Surface Pro (2017) vs Surface Pro 4
and arguments don't get any bigger than this
As far as I can see Viacom has a perfectly valid point. Its clear that YouTube cannot check every single file uploaded to it and to be honest even if they could, as far as I'm concerned its in their own interest to allow virtually anything to be shown, even if its infringing copyright. More copyright material that you can see for free and the more popular your site becomes.
If YouTube do lose then they would have to do something about it and that would be a massive job regarding the items already available. But surely in the case of future uploads they could simply ban anyone who uploads copyright material? Or is it naive to think it would be that simple? I assume theres a way of banning a particular ISP user even if they try to rejoin under another name?
Reading what Google have said - this could infringe on internet freedom - well it could but I have to point out we are talking about theft here. Google don't own the clips and therefore it could be argued that YouTube are encouraging copyright theft.
At the end of the day according to Googles arguement anyone creating any music or films have no right to be paid for their work as that would infringe on internet freedom. I'm sure that if the shoe was on the other foot Google would not be argueing about internet freedom.
So if you are in the process of recording some music or making a film I would forget it and get another job as you will not get paid for your work if Google gets their way. As I see it anyway.
A simple way would be to time limit the clips unless they are supplied by the copyright owner. I think most copyright holders would regard 1 min as 'advertising' but I am sure that a time limit could be negotiated..
Ok,i,m no expert on youtube,though i imagine the files uploaded are relatively small.
Therefore the copyright question as regards to TV programmes and films etc,doesn't seem to be the usual copyright issue.
Only clips of films and tv programmes can be uploaded and not the whole event.Surely this is free advertising and should be welcomed by the film makers and tv producers.I mean,watching a trailer of something wouldn't prevent you from going to watch/buy it,as it doesn't exactly spoil the film.It could make you think,that looks good,think i'll go see/buy that.
As i said,free advertising.
Of course,if you can upload a whole movie etc,then please ignore me.
I never thought of that mrwoowoo and you might be right, I don't think I've ever seen a very long video and have only seen clips between a minute and 5 minutes. Long enough to rip off someones song but not long enough to rip off a entire program or a movie.
I wonder if you can get a full program? If not then I suppose it is a bit like advertising as you wouldn't be able to see a full movie only bits. Mind you if you look at the likes of Monty Python where each episode can be broken down into sketches then in that case you could argue that the entire show is available to watch. The same could be said of many other commedies such as Not the Nine O Clock News etc. But not movies.
"Of course,if you can upload a whole movie etc,then please ignore me." LOL!
I've no idea, but i hope someone does, as you have an interesting point.
My view on big company's reactions to copyright infringement is that its often out of proportion to the damage it does them, and this overreation creates more damage.
Anyhoo, no row from me. Over and out.
I too have never seen anything other than clips.
If so,then as al7478 says,it's a bit of an over reaction.Infact,removing these clips cpould cost them revenue.
If you want to download a music track from the net you can listen to a sample first.I wonder if this is copyright infringement?,since you may well decide not to purchase it.
the proverbial storm and tea cup
oh my god they have shown a few 3 minute clips of films or tv quick sue them for breach of copyright (not american by any chance) this sounds like the same sledge hammer to crack a nut routine we see from RIAA, though at least RIAA had a stronger case
There are easier ways to infringe copyright to see a film tho.
People go there to see trailers, or remind themselves of a part of a film, or to see a music video...These dont seem that harmful to anyone's profits to me.
Before jumping to conclusions and exhibiting your anti-american prejudices it's worth considering a couple of points:
1. A few 3 minute clips isn't the problem. The Al Gore documentary, which has won a whole raft of awards, and is the fourth-highest-grossing documentary film to date in the United States is a very valuable piece of copyright property, and it was uploaded to YouTube and viewed millions of times without a penny being paid to the copyright owners. You might feel a tad irritated if you had worked hard to produce such a film and then saw it being distributed free of charge to half the planet.
2. One of the big planks in the Viacom claim is that while YouTube claims it doesn't support copyright infringement it is actually one of the cornerstones of its business - take away the copyrighted properties and YouTube would simply become a nerds' paradise of low-quality clips of people playing guitars in their bedrooms.
This business of 'uploading clips actually does the producers a favour because it gets their films a wider audience' doesn't hold water - if it was true the producers would know about it, and they would keep quiet.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.