Decision on YouTube proves that Capitalism has gone too far.

[edDV]

I don't care as much about the copyright term as I do about clarification of "fair use" of copyright material particularly for home time shift use. The MPAA knows they are on shaky legal ground* on "fair use" so instead they are building an HDCP/Broadcast Flag moat around their library regardless of copyright ownership. They can only do this with cooperation from their friends in Congress. The equipment makers and cable/sat companies aren't excited about all this government control and would prefer more freedom.


* they can't control as many Justices as they can Congressmen.

[DereX888]

* they can't control as many Justices as they can Congressmen.

And that's where we still can hope for fair and just laws overruling unjust corpocracy's corrupted laws such as current copyrights.

Broadcast flag and similar bullshit are related to copyrights, after all.
You can't excercise "fair use" law when another law says you can't circumvent broadcast flag.
Its like they were selling bread in wrapper - and yes, you can eat the bread anytime you want, but you are not allowed to tear and remove the wrapper from the bread... what a bullshit.

[edDV]

* they can't control as many Justices as they can Congressmen.

And that's where we still can hope for fair and just laws overruling unjust corpocracy's corrupted laws such as current copyrights.

I don't see Congress messing with Copyright as much as copy protection. Hollywood interests have been heavily financing Congressional campaigns for years and they want pay back.

[Blofelds Cat]

One phrase: Free Worldwide Product Promotion

In the extreme it could be reasonably argued that facilities such as YouTube not only provides 'billions' (as calculated using the same formulae which the Entertainment Industry uses to 'prove' financial loss to 'piracy') of dollars in free advertising for the copyright holders of copyrighted material; but also generates incalculable interest - and, therefore, a proportional increase in revenue - in material which might otherwise never spark the interest or come to the attention of current and succeeding generations.

In other words, YouTube and its competitors should be regarded as a boon, not a burden, to the Entertainment Industry. Alas, the Entertainment Industry is obsessed with the revenue it imagines it is losing, rather than fully appreciating the revenue it is actually making.

Of course it can be argued that claims about the revenue and interest, generated by Youtube video's, in a given piece of copyrighted material can never be reliably quantified but then neither can revenue supposedly 'lost' to 'copyright theft' be accurately measured either. However, as a fundamental of the so-called Capitalist system is, advertising works, then the application of logic would tend to support my theory relating to a hitherto unsounded' revenue source.

Published figures relating to the sale of legitimate audio and video product clearly demonstrate that the greater majority of consumers do not support, in any way, pirated product. The incredible success of iTunes is testament to the fact that the majority would happily pay to download music. The Entertainmnt Industry appears to fix no value to the honesty of the consumer, preferring instead to treat every consumer as copyright-infringing, thieving scum. The sooner this attitude changes the better - a situation which, of course, will never eventuate.

cheers.

[FulciLives]

One phrase: Free Worldwide Product Promotion

In the extreme it could be reasonably argued that facilities such as YouTube not only provides 'billions' (as calculated using the same formulae which the Entertainment Industry uses to 'prove' financial loss to 'piracy') of dollars in free advertising for the copyright holders of copyrighted material; but also generates incalculable interest - and, therefore, a proportional increase in revenue - in material which might otherwise never spark the interest or come to the attention of current and succeeding generations.

In other words, YouTube and its competitors should be regarded as a boon, not a burden, to the Entertainment Industry. Alas, the Entertainment Industry is obsessed with the revenue it imagines it is losing, rather than fully appreciating the revenue it is actually making.

Of course it can be argued that claims about the revenue and interest, generated by Youtube video's, in a given piece of copyrighted material can never be reliably quantified but then neither can revenue supposedly 'lost' to 'copyright theft' be accurately measured either. However, as a fundamental of the so-called Capitalist system is, advertising works, then the application of logic would tend to support my theory relating to a hitherto unsounded' revenue source.

Published figures relating to the sale of legitimate audio and video product clearly demonstrate that the greater majority of consumers do not support, in any way, pirated product. The incredible success of iTunes is testament to the fact that the majority would happily pay to download music. The Entertainmnt Industry appears to fix no value to the honesty of the consumer, preferring instead to treat every consumer as copyright-infringing, thieving scum. The sooner this attitude changes the better - a situation which, of course, will never eventuate.

cheers.

I just wanted to say that this was so well put and so very well written that I have to say BRAVO! A job well done!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[DereX888]

One phrase: Free Worldwide Product Promotion

In the extreme it could be reasonably argued that facilities such as YouTube not only provides 'billions' (as calculated using the same formulae which the Entertainment Industry uses to 'prove' financial loss to 'piracy') of dollars in free advertising for the copyright holders of copyrighted material; but also generates incalculable interest - and, therefore, a proportional increase in revenue - in material which might otherwise never spark the interest or come to the attention of current and succeeding generations.

In other words, YouTube and its competitors should be regarded as a boon, not a burden, to the Entertainment Industry. Alas, the Entertainment Industry is obsessed with the revenue it imagines it is losing, rather than fully appreciating the revenue it is actually making.

Of course it can be argued that claims about the revenue and interest, generated by Youtube video's, in a given piece of copyrighted material can never be reliably quantified but then neither can revenue supposedly 'lost' to 'copyright theft' be accurately measured either. However, as a fundamental of the so-called Capitalist system is, advertising works, then the application of logic would tend to support my theory relating to a hitherto unsounded' revenue source.

Published figures relating to the sale of legitimate audio and video product clearly demonstrate that the greater majority of consumers do not support, in any way, pirated product. The incredible success of iTunes is testament to the fact that the majority would happily pay to download music. The Entertainmnt Industry appears to fix no value to the honesty of the consumer, preferring instead to treat every consumer as copyright-infringing, thieving scum. The sooner this attitude changes the better - a situation which, of course, will never eventuate.

cheers.

I just wanted to say that this was so well put and so very well written that I have to say BRAVO! A job well done!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

That's true.
But the 'problem' with it is that the corporations obviously will never 'complain' about someone 'illegally' boosting their sales

BTW:
Let's say youtube could prove boosting sales of "Fantasia", could they be legally allowed to ask (or sue) viacom for portion of the profit they have actually generated for them? (I think not, but I'm not a lawyer).

[AlanHK]

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.

When people try to argue that copyright is like a car, all logic has gone.

[Hank Kinsley]

One phrase: Free Worldwide Product Promotion

In the extreme it could be reasonably argued that facilities such as YouTube not only provides 'billions' (as calculated using the same formulae which the Entertainment Industry uses to 'prove' financial loss to 'piracy') of dollars in free advertising for the copyright holders of copyrighted material; but also generates incalculable interest - and, therefore, a proportional increase in revenue - in material which might otherwise never spark the interest or come to the attention of current and succeeding generations.

In other words, YouTube and its competitors should be regarded as a boon, not a burden, to the Entertainment Industry. Alas, the Entertainment Industry is obsessed with the revenue it imagines it is losing, rather than fully appreciating the revenue it is actually making.

Of course it can be argued that claims about the revenue and interest, generated by Youtube video's, in a given piece of copyrighted material can never be reliably quantified but then neither can revenue supposedly 'lost' to 'copyright theft' be accurately measured either. However, as a fundamental of the so-called Capitalist system is, advertising works, then the application of logic would tend to support my theory relating to a hitherto unsounded' revenue source.

Published figures relating to the sale of legitimate audio and video product clearly demonstrate that the greater majority of consumers do not support, in any way, pirated product. The incredible success of iTunes is testament to the fact that the majority would happily pay to download music. The Entertainmnt Industry appears to fix no value to the honesty of the consumer, preferring instead to treat every consumer as copyright-infringing, thieving scum. The sooner this attitude changes the better - a situation which, of course, will never eventuate.

cheers.

This is the best post of the topic! Congrats Blofelds Cat.

The phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," comes to mind in regards to this topic. On a plus/minus scale, YouTube is definitely helping people get interested in different shows, artists, and programs and therefore putting money in corporations pockets. Only these 'dinosaurs' with pathetic and stagnant management believe it to be bad. It's evolution - you either adapt (to the new technology), or you die. It's just sick that these greedy, money grubbers will trample on our rights as citizens in order to ultimately prove themselves wrong! Laughable and sad.

Hopefully YouTube will just get hosted in a different country that won't release any info to any corporation. Canada is still forward thinking in these regards, unless their new legislation passes (which it won't due to the minority conservative gov't).

[Midzuki]

Hank Kinsley wrote:

It's evolution - you either adapt to the new technology, or you die.

Please do not place a biological theory, a philosophical conception and a brief
moment of the recent World History into the same bowl.

[SatStorm]

EBN said it all 15 years ago on the 90s classic VHS release "Entertainment Commercial Product". Youtube it and if you can stand it, watch it (it's not easy...).

Also realise that: 15 years ago, something like EBN (or Lucky People Center, etc) was possible. In today's copyright world, it is not. Ask yourself why.

