Decision on YouTube proves that Capitalism has gone too far.

[Hank Kinsley]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/biztech/07/03/youtubelawsuit.ap/index.html

I can't believe we call this the "free-est country in the world"!!! Our country, my fellow Americans, is a complete joke. My grandparents fought for what this country was supposed to stand for. I'm embarrassed at what it has become. Now we have multi-billion dollar corporations running the show - suing YouTube and destroying one of the greatest phenomenons the internet has. I'm no communist, but this has gone too far. Making money off everything is not the answer to our problems and is certainly not the right thing to do in this case. There is absolutely no way the people can let this type of BS stand. These corps are still making ridiculous money and have made the people that give them that money the enemy. This is a travesty, and I urge all devote Americans to actually stand up for what this country truly is and not let these corporations dictate what we can and cannot do.

<rant over>


As Rage Against the Machine said: Freedom! Yeah right!.

[Midzuki]

As an author quoted by Herbert Marcuse said someday,
"democracy is the mask that the fascists wear while
their capitalism is full of self-confidence".

P.S.: I am not a leftist/socialist/communist either.
Herr Nietzsche still is a better reading than Karl Marx
(not to mention the deranged pupils of this latter).

[Ethlred]

Unfortunately Youtube does have scads of copyright violations on it. Yesterday I found copy after copy of clips from Disney's Fantasia. Thats illegal in most countries. If Youtube doesn't check what gets posted its only hope is to be treated as a common carrier and thats already out of bounds for them.

This is a travesty, and I urge all devote Americans to actually stand up for what this country truly is and not let these corporations dictate what we can and cannot do.

What would you have the corporations do? Lose money on stuff they created often at considerable expense? You do NOT have the right to do whatever the hell you want. Copyright is part of the Constitution and has been since the beginning. Its not some post WWII One Worldism Fascist Pinko Islamic Semetic plot to destroy The American Dream by storing all human knowledge in an encrypted vault two miles deep under the Swiss Alps guarded by the Gnomes of Zürich. Its a way to encourage creativity by guaranteeing the right of the creators to make a profit instead of being ripped off.

[Midzuki]

@ Ethlred: the copyright laws should be protecting the actual creators
of the so-called intellectual works, NOT the self-invented copyright dealers
( *nor* their stupid counterparanoia ). Certain things should never ever be allowed to
become merchandises; and certain bastards should have already discovered some
less-indecent ways to make money. Just my $1.99

[Ethlred]

"democracy is the mask that the fascists wear while
their capitalism is full of self-confidence"

I bet that didn't even make sense in the original. Democracy exists as a method of government that is intended to avoid self appointed rulers. Its just the sort of crap that Marcuse would say. He pushed communism, a dubious economic system even in theory and at least as bad as Fascism in practice in nearly every single case. So lying about democracy was something of a requirement for him. Fascism is anti-capitalist at least in the sense of capitalism that Adam Smith had.

Sorry about going off topic here. Just couldn't let that crap slide.

And now to pretend to have some relevancy to the OP.

Youtube is great idea but the copyrighted stuff there has only a rare and tenuous connection to fair use. Its not the same as making a copy of DVD's that you have purchased for backup or for use in other media players than a DVD player. Entire Warner Brother's cartoons aren't exactly excerpts for critical study.

Sure will miss them when they get taken down.

[Ethlred]

the copyright laws should be protecting the actual creators
of the so-called intellectual works, NOT the self-invented copyright dealers
( *nor* their stupid counterparanoia ).

The companies involved here aren't mere copyright dealers. They paid the bills for the TV shows involved. They made it possible for the creative people to be seen by a large enough paying audience for them to make a living at entertainment. We're not talking about the rapacious bastards in the music industry. Motown, for instance, can take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut.

[Conquest10]

Lose money on stuff they created often at considerable expense?

OK, we'll use your example here. How is Disney losing money by people watching clips of Fantasia on YouTube?

[mats.hogberg]

@all: Read the rules re: politics:

No Political, Religious, or War related discussions

/Mats

[AlanHK]

Unfortunately Youtube does have scads of copyright violations on it. Yesterday I found copy after copy of clips from Disney's Fantasia. Thats illegal in most countries.

Fantasia was released in 1940. Until the US started strongarming other countries to extend their copyright periods, in most countries it would be in the public domain by now, 68 years later, when all the creators are long dead.

