Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
accept the last take down request made by viacomm took down 1345 parodies (fair use ) of their content. So if viacomm own takedown request are so flawed, then using that definition in a filter is going to censor parodies based on that copyrighted content.
what if it is used in a parody, what if the song is fully sponsored by advertiser or piracy tax, what if the mick jagger has publically said he doesn't care (see the examples i gave) creating a filter based on what one company who liciences the content for their music station (mtv) without taking into account all of these possiblities is censorship. It represents denying rights people do have with such content.
|
I guess that is a big question and that is the problem with a site like Youtube. They have to decide how to figure out what is authorized and legal and what is not.
Quote:
i suggest you read up on the fair use section
ask yourself a question if an independent study by cbs proves that veiwership is not reduced because of internet distributed tv (piracy and website supported) then there is no economic loss from uploading on youtube .
Supercrew posting their performances from america's best dance crew would build a fan base for themselves without costing viacom a penny in revenue, even though youtube is making money from the advertising surround that video.
the lack of an ecomonic loss would make super crew publishing of their own performance fair use.
The product placement (like the canadian piracy tax) could act as a payment for the distribution and legitimize it as welll making it legal for anyone to post such a video.
|
While there may not be an economic loss to a TV studio because of downloads/piracy there can still be issues because someone else is using your content to make money. Let's look at it from our industry point of view. Say a big site like Twisty's or FTV or any high quality site that shoots their own content has someone join their site and over the course of a month they download all of the content in the member's area. They then put that content up on their own site. They don't don't charge for the site, but they have ads on the site. The site has gigs and gigs of high quality porn so it gets very popular and the owners of the site make some money off the site. While this is happening the site the content came from doesn't see a decreases in signups or rebills so they were not adversely effected by the site. Should they not be able to still sue and protect their content? It may not be hurting them economically, but they should still retain the right to control how and where their content is distributed.
Quote:
re read the beta max case, one of the arguements was that a person could record the show without the commercial (ignoring the commercial) it can't be used as an arguement because it has already been oked.
the size of the circle of friends is irrelevant to the right of timeshifting (and other fair use rights). The question is do i have a right to timeshift content i bought a right to view when i paid my cable bill.
The vcr case said yes i do, and once that happened that content was legally the equivalent to public domain content (because it is outside the scope of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder) as long as i (the uploader not youtube) is not making money from it.
99.5% of the population (according to the census) owns a tv. Each one of those people paid for the right to watch that tv show. which means viewing the video on youtube is the legal equivalent of saying "hey buddy my vcr didn't take america best dance crew, i heard supercrews dance was sick can i borrow your take".
CBS study showing that viewership is not negatively impacted by online distribution blunts the economic cost of showing the video.
Viacom choice not to create an official channel on youtube and upload the video themselves (so they can share the advertising revenue) blunts the economic losses from youtube making money on the advertising.
the problem is the permission or license to use/distribute it.
Fair use grants permission for certain uses
piracy taxes grants permissions for certain uses
performance rights grant permission for certain uses
primary producers may grant permission for certain uses
hell even product placement (like the piracy tax) grants permission for certain uses.
all that youtube has to do to prove that the current law as it is written is good enough
the safe harbour provision / take down request process is the balanced approach to this problem is prove that if they did what viacom wanted one of these people's rights would be hindered or denied.
Right now it cost at least a grand to defend your fair use right to content (for commentary) it is already overly balanced in favor of the copyright holder.
|
I'll not argue the betamax case because I am not familiar with it but I will argue this. You say a show airing on Youtube has no economic impact on the studio. That may be the case. But it does impact the other people in it. When a TV show or movie or music video is aired there are royalties that are paid to the people that are in them. The writers guild just had a strike to get paid for online content and and actors guilds are negotiating for it to. The same with directors who recently signed a deal. So if I upload my favorite sitcom to youtube and it gets a million views it may not take money out of the pocket of the studio because just as many people may still tune into the show week in and week out, however the show was aired, people watched it and money was earned (by Youtube) and the actors, writers and directors got nothing for it.