Youtube increases time limit to 15 minutes.

[aedipuss]

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/07/upload-limit-increases-to-15-minutes.html

[Bonie81]

Nice One!
Seems like honey attracting flies.

But, You Tube must....
1) Try to block all videos upload from unauthentic up-loaders who do not hold the copy rights.

2) Try to remove all illegal movies videos part-1, part-3 and part-3 so on...
As Copy Right Laws also prohibits Public Displaying by any means including Brodcast over Internet.

For Example : Tum Milo Toh Sahi 2010 New Hindi Movie Mastispot.tv [Part 1/12]

Original Copy Rights Holder : Fourth Wall Entertainment
Video uploaded to You Tube : MastiHeMasti1 (un-authentic who does not hold copy rights)
Uploaded on : April 02, 2010
Total Number of Videws : 74,182

By now, Fourth Wall Entertainment must have sued You Tube and MastiHeMasti1 (un-authentic who does not hold copy rights) for the damages caused.

[jman98]

Great. Now you've got Bonie81 all riled up again.

[Bonie81]

@ jman98

it is not really about getting riled-up.
it is really about causing damages to industries and tons of artists.

[manono]

As is often the case with Hindi films and music videos, the rights holder signs an agreement with YouTube so that the videos are allowed and the rights holder receives payment from the advertising added around it. That may not be the case here, but I wouldn't declare it illegal unless and until it's blocked. As for causing damage to 'industries and tons of artists', just think of it as free advertising. They've posted only part of the movie and if it's any good, it might cause people to go out and buy the DVD. I've done it many times myself based just on seeing a music video from a film. My contention is that it helps 'industries and tons of artists'. And what do you care whether or not a video is legal? Are you a member of the Copyright Police?

Tum Milo Toh Sahi is in horrible quality, by the way. It was only deinterlaced and is all blurry, and could have been done much better. Also, that example is exactly 10 minutes long and even before now up to 11 minutes was allowed. So, your posts don't have much, if anything, to do with aedipuss's post about the allowed length being extended.

[Bonie81]

@ manono

i work for the industry too...
Never heard of original copyrights holder signs an agreement with you tube as said and get paid as a part of advertisement revenue.
"Hindi films and music videos, the rights holder signs an agreement with YouTube so that the videos are allowed and the rights holder receives payment from the advertising added around it."

Here the link posted for Tum Milo To Sahi is Full Length movie uploaded definitely by an un-authentic uploader who does hold Copy Rights for Public Performance. Definitely, damages revenue to producers and film distributors.

While You Tube already generated minimum 12(parts) x 3 (advertisements/part) x 74,182 (Views) x $ 6.00 (per display -minimum) = $ 16,023,312. How much do you think You Tube might have paid even to un-authentic up-loader or a original Copy Rights Holder?
I do not think even of a single penny. I might be rather happy even un-authentic uploader receive atleast 10% of $ 16,023,312.

And what do you care whether or not a video is legal?
Of course, it is illegal to display Full Length of movie, I mean Public Performance.
It is also illegal to host the videos from unauthentic up-loaders who does not holds Copy Rights, as well.

Are you a member of the Copyright Police?
Will be shortly - a part of a team.

[Bonie81]

Excerpts from US Copy Right Law 2009

Chapter 11 : Sound Recordings and Music Videos

§ 1101 · Unauthorized fxation and traffcking in sound recordings and music videos

(a) Unauthorized Acts.—Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved in
(1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fxation,
(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or
(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffcs in any copy or phonorecord fxed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fxations occurred in the United States,
shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same
extent as an infringer of copyright.

[manono]

You're talking nonsense. From the first link above:

Well, we’ve spent significant resources on creating and improving our state-of-the-art Content ID system and many other powerful tools for copyright owners. Now, all of the major U.S. movie studios, music labels and over 1,000 other global partners use Content ID to manage their content on YouTube.

All the major Indian copyright holders have signed agreements with YouTube including Eros, Rajshri, Shemaroo, Moserbaer, and many others. Just go find a video owned by Shemaroo and watch the ads placed around and on the video. Shemaroo and the others receive a portion of the ad revenue.

