Should Youtube be exempt from copyright?

[Karma168]

Think about it like this. If you copy and repost a blockbuster movie on youtube, how much are you responsible for in losses? A few thousand dollars tops? Compared to the gross of a film even after release, that's almost negligible. However, when you upload someone else's content that they were trying to make a living off of, the percentage you just took away from them is much more dramatic. Take Loading Ready Run for example. Videos like Halo: The Future of Gaming, Rejected Wii Games, and Three PS3s were copied, uploaded, and became big hits on the channels that uploaded them. Being their biggest hits (even with increased Escapist traffic), how much did they lose? I don't think that should be punished in the same way as theft, but copyright holders should have all the rights to protect their work. If that isn't the case, then I would never upload any of my material to Youtube.

I will agree with your point for things like movies that you only need to watch once. I only really use youtube for music so that's where my focus has been.

Considering a music video; if you like a song then chances are you will play it over and over again and will want to be able to listen to it on the move, meaning you will need a permanent copy; assuming you don't pirate that means buying it. This means the record company has still made all the money they would have without youtube videos (if not more from people who stumble across a video for the band)

As once you've seen a film/TV show you probably don't have to see it again to remember the details music is not like that, it's not made to tell a story it's made to play in the background without us noticing. Meaning that while a movie would lose it's revenue from a youtube video there is no guarantee the same thing would happen to a song.

Maybe what i'm really thinking about is something that allows people to upload music videos (which is what 90% of people use youtube for) while still offering protection to people who make more content heavy videos. (wow this is a lot more complex than i thought =/)

 

[Wolfenbarg]

Think about it like this. If you copy and repost a blockbuster movie on youtube, how much are you responsible for in losses? A few thousand dollars tops? Compared to the gross of a film even after release, that's almost negligible. However, when you upload someone else's content that they were trying to make a living off of, the percentage you just took away from them is much more dramatic. Take Loading Ready Run for example. Videos like Halo: The Future of Gaming, Rejected Wii Games, and Three PS3s were copied, uploaded, and became big hits on the channels that uploaded them. Being their biggest hits (even with increased Escapist traffic), how much did they lose? I don't think that should be punished in the same way as theft, but copyright holders should have all the rights to protect their work. If that isn't the case, then I would never upload any of my material to Youtube.

I will agree with your point for things like movies that you only need to watch once. I only really use youtube for music so that's where my focus has been.

Considering a music video; if you like a song then chances are you will play it over and over again and will want to be able to listen to it on the move, meaning you will need a permanent copy; assuming you don't pirate that means buying it. This means the record company has still made all the money they would have without youtube videos (if not more from people who stumble across a video for the band)

As once you've seen a film/TV show you probably don't have to see it again to remember the details music is not like that, it's not made to tell a story it's made to play in the background without us noticing. Meaning that while a movie would lose it's revenue from a youtube video there is no guarantee the same thing would happen to a song.

Maybe what i'm really thinking about is something that allows people to upload music videos (which is what 90% of people use youtube for) while still offering protection to people who make more content heavy videos. (wow this is a lot more complex than i thought =/)

That's the thing though, youtube already allows people to upload songs and music videos. I can't think of a hit song that I've looked up and been disappointed. Both the content owners and youtube realize in that case that allowing a song on youtube is free promotion. What they crack down on is people using songs in other videos without permission. So I'd probably get off free as a bird for uploading Someday by Sugar Ray, but if I put it as the soundtrack to a credit roll, they'd force me to remove it.

 

[The Bucket]

.... Why would it? Its one thing if you think the law needs reforming, but I don't see why we should turn Youtube into some Switzerland-esque lawless haven. Besides, its succesful enough as it is.

 

[thecoreyhlltt]

hmmmm? i seem to remember a young rock band protesting about something similar, ahhh yes, it was the band MOOP. let me get a hallelujah core-man if you know what i'm talkin about!!!

 

[MGlBlaze]

no reason for them to be exempt. they just need better and more intelligent moderators. banning creators for making abridged shows is silly as abridged shows generate interest in the original and are nothing like the source material.

Thats a very specific example but its true of silly bans accross the site

The problem, like you said, is that YouTube has a very shoddy moderator team. Videos are routinely taken down when the videos either fall under Fair Use or actually have nothing to do with the person making a (false) claim.

Also there seems to be a thing where a video is automatically taken down if it gets enough flags. I shouldn't even need to tell the ways in which this can be exploited, but I will anyway; one example is one particularly sad group of people getting together and mass-flagging a video they're butthurt over so it's taken down and the creator can't do shit.

 

[SageRuffin]

No to everything but the fan videos. The people who get mad at the makers of fan videos are fucking morons, they're getting free advertising.

I concur, especially as someone who's made his fair share. Hell, I'm one of a few people who demonstrated that rap music works just as well for AMVs and the sort so long as the editing is up to snuff.

 

[Mandalore_15]

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.

Kind of missed the point, here--that YouTube doesn't involve the possession of media, therefore the piracy argument is even more tenuous than it would be with downloads (which is enough of a minefield, anyway). Also, where does your logic end? If users sharing videos with each other on YouTube is "releasing", then is someone playing an album for someone else doing the same? Presumably you're predicating your argument on some standard of reproduction.

The problem I find with your argument about playing the album vs. posting a video on youtube is that by playing an album the music retains its rival nature, i.e. that it is data physically embodied in the form of a disk. If all music was stored this way only, it would be a rival good, as only people with access to the disk could use it, and as such its distribution could be more easily controlled.

If posted on a website such as youtube, however, the IP embodied in the work becomes non-