Decision on YouTube proves that Capitalism has gone too far.

[Ethlred]

AlanHK

Actually many countries have NO end on copyrights.

Really? Name one.

I was going on something I read a while ago in relation to the US Constitution requiring limits. I may be full of it. It wouldn't be the first time. However I will give it a try.

Oh well. Blew it. I should have checked. Here is a link to a Wiki showing many countries copyright durations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length

However the post I was replying to was wrong as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

The US law changed in part to match the Berne Convention which has a longer than the US used to have. Of course the large corporations did indeed push for the change but they didn't have to push the rest of the world as many already had longer durations than the US. Where they are pushing is in countries that have no concept of copyright. Most of Asia for instance.

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.

Well I did say last I heard. 2000 isn't all that long ago to me. I believe what I am remembering is when the US signed the Berne Convention and that was back 1989. Are you sure about Sonny Bono the link didn't mention it on that page?

You were talking about Fantasia, not the Daily Show.

Not really. I only gave it as an example of something I saw on Youtube. The article linked to in the OP was about The Daily Show among others.

Yes, it IS fair use. You can't be held responsible for what someone else posted.

Now that is wrong. Youtube has already been trying to stop copyright violations. It doesn't magically become fair use just because its on Youtube. The question is whether Youtube can be held liable for the actions of the posters. Thats what the suite will decide though I don't see Youtube having much of a chance in this, at least in regard to a need to remove copyright violations. They may be able to avoid a monetary penalty by showing due diligence.

A whole 7 minute scene is not a fragment. A complete Warner Brothers Loony Tune is pretty darn hard to claim is a fragment. 30 seconds maybe. There is ample precedent at that length.

I'm sure Youtube boosts sales of many artists.

Agreed. But thats not what the OP was claiming. Nor is it up to the posters on Youtube to decide whats OK to post of any artists work. Thats up to the artist or the copyright holder except for short clips. In written works 2 or 3 paragraphs is considered acceptable by most. An entire column is not.

[Ethlred]

Can you "rip-off" a DEAD person? .

I don't think so but the copyright laws are intended for the dead person's family as well.

As I pointed out one of the men that worked on Fantasia died this year, which is not long ago. Copyrights continue after death as well. 50 to 70 years in most countries. Corporate copyrights have limits as well. It used to be 28 years with a one time renewal. Its longer now but there is no renewal. In any case the suite in question is about people still living.

Yet why do you (and some other brainwashed sheeple) insist that posting clips of Disney's ancient work on youtube is some "copyrights violation",

Oh Great Bleating Sheep, who has been brainwashed by those whose interests are not the interests of the creators, its because it IS A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. Now if it was Steamboat Willie it would be legal. Thats in the public domain. Fantasia is not. Not yet. If you don't like the law complain to your representives. I am in no way defending the laws here. Just pointing them out.

Don't mistake my pointing out verifiable legal truths as some sort of moral judgement. Nor is this about Disney. Its about the article the OP linked to. Disney was just an example due to temporal proximity.

[Ethlred]

DereX888

"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

Actually no. Some people have successfully sue Hollywood for instance. Ford got nailed for millions over a windshield wiper.

Art Buchwald won a suit over the Eddie Murphy flick Coming to America. Unfortunately he payed his lawyers more than he won.

Harlan Ellison has won more than once. He is not someone to mess with. He once broke an ABC executives pelvis. Mailed a dead gopher to a publishing house. Even got his name on Terminator and I really don't think that one was warranted.

You can sue. You can win. Its just not easy.

[DereX888]

Can you "rip-off" a DEAD person? .

I don't think so but the copyright laws are intended for the dead person's family as well.

