Should Youtube be exempt from copyright?

[Wolfenbarg]

They should absolutely fall under copyright. For song and music, this isn't that much of a problem. Pretty much every hit song that has ever been written is allowed to be uploaded in its original form at this point. It really is free promotion and they know it. What they crack down on is using music in your own videos, which really should only be allowed in pretty specific incidents without permission.

Television and movies are on their own playing field in this regard. While music uploads promote artists, television and movie uploads do not promote sales. They are far more expensive than music, so people are far less willing to go spend a good chunk of money on a DVD or a boxset when the entire film or series they're looking for is already online.

However, there is also the problem with content creation. There are lot of people that make their livelihood through content creation, so when someone copies that and uploads it as their own work, the owner should have every right to crack right down on that person.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Seriously? You're still saying rich people deserve to fuck the poor over.

20% of United States citizens control over 85% of the country's wealth. Not much you can do to change that.

 

[Puzzlenaut]

Yes, we should all bow down to corporations. Who cares about normal people? All that matter are the rich!

The actual ARTISTS, read: not the corporations, need to make money too you know. Its the artists who are hit hardest by piracy.

 

[NLS]

Hope they would also do some to all the videos promoting/howto pirate swoftware and games.
Also, Youtube is making loads of money through advertisements, making money off something in an illegal manner isn't nice.

 

[taciturnCandid]

But then i'd never have a reason to go to a movie theater

 

[duchaked]

No, there is no reason for them to be exempt.

A company/individual has the right to control their own intellectual property. If they want to release them on Youtube, on the radio, or any other method they choose that THEIR choice, not YOUR choice.

Oh, and its not hard to take a copy of any song/video on youtube.

Yes, we should all bow down to corporations. Who cares about normal people? All that matter are the rich!

yeah seriously! who likes free publicity anyway?! hmph!

 

[maddawg IAJI]

No, there is no reason for them to be exempt.

A company/individual has the right to control their own intellectual property. If they want to release them on Youtube, on the radio, or any other method they choose that THEIR choice, not YOUR choice.

Oh, and its not hard to take a copy of any song/video on youtube.

Yes, we should all bow down to corporations. Who cares about normal people? All that matter are the rich!

Hey, when these normal people are the ones paying the biggest taxes, funding the economy and advancing society as a whole, then they can decide to stop the copy right laws. 'Till then, no, Youtube does not become exempt from copyright laws because a lot of people still end up downloading music from Youtube.

 

[Radeonx]

No, there is no reason for them to be exempt.

A company/individual has the right to control their own intellectual property. If they want to release them on Youtube, on the radio, or any other method they choose that THEIR choice, not YOUR choice.

Oh, and its not hard to take a copy of any song/video on youtube.

Yes, we should all bow down to corporations. Who cares about normal people? All that matter are the rich!

No, all that matters is ownership, whether its the rich, the poor, or corporations

Poverty has never been an excuse to steal, especially when its something like video and music, which, last time I checked, was not a necessity for life.

Seriously? You're still saying rich people deserve to fuck the poor over.

How is suing someone for intellectual property theft "fucking them over"? If you don't want to get a copyright lawsuit don't steal copyrighted stuff.

You take $100 of music you get sued for $100,000. If that's not fucking people over, well then, you're the CEO of a large company.

Or you can not be an idiot and don't steal.
Or learn to not get caught stealing. If you don't want to be sued for tons of money, don't fuck with the people who have tons of money.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

No, there is no reason for them to be exempt.

A company/individual has the right to control their own intellectual property. If they want to release them on Youtube, on the radio, or any other method they choose that THEIR choice, not YOUR choice.

Oh, and its not hard to take a copy of any song/video on youtube.

Yes, we should all bow down to corporations. Who cares about normal people? All that matter are the rich!

No, all that matters is ownership, whether its the rich, the poor, or corporations

Poverty has never been an excuse to steal, especially when its something like video and music, which, last time I checked, was not a necessity for life.

Seriously? You're still saying rich people deserve to fuck the poor over.

