Interesting take on Youtube copyright fight
- Thread starter pixelated
- Start date
Kirk Gillock
Rebel with a cause
Let's hope you're joking.
He's not trying to shutdown YouTube. He's trying to protect all us filmmakers from having our work stolen and from YouTube making money from other people's copyrighted material. ...But, don't worry, we'll still be able to see people getting hit in the groin with baseball bats. ...Nature always finds away. lol
HorseFilms
Look ma no hands
But, don't worry, we'll still be able to see people getting hit in the groin with baseball bats. ...Nature always finds away. lol
As long as ABC is still on the air, that'll never be taken away from us.
TwistedLincoln
Veteran
I have to disagree. The issue here isn't just YouTube making money because it gets more hits from people wanting to view content that shouldn't have been posted.
The issue here is that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, while certainly a horrid piece of legislation as a whole, does have one bright spot -- it provides protections for those who run websites that accept user-submitted content.
According to the DMCA, if the website takes immediate action to remove copyrighted material after it receives a complaint from the holders, it is not liable for the infringement -- only the user who posted it is.
If this lawsuit is successful, this provision would no longer be applicable. In that event, websites that accept user-submitted content (including this one) could be easily subject to lawsuits even it it takes reasonable measures to prevent users from posting unauthorized material.
Think of it this way -- what if DVXuser could be shut down due to a lawsuit stemming from it's user's posting any of the many celebrity photos on this thread:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=58329
My guess is that nobody took those photos themselves... and while no reasonable person would sue over such postings, it would only take one disgruntled fool to completely shut down this site over such a thing without the current protections.
Webmasters should of course take reasonable steps to keep their site's users from doing illegal things on their sites. But everyone's definition of "reasonable" is different-- that's why these protections exist. If the website owners could be held responsible for all content posted on their site, then my guess is most sites would simply not allow ANY user-submitted content.
Even if a site vetted each and every submission prior to it showing up live on the site, it would only take one accidental oversight and the site could die. No one could be expected to be able to research and verify the copyright status of each and every submission to a site.
So as it stands, the DMCA places the burden on the copyright holder to report the violation -- clearly it is easier for a copyright holder to recognize their own content, but is is impossible for a webmaster to recognize all copyrighted material that is posted without permission.
Wow... I never thought I'd ever defend any part of the DMCA... But when the day finally comes and it is reversed, I'll be the first to fight for new legislation that retains the protections for those who run websites that accept user-submitted content.
ugafan
Looking for a woman
and most importantly, i don't want to risk the possibility of not being able to view hilarious groin injuries.
Steve_Arm
Well-known member
yea, the gall of him to protect his own property
Kirk Gillock
Rebel with a cause
Well said, TwistedLincoln. But I guess I have a problem with the whole "hosting" issue.
Websites should be held accountable for any copyrighted materials "hosted" on their website. No if's, and's or, but's. The same goes for photos posted in forums. (Fortunately, a lot of photos posted here are hosted else where. lol) If a user submits a link to an article, photo, or video, then this would clear the website of any wrong doing. But if the website hosts the actual photo and/or video then they should be held accountable for being in possesion of stolen goods. lol
And I guess that's my point. "Hosting" copyrighted materials is where I believe the line should be drawn. And YouTube is a video host. That's all they do. But that doesn't give them a license to kill. If users want to post copyrighted material then they should simply post a link back to the original video. But, as of now, YouTube "agrees" to host the copyrighted materials until the original copyright holder realizes what's happening and complains. And that's wrong.
Stealing is still considered stealing, even if the other person doesn't realize they've been robbed yet. ....And if the stolen items are being sold by YouTube then they should be accountable too.
Websites should be held accountable for any copyrighted materials "hosted" on their website. No if's, and's or, but's. The same goes for photos posted in forums. (Fortunately, a lot of photos posted here are hosted else where. lol) If a user submits a link to an article, photo, or video, then this would clear the website of any wrong doing. But if the website hosts the actual photo and/or video then they should be held accountable for being in possesion of stolen goods. lol
And I guess that's my point. "Hosting" copyrighted materials is where I believe the line should be drawn. And YouTube is a video host. That's all they do. But that doesn't give them a license to kill. If users want to post copyrighted material then they should simply post a link back to the original video. But, as of now, YouTube "agrees" to host the copyrighted materials until the original copyright holder realizes what's happening and complains. And that's wrong.
Stealing is still considered stealing, even if the other person doesn't realize they've been robbed yet. ....And if the stolen items are being sold by YouTube then they should be accountable too.
Last edited:
ugafan
Looking for a woman
a man can earn millions of dollars for videotaping someone being beaten within an inch of his life. isn't it somewhat ironic that a video of a man getting his head bashed in by an angry mob is considered "intellectual property"? and yet the man who was actually beaten doesn't get a dime from the video.
it's a strange world...
it's a strange world...
Kirk Gillock
Rebel with a cause
I totally agree. And if anyone else thinks it's strange that the guy who got beaten doesn't get any money then I suggest NOT watching any more YouTube videos involving fights, car accidents, or any other victim-based videos (including groin hits), because YouTube makes millions from those videos and the victims groins never see a dime.
That's why the Internet can be so dangerous. Because we never see the victims of our clicks. We think we're not doing any harm ("what's one download going to hurt?"), but our clicking habits do effect (and even hurt) others. We just don't care as long as it doesn't hurt us. ....Now THAT'S really strange.
Last edited: