|
|
Posted by J. Clarke on 12/13/06 12:30
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:45:00 +1300, Colin B wrote:
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:drIfh.27606$qO4.15508@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>>> 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?
>
> I certainly DON'T think it's OK, but a lot of other people don't seem to
> mind doing this without first getting copyright approval. I am just
> stunned that many uploaders don't seem to be aware of copyholders'
> rights. In addition, I am very surprised that so many people are
> prepared to risk the possibility of being sued by uploading material
> that has not been copyright cleared.
>
>>> 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.
>
> I agree with what you say above. My point is that I am very surprised
> that a lot of videos that probably infringe copyright can survive on
> Youtube for many months and, in some cases, receive hundreds of
> thousands of views. When an "illegal" video becomes this popular, you
> would think that the rights owner would become aware of it and ask for
> it to be taken down. But some rights owners may leave such videos on
> Youtube because of the free advertising their work obtains.
>
> Although a lot of videos are, no doubt, taken down at the request of the
> rights owners, most fair-minded people would be concerned at the number
> of videos on Youtube (and similar sites) that shouldn't be there because
> permission from the owners has not been obtained.
We may be at the beginning of a sea-change in perceptions of intellectual
property with regard to video. If enough of the public decides that they
want video to be freely copiable then the legislators won't have any
choice but to tell the MPAA to go pound sand and remove copyright
protection from such material.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|