And in any case, if the clip is only a few minutes, it may well be allowed as fair use.

But don't worry, the corporations are working to have fair use outlawed too.

Its a way to encourage creativity by guaranteeing the right of the creators to make a profit instead of being ripped off.

Actually copyright law makes no mention of "profit" at all. It's supposedly designed to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." (At least that's what it says in the US Constitution, not that I'm an American, but that's the context here.)

[Ethlred]

OK, we'll use your example here. How is Disney losing money by people watching clips of Fantasia on YouTube?

Its not just a matter of losing money. Although I am sure Disney could make a claim that they should be paid. It is up to Disney to decide how and when their material can be shown in public.

There is also a matter of controlling intellectual property. That is, Micky is trademarked. If they don't protect the trademark they can lose it. Strange but true. Now that doesn't mean that all images of Mickey are verboten. Steamboat Willie has been out of copyright for decades.

Considering the crappy quality of Youtube Disney could choose to consider it free advertising but I think there are some legal considerations there as well. Bad advertising though. That stuff was poorly encoded and managed to have track audio without having stereo. The original audio was nine track. Notice though the Disney is not among those suing at least at the moment. I only used it as an example because I saw it yesterday.

[Ethlred]

Until the US started strongarming other countries to extend their copyright periods, in most countries it would be in the public domain by now, 68 years later, when all the creators are long dead.

Actually many countries have NO end on copyrights. Some of Sherlock Holmes is out of copyright in the US but last I heard at least some was still under copyright in Britain. Fantasia would be nearing the end of its copyright period according the copyright at the time it was created I think. Not sure on the length but it could be renewed once. Maybe it less than thirty years. Maybe more than 40. Again I only used it as an example as the stuff Youtube is being sued for is recent. Last I saw John Stewart is still above ground, breathing and making the show in question. Disney's Nine Old Men weren't called that for nothing. The last one died this year. I don't know if he worked on Fantasia though.

Yes he did
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ollie_Johnston

And in any case, if the clip is only a few minutes, it may well be allowed as fair use.

Well there were several clips. The whole Sorcerer's Apprentice was only one of them. As far as I could tell, if you look around you could paste together the whole movie. Thats not fair use. A thirty second clip maybe. A few minutes could be a whole Daffy Duck short thought the ones I saw were longer. The entire Duck Amuck (1953) for instance. Chuck Jones died a while ago but not a long while ago, 2002. Of course he wasn't getting paid for the stuff anymore by then.

Yes I agree that the copyright periods are getting out of hand. However The Daily Show is still in production. Some of the companies have even managed to figure out that if THEY show it on the Internet they can make more money. Amazing how long it took most of them.

[AlanHK]

Until the US started strongarming other countries to extend their copyright periods, in most countries it would be in the public domain by now, 68 years later, when all the creators are long dead.

Actually many countries have NO end on copyrights.

Really? Name one.

Some of Sherlock Holmes is out of copyright in the US but last I heard at least some was still under copyright in Britain.

Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930. All his works are out of copyright in the UK since 2000.
But some Holmes stories are still copyright in the US, thanks to Sonny Bono.
Arthur Conan Doyle, Sir 1859-1930

Fantasia would be nearing the end of its copyright period according the copyright at the time it was created I think. Not sure on the length but it could be renewed once. Maybe it less than thirty years. Maybe more than 40. Again I only used it as an example as the stuff Youtube is being sued for is recent. Last I saw John Stewart is still above ground, breathing and making the show in question. Disney's Nine Old Men weren't called that for nothing. The last one died this year. I don't know if he worked on Fantasia though.

You were talking about Fantasia, not the Daily Show.

I believe you can watch the Daily Show free streamed from The Comedy Channel anyway.
It IS a "daily" show, a few days later it has almost no commercial value.
True, it's not public domain, but I don't believe any harm is being done, It actually builds the market.
For instance, I don't have access to the Comedy Channel at all. I only know Jon Stewart from online clips.
If he did appear on a local channel, I'd make a point of watching him.

And in any case, if the clip is only a few minutes, it may well be allowed as fair use.

Well there were several clips. The whole Sorcerer's Apprentice was only one of them. As far as I could tell, if you look around you could paste together the whole movie. Thats not fair use.