There are descendants and relatives of William Shakespeare living in UK and maybe all over the world.
The only difference between them - and "family" of Walt Disney's - is that they didn't create mighty corporation to bend the laws for their own profit.
Yet if you believe in what youre saying, you should call for i.e. paying off the families and relatives of Shakesperae or even Homer (even if that means that half of the modern Greeks population are related more or less to ancient Homer).
All publishing houses should pay royalties to all those families and relatives of ALL dead artists, not only those who were lucky to twist the laws in their favor in past 50 years.
If Disney's "family" can profit of off his work 70 years later, why not Shakespeare's family? Why not Homer's?
Don't you think there's something very wrong with this picture?
I say it again.
Just repat it out loud to yourself:
70 YEARS OLD FILM IS STILL COPYRIGHTED.
?!

As I pointed out one of the men that worked on Fantasia died this year, which is not long ago. Copyrights continue after death as well. 50 to 70 years in most countries. Corporate copyrights have limits as well. It used to be 28 years with a one time renewal. Its longer now but there is no renewal. In any case the suite in question is about people still living.

You are talking like the laws wouldn't/couldn't change.
As you said - it used to be 28 years during the Walt Disney's times.
(one of) The corner stone, the base of the law - "lex retro non agit" ("law isn't retroactive") apparently doesn't work here if 70 years later the same work is still copyrighted.

Yet why do you (and some other brainwashed sheeple) insist that posting clips of Disney's ancient work on youtube is some "copyrights violation",

Oh Great Bleating Sheep, who has been brainwashed by those whose interests are not the interests of the creators, its because it IS A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.

That's right, it IS copyright violation according to current twisted and corrupted laws! That's the problem.
Slavery was legal and lawful too, yet everyone but the slave-owners knew the law was wrong and they fought against it.
The "law" youre referring to everybody but Disney (and such) know is wrong too - and one can only hope it's fate will be exactly the same as all other unjust and/or corrupted laws.
Slaves were lawfully and legally bought, traded and bred too. If all people were like you, they would have never got rid of slavery since it was THE LAW - and you'd still have negros in shackles and could legally and lawfully buy one in southern states today.
Fortunately most of people were not like you back then, and they are not today either.

Don't mistake my pointing out verifiable legal truths as some sort of moral judgement. Nor is this about Disney. Its about the article the OP linked to. Disney was just an example due to temporal proximity.

Certainly.
Yet you can't buy bread without farmers harvesting their crops first (as someone have said - "even buying a loaf of bread is politics") so it is never about "just an OP's post". Nothing is *that* simple.


I appreciate what you are trying to say and even justify, but I (we) all know the Disney have absolutely legally sued youtube for copyright violation and certainly it is copyright violation under and according to our current corrupted laws (only because such laws were ever created).
The point is not what would be the outcome of Disney vs Youtue, it is relevant only to those current corrupted laws, but - more importantly - when such laws are going to be overthrown, and by whom (because as history teach us, if the corrupted pigs won't make the laws just and on time, the wrath of the mob ends always bad - in the style of French or Russian revolutions).
The newspapers or tv networks are responsible for the material printed or broadcasted on their media and obviously Disney will win here - if not at first then later - because corporations make the laws in USA, and obviously it is in their interest to copyright everything and anything forever if possible. Corporation are "legal entities" in USA. That means theyre equal to "human entities". However there is tiny problem with that - they almost NEVER die, while humans always do. I'm actually surprised why they didn't twist the copyright laws to simply last the lifetime of the copyrights owners... most of people would have "swallow it" as very fair law - with hook, line and sink - because "general public" has no clue that majority of copyrighted works belong to "legal entities"
There is no point in discussing that. Once youtube is 'broken' all other "tiny-tubes" will immediately self-censor themselves, and you won't be able to find even old tv news from ABC on them. "Fantasia" is just convenient subject.

20 years ago people laughed at the idea of paying for water... 20 years later corrupted lawmakers will twist the current laws requiring municipalities to provide water to households at all since "no one wants to drink it" (instead of enforcing laws to provide potable fresh water to each household) and everyone will *have to* buy bottled water because there will be no other... Yeah, it is off-topic?

