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!.
Support our site by donate $5 directly to us Thanks!!!
Try StreamFab Downloader and download streaming video from Netflix, Amazon!
Try StreamFab Downloader and download streaming video from Netflix, Amazon!
Closed Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 103
-
-
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).
-
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.
-
@ 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
-
"democracy is the mask that the fascists wear while
their capitalism is full of self-confidence"
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.
-
Originally Posted by Midzuki
-
@all: Read the rules re: politics:
Originally Posted by Rules
-
Originally Posted by Ethlred
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.
Originally Posted by Ethlred
-
Originally Posted by Conquest10
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
Originally Posted by Ethlred
Originally Posted by Ethlred
But some Holmes stories are still copyright in the US, thanks to Sonny Bono.
Arthur Conan Doyle, Sir 1859-1930
Originally Posted by Ethlred
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.
Originally Posted by Ethlred
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.
-
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."
...
-
Originally Posted by Snakebyte1
-
Originally Posted by Ethlred
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...
-
Originally Posted by rkr1958
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"The eyes are the first thing that you have to destroy ... because they have seen too many bad things" - Lucio Fulci
EXPLORE THE FILMS OF LUCIO FULCI - THE MAESTRO OF GORE
-
Originally Posted by AlanHK
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.
-
Originally Posted by usually_quiet
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
-
Originally Posted by paulwRecommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
http://www.kiva.org/about
-
Originally Posted by Conquest10Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
http://www.kiva.org/about
-
Originally Posted by DereX888
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.
-
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
-
Originally Posted by Ethlred
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.
-
Originally Posted by thecoalman
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
Similar Threads
-
Is this the highest possible quality for YouTube? YouTube compresses video?
By chrissyelle in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 17Last Post: 5th Oct 2010, 11:33 -
Uploading a video to Youtube that will fill the ENTIRE youtube player.
By Clifurd in forum Video ConversionReplies: 16Last Post: 12th Mar 2010, 13:40 -
Youtube HD 1080p settings? Youtube conversion out of sync!
By DoubleJMan in forum Video ConversionReplies: 12Last Post: 5th Jan 2010, 01:04 -
Why won't YouTube convert a video that was downloaded from YouTube?
By brassplyer in forum Video Streaming DownloadingReplies: 0Last Post: 5th Dec 2008, 04:47 -
Youtube: Best settings for YOUTUBE in premiere pro? (encoding)
By vid83 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 6Last Post: 2nd Jun 2007, 18:52