Members Hudman Posted October 31, 2006 Members Posted October 31, 2006 http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=23309&in_page_id=34
Members Hudman Posted October 31, 2006 Author Members Posted October 31, 2006 The link must be getting a ton of hits. It's no longer working. Here's a similiar article about the current copyright issues at YouTube: http://www.dispatch.com/connect/connect.php?story=dispatch/2006/10/30/20061030-D3-03.html
Members learn'r Posted October 31, 2006 Members Posted October 31, 2006 came up s l o w l y for me. I have a hard time seeing the great monetary loss to the industry. seems more promotional to me. what I know.
Members Hudman Posted October 31, 2006 Author Members Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by learn'r came up s l o w l y for me.I have a hard time seeing the great monetary loss to the industry.seems more promotional to me. what I know. I agree with you. The big record labels and movie studios want to squeeze every dime they can out of the public.
Members ihateyouguys Posted October 31, 2006 Members Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by learn'r came up s l o w l y for me.I have a hard time seeing the great monetary loss to the industry.seems more promotional to me. what I know. the people who started you tube just made a billion plus mainly by using other people's copyrighted works without any compensation. The accusation that this is 'big business' just trying to screw people out of money is laughable. Youtube made the money off other people's efforts, and those people received no compensation for it. If you can't see the harm done by youtube and why this is wrong, you probably have a very limited sense of right and wrong in the first place.
Members Hudman Posted October 31, 2006 Author Members Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by ihateyouguys the people who started you tube just made a billion plus mainly by using other people's copyrighted works without any compensation.The accusation that this is 'big business' just trying to screw people out of money is laughable. Youtube made the money off other people's efforts, and those people received no compensation for it.If you can't see the harm done by youtube and why this is wrong, you probably have a very limited sense of right and wrong in the first place. YouTube made money by providing free video hosting to the world. Free band width made them rich. Everything is NOT copyrighted on YouTube. Furthermore, many artists and film makers chose to share their copyrighted work for free on YouTube. Your statement proves how little you know about the website. Spend some time there before making blanket statements. I'm tired of your narrow minded insults and your tired agenda. This thread is about MySpace too.
Members ihateyouguys Posted October 31, 2006 Members Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by Hudman YouTube made money by providing free video hosting to the world. Free band width made them rich.Everything is NOT copyrighted on YouTube. Furthermore, many artists and film makers chose to share their copyrighted work for free on YouTube. Your statement proves how little you know about the website.Spend some time there before making blanket statements. I'm tired of your narrow minded insults and your tired agenda. This thread is about MySpace too. Actually, everything WAS copyrighted on youtube. That's the technical aspect of the law. The issue is whether the copyright owner allowed for the copyrighted work to be used by youtube or not. This line is ridiculous: "YouTube made money by providing free video hosting to the world. Free band width made them rich." Youtube made money by providing the content, not bandwidth. To make money you have to provide something wants to see. To prove it wasn't "free bandwidth" that made them, if youtube was only videos of people in OJ saying "poop" over and over again, nobody would have cared about it. They came there for the content. So it is content that counts. While there were many free things posted, most of the ones you see linked to from forums like this are copyrighted works used without permission. Old videos, clips of movies and tv shows, bad slideshows with popular songs, etc. If you want to understand why copyright owners are ticked about places like youtube, you need to change the focus of your question. Too many people say "who is harmed? the video is free!" The question to help people understand the issues is not "who is harmed" but "who benefits". In this case, youtube was the party that benefited. The copyright owners, both by law and basic morality, have the right to both benefit and assign who benefits from their work. That wasn't happening in the youtube runup. There is your harm, and that is why it's wrong. My agenda is doing what's right and respectful to the people who created and own the content. Your "I know the law but I just don't like it" argument is the one that's getting tired. BTW, once again this should be in the music biz forum. But I guess it will spasm around the wrong forum until it dies.
Members ihateyouguys Posted October 31, 2006 Members Posted October 31, 2006 btw, both youtube and myspace ARE big business now. Trying to make this a david vs goliath issue is funny. Youtobe is owned by google. Market cap is nearly 145 BILLION. Myspace is owned by newscorp. Market cap is over 21 BILLION. Who'se the little guy in this scenario?
Members Cldplytkmn Posted October 31, 2006 Members Posted October 31, 2006 the creator of a work has the right to decide how/when/where it is distributed... i'm going to try to leave it at that and hope this thread doesn't get out of hand like the others...
