYONE a criminal. And when everyone is a criminal, they don't care about the laws. It's exactly the same 'broken window' philosophy that works in the real world. You see joe blow downloading, so you download.
The solution, of course, is to change the law. Remember, the US doesn't control the WORLD. The us controls the US. The **AssAsses can't shut down the pirate bay, becuase the pirate bay ISN'T BREAKING THE LAW. |
|
Go_Offline
join:2001-10-12
Surprise, AZ
| reply to r81984
Though your's wasn't bad, any physical analogy falls short due to practical limitations that just don't exist in the electronic/digital realm.
The problem is rarely a question of simple legality, but, instead, scale.
In the case of your comparison, imagine if there WAS one road (or better: city) where the risk of being cited for racing was minimal and even if you were "caught", you were simply told to stop and go home.
What would happen? EVERY racer, ricer, rodder, and regular joe/jane from the ENTIRE WORLD would converge there. And who would be financially responsible for the spate in injuries/deaths? Not to mention the maintenance nightmare from the sudden influx of millions of people and vehicles? And, if no one, then how long would that city be attractive and viable as a destination for such a pursuit?
But the worldwide revolution of computers+internet has left media conglomerates caught completely with their drawers around their ankles. And has led to the common person becoming a common criminal. (Whether you AGREE with the law doesn't negate it.)
I've never heard/read any analogy that adequately and honestly addresses issues such as this (especially pirating.)
Any more takers?
--
I'm on a quest to overthrow ignorance. |
|
tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
 ·Millenicom
 ·WildBlue
| reply to r81984
said by r81984 :Also, there should be no way anyone can sue YouTube for money so they should never have to pay for settlements as long as they remove copyrighted material when requested. Think about it, what stops a company from posting their copyrighted material on YouTube and then sueing YouTube for money. The only person who should be sued is the person who uploaded the copyrighted material to YouTube. Tell that to the courts who ruled against Napster. |
|
soothsayer15
join:2002-03-01
Irving, TX | reply to r81984
Copyright holders were just waiting for someone with some cash flow to purchase Youtube. |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to r81984
Huh?
The advertisers are making the money, unless the road builders owned the land they put the signs on. Then they would lease the land to the advertisers. But who funds the enforcers? We do. In taxes.
Next.
I see this as the old "Let the fans be our marketing". Everyone wins. The content, the artist, the industry, the web and the fans. Only ones not winning is the chump who said "buying YouTube...". |
|
r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to Matt
Think about this,
If someone creates a normal public road, and people one night a week start street racing on that road. Advertisers notice this increase in people coming to watch the illegal activity and start putting billboards on the land next to the road owned by the road builders. The road builders are now making money off of the illegal activity taking place on the road they built.
Should the road builders be responsible for the illegal activity that takes place on their road which they are making money off of with billboards or should it be up to a third party to stop the illegal activity, like the police? |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | reply to Matt
Ads? WTF are ads?
I don't see ads here... on either laptop.  |
|
r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
·magicjack.com
·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to r81984
Also, there should be no way anyone can sue YouTube for money so they should never have to pay for settlements as long as they remove copyrighted material when requested.
Think about it, what stops a company from posting their copyrighted material on YouTube and then sueing YouTube for money.
The only person who should be sued is the person who uploaded the copyrighted material to YouTube. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to r81984
said by r81984 :You Tube is not selling any content so there are no royalties to sue over, and if you cannot prove YouTube cost your company money in lost sales, then stop your bitching and be glad people want to actually watch your copyrighted material. No, but they are making money by people watching the copyrighted material via advertising. |
|
r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
·magicjack.com
·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
·AT&T Midwest
| The YouTube bubble is beginning to burst.
Also to all those copyright holders who bitch at YouTube for not doing enought to prevent copyrighted material, you are stupid and lazy. If its your copyright then its your reponsibility to stop others from using it. If your not willing to find your own copyrighted material on YouTube and tell YouTube to remove it then why should YouTube do it for you.
You Tube is not selling any content so there are no royalties to sue over, and if you cannot prove YouTube cost your company money in lost sales, then stop your bitching and be glad people want to actually watch your copyrighted material. |
|