[Ethlred]

There are descendants and relatives of William Shakespeare living in UK and maybe all over the world.

He was born before copyright laws existed. He had no known offspring. Your use of him shows that you are exceedingly unreasonable on this subject. Try reading the link I posted. See what the actual laws are rather than your straw man.

For the umpteenth time. Disney was an example but is not involved in the suite.

All publishing houses should pay royalties to all those families and relatives of ALL dead artists, not only those who were lucky to twist the laws in their favor in past 50 years.

Could you possibly find something a tad less relevant to use as a straw man. Perhaps cave paintings? They are often quite stunning and equally unrelated to the discussion.

You are talking like the laws wouldn't/couldn't change.

Actually I pointed out that they changed. Try reading what I post. Not some straw version. You seem to have problem parsing what I write since you DID notice that I mentioned the law change so why the ridiculous claim that I am unaware?

"The corner stone, the base of the law - "lex retro non agit" ("law isn't retroactive") apparently doesn't work here if 70 years later the same work is still copyrighted. "

You don't fully understand what you just wrote. Laws are OFTEN retroactive. What isn't legal in the US is laws to make an action that occurred in the past illegal retroactively and then throw the person in jail. That is what is unconstitutional.

For instance, if you had set off fireworks in a city where it was legal a few hours ago and then six months from now the city changed the law, that law could not be applied to you. This concept is not a base of law. Its a base of US law.

While it seems it could apply to the case of old movies the Supreme Court clearly disagrees. Copyright laws are not quite the same thing as a law against doing things, like murder or adulterating food. Its a concept that is intended to protect commerce. It does not make past actions illegal. Nor is the law retroactive. Movies and books that are out of copyright remain out of copyright even though the present law would allow them to continue in copyright for a longer total time now. Think of it as an extension rather than retroactive since that is clearly what the legal system thinks of it as.

Oh, just to be pedantic Fantasia is 68 years old not 70. And the last person just died. In much of the world that would have allowed the movie to remain copyrighted for another 50 years or more except that it is subject to corporate duration and not an individual creators duration.

That's right, it IS copyright violation according to current twisted and corrupted laws!

Well something is twisted there. You are having extreme difficulty with the concept. The present US laws are the way they are largely to match the Berne Convention. If Fantasia was subject to the original laws its copyright would have expired in 1996. Twelve years ago. If it had been made in many countries besides the US it would still be under copyright even without the changes in the law. Its not an accident that many movies have non-US copyrights even though they were made by US companies. I watch movies till the screen goes black and the lights come up.

Slaves were lawfully and legal bought, traded and bred. If people were like you, they would have never got rid of slavery since it was THE LAW!

Its amazing just how irrational people can behave when someone points out something they don't like. I really don't appreciate that sort of vile insult. If you don't like what I have to say then either ignore it or write something relevant. Do not engage in ad hominym attacks. Its a sure sign that a person has nothing to support their position.

In case you missed it, I pointed out that the laws can be changed. Yes, thats right, laws can be changed. Talk to your representative. If you don't like the law it not my fault. I didn't make them yet you act as if I am solely responsible. You also deliberately avoid the whole point that the thread was about Viacom and not Disney. Despite my pointing it out several times.

So since you find me personally responsible when can I expect your firebomb? I recommend naptha as it is very popular with movie pyrotechnicians. Gasoline has so many nasty additives.

[DereX888]

Slaves were lawfully and legal bought, traded and bred. If people were like you, they would have never got rid of slavery since it was THE LAW!

Its amazing just how irrational people can behave when someone points out something they don't like. I really don't appreciate that sort of vile insult. If you don't like what I have to say then either ignore it or write something relevant. Do not engage in ad hominym attacks. Its a sure sign that a person has nothing to support their position.

It wasn't ad hominem and you know it.
I have nowhere said you are pro slavery nor opposite. I have simply used the most widely known historical example of "bad law" legally allowing slavery - which would have still been the law today if (back then) all people were saying what you are basically saying in all your posts: "it's the law and we must obey it".
No, we don't - when most of us finds "the law" unjust we simply fight it (since lawmakers can't fix it), as per example.