Yes, it IS fair use. You can't be held responsible for what someone else posted.
If someone can assemble a complete work by jigsawing fair use fragments, the person making the assembly is at fault, not the posters.

I bought a legal DVD of Fantasia for $5. The quality is infinitely better than Youtube low res, out of sync video. Even if it is free, it is no substitute for commerical media.
I'll watch a clip on Youtube, if I like it I might look for a DVD.

I'm sure Youtube boosts sales of many artists.

[rkr1958]

I'm not a YouTube user and don't have an account there but the following to me is the most scary part of the ruling.

...
Google must now turn over all its data about YouTube visitors on four 1-terabyte hard drives, a staggering amount of data, as well as copies of all clips it has ever taken down. (One terabyte is 1,000 gigabytes.)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco organization that defends the rights of Internet users, quickly protested the ruling, saying it "threatens to expose deeply private information about what videos are watched by YouTube users."
...

full article

[Snakebyte1]

What I don't understand is why these companies would really care if a snippet or a few scenes from a show are posted. Its not like the entire movie is up there, just a few tid bits.

In fact, its basically free advertising with a huge audience.

D.

[usually_quiet]

What I don't understand is why these companies would really care if a snippet or a few scenes from a show are posted. Its not like the entire movie is up there, just a few tid bits.

In fact, its basically free advertising with a huge audience.

D.

As Ethelred already stated, in the US, if copyright and trandemark infringement isn't prosecuted, the legal protection may be lost. Then, there is human nature. People generally do not like it when things that they consider to be their property are used without permission.

[AlanHK]

As Ethelred already stated, in the US, if copyright and trademark infringement isn't prosecuted, the legal protection may be lost.

That is untrue for copyright. Despite people repeating it all the time.

Trademarks, if undefended, will eventually become invalid. That doesn't have much relevance to Youtube clips though.

[DereX888]

Unfortunately Youtube does have scads of copyright violations on it. Yesterday I found copy after copy of clips from Disney's Fantasia. Thats illegal in most countries. If Youtube doesn't check what gets posted its only hope is to be treated as a common carrier and thats already out of bounds for them.

This is a travesty, and I urge all devote Americans to actually stand up for what this country truly is and not let these corporations dictate what we can and cannot do.

What would you have the corporations do? Lose money on stuff they created often at considerable expense? You do NOT have the right to do whatever the hell you want. Copyright is part of the Constitution and has been since the beginning. Its not some post WWII One Worldism Fascist Pinko Islamic Semetic plot to destroy The American Dream by storing all human knowledge in an encrypted vault two miles deep under the Swiss Alps guarded by the Gnomes of Zürich. Its a way to encourage creativity by guaranteeing the right of the creators to make a profit instead of being ripped off.

Can you "rip-off" a DEAD person?

It has been way more than half century since creation of Fantasia.
Walt Disney and other people who created it have made their money of off it fair and square.
They all are dead today. Same as Shakespear or Homer.
Yet why do you (and some other brainwashed sheeple) insist that posting clips of Disney's ancient work on youtube is some "copyrights violation", but you don't object to having entire libraries of Shakespeare, Homer, and countless other artists work being "copyright-free"? Law is good only if it is exactly the same for everyone. It isn't a law if it works only for selected group of people.
Corporations bend and change the laws any way it suits them at the moment through all the corrupted lawmakers on their payroll, just wake up already and stop repeating their propaganda bullshit, I can't believe anyone can be that blind or dumb, geez...

[FulciLives]

I'm not a YouTube user and don't have an account there but the following to me is the most scary part of the ruling.

...
Google must now turn over all its data about YouTube visitors on four 1-terabyte hard drives, a staggering amount of data, as well as copies of all clips it has ever taken down. (One terabyte is 1,000 gigabytes.)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco organization that defends the rights of Internet users, quickly protested the ruling, saying it "threatens to expose deeply private information about what videos are watched by YouTube users."
...

full article

I first heard more-or-less the same thing on the radio yesterday and yes it freaked me out!

It's all BS if you ask me

We need a "French revolution" here in the USA. Cut off the heads of any and all CEO's

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[DereX888]

I'm not a YouTube user and don't have an account there but the following to me is the most scary part of the ruling.