Are you a member of the Copyright Police?
Will be shortly - a part of a team.

Then you should be ashamed of yourself. This Tum Milo Toh Sahi movie is receiving free advertising from being available on YouTube and this will result in many more DVDs of it being sold, even though the DVDs are utter garbage (field-blended PAL2NTSC). This is the kind of advertising that money can't buy.

Original Copy Rights Holder : Fourth Wall Entertainment

They may hold the original movie rights, but someone else owns the home video rights, whatever company released the DVD. I don't know, but perhaps they allow this MastiHeMasti1 to release it to YouTube. If the copyright holder to this film on Home Video wants it withdrawn from YouTube, it's an easy matter to get it blocked. Do you think they're unaware of it being there?

[Bonie81]

@ manono

I guess, you are a missing whole point about un-authentic uploader(s) who does not bears or holds the copy rights for the video(s) they upload.
plus ...
How Come A Prominent Web-site Can dare Display Full length of Movie - a Public (Mass) Performance?
How come A Prominent Web-Site -You Tube can tolerate any un-authentic video uploads?
Try to watch the clips from Eros, Rajshri, Shemaroo, Moserbaer, and many others (Authentic Copy Rights and Distribution Rights Holder) and feel the differences by yourself.

I am in touch with Original copy rights Holder for Tum Milo Toh Sahi, it's really not MastiHeMasti1.
So, It's not me should be Ashamed, it's either you on behalf of You Tube or it is You Tube itself has to be ashamed of such a big goof.

One More...and there more than 1000+ to watch un-authentic uploaded Full Length of Movies and videos.
KUCH KUCH HOTA HAI - FULL MOVIE - PART 1 /18 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGWbYEcrEnw
Original Copy Rights Holder : Yashraj Films
Un-authentic Uploader : HoUseFuLLMoVieS (Not a Copy Rights or Distribution Rights Holder)


Taking a little break...

Thanks for all your inputs.

[manono]

No, you're missing the point. As long as the rights holder has signed an agreement with YouTube (has become a a 'Partner') an uploader doesn't have to own the rights. If that weren't true, then 99% of what's on YouTube would be illegal. I have no idea whether or not the rightsholder for Tum Milo Toh Sahi (not Fourth Wall Entertainment but more likely the home video rights holder, something called Shree Intl.) has a partner agreement with YouTube.

How come A Prominent Web-Site -You Tube can tolerate any un-authentic video uploads?

They don't. If informed something shouldn't be there they take it down. It's not their responsibility to inspect everything being uploaded. They use a Content ID system for a lot of material and rely on the real rights holders to inform them of the rest. To repeat, it's not YouTube's responsibility to enforce the copyright laws, beyond what they already do with their Content ID system they've established with their partners. That's another reason for major rights holders to partner with YouTube - then they can set up a Content ID system to identify their material automatically. YouTube recently won a major court case against Viacom absolving them of blame for hosting copyrighted material.

Try to watch the clips from Eros, Rajshri, Shemaroo, Moserbaer, and many others (Authentic Copy Rights and Distribution Rights Holder) and feel the differences by yourself.

I'm not talking about the crap company channels, but amateur channels with uploaded material owned by those companies. To just pick one out of the blue owned by Shemaroo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7nAVMbpYFI&feature=related

The revenue from the ad to the right and the one on the video is shared with Shemaroo.

I think YouTube is providing a great service by hosting videos of all kinds for people to see for free. If much of it is owned by others, then think of it as free advertising for them, and they make money from YouTube indirectly from the sale of videos or from people watching their TV programs or buying their video games, and directly from the advertising around the videos. And I think that you announcing publicly that you're trying to get videos removed is absolutely and totally disgusting. Feel free to have the last word.

[AlanHK]

How Come A Prominent Web-site Can dare Display Full length of Movie - a Public (Mass) Performance?

They don't. Unless it's less than 15 minutes long, they can't.

How come A Prominent Web-Site -You Tube can tolerate any un-authentic video uploads?