[Conquest10]

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.

Wow. That has got to be THE stupidest thing I have ever heard.

A more sensible argument would be that you have the right to my car after I die. Sure you can have it for $20. What do I need the $20 for? I'm dead. Why am I still entitled to own it for 70 years after my death? It serves me no purpose.

[Nelson37]

Property rights are property rights, you either respect them or you do not. These rights are the fundamental cornerstone of our economy, and from this basis comes most of our freedoms.

The abandonment of legal ownership of property does NOT occur at time of death, property is passed on to heirs or descendants, as decided by the owner of said property.

The arguments that "they don't need it", or "it makes no sense for then to keep it", are those used by thieves or communinsts who believe thet they, and not the legal owners of the property in question, have the right or authority to determine how someone else's property should be best used.

A few months before my grandfather died, he bought an expensive automobile which he only drove a few miles. He earned the money, he wanted the car, and did not give a damn what anybody else thought would be a better use for his assets.

The arguments most are espousing lead logically to someone, somewhere, deciding FOR YOU how it is that YOUR PERSONAL ASSETS are to be used or distributed. Usually by somebody whose idea of "work" involves deciding who has "too much".

BTW, my grandfather was a corporation, was worth over a million, he earned every dime of it, and fully intended to blow it all before he died. His call, nobody else's.

[Kayembee]

Property rights are property rights, you either respect them or you do not.

I get so sick of hearing nonsense like this repeated. Listen, and understand: there is
simply no such thing as absolute property rights in the law, period. You own NOTHING
that cannot be taken away from you, legally, under various circumstances. Your home
can be taken from you, under eminent domain; other personal, physical property
can be lost via forfeiture and seizure actions.

Intellectual property rights are even muddier. Know what you get paid if you own the
performance copyright on a record played on the radio? Nada. Zip. Nor can you
refuse permission for the record to be played. That's the law, at least in the US.

If you have the composition copyright on the song in question you do get paid, but
it's a statutory fee - you can't negotiate it and, once again, you can't refuse to allow
your song to be played. It's called a "mandatory license".

Intellectual property rights are, without exception (and despite the best efforts of
RIAA and MPAA lobbyists), more limited than rights to physical property, both in
theory and in practise. The contrary notion is a Jack Valenti wet dream, not law.

None of the above is particularly relevant to the YouTube vs. Viacom matter, but
it is relevant to people making analogies between stealing cars and
infringing a copyright, and claiming it's the "same thing".

[Supreme2k]

AlanHK and Conquest10,
Exactly.


Reminds me of the "stop all the downloading!" people who equate downloading a few songs to breaking into a house and robbing the place.
As I've said before, if someone can come into my house, "rob" me to the extent that absolutely nothing is gone and leave no trace of their "breaking in", I say more power to them.

[Nelson37]

Interesting how people read. I never stated the two situations are "the same thing". The simple fact is that few people here have a copyright to which to make a comparison. What is the "same thing" is people stating "I want it, so I will take it".

Seizure, forfeiture, and eminent domain cases all involve legal procedures with a chance to defend your property, and usually compensation.

"Limited" rights are STILL rights.

People who make a record sign a contract and are compensated. Those who pay them undertake certain risks and expense with the expectation to be able to profit. If the artist does not like the deal, he or she is free to say no, or to negotiate a deal they like better.

If you don't like the law, work to change it. If you choose to break the law, You listen and You understand that no amount of rationalization prevents you from being a criminal.

There are folks stating they understand copyrights are being broken, and then stating it should be OK because, in their opinion, the copyright is unreasonable, or their actions are actually helping the copyright holder. This is simply not relevant. Businesses often make silly or unreasonable decisions, just like people. Those who do are usually less successful than those who do not. But, unless YOU run the business in question, it is their decision, and not yours.

Debating whether or not a downloader would ever have actually purchased the artistic work, or not, is another question. The laws in place can be used to prosecute such actions as criminal. Most criminals do not like being caught. Most also try to justify their actions. Very few succeed in convincing anyone, other than their fellow criminals.

[usually_quiet]

AlanHK and Conquest10,
Exactly.


Reminds me of the "stop all the downloading!" people who equate downloading a few songs to breaking into a house and robbing the place.
As I've said before, if someone can come into my house, "rob" me to the extent that absolutely nothing is gone and leave no trace of their "breaking in", I say more power to them.

