| 
	
 | 
 Posted by Colin B on 12/05/06 05:02 
"Bob Ford" <imagesinmotion@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message  
news:4dd9n29k5vcacmjsnnic9vjh6gmpru2m3l@4ax.com... 
 
> I produce video for a very selective market and I have had people who 
> steal our stuff try to convince me that it exposes my work to more 
> people, some of whom may buy my products and besides that those who 
> have the pirated works would never have bought it from me in the first 
> place. 
> 
> To this I say emphatically.....BULLSHIT!! 
> If you don't plan to buy it legally then don't copy it either. 
> 
> That's what I think of the arguments in Freddy boys blog :-( 
>> 
>>See also the youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/ 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> Bob Ford 
> Images In Motion 
> www.imagesinmotion.com 
 
 
I think the point being made in Fred's blog  http://fredhere.blogspot.com is  
that the QUALITY of the copy on youtube is nowhere near as good as the  
original, so people need to buy the original DVD to properly enjoy the movie  
etc. But if copyright holders think they are losing sales as a result of  
inferior and partial copies of their work that is uploaded without their  
consent to a site such as youtube, then I'm sure that their complaints to  
the site would result in the offending material being removed. However, if  
the copyright holder found that, after their work had been uploaded to  
youtube, a significant increase in sales took place, they may consider that  
the inferior copy served only to whet the appetite of viewers and could be  
regarded as successful advertising of their work. 
 
I think the youtube situation is quite different from those pirates who make  
exact copies of DVDs and then sell them illegally for personal gain. No one  
would condone this sort of copyright infringement, so there are different  
types of infringements, and I think Fred's blog is suggesting that the  
"youtube" infringements are at the low end of the scale. This would be  
because the person who uploaded the video gained nothing from doing it, and  
quite possibly the copyright holder lost no revenues, and in effect, gained  
free advertising.
 
  
Navigation:
[Reply to this message] 
 |