Also I have intentionally chose Shakespeare and Homer *because* of their no-known direct relatives, but you either didn't get it or intentionally chose to brag about it rather than just the merit: the art ownership has never been inheritable in mankind history.
Film, music and literature copyrights are just corporate law tricks shoved in society's ass recently, merely in the past few generations. It took much many more generations to get rid of slavery if you remember. Bad laws sometimes tend to stick around for long, the more powerful were their corrupted lawmakers the longer they usually existed - but they are always gotten rid of, in one way or another. Always.
And extending copyrights in time - and onto the relatives or corporate entities - is just another law trick by corrupted lawmakers.

If i.e. Mr. Guttenberg had copyrighted, trademarked, patented and stopped in any-whatever-other-possible-way spread of his printing press until his relatives and his offspring profited long enough after his death and have been finally satisfied financially (thats probably never - knowing greedy human nature), there probably wouldn't have been age of Enlightment, and subsequently there might have never been any of the modern science - or at best all of it would have shifted for hundreds of years in time and we might have been just starting to use steam engines and begining the industrial age today, instead of few hundreds years ago... (and that is hoping that all inventors and writers who pushed our civilization forward each didn't have too much offspring "to milk" their ideas and inventions for the lifetime of each one of them plus another 50 years, OMFG, LOL!)


"Just and good" law works pro publico bono.
All the copyright laws and their extensions in the current forms as previously mentioned in this thread (which you apparently support) go very much against it.
Such laws, since they are not doing anything good for its society but are just designed to allow only small group of people to profit from them, such laws obviously work against the society. Hence they are "bad laws" and the society in which such laws are enforced by the corrupted lawmakers usually fight them - or don't give a shit about them at least (this explains current "digital piracy phenomena" very well, doesn't it? )

EOT to me.

[Ethlred]

It wasn't ad hominem and you know it.

Bull. At the very best it was a blatent attempt at guilt by a bogus association.

all people were saying what you are basically saying in all your posts: "it's the law and we must obey it".

I can speak for myself quite well. So quit putting lies into my mouth. Do you always make up both sides of a conversation?

No, we don't - when most of us finds "the law" unjust we simply fight it (since lawmakers can't fix it), as per example.

You have no idea what lawmakers can do. In case you didn't notice you are descending into politics again. Its against the rules and while I would be happy to rip you up one side and down the other like I do fanatics of all brands I would like to avoid being banned.

You are looking to get plonked.

Also I have intentionally chose Shakespeare and Homer *because* of their no-known direct relatives, but you either didn't get it or intentionally chose to brag about it rather than just the merit

You have strange ideas of what constitutes bragging. As originaly posted it had no relevance. Perhaps if you would try to say what you mean instead of going of on political rants it would improve your clarity.

the art ownership has never been inheritable in mankind history.

False. And choosing people that are clearly pre-copyright shows you are simply unwilling to deal with the issue on its own merits. If nothing else you should look into Picasso. The family still owns a lot of stuff that hasn't been sold yet.

Film, music and literature copyrights are just corporate law tricks shoved in society's ass recently, merely in the past few generations.

I see that you did not follow the links. Learn some history from unbiased sources. Copyrights have been around for centuries.

Irrelevant crap follows.

If i.e. Mr. Guttenberg had copyrighted, trademarked, patented and stopped in any-whatever-other-possible-way spread of his printing press until his relatives and his offspring profited long enough

Still irrelevant except that it shows your ignorance of the laws in question. Guttenberg didn't do anything that could be copyrighted. Patents are different. They last 20 years. Get a clue.

"Just and good" law works pro publico bono.

No bleep.

All the copyright laws and their extensions in the current forms as previously mentioned in this thread (which you apparently support) go very much against it.