How is suing someone for intellectual property theft "fucking them over"? If you don't want to get a copyright lawsuit don't steal copyrighted stuff.

You take $100 of music you get sued for $100,000. If that's not fucking people over, well then, you're the CEO of a large company.

That was decided on by the Legislators, not the big businesses. The people who've downloaded $10,000 worth are the ones they want stopped. The people who downloaded $100 worth are just the unlucky ones who got caught.

 

[Ace of Spades]

I don't really care if they should, but I would love it if that happened. Then I could continue watching edited Spongebob videos without Viacom taking them down. There are plenty of other possibly horrible ramifications of that action that I'd notice later, but it would still be cool.

 

[0986875533423]

So we should bend the rules we have created as a special case for one entity because the legal functionality of that entity would be increased by bending the rules?

That's a circular argument. We should give Youtube more freedom because that would give it more freedom? No, not getting it.

 

[Valkyrie101]

No, there is no reason for them to be exempt.

A company/individual has the right to control their own intellectual property. If they want to release them on Youtube, on the radio, or any other method they choose that THEIR choice, not YOUR choice.

Oh, and its not hard to take a copy of any song/video on youtube.

Yes, we should all bow down to corporations. Who cares about normal people? All that matter are the rich!

No, all that matters is ownership, whether its the rich, the poor, or corporations

Poverty has never been an excuse to steal, especially when its something like video and music, which, last time I checked, was not a necessity for life.

Seriously? You're still saying rich people deserve to fuck the poor over.

Actually, not giving people things that they don't need for free, at cost to oneself, is hardly "fucking them over".

 

[icame]

No. Why should they get this right when no one else does?

Only thing that I don't get is killing the music on videos. Isn't it just free advertising?

 

[ionpulse2]

Now, the focus here should not be on protecting Youtube from all international copyright laws - the focus should be on protecting its users from them. Allow me to explain:

A few posts above me, someone mentioned a certain aspect of the law called Fair Use. This is an important term that everyone should become familiar with, because it is this term that will ultimately be the battleground for your rights on the internet for the years to come.

Riddle me this: What is the difference between Siskel and Ebert reviewing a film on national television, and the Nostalgia Critic reviewing a film on the internet? There is none. Both are known by the same name - transformative works. A transformative work is any original content that is made by using the original content of another entity within the realm of Fair Use law.

Now, one would think that this same principle would apply to Youtube, correct? Well, I'm afraid that just isn't the case. You see, Youtube is run by Google, a company that has been known in the past to loathe legal battles to a great extent. Youtube's copyright reporting system reflects this - they rely on the "honor system", meaning you can use the reporting system to operate under the guise of any company you want, and take down a video under copyright infringement, with absolutely no one screening these reports. Instead, Youtube uses an automated entity of some sort to act on these reports. This way, they avoid any and all legal battles no matter what.

Technically, this is breaking the law.

Here's an example: remember not too long ago when WMG sweeped across Youtube, taking down or muting any and all videos that contained a music track with even a few seconds of their music? That was (in most cases, not all) breaking the law. Many of these videos they took down or muted contained this music, yes, but it fell under Fair Use law - they were original content videos, but contained the music created by another entity.

What of the videos containing gameplay footage? They're (in most cases) transformative works - reviews, satire, and the like. And yes, even Let's Plays fall under Fair Use. Why do you think Unskippable can exist? It's a video series here COMPLETELY DEDICATED to showing the cutscenes of games. It's okay though - it is a transformative work.

Look, the point I'm trying to make here is that videos containing just a song, or just an episode of a TV show, or just a cutscene of a game are wrong - They SHOULD be taken down, because they DO infringe on copyrighted materials. However, most of these videos that are taken down every day are not like that - they are protected by the law, and the law is turning a blind eye. Nothing needs to be EXEMPTED from copyright - rather, the laws surrounding copyrights need to be ENFORCED.

TL;DR: No - just enforce Fair Use LAW, and we'll be fine.

 

[Dana22]

Seriously? You're still saying rich people deserve to fuck the poor over.

Define, "fucking over" first.