They don't. Almost anyone can complain and get a video taken down.

And really, why should anyone care? Having a movie split into 20 parts in low res on Youtube won't cut into the market. Youtube is no substitute for a DVD quality movie. Anyone interested in the movie will either buy it, or just download it in high quality from P2P. Youtube is basically just a preview.

[Bonie81]

@ manono and AlanHK

US Copy Rights Laws 2009 is also posted here (Unauthorized fixation) for ready references
I guess HoUseFuLLMoVieS might have prior consent from Yashraj films and MastiHeMasti1 might have prior consent from Fourth Wall Entertainment to upload full length of movie, or in a part there of.

Anyway nice try!
Rest I am leaving up to the readers.

[AlanHK]

@ manono and AlanHK

US Copy Rights Laws 2009 is also posted here (Unauthorized fixation) for ready references

If your argument is that it's illegal; then that's already been tested in court many times.
Do you really think a billion dollar company could break the law in a way that a random poster on an Internet forum could prove so easily, that all the lawyers in the world have missed?

Anyway, it's Indian laws that apply. US laws are irrelevant.

And this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC UNDER DISCUSSION. Looks like you just paste in your rants against Youtube in every thread you can find a mention.

And what the hell do you think you will achieve by "making your case" here anyway? No one here is concerned with owning, uploading or downloading these movies, no one here is a staff of Youtube. Even if you get "the readers" to agree with you, so what? How will it help you?

I'm enabling you by paying attention to you, so I'll stop doing that now.

[Bonie81]

I'm enabling you by paying attention to you, so I'll stop doing that now.

Made Me Laugh Out Loud.

[Bonie81]

a Joke!

A Que Tube Video Sharing WebSite CEO (A vet from CheatTricks University) discussing copyright issue with uploaders and Que tube users.

Q.T CEO : Damn, it is very difficult to control this Copy Rights.
By the way What exactly this f***ing Copy Rights stands for?
How to differentiate between Authentic and Un-authentic Up loaders?
How come federal got interested to chase the mouse by dropping Rihnos?
These, everything is just over my head. Oh, Gosh!

Authentic Uploader : Never mind, I hold the valid copyrights for all the videos, I uploaded.
and further more, I got the HINT for the Shortestway to be a millionaire.

Un-Authentic Uploader : Before the authorities started chasing mouses, I am outta here!
Started watching Never See... Never Again...
Bye.. Bye.. Here!

User (A Q.T Fan) : Oh, Man, I have to download all HD videos before it starts disappearing.
I have gotta lots to do, lots to download, and lots to backup as well.

[aedipuss]

in the u.s., copyright law doesn't apply to youtube. it only applies to the uploader, they are the violator of copyrights. youtube is only the host and they are protected from prosecution. the host is allowed to host copyright items without breaking any law. they are only obligated to take down alleged illegal videos AFTER dmca notification.

[Bonie81]

@ aedipuss

Looking forward to watch Full Length English Movies in parts on You Tube, as well.
Good Luck!

[MOVIEGEEK]

Bonie81,
A US judge just ruled that you can break DMCA and use short clips for personal use, which includes artistic work:
http://www.techspot.com/news/39775-updated-dmca-legalizes-jailbreaking-dvd-ripping-and-more.html

As aedipuss mentioned a US judge also recently ruled that the host website is not responsible for copyright violations:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/youtube-gives-users-their-15-minutes-of-fame/

Again these rulings only effect Americans.

[aedipuss]

Bonie81,
A US judge just ruled that you can break DMCA and use short clips for personal use, which includes artistic work:
http://www.techspot.com/news/39775-updated-dmca-legalizes-jailbreaking-dvd-ripping-and-more.html

As aedipuss mentioned a US judge also recently ruled that the host website is not responsible for copyright violations:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/youtube-gives-users-their-15-minutes-of-fame/

Again these rulings only effect Americans.

i think this ruling is what you were referring to in the second part.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html?_r=1

[aedipuss]

here let me make it even easier for bonie81 to get the message and learn something.