Only to copyright violators. I notice you have at no time made a suggestion of what you think would be a just copyright.

Such laws, since they are not doing anything good for its society but are just designed to allow only small group of people to profit from them, such laws obviously work against the society. Hence they are "bad laws" and the society in which such laws are enforced by the corrupted lawmakers usually fight them - or don't give a shit about them at least (this explains current "digital piracy phenomena" very well, doesn't it? )

Well your attitude is clearly pro piracy anyway. You really have no idea of economics just a lot of cant. From what I can see you would have the world stuck in a past with no incentive for creativity.

[ricardouk]

DereX888 the law says its illegal to do it, if you want the law to change talk to your local representative like Ethlred said.

With each comment you make you're getting further from the topic, people have been used to "get away" with it for a long time. Of course Viacom is completely right in suing Youtube in my opinion, its their work, their money, wheter its a 1 minute clip or a 10 minute clip, its their work, if it hurts the sale or not i dont know all i know its their material they have rights over it.

Also i think youtube could do a lot more to stop this clips from showing up, take dailymotion for example....

[AlanHK]

The US law changed in part to match the Berne Convention which has a longer than the US used to have. Of course the large corporations did indeed push for the change but they didn't have to push the rest of the world as many already had longer durations than the US. Where they are pushing is in countries that have no concept of copyright. Most of Asia for instance.

"Most of Asia" has copyright laws. They may not enforce them rigorously, but they have the laws. Like all countries, they concentrate on enforcing laws that benefit their own citizens rather than foreigners. (Note that the US was a notorious copyright scofflaw in the 19th century.)

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.

Well I did say last I heard. 2000 isn't all that long ago to me. I believe what I am remembering is when the US signed the Berne Convention and that was back 1989. Are you sure about Sonny Bono the link didn't mention it on that page?

See here for details.

Yes, it IS fair use. You can't be held responsible for what someone else posted.

Now that is wrong.

No, it's not. I was talking about the poster, not the host (Youtube).
And the host, like an ISP, cannot be expected to pre-screen everything its clients want to put online. It's a practical impossibility.

A whole 7 minute scene is not a fragment. A complete Warner Brothers Loony Tune is pretty darn hard to claim is a fragment. 30 seconds maybe. There is ample precedent at that length.

You keep changing the subject. First it was a full length movie. Then the Daily Show. Now a 7 minute cartoon. Each case is different.

I'm sure Youtube boosts sales of many artists.

Agreed. But thats not what the OP was claiming.

It is when they start whining about how much money they've "lost" (always a ridiculously huge amount), and demand damages in proportion.

[AlanHK]

Can you "rip-off" a DEAD person? .

I don't think so but the copyright laws are intended for the dead person's family as well.

No they're not. Source for your claim?
They were supposed to be for the benefit of society, to encourage the creation of useful arts.
Not to provide a perpetual meal ticket for those who inherited or acquired copyrights after the creator died.

[AlanHK]

Oh, just to be pedantic Fantasia is 68 years old not 70. And the last person just died. In much of the world that would have allowed the movie to remain copyrighted for another 50 years or more except that it is subject to corporate duration and not an individual creators duration.

If we're being pedantic:

Fantasia, like almost all movies, was a "work for hire". All the people who worked to create it were under contract that excluded them from any claim on the copyright, in any country.

As it is not and never was copyright by any of the many individuals that worked on it, whether any are alive or dead is irrelevant to any statement about the period of copyright.

[Midzuki]

ricardouk escreveuw:

DereX888 the law says its illegal to do it,
if you want the law to change talk to your local representative like Ethlred said.

OR start acting like the character played by Robert Ginty in a
certain movie from the 80's ( and buy some tons of good-luck as well ).

[thecoalman]

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?

Because thats their rights under the law as it would be for anyone that holds a copyright to material from 70 years ago. The point is this you have tendency to bash the U.S. with wild accusations and assumptions that have little or no basis.

