What's The Deal With YouTube?

[pakopako]

YouTube is also owned by Google now, and gets sued a lot by the likes of Viacom and other media distributors.

[J T]

I get that the legal consequences are there. I just think lawyers have ruined this country. We need laws to make it a decent place to live, yes, but not to make life so oppressively filled with rules that even the slightest violation is cause for worry. Piracy is a problem, sure. Somebody making a graduation video with Pomp & Circumstance laid over the top and manages to get maybe 100 hits on youtube is really not the kind of piracy that is all that harmful though.

Another example of how ridiculously oppressive copyright laws can be is that my wife once tried to get some wedding pictures printed at Wallgreens and they wouldn't do it because they said they looked too professional and they didn't believe my wife took the pictures (which she did). They were acting in this assanine way simply because of fear of a copyright infringement lawsuit. It was not only frustrating, but also insulting (to assume she couldn't do this) while being oddly complimentary (to say the pictures looked so professional).

[Inazuma]

Copyright laws were created before the internet changed everything. They seriously need to be updated for modern times. However, there are two things that prevent this problem from being fixed.

Old fucks, who have no idea what a computer is, yet they are in charge of running a major company or deciding on important issues in a court room. "Oh? This lass was stealing music cds with computers? OK, let's fine her $8,000,000. Sound fa- oh, my dentures fell out. Sounds fair to me!"

And evil fucks, who run many of the big media companies, such as the RIAA and MPAA. They will do anything to make as much money as possible, no matter how many toes they need to step on. They won't hesitate to sue their own customers and ruin their lives over downloading a few songs or movies. They also have more power than the government itself. If they want to create some fucking absurd law to help them make more money or take away more freedoms, they just need to throw some millions of dollars at the right people, and it ends up becoming reality.

The best thing for us is to not support these horrible companies. If they don't have money, they will be powerless.

[noiseredux]

Copyright laws were created before the internet changed everything. They seriously need to be updated for modern times. However, there are two things that prevent this problem from being fixed.

Old fucks, who have no idea what a computer is, yet they are in charge of running a major company or deciding on important issues in a court room. "Oh? This lass was stealing music cds with computers? OK, let's fine her $8,000,000. Sound fa- oh, my dentures fell out. Sounds fair to me!"

And evil fucks, who run many of the big media companies, such as the RIAA and MPAA. They will do anything to make as much money as possible, no matter how many toes they need to step on. They won't hesitate to sue their own customers and ruin their lives over downloading a few songs or movies. They also have more power than the government itself. If they want to create some fucking absurd law to help them make more money or take away more freedoms, they just need to throw some millions of dollars at the right people, and it ends up becoming reality.

The best thing for us is to not support these horrible companies. If they don't have money, they will be powerless.

don't forget about the old evil fucks!

[Luke]

Somebody making a graduation video with Pomp & Circumstance laid over the top and manages to get maybe 100 hits on youtube is really not the kind of piracy that is all that harmful though.

I thought for sure Pomp & Circumstance was public domain. Weird. Maybe it was a certain recording of it that caught attention.

[J T]

Somebody making a graduation video with Pomp & Circumstance laid over the top and manages to get maybe 100 hits on youtube is really not the kind of piracy that is all that harmful though.

I thought for sure Pomp & Circumstance was public domain. Weird. Maybe it was a certain recording of it that caught attention.

Pomp & Circumstance is public domain, which means I could have used an original recording or perhaps a really old recording. I chose one that was more recently recorded by someone who was not me, therefore it was a violation of copyright for that specific recording of the song.

[Luke]

Pomp & Circumstance is public domain, which means I could have used an original recording or perhaps a really old recording. I chose one that was more recently recorded by someone who was not me, therefore it was a violation of copyright for that specific recording of the song.

That was what I thought. Problem solved; use an original recording that is public domain and there ya go.

[skate323k137]

Youtube probably doesn't actively go through the stuff. Some of it like audio is auto detected, but people like the band/their agents probably file DMCA notices.

If you don't know how a DMCA works, it's (relatively) simple. Let's pretend you own youtube, and someone sends you a DMCA. The notice will basically contain:

-A description of the work that is claimed to be infringed
-Description of where that work is contained on the site in question (URL)
-Name, Address, Telephone, e-mail of the complaining party
-A "A statement by the complaining party that they have good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law"
-A "statement by the complaining party, made under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notice is accurate, and that they are the copyright owner or legally authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner.
- An "electronic or physical" signature of the complaining party.

When you get this you have two options.

A. take down the content.

B. File a "counter notice." A counter notice basically has to have the same things as the notice, including your name and address, description of the content, and a statement that it doesn't infringe on copyright or was removed by a mistake or mis-identification. You also have to agree that the other party can file legal proceedings against you in an applicable jurisdiction. If you file a counter notice you can leave the content up until legal action is taken.

SO- you get a DMCA for a video that some user uploaded to your site. Are you going to

A. take down the content?
or
B. Swear under penalty of perjury that the video doesn't violate copyright and give the complaining party permission to proceed with legal action?

Sure, it sucks that they nuked peoples accounts over something so stupid. It also sucks someone would file this over a video they didn't take themselves... but when faced with a DMCA, you pretty much take it down or agree to the risk of being sued. I would never expect google to file a counter-notice for their users. They probably just nuke any URL that a DMCA is filed for.

[Luke]

What we really should be discussing is how awesome cease and desist letters are. Getting a letter from Michael Buffer's attorney to refrain from the use of "Let's get ready to rumble" is frame worthy.

[GSZX1337]

Another example of how ridiculously oppressive copyright laws can be is that my wife once tried to get some wedding pictures printed at Wallgreens and they wouldn't do it because they said they looked too professional and they didn't believe my wife took the pictures (which she did).

I work as a Wal-Greens Photo Tech and what that guy did was dumbfuckery. If your wife said she took the photos, then the Photo Tech there should have handed her a release form that says that she did take those pictures.