[Bonie81]

i hv gone thru' the details of Viacom vs you Tube
excerpts
"He also noted that the current system can work well. For example, on Feb. 2, 2007, Viacom identified 100,000 videos that it said violated its copyrights. By the next day, "YouTube had removed virtually all of them," the judge said."

This proves that The Judge and You Tube both agreed that 100,000 illegal videos had already been hosted
It seems that The Judge has been bought by BiG BuCKS!

[lordsmurf]

I only take people seriously when they have an obvious command of spelling and grammar.
Bonie81 fails this litmus test.

[aedipuss]

personally i think instead of captcha new members should be required to solve a quadratic equation....

[Bonie81]

@ lordsmurf & aedipuss

never mind,
personal belief - who cares?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than making any personal comments, I would prefer not to say anything.
Silence means much more than words spoken.

[deadmeow]

Legal and illegal, who cares. It come down to positive and negative. Nobody loses money because of a divx movie 320x240 in 20 peices, with 64k mp3 sound. Same goes for radio broadcasts and free television broadcasts, it comes down to exposure.

What you do comes back to you. If you are a person who giving, it comes back, and that goes for artists of all types. All the love you put into music and art and other creations cannot be stolen. Arbitrary laws made by silly governments are subjective and silly. No person has the right to control another person. Youtube for all!!

[chowmein]

Legal and illegal, who cares. It come down to positive and negative. Nobody loses money because of a divx movie 320x240 in 20 peices, with 64k mp3 sound. Same goes for radio broadcasts and free television broadcasts, it comes down to exposure.

What you do comes back to you. If you are a person who giving, it comes back, and that goes for artists of all types. All the love you put into music and art and other creations cannot be stolen. Arbitrary laws made by silly governments are subjective and silly. No person has the right to control another person. Youtube for all!!

HERE HERE!!!

Bonie81 is a dick.

[Bonie81]

@ chowmein

First, Take some language course.
Second if you are a pussy, then I am ready.

[mbur]

i hv gone thru' the details of Viacom vs you Tube
excerpts
"He also noted that the current system can work well. For example, on Feb. 2, 2007, Viacom identified 100,000 videos that it said violated its copyrights. By the next day, "YouTube had removed virtually all of them," the judge said."

This proves that The Judge and You Tube both agreed that 100,000 illegal videos had already been hosted
It seems that The Judge has been bought by BiG BuCKS!

A totally dumbass conclusion IMHO. What do you think Viacom is? The local corner shop?
Maybe you work for them, Bonie81.
Apart from venting your hysterical suspicions/hatred for Youtube I can't understand the point of your postings here. Try to be a bit more rational.

[jman98]

@ chowmein

First, Take some language course.
Second if you are a pussy, then I am ready.

I'm just pouring gasoline on the fire. I know. Sigh.

Bonie81 - First of all, while your English is good for someone who doesn't speak it as a first language, it is NOT perfect. You make mistakes. Your sentence that begins with "First" has grammatical errors in it. Chowmein's post has no errors. So your point is lost when you made mistakes and he didn't.

In your sentence that beings with "Second", this really makes no sense. No native speaker would say this. Unless maybe he was gay. Obligatory Seinfeld quote - Not that there's anything wrong with that. But your attempt to insult Chowmein has failed.

You're welcome to stick around and be a useful member of the forums, but you really need to give this endless YouTube arguing a rest. If all you have to offer us is rants about how evil YouTube is, you might as well leave. Nobody cares. Why do you care? And why do you ignore the facts as jagabo and others have pointed out that this video is on YouTube LEGALLY with the permission of the copyright owner. When you ignore the facts and continue to insist that you are right even though others have said you are wrong, well, that's just sad. It makes you look pathetic.

[Bonie81]

I'm just pouring gasoline on the fire. I know. Sigh.

Make sure there is no over-flow.

Everybody is well-come to comment about me.

Some people just jumps-in without reading previous posts.
I wud like to repeat again, if anyone missed that out.

never mind,
personal belief - who cares?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than making any personal comments, I would prefer not to say anything.
Silence means much more than words spoken.