[thecoalman]

There are descendants and relatives of William Shakespeare living in UK and maybe all over the world.
The only difference between them - and "family" of Walt Disney's - is that they didn't create mighty corporation to bend the laws for their own profit.

Wrong again. First Shakepeare's work would be well past the copyright date even it was originally copyrighted so it's really irrelevant as already mentioned. Secondly if a person dies and owns copyrights they can be willed to whoever or go to the estate to be inherited, AFAIK this is automatic and the only legal issue would be over who is inheriting the estate which is another matter entirely. These laws not only apply to Disney but would also apply to your Grandmothers diary if it was original.

Can I register a diary I found in my grandmother's attic?
You can register copyright in the diary only if you own the rights to the work, for example, by will or by inheritance. Copyright is the right of the author of the work or the author's heirs or assignees, not of the one who only owns or possesses the physical work itself. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Who Can Claim Copyright.”

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#diary

Your assumption that these laws are to protect just corporations are false. Ironically most of the copyright laws are set up to protect the little guy from exploitation from large corporations such as the automatic copyright rule. You really should do some research before spouting off, having at least a modicum of knowledge on a subject you wish to comment on is usually in your best interests instead of spreading a bunch of bullshit.

[usually_quiet]

The following link spells out the basics on the length of time for which a copyright is valid in the US: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html#duration

Now, for the most part, it's the life of the author, plus 70 years, with provisions for renewal, but there are a number of exceptions to this listed.

[edit] In the case of "works" for hire", the term would be 95 years, most of the time.

[jman98]

Look people, I'm not real happy about the YouTube decision either. However, let's be realistic about what is the problem here. The problem specifically in this case is that the judge is nuts. The bitching about copyright law and such, while you do have points, is really just a distraction from the real point - a crazy judge believes that knowing the viewing habits of all YouTube viewers is relevant to this case.

[Midzuki]

Sadly most lunatics are outside of the madhouse/jail/cemetery and do manage to live
"normal", "healthy" and "productive" lives. Only Lord Kalki will have the
power to stop them. For the time being, The System still is the winner.
"Resistance is futile".

[jagabo]

You can rest assured that nothing created after Mickey Mouse will ever fall out of copyright. Each time Mickey is about to fall out of copyright Disney will buy a few more politicians and have the term lengthened.

[usually_quiet]

You can rest assured that nothing created after Mickey Mouse will ever fall out of copyright. Each time Mickey is about to fall out of copyright Disney will buy a few more politicians and have the term lengthened.

I think many of the original Disney characters, including Mickey, are trademarked, and would be protected that way. There is no time limit on trademarks. It's the works featuring him that are copyrighted.

[ricardouk]

a crazy judge believes that knowing the viewing habits of all YouTube viewers is relevant to this case.

is he that crazy? Look at the amount of complete series uploaded to Youtube, If it was your show, produced by you you wouldnt be to happy as well. Simple search on youtube:

http://youtube.com/results?q=galactica+s04e10&search_type=

Other video websites like youtube wont let users upload those videos (well they are uploaded but they get rejected) so in my opinion Viacom is right on saying they are not doing enough to prevent these situations from happening.

[lordsmurf]

Seeing how most clips are just that -- clips -- lasting a few minutes at most, this whole "copyright protected" stuff is for the birds. Some of the clips are quite informative. If nothing else, it was clips on Youtube that actually pulled me in to watch Colbert, as well as buy his book. Do these nuts not understand the concept of free publicity?

[ricardouk]

Lordsmurf promo stuff like trailers i dont see any harm putting them up on youtube but when users upload full lenght(4 parts) episodes thats another different thing, "im almost certain" Viacom lawsuit is not about promotional clips/trailers.

[AlanHK]

a crazy judge believes that knowing the viewing habits of all YouTube viewers is relevant to this case.

is he that crazy? Look at the amount of complete series uploaded to Youtube, If it was your show, produced by you you wouldnt be to happy as well.