...
Google must now turn over all its data about YouTube visitors on four 1-terabyte hard drives, a staggering amount of data, as well as copies of all clips it has ever taken down. (One terabyte is 1,000 gigabytes.)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco organization that defends the rights of Internet users, quickly protested the ruling, saying it "threatens to expose deeply private information about what videos are watched by YouTube users."
...

full article

I first heard more-or-less the same thing on the radio yesterday and yes it freaked me out!

It's all BS if you ask me

We need a "French revolution" here in the USA. Cut off the heads of any and all CEO's

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

..lawyers first...

[Midzuki]

"The Encyclopedia Of Stupid" teaches:

Lawyers are stupid.

They'll be the first with their backs against the wall when the revolution begins.

[usually_quiet]

As Ethelred already stated, in the US, if copyright and trademark infringement isn't prosecuted, the legal protection may be lost.

That is untrue for copyright. Despite people repeating it all the time.

Trademarks, if undefended, will eventually become invalid. That doesn't have much relevance to Youtube clips though.

I did assume it was also true for copyrights, having heard it many times, but since the question isn't addressed at the official US copyright information website, I'll take your word for that.

While it is not true in a legal sense, it is true in a practical sense. If copyright holders don't bother to sue, people will be more likely to violate the law. The existance of this very public suit will certainly intimidate many from posting or hosting copyrighted material.

[DereX888]

As Ethelred already stated, in the US, if copyright and trademark infringement isn't prosecuted, the legal protection may be lost.

That is untrue for copyright. Despite people repeating it all the time.

Trademarks, if undefended, will eventually become invalid. That doesn't have much relevance to Youtube clips though.

I did assume it was also true for copyrights, having heard it many times, but since the question isn't addressed at the official US copyright information website, I'll take your word for that.

While it is not true in a legal sense, it is true in a practical sense. If copyright holders don't bother to sue, people will be more likely to violate the law. The existance of this very public suit will certainly intimidate many from posting or hosting copyrighted material.

"To sue" anyone in USA you need to have a lot, A LOT, of money.
Only corporations like Disney can do this. Average Joe can't.
If you as a person were any art creator and copyright owner, you could never stand a chance to sue anyone stealing your work. Obviously "the law" is not for everybody in USA. "The law" in US for long time is only for rich corporation to make them richer.
The US lawmakers, the lawyers, they all are like whores, they serve those who pay them more at the moment.
Constitution has nothing to do with them, nor with copyrights.

There is no problem with copyrights (or trademarks).
Everyone knows that the artists *must be* paid for their work and art, and vast majority of people have no problem to pay for books, music or movies.
The only problem is with corrupted lawmakers. If it wouldn't affect us so deeply it would have been just laughable that their propaganda can brainwash so many people to the point they believe that i.e. ~70 years old movie falls under any freaking copyrights.
Just repeat it yourself:
70 YEARS OLD FILM IS STILL COPYRIGHTED.
That is the problem.
It is beyond insane, it is so obvious downright law corruption for the interest of profiting from it corruptors, that it shouldn't have been even discussed

[paulw]

I wonder what the result would be in the US if there was a large boycott of Viacom and their products over this??

[edDV]

I wonder what the result would be in the US if there was a large boycott of Viacom and their products over this??

I wonder what the result would be in the US if the corporations just relocate overseas and leave us to our high school dropouts. The talented would follow the jobs.

[Conquest10]

I wonder what the result would be in the US if there was a large boycott of Viacom and their products over this??

I wonder what the result would be in the US if the corporations just relocate overseas and leave us to our high school dropouts. The talented would follow the jobs.

Don't you mean "talented"?

[edDV]

I wonder what the result would be in the US if there was a large boycott of Viacom and their products over this??

I wonder what the result would be in the US if the corporations just relocate overseas and leave us to our high school dropouts. The talented would follow the jobs.

Don't you mean "talented"?

Yes I do.

[usually_quiet]

As Ethelred already stated, in the US, if copyright and trademark infringement isn't prosecuted, the legal protection may be lost.

That is untrue for copyright. Despite people repeating it all the time.

Trademarks, if undefended, will eventually become invalid. That doesn't have much relevance to Youtube clips though.

I did assume it was also true for copyrights, having heard it many times, but since the question isn't addressed at the official US copyright information website, I'll take your word for that.

While it is not true in a legal sense, it is true in a practical sense. If copyright holders don't bother to sue, people will be more likely to violate the law. The existance of this very public suit will certainly intimidate many from posting or hosting copyrighted material.

