Posted by Bill on 12/06/06 14:23

Does everyone forget that The Grateful Dead actually encouraged people
to tape their concerts?

So... were they stupid? Did they lose a lot of money? Did they go
broke because nobody wanted to buy their recordings any more?

If what most posters here said here was true, that should absolutely
have been the case. 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.

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.
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[Back to original message]