I don't care how happy they are. They have no right (morally) to spy on me.
They can find who uploaded the files and chase them if they want to.

[edDV]

a crazy judge believes that knowing the viewing habits of all YouTube viewers is relevant to this case.

is he that crazy? Look at the amount of complete series uploaded to Youtube, If it was your show, produced by you you wouldnt be to happy as well.

I don't care how happy they are. They have no right (morally) to spy on me.
They can find who uploaded the files and chase them if they want to.

Google is keeping your entire search history. You can even access it. Nothing is private on the internet.

[wulf109]

I remember in the early 90's when I discovered the internet you could do a Yahoo search and find actual information on the subject you searched. Today you'll come up with a list of offers to sell you something usually un-related to your search. The internet hasn't been "free" for many years. It has de-generated into a retail outlet and we have only ourselves and the greed of many to thank.

[DereX888]

DereX888 the law says its illegal to do it, if you want the law to change talk to your local representative like Ethlred said.

With each comment you make you're getting further from the topic, people have been used to "get away" with it for a long time. Of course Viacom is completely right in suing Youtube in my opinion, its their work, their money, wheter its a 1 minute clip or a 10 minute clip, its their work, if it hurts the sale or not i dont know all i know its their material they have rights over it.

Also i think youtube could do a lot more to stop this clips from showing up, take dailymotion for example....

I haven't said anything different than what you have just said, read it again
(IMO) According to the current "law" Viacom is completely right and youtube is at fault, have you missed that part?
However.
My point from very begining is that it is completely pointless whether youtuvbe or viacom is wrong, because it is based on the current unjust laws that are WRONG. When any law at some point allowed any company (or person) to hold copyrights for 70 YEARS to their work, it is this "bad law" that need to be changed. It is not us, the consumers (or other companies), who should comply with such bad laws, it is our lawmakers who need to fix it ASAP before it is too late.
This subject unfortunately is very political, and there is no way to discuss it without straying deeper into politics.
You can't discuss why bread is what it is without involving farmers harvesting the crops, mills making flour, etc etc.
I hate politics, but some subjects like this one simply cannot be discussed without involving politics.
Any law ("good" or "bad") is politics.

There are descendants and relatives of William Shakespeare living in UK and maybe all over the world.
The only difference between them - and "family" of Walt Disney's - is that they didn't create mighty corporation to bend the laws for their own profit.

Wrong again. First Shakepeare's work would be well past the copyright date even it was originally copyrighted so it's really irrelevant as already mentioned. Secondly if a person dies and owns copyrights they can be willed to whoever or go to the estate to be inherited, AFAIK this is automatic and the only legal issue would be over who is inheriting the estate which is another matter entirely. These laws not only apply to Disney but would also apply to your Grandmothers diary if it was original.

You completely miss the point that "it would be past the copyrights" only according to current laws - but what about tomorrow?
Today corporation forced the copyrights to last way more than a century already, and tomorrow same corrupted lawmakers may extend it for a millennium or two.
If the general public would have been more informed before such laws were passed, I am sure there would have been loud and clear protests against it. But since the same corporations are the ones delivering information to the society, hence there never was any discussion about it, and it may (or actually *will*) happen again exactly in the same sneaky way, without society's consensus or even knowledge.

Your assumption that these laws are to protect just corporations are false. Ironically most of the copyright laws are set up to protect the little guy from exploitation from large corporations such as the automatic copyright rule. You really should do some research before spouting off, having at least a modicum of knowledge on a subject you wish to comment on is usually in your best interests instead of spreading a bunch of bullshit.

I agree, the copyright laws were designed to protect the little guys from exploitation by big sharks. Same as i.e. workers unions and many other things. All of it has been by now corrupted in so many ways and on so many levels, that I don't even want to talk about it here (politics - me hate it).
/edit/
Simply if it were still true, the movie like "Fantasia" would have not been still copyrighted after 70 years, don't you understand it?
These laws protect corporations like Disney, not the creators (who are long dead for crying out loud!). How freaking hard it is to understand? Corporations don't die, only humans do.

