|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/06/06 17:51
"Bill" <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
news:lN6dnSQ0lM3BT-vYnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@golden.net...
> Does everyone forget that The Grateful Dead actually encouraged people to
> tape their concerts?
What has that to do with this discussion?
>
> So... were they stupid? Did they lose a lot of money? Did they go broke
> because nobody wanted to buy their recordings any more?
No. What has that to do with this discussion?
>
> If what most posters here said here was true, that should absolutely have
> been the case.
I haven't seen any discussion in this thread about the economic effects of
non-enforcement of copyright.
> In fact, there is strong evidence to the contrary--
> that the spread of bootleg recordings created a culture among their fans,
> and actually increased their over-all sales of tickets and recordings at a
> time when mainstream radio and tv virtually ignored them.
>
> If I remember correctly, they actually set aside an area of seating at the
> concerts for tapers.
>
> A credible argument can be made that spreading illegal recordings by
> artists can promote their work.
So what? Do you think that, because, in certain contexts copyright
infringement helps an author, we should eliminate copyright?
>
> If you were a relatively unknown comedian-- would you actually try to
> prevent Youtube from showing a clip of a joke that people thought was so
> funny that they wanted to share it? If you were Youtube, and you got a
> call from this comedian saying, remove my clip, wouldn't you crack a wry
> smile and say, fine, if you really want us to....
>
> I suspect that this might be why many owners of the copyrighted material
> on Youtube seem to be hesitant to demand that they be removed.
>
> Colin B wrote:
>>>"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4tm87aF151740U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:4575e5bd$1@clear.net.nz...
>>
>>
>>>>If visitors to the youtube site see literally thousands of items taken
>>>>from DVDs and TV shows, then they obviously think it's OK to upload
>>>>similar material, because the existing material must surely have the
>>>>blessing of youtube's owners, otherwise it would have been taken down
>>>>long ago.
>>>
>>>Perhaps. Perhaps not. Did you ever post a video to Youtube? The
>>>posting process makes it very clear that you must own the rights to
>>>upload the material. It's hard to imagine someone thinking, "it's okay
>>>for me to upload this, even though I don't have the rights."
>>
>>
>> The warning message about uploading video on youtube says this:
>>
>> "Do not upload copyrighted material for which you don't own the rights or
>> have permission from the owner."
>>
>> BUT, it DOESN'T say: "You can be held personally liable for uploading
>> copyrighted material and Youtube has no liability whatsoever for having
>> published your video on this site." If it said this, then this could
>> discourage a few people from uploading countless video tracks!
>>
>> I see a lot of videos on youtube that have obviously been filmed on
>> privately owned camcorders by people who attended concerts. Now these
>> people must think that, because they personally filmed a musical item,
>> for example, that they have the right to upload this to youtube. But I
>> guess this would be illegal because they didn't have the permission of
>> the performers to film them, and they didn't get the permission of the
>> music industry who hold the rights to the music.
>>
>> But then it would be difficult for either the performers or the music
>> industry to track down the people who uploaded this illegal music.
>> Firstly, people can have assumed names, and when they set up their
>> youtube account, they could use a false name on their e-mail address.
>> Unlike usenet messages, I don't think the youtube site discloses the IP
>> address, so if all the account information held by youtube about someone
>> is false, then a copyright holder would have no information from which to
>> track down the illegal poster. Unless, that is, youtube generously
>> provided them with the uploader's IP address. Even then, the internet
>> service provider may not disclose who the owner of the IP address is
>> unless ordered to do so by a Court of Law.
>>
>> In any event, to go to the bother of suing someone for possibly very
>> little gain, is not the way in which most copyright holders would go.
>> They are more likely to complain to youtube and ask them to take down the
>> offending video. This is what the thousands of illegal video uploaders
>> are relying on! I think it would be very difficult for the rights owner
>> of a video to prove that they have lost a lot of revenue as a result of
>> one or two clips from their videos being illegally uploaded to youtube.
>> If they can't prove they have lost any revenues, and that the uploader
>> has benefited financially from uploading the videos, I doubt whether a
>> Court would award them very much by way of damages?
>>
>> Does anyone know if any illegal Youtube uploaders have been prosecuted
>> yet, and if so what amount of damages was awarded? Also, how would such
>> offenders have been tracked down?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>There are a number of large media content owners that actually upload to
>>>Youtube themselves. For instance, you'll find lots of material from the
>>>Letterman show that is uploaded by CBS.
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is ample evidence to youtube's owners that it is simply not safe
>>>>to rely on the judgment of the uploaders over copyright issues because
>>>>they are simply not well enough informed. Even experts disagree a lot
>>>>over copyright issues, so how can an uploader to youtube be expected to
>>>>do the right thing?
>>>
>>>This isn't a question of the "right thing," but the "legal thing."
>>>There's no dispute among experts that uploading someone else's protected
>>>expression to Youtube without permission is copyright infringement.
>>>Youtube, by virtue of the federal statute, has no obligation to review
>>>uploaded material for potential infringement. Uploaders, by virtue of
>>>the federal statute, do have an obligation to ensure that they are
>>>authorized before distributing protected expression.
>>>
>>>
>>>>So perhaps the only answer for everybody is to wait for the copyright
>>>>holders to complain, and then, and only then, take the offending
>>>>material down?
>>>
>>>That is the answer under the current law. I don't produce video
>>>commercially -- I just do it for fun. However, if my livelihood was
>>>invested in the video product I produced, I would pursue any
>>>infringement, particularly one as visible as Youtube.
>>>
>>>
>>>>But could a person who illegally uploaded to youtube a few tracks from a
>>>>DVD be sued?
>>>
>>>Absolutely.
>>>
>>>Wouldn't their defence be that youtube should have taken the clips
>>>
>>>>down if they thought they infringed copyright?
>>>
>>>Nope. Uploading video to Youtube implicates three reserved rights: the
>>>right to make copies, the right to distribute and the right to publicly
>>>perform/display. As soon as they've done the upload, they've infringed
>>>the copyright of the copyright owner. "Stop me before I infringe again"
>>>is not a defense to copyright infringement.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|