Members Queequeg Posted October 31, 2006 Members Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by ihateyouguys The accusation that this is 'big business' just trying to screw people out of money is laughable. well, here's the deal they cut: Artists will get nothing.(laughable, isn't it?) turns out the big corps make the big money. (in agreements with CBS, Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, NBC and Warner Music Group)now there's a surprise! " The media companies had their typical challenges. Specifically, how to"excerpts from Some Intimate details of the Google/Youtube Deal -from Blog Maverick
Members Hudman Posted October 31, 2006 Author Members Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by ihateyouguys Actually, everything WAS copyrighted on youtube. That's the technical aspect of the law. The issue is whether the copyright owner allowed for the copyrighted work to be used by youtube or not.This line is ridiculous: "YouTube made money by providing free video hosting to the world. Free band width made them rich." You are full of {censored}. Everything on YouTube is NOT copyrighted. That's 100% bull{censored}. YouTube made their money by spending money. They provided a free service. They have nothing to do with the content. You are clueless. Your self righteous act is old. Save your moronic insults.
Members Cldplytkmn Posted October 31, 2006 Members Posted October 31, 2006 whether somebody meant to or not, if they wrote something, then recorded it... they copyrighted it... its automatic... so technically, everything on there was copyrighted... if you write something and perform it for an audience you've also just copyrighted it.
Members ihateyouguys Posted October 31, 2006 Members Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by Hudman You arre full of {censored}. Everything on YouTube is NOT copyrighted. That's 100% bull{censored}. YouTube made their money by spending money. They provided a free service. You are clueless. Your self righteous act is old. Save your moronic insults. That's funny. You just revealed your cluelessness WRT copyright law. And you keep throwing around the insults and while you're accusing me being the one doing the insults. For a refresher, this is what I wrote and you called bull{censored}: "Actually, everything WAS copyrighted on youtube. That's the technical aspect of the law." I draw your attention to this page on the US government's own copyright law FAQ page: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork When is my work protected?Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. I guess that pretty much proves your claim of bull{censored} to be bull{censored}. Technically, it is copyrighted / protected by copyright by being put in fixed form. Whether the copyright owner pursues those rights is another matter, and that is why I specifically made mention of that. It's becoming apparent you don't know what you're talking about, and for all your whining about me making insults, you are always the one throwing them around. I guess you just can't stand being shown to be wrong time after time after time after time.
Members Hudman Posted October 31, 2006 Author Members Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by Cldplytkmn whether somebody meant to or not, if they wrote something, then recorded it... they copyrighted it... its automatic... so technically, everything on there was copyrighted...if you write something and perform it for an audience you've also just copyrighted it. OK, it became copyrighted AFTER the person posted the video on YouTube. Perfect, another free service provided by YouTube. Copyright hard-ons should love that aspect.
Members Hudman Posted October 31, 2006 Author Members Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by ihateyouguys That's funny. You just revealed your cluelessness WRT copyright law. And you keep throwing around the insults and while you're accusing me being the one doing the insults.For a refresher, this is what I wrote and you called bull{censored}: "Actually, everything WAS copyrighted on youtube. That's the technical aspect of the law."I draw your attention to this page on the US government's own copyright law FAQ page:http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#myworkWhen is my work protected?Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. I guess that pretty much proves your claim of bull{censored} to be bull{censored}. Technically, it is copyrighted / protected by copyright by being put in fixed form. Whether the copyright owner pursues those rights is another matter, and that is why I specifically made mention of that.It's becoming apparent you don't know what you're talking about, and for all your whining about me making insults, you are always the one throwing them around. I guess you just can't stand being shown to be wrong time after time after time after time. No, it proves that it becomes copyrighted AFTER it is posted on a web hosting service, not before. It means that many things were posted without a copyright (my original point). A great by-product of YouTube. You can save your sarcasm. You are a {censored}ing jack ass.
Members ihateyouguys Posted October 31, 2006 Members Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by Hudman No, it proves that it becomes copyrighted AFTER it is posted on a web hosting service, not before.A great by-product of YouTube.You can save your sarcasm. You are a {censored}ing jack ass. Boy, you are a very angry person when somone dares disagree with you, aren't you? And once again you're wrong. It was a copyright work once it was created. So if joe blow made a video of himself juggling, once it was recorded (fixed in a tangible form) it was copyrighted, not when it was posted to youtube. Another nice insult by you, btw.
Members Hudman Posted October 31, 2006 Author Members Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by ihateyouguys Boy, you are a very angry person when somone dares disagree with you, aren't you?And once again you're wrong. It was a copyright work once it was created. So if joe blow made a video of himself juggling, once it was recorded (fixed in a tangible form) it was copyrighted, not when it was posted to youtube.Another nice insult by you, btw. Joe Blow CHOSE to put his stuff on YouTube. The recording industry doesn't give a flying {censored} about Joe Blow. I'm not angry. I don't need to be angry to identify a person that chooses to be a jack ass.