[Nelson37]

Making a buck on something IS the answer.

Look around you. Nearly everything you own is there because someone built, designed, and/or sold it BECAUSE they could make a buck doing so. Examine production amounts and quality coming from countries where they do NOT make a buck on it. Ever seen a Russian Moskva car, or a Yugo? Want one?

When someone owns property, they get to decide what it will or will not be sold for, or how it is used. If you do not like the price, don't buy it, make your own.

I think I should be able to use your car, whenever I want, for $20.00. I won't use it long. You've had plenty of use out of it, I think you should walk more, I have decided this is fair.

[DereX888]

Making a buck on something IS the answer.

Look around you. Nearly everything you own is there because someone built, designed, and/or sold it BECAUSE they could make a buck doing so. Examine production amounts and quality coming from countries where they do NOT make a buck on it. Ever seen a Russian Moskva car, or a Yugo? Want one?

When someone owns property, they get to decide what it will or will not be sold for, or how it is used. If you do not like the price, don't buy it, make your own.

I think I should be able to use your car, whenever I want, for $20.00. I won't use it long. You've had plenty of use out of it, I think you should walk more, I have decided this is fair.

Honestly I think you are stupid!
Comparing copyrights that are extended to relatives/offspring/or corporations to last more more than century to communism? Right, very much on the subject... (and FYI, in communist countries everything belong to state, or could have been taken by state at any moment if the need arised or just because The Party said so - even though they had some "copyright" laws).

Some art (like movies) - same as i.e. scientific innovations - by law becomes public property after certain period of time, even under current twisted copyright laws. It is for the good of the society and for the progress of all of us. It has nothing to do with communism, LOL
"Property" like your car or house is completely different from "property" like your invention or your art.
They always were and always will be treated differently.
If you really can't see difference between ownership of a car and ownership of a copyrighted work, well... my first sentence stands valid and true

The problem we have now is that the corporations extended such law protection to last way, WAY beyond creator's lifetime - because only corporations can last that long, and it is the corporations like Disney who own most of the copyrights.
I don't remember how long i.e. current bio/medical patents last, but I am sure it is not more than 50 years (or IIRC much less), because it is enough time to make your profit from your invention (your fault if you didn't) - and in the same time it still doesn't hamper the progress of civilization, allowing others to build upon your invention or innovation within relatively short time span. Why the "movie business" have "better" terms with their copurights? Simply because they are the largest corporations with enough means to corrupt our lawmakers and laws in their favor (well, unless you know of any better explanation why profiting from "Fantasia" should by law last much longer than profiting from inventing of any important drugs/medicine?)

[edDV]

I think I should be able to use your car, whenever I want, for $20.00. I won't use it long. You've had plenty of use out of it, I think you should walk more, I have decided this is fair.

I want to use it for free, and if I crash it you better have good insurance because I'm going to sue you for negligent maintenance.

That is what it's like to be in business.

[DereX888]

I think I should be able to use your car, whenever I want, for $20.00. I won't use it long. You've had plenty of use out of it, I think you should walk more, I have decided this is fair.

I want to use it for free, and if I crash it you better have good insurance because I'm going to sue you for negligent maintenance.

That is what it's like to be in business.

That's right.


"We make movies and we want to profit from them for as long as we say so AND even for the lifetime of few generations of our offspring.
YOU (the public) must comply because we are God, we make the laws, and we have means to use your public law enforcement against you whenever we want.
If you don't like it don't watch our movies (and our television, and our radio, and our music) - just die or behave like you were living on remote deserted island if you don't like it.
(oh and BTW - you can't make and distribute your own movies competing with ours, because all networks and all media and all distribution ways belong to us, stupid! - don't even think about it so you better comply or die)"

signed: MPAA, RIAA, and others

Isn't that what the law say? (just using different choice of words)