|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/13/06 01:11
"Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message news:457f176f$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:4u8e2bF17bineU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message
>> news:457e68e7$1@clear.net.nz...
>>>
>>> "Bill" <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
>>> news:N5ydnWSmrfXg9ODYnZ2dnUVZ_vvinZ2d@golden.net...
>>>> Thanks for an eloquent illustration of why copyright holders need to
>>>> lighten up.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Bill for your comment. It is sometimes quite difficult for
>>> conscientious filmmakers to know just when to seek copyright approval
>>> and when the "fair use" concept may apply.
>>
>> That's easy -- assume fair use won't apply. Fair use is, first of all, a
>> defense to copyright infringement, meaning it will only be addressed in
>> the context of a lawsuit. If it applies, you're not liable. If it
>> doesn't apply you are. Copyright infringement lawsuits can easily exceed
>> $250,000 or more in legal fees. Do you want to spend that much to find
>> out?
>>
>> "Conscientious filmmakers" should not copy other's protected expression.
>> Period.
>>
>>
>>> As a new user of Youtube, I have been blown away by all the copyright
>>> controversy, and I just wanted to seek some expert advice before I
>>> started uploading some video from my personally created library! I have
>>> learned a great deal from all the people who have kindly given me
>>> answers to my questions.
>>>
>>> Incidentally, an update on the Robert Tur case against Youtube can be
>>> seen here:
>>>
>>> http://news.com.com/Mark+Cuban+courts+YouTube+foe/2100-1030_3-6135703.html
>>>
>>> The question of whether Youtube profited directly from Tur's footage is
>>> referred to in the above article.
>>>
>>
>
> Thanks PTravel for frightening the life out of us all once again!
It's not my intent to scare anyone. There does seem to be, however, an
attitude that's become more and more prevalent that the presumption should
be you could do whatever you want with someone else's expression. The
presumption, not just in the U.S. but in all Berne Convention countries, is
that original works of authorship are protected -- period. Doctrines like
fair use are very fact-specific niche exceptions and, in the U.S., are
predicated upon resolving conflicts with the First Amendment.
Why do you think it's okay to upload someone else's expression to Youtube?
> Yes, it's possible that someone could sue you for a copyright infringement
> and it could bankrupt you in just defending the law suit! But I guess if
> you won the case, you could recover your legal fees from the person who
> sued you?
Rarely. Under U.S. laws, intentional infringement can result in an award of
attorneys fees to the plaintiff. Courts have held that there is a
reciprocal entitlement for prevailing defendants, but it usually requires
fairly obvious bad-faith on the part of the plaintiff. In virtually all
fair use cases, because they are so fact specific, the likelihood of
demonstrating that level of bad faith would be almost impossible.
>
> In Robert Tur's law suit against Youtube, he is seeking $150,000 per
> violation, so I wonder if Youtube uploaders are aware of the large sums of
> money involved?
> http://news.com.com/YouTube+sued+over+copyright+infringement/2100-1030_3-6095736.html
>
I'd bet, no, though I'd also bet that the ones doing the Youtube uploading
are of the same demographic as the ones sued by the RIAA for peer-to-peer
music sharing.
> It's interesting that Tur claims that YouTube representatives inquired
> whether Tur would be interested in receiving a share of the advertising
> revenue generated by his video clips, see:
> http://news.com.com/Mark+Cuban+courts+YouTube+foe/2100-1030_3-6135703.html
>
> I wonder PTravel, whether this is the first indication that the safe
> harbor of the DMCA could be vulnerable if a copyright holder can prove
> that advertising was taking place on Youtube at times when the offending
> video is being played?
I think the DMCA is very bad law. However, I'm not convinced that this
particular provision of the DMCA is wrong. As I mentioned in another post,
the rationale for it is the same as for exempting libraries from copyright
infringement liability for the books in their collection. I havern't
followed the Tur lawsuit because news reports of legal actions are usually
wrong and very incomplete. I'd be surprised, however, if he prevails.
>
> Some of the videos uploaded to Youtube have had huge numbers of viewers.
> For example, Enya singing "Wild Child", has been viewed 138,000 times, and
> favorited 1633 times and has been on Youtube for 5 months:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_LCcAXr0ZU
Yes. I'm not sure what point you're making. My Youtube videos have been up
for about 3 months and have been viewed 400 times. Not quite the same
popularity as Enya, but far more exposure than they get on my website, and
they've gotten very nice ratings and comments. The difference is, I own the
videos (and licensed the music track that accompanies them).
>
> Or what about Da Ali G Show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gr04EotJ44
>
> This one, called "Dangerous Weapons" has been viewed 376,000 times and
> favorited 1035 times and has been on Youtube for 4 months.
>
> I'm sure if I uploaded one of my copyright clean and inspiring travel
> movies, I would be lucky if I got one hit per day, so perhaps the
> copyright focus really needs to be on the videos that are generating huge
> numbers of hits, such as those referred to above?
I just don't see your point. My travel videos do a little better than a hit
a day, but not much better. So what? Isn't that the purpose of Youtube?
People who want to see a short video about Venice or Copenhagen can watch
mine. People who want to hear about young-adult angst can watch any of the
myriad video blogs. The producers of Lonelygirl15 have created an entirely
new genre that gets more hits than just about anything I can think of.
Youtube would be very popular, even if uploaders respected the law and
didn't upload IP that they don't own. In fact, I think it might ultimately
prove even more popular -- I like seeing original work on Youtube, and get
tired of having to wade through 100s of uploads of some silly music video
that can probably be viewed on MTV or downloaded from iTunes.
>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|