Members ihateyouguys Posted October 31, 2006 Members Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by Hudman Joe Blow CHOSE to put his stuff on YouTube. The recording industry doesn't give a flying {censored} about Joe Blow.I'm not angry. I don't need to be angry to identify a person that choses to be a jack ass. Why don't you take a look at what you're doing? I'm trying to debate the issue and the law and challenge opinions I believe to be wrong. When I've done that, you've consistantly insulted me. Why? Because I post an opinion you don't agree with. I don't call you an idiot or a jackass. I have a different opinion and I defend it. But when I do that, you accuse me of being insulting, and then hurl the insults.
Members Hudman Posted October 31, 2006 Author Members Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by ihateyouguys Why don't you take a look at what you're doing? I'm trying to debate the issue and the law and challenge opinions I believe to be wrong.When I've done that, you've consistantly insulted me. Why? Because I post an opinion you don't agree with. I don't call you an idiot or a jackass. I have a different opinion and I defend it. But when I do that, you accuse me of being insulting, and then hurl the insults. I think it's complete and total bull{censored} that the recording industry is {censored}ing up a free service that takes nothing away from anyone. They are looking to profit off another company's great idea. Video hosting is no different than picture hosting. I told you numerous times that you will never change my mind. You are here to argue with me. That's why I view you as a jack ass.
Members Hudman Posted November 1, 2006 Author Members Posted November 1, 2006 Originally posted by Queequeg well, here's the deal they cut: Artists will get nothing.(laughable, isn't it?) turns out the big corps make the big money. (in agreements with CBS, Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, NBC and Warner Music Group)now there's a surprise! Exactly. The original creator will see no benefit from the actions of the recording industry. If anything it will reduce the amount of free advertising they get from their fans on YouTube, Google Video, MySpace, etc.
Members ihateyouguys Posted November 1, 2006 Members Posted November 1, 2006 Originally posted by Hudman I think it's complete and total bull{censored} that the recording industry is {censored}ing up a free service that takes nothing away from anyone. They are looking to profit off another company's great idea. Video hosting is no different than picture hosting.I told you numerous times that you will never change my mind. You are here to argue with me. That's why I view you as a jack ass. So I was right. Disagreeing with you makes someone a jackass. If you're going to engage in a discussion on an internet forum, be prepared for people to disagree with you. If you can't handle somone addressing your posts, don't make them in the first place. Nobody here has a special immunity where they can make a post and say no one can disagree with them. Content owners are not {censored}ing up a free service. Youtube did that by letting people post copyrighted content without the owner's permisison. youtube could have existed by having a strict policy of posting only material for which the copyright owner allowed. That would be just what you said they do (letting people post their videos), but there wouldn't be any copyright infringement. Everyone would be happy. But would you? And you know the reason places like that don't to strict copyright policing? Because the general plan is usually to use as much content as you can to build an audience, cash out, and then let someone else deal with the aftermath. It's happened numerous times in the history of the internet.
Members ihateyouguys Posted November 1, 2006 Members Posted November 1, 2006 Originally posted by Hudman I told you numerous times that you will never change my mind. You are here to argue with me. That's why I view you as a jack ass. I'm here to defend my side of the issue. Me doing that is not dependent on you participating in the discussion. For some reason you want to personalize it every time I post something you don't like.
Members Lupus in fabula Posted November 1, 2006 Members Posted November 1, 2006 Originally posted by ihateyouguys Why don't you take a look at what you're doing? I'm trying to debate the issue and the law and challenge opinions I believe to be wrong.When I've done that, you've consistantly insulted me. Why? Because I post an opinion you don't agree with. I don't call you an idiot or a jackass. I have a different opinion and I defend it. But when I do that, you accuse me of being insulting, and then hurl the insults. I do not mean this to be insulting, but as a relative outsider my perception is that you come across as if you feel you own the topic. I'm not trying to make this personal at all (I don't know you or anyone else in here), and this perceived attitude is probably (and hopefully) not your intent, but since you are asking why you're being met with such hostility, you may ask yourself the same question. It isn't just disagreement over the topic. If you are genuinely willing to consider an objective opinion in response, please consider that maybe you are coming off somewhat sanctimonious and condescending. It's not technically the same thing as calling someone an asshole, but it carries the same message. Just less forthrightly. This is an interesting topic and I'd be really interested in reading opinions (many of them) without seeing another thread on this subject degenerate into an argument over who argues better. And with that, I guess I should apologize for my own off-topic interruption.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.