"To sue" anyone in USA you need to have a lot, A LOT, of money.
Only corporations like Disney can do this. Average Joe can't.
If you as a person were any art creator and copyright owner, you could never stand a chance to sue anyone stealing your work. Obviously "the law" is not for everybody in USA. "The law" in US for long time is only for rich corporation to make them richer.
The US lawmakers, the lawyers, they all are like whores, they serve those who pay them more at the moment.
Constitution has nothing to do with them, nor with copyrights.

There is no problem with copyrights (or trademarks).
Everyone knows that the artists *must be* paid for their work and art, and vast majority of people have no problem to pay for books, music or movies.
The only problem is with corrupted lawmakers. If it wouldn't affect us so deeply it would have been just laughable that their propaganda can brainwash so many people to the point they believe that i.e. ~70 years old movie falls under any freaking copyrights.
Just repeat it yourself:
70 YEARS OLD FILM IS STILL COPYRIGHTED.
That is the problem.
It is beyond insane, it is so obvious downright law corruption for the interest of profiting from it corruptors, that it shouldn't have been even discussed :!:

The people who came up with our original copyright laws could not have envisioned the magnitude of the inequity that exits between individuals and corporations today. Yes, companies successfully sue individuals more often than the other way around. That is one reason why people license to their work to a corporation, or join an organization that is able to sue on their behalf.

In this case however, it's several big, enormously wealthy companies suing one, big enormously wealthy company, so I'd say the playing field was reasonably even.

The right to privacy barely exists anymore anywhere, but especially cyberspace. If at this point, people don't realize this and continue to act as if their Internet activities are a private matter, they haven't been paying attention to the the news for quite a while.

[zoobie]

I was wondering when they were going to crack down on all the fraud at youtoob...and countless other sites
I heard the most popular videos were of CBS news, oddly enuf

[thecoalman]

Unfortunately Youtube does have scads of copyright violations on it. Yesterday I found copy after copy of clips from Disney's Fantasia. Thats illegal in most countries. If Youtube doesn't check what gets posted its only hope is to be treated as a common carrier and thats already out of bounds .

Because they can't due to the volume. I've also seen it suggested if they do do that they would no longer fall under the safe harbor provision in the DMCA which would also open themselves to lawsuits. It's a damned if do and damned if you don't scenario.

The key issue many people don't understand is this isn't Viacom vs. Youtube but Viacom vs. every site on the internet that allows user generated content. If they win this lawsuit it will change the way millions of sites are allowed to operate including this one. Sites will have to pre moderate evething that is posted including text, images and video because they will be held accontable for any copyrighted material.

I'm pro copyright, my mantra has always been if you don't like the price or the stipulations don't buy it however a ruling against youtube in this case will be the end of user generated sites like this one at least as we know it and that is not good thing for anyone..

If you as a person were any art creator and copyright owner, you could never stand a chance to sue anyone stealing your work. Obviously "the law" is not for everybody in USA. "The law" in US for long time is only for rich corporation to make them richer.
The US lawmakers, the lawyers, they all are like whores, they serve those who pay them more at the moment.
Constitution has nothing to do with them, nor with copyrights.

Bullshit, you should really STFU about shit you obviously have no clue about. That's almost as stupid as your FBI goes after people downloading illegal music comment.

[DereX888]

If you as a person were any art creator and copyright owner, you could never stand a chance to sue anyone stealing your work. Obviously "the law" is not for everybody in USA. "The law" in US for long time is only for rich corporation to make them richer.
The US lawmakers, the lawyers, they all are like whores, they serve those who pay them more at the moment.
Constitution has nothing to do with them, nor with copyrights.

Bullshit, you should really STFU about shit you obviously have no clue about. That's almost as stupid as your FBI goes after people downloading illegal music comment.

It is stupid? Then how it happened Mr.Oh-so-smart that the 70 years old movie is STILL copyrighted and bunch of whoring lawyers working for a rich corporation can sue anyone for it?
Right, the Constitution says so, right... uploading clips from a 70 years old movie is supporting terrorism, right...
Perhaps I'm stupid, but you Sir, you're just an idiot repeating what he's been brainwashed to, thats all.
I won't STFU, but you can just **** OFF if you don't like it