If you somehow found out about it anyway, it wouldn't bother you? It would me, even under those circumstances. With very few exceptions, I expect people to ask my permission before entering my home. Let's say that while they were there, they took photographs of everything in your house, and posted them online. Would that not bother you?

Money is the biggest part of it, but the other part is that someone is using something they either don't have the right to use, or shouldn't have used, without first asking permission.

[Hank Kinsley]

AlanHK and Conquest10,
Exactly.


Reminds me of the "stop all the downloading!" people who equate downloading a few songs to breaking into a house and robbing the place.
As I've said before, if someone can come into my house, "rob" me to the extent that absolutely nothing is gone and leave no trace of their "breaking in", I say more power to them.

If you somehow found out about it anyway, it wouldn't bother you? It would me, even under those circumstances. With very few exceptions, I expect people to ask my permission before entering my home. Let's say that while they were there, they took photographs of everything in your house, and posted them online. Would that not bother you?

Money is the biggest part of it, but the other part is that someone is using something they either don't have the right to use, or shouldn't have used, without first asking permission.

I think it's better thought of in this way: You own a 200 acre estate and mansion. A few people cut across your property, but the property remains intact, with all the bills paid, and no bills increased because of these 'trespassers'.

The corporations are acting like Mr. Burns! They release the hounds immediately even though they may never even step foot in that section of the estate, and technically the law supports (trespassing) them so it is justified by certain, intensely and blindly strict "sheeple".

Common sense, however, makes this look ludicrous and completely wrong. If a few people cut across, who cares? They aren;t hurting anyone. Is it better to guard the walls with guns to intimidate all that come close? Especially when vast quantities of cash are still being made, and increasing every year.

End of metaphor

[usually_quiet]

I think it's better thought of in this way: You own a 200 acre estate and mansion. A few people cut across your property, but the property remains intact, with all the bills paid, and no bills increased because of these 'trespassers'.

The corporations are acting like Mr. Burns! They release the hounds immediately even though they may never even step foot in that section of the estate, and technically the law supports (trespassing) them so it is justified by certain, intensely and blindly strict "sheeple".

Common sense, however, makes this look ludicrous and completely wrong. If a few people cut across, who cares? They aren;t hurting anyone. Is it better to guard the walls with guns to intimidate all that come close? Especially when vast quantities of cash are still being made, and increasing every year.

End of metaphor

The property owner may be afraid that they'll start encouraging their friends to use the same shortcut, and a path that they don't want to have will eventually appear in their lawn or woods. Maybe they are simply intensely territorial/possesive. I doesn't really matter. If the propery is posted and fenced in, so that people know it's off limits, its up to the property owner, not the trespassers, to decide whether they should or shouldn't do something about people they know are cutting across. If the people who are tresspassing are over the age of twelve, they know they shouldn't be doing it either, even if taking the long way around is inconvenient. End of reply.

I don't recall, has anybody mentioned that YouTube makes more money if more people use their site? If more people are being drawn to the site for the opportunity to view or post copyrighted materials than would otherwise be the case, YouTube may actually be deriving an economic benefit from not policing their ste. That would be a reason for wanting to know whether copyrighted materials are viewed more frequently than the average video post.

[lordsmurf]

The fact that some people here want to seemingly support the out-of-balance laws on copyright makes we want to barf. No wonder the world is so fucked up. You're not only getting screwed, but you support it? What the hell?

I like what Blofelds Cat wrote up above. I don't have time to watch Colbert on Comedy Central. At times, I don't even have access to the channel. Thanks to Youtube, I know who he is, and I was impressed enough to tell others about his show, spread Youtube links to friends (who are now also interested in this character), and at least two of us bought his book. That led to direct sales. Because I use Firefox with Adblock, Youtube didn't make jack crap from my visit. Viacom came out a 100% winner here, and they have Youtube to thank. Don't these morons understand the benefits of this type of marketing? Work with Youtube, don't sue it. Dumbasses.

[DereX888]

The fact that some people here want to seemingly support the out-of-balance laws on copyright makes we want to barf. No wonder the world is so fucked up. You're not only getting screwed, but you support it? What the hell?

Exactly.
(I always smell rats in such situation - like Jack Valenti's dogs behind some nicknames - and I'm not kidding, because I simply refuse that any human being can be *that* stupid)

[Midzuki]

First of all, apologies for the long delay.
From everything I have gone thru when I used to surf on Usenet,
I learned to avoid reading replies which probably would not be worth looking at.

Ethlred wrote:

Midzuki wrote:

"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.

It looks like you have read too many presidential speeches.

Fascism is anti-capitalist at least in the sense of capitalism that Adam Smith had.

1) The Ancient Greeks would not approve the use that has been given to the word
"demokráteia" by the so-called modern and progressist world, granted.

2) You don't (want to) know what you're talking about.
The-capitalism-according-to-Adam-Smith is unstable, and cannot last.
Human nature makes things be so.

[/END-OF-LESSON]

[gll99]

On tv the other day kids spoke of how they live in the now world with instant access to content through cellphones, shared online and device video and social forums. It could be anything, music, a tv show now on the net, a streamed sport or news broadcast or just some funny clip someone made and posted but it has some social value to those who share it with their friends. These are all intertwined and form part of the new culture. TV doesn't exist for many of them. One said, if it's not on the net in video form to share with friends, then it may as well not exist since they won't see it. It has to be online video on demand and "NOW!". The old generation is on the way out. These kids will all take "office" very soon and they want and expect free access to all kinds of content. The laws made today and the corporate "giants" will die off and be replaced with the new blood who understand what people want.

Why worry it will all be reversed soon when the backwards thinking lawmakers and old fogey judges who side with the establshed entertainment industry are sent packing and the new breed takes over. These few confused years (to reverse an expression) are the storm before the calm.

[Supreme2k]

AlanHK and Conquest10,
Exactly.


Reminds me of the "stop all the downloading!" people who equate downloading a few songs to breaking into a house and robbing the place.
As I've said before, if someone can come into my house, "rob" me to the extent that absolutely nothing is gone and leave no trace of their "breaking in", I say more power to them.

If you somehow found out about it anyway, it wouldn't bother you? It would me, even under those circumstances. With very few exceptions, I expect people to ask my permission before entering my home. Let's say that while they were there, they took photographs of everything in your house, and posted them online. Would that not bother you?

Money is the biggest part of it, but the other part is that someone is using something they either don't have the right to use, or shouldn't have used, without first asking permission.

You see, that's exactly the problem of comparing two unlike things. The photos of my home after a "virtual break-in" could have dire effects, like real criminals being able to case my house and really steal things. No amount of downloading is going to remove a physical object from the copyright holders.
A better argument is "What if you came up with an idea/book/song, but you couldn't make money from it because someone else distributed it?" That's comparing apples to apples, not "Since you bought a cd/dvd (of which its express purpose is to be sold and not returned after use), I should be able to borrow your house or car and use it as I see fit (taking it away from you in the process." It would be more appropriate to compare it to a lease/rental to which you have certain terms, but still again, apples and oranges.

[DereX888]

Supreme2k, no one sane here is against copyrights or pro-piracy.
Creators should always be able to make money of of their work, no doubt.
Why even discuss it. Real piracy is a rip-off and stealing obviously.
However posting excerpt from a book (google is chastized for it, and so was Microsoft) nor posting clips from a movie on youtube is not piracy.
Apples and oranges, as you've said.
You can't compare them to any theft or criminals stealing anything from your house, because it is impossible to steal "excerpts" or "clips" or any samples from your property. No single similarities exists between them.
Again, no one here says copyrights per se are wrong - but the copyrights lasting now more than a century ARE wrong!
I ask you: what is so exuberant, so distinguish, so important, even for best movies ever made, to make their copyrights inheritable by the offspring or relatives of their creators and have them copyrighted for more than 100 years, while in the same time truly advanced technologies that are more important to all of us are "copyrighted" (patented) for mere 20 years?
To me it is just a proof that the movie industry have corrupted enough legislators to enforce such laws, otherwise it doesn't make any sense, does it?
Let's say someone creates a "miracle cure" for cancer and today he can profit from it for 20 or so years before it becomes public, while Walt Disney and his offspring profits from his movie for 70 years already, and will profit for many years to come before it *may* become public? (if they will not extend it again).
Do you really not see anything wrong with this picture? :O

[usually_quiet]

Networks and movie companies are making more and more content available on-demand, for free via Internet. Some of what they are offering are clips, but often it is entire episodes. They are in direct competition with YouTube if they are doing any of that. Content providers could make formal arrangements with YouTube to advertise, or make their content available to them, if they wished, but I suppose they don't feel it is worthwhile. They are making it available for free themselves, and likely believe they have enough advertisng positioned elsewhere already, either paid or free. It's people who can't pay for a lot of advertising that benefit most from sites like YouTube.

When content providers offer free on-demand programming they usually want you to see their advertising in addition to watching their content, but YouTube (and VideoHelp, for that matter) does as well. Content providers probably feel they are more entitled to the revenue from doing that than YouTube is, since they own the content people are coming to see.

Good news LS, you don't have to go to YouTube to watch Colbert any more. I went to Comedy Central's website. They are providing full episodes of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report for free. Not all the episodes are there, but recent ones are. You'd have to watch some commercials, but you don't have to pay to see the show, and can watch on a more convenient schedule.

[PuzZLeR]

AlanHK and Conquest10,
Exactly.


Reminds me of the "stop all the downloading!" people who equate downloading a few songs to breaking into a house and robbing the place.
As I've said before, if someone can come into my house, "rob" me to the extent that absolutely nothing is gone and leave no trace of their "breaking in", I say more power to them.

You've really gotta be kidding.

I have security alarms on my house and cars. I don't for one minute think that I'm infringing on someone's rights by creating these barriers. Yes, I will commend someone's intelligence if he/she can break in, but if I can prosecute them, I will do that too. Period.

Although your following post does justify a distinction regarding this case as to physical property, I do believe there's still not much difference.

And that's why I find this thread a bit useless and the fact that we have lost touch with reality here. Yes, the movie studios ARE being greedy and yes they ARE capitalist pigs or whatever you want to call them - but it's THEIR product. It's THEIR possession. It's THEIR property.

And no one has any right to insist that something like a blocky clipping on YouTube is harmless, or even beneficial, to them if they don't want to accept that argument regarding THEIR property.

I do believe YouTube is a benefit more than a problem for these companies in general, and I will agree that the handing over of identifiable user data is extreme where an aggregate total would be enough, but if they want to be greedy it's THEIR right to be. It's THEIR investment into the product, it's THEIR work, and it's THEIR money that was put at risk to deliver it to us.

Laws or no laws - it's THEIR right to feel greedy with it. It's THEIR'S. Is that not clear?

[Midzuki]

PuzZLeR wrote:

but it's THEIR product. It's THEIR possession. It's THEIR property.

Laws or no laws - it's THEIR right to feel greedy with it. It's THEIR'S. Is that not clear?

The beauty of the modern democracy is, it can function as a reasonably-fair
battle arena for the citizens who happen to despise one another.

[Supreme2k]

You've really gotta be kidding.

I have security alarms on my house and cars. I don't for one minute think that I'm infringing on someone's rights by creating these barriers. Yes, I will commend someone's intelligence if he/she can break in, but if I can prosecute them, I will do that too. Period.

But, in my example, the magical pixies who can go into a house, "steal" stuff and leave (mostly) without a trace aren't going to set off your alarms. That's why I said that it is futile to argue the physical in relation to the intellectual property.
I have absolutely nothing against copyright protections, to which DereX888 alluded, but I hate it when people compare downloading (or in this case, uploading) to a violent, physical crime. It seems to be the first thing that proponents of heavy copyright protection pull out, sometimes even comparing it to murder .

[mikel]

Aren't they stealing your future?

[DereX888]

I went to Comedy Central's website. They are providing full episodes of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report for free. Not all the episodes are there, but recent ones are. You'd have to watch some commercials, but you don't have to pay to see the show, and can watch on a more convenient schedule.

Networks don't broadcast their stuff "for free" on the air - viewers pay for it by watching commercials. *
When you have to watch commercials on their website to see an episode it is not for free, you've just paid for it in the very same way as watching broadcast, what's the difference LOL.
What is ridiculus with some of them is that they try to force internet viewers to watch i.e. 1min of commercials in order to see a 20sec clip!
Doing so, and also by adding injected into the picture, it is the networks themselves who actively encourage its own viewers to seek other ways.
But thats just another OT about how they shoot themselves in the foot and yet complain and unfairly seek public assistance to upkeep their businesses.

* as one of the network's execs said it, "tv network is an advertising delivery device first" - the shows (the "content") are being produced only to deliver ads to viewers, not the other way around. As such, networks have nothing to do with content creators - but unfortunately under current status quo it is the networks who funds and therefore keeps the copyrights to majority of the shows/content, it is NOT the creators (in majority of the cases) who are just paid by hours or by single contract, thus the content creators almost NEVER profit from their work in the future - the networks do.
Anti-piracy advertisings, such as the one from MPAA where one of the craftsmen complains about not being paid because of the piracy, no matter how noble is the cause - aret false from the ground up and are lying to the public. No craftspeople on any movie sets ever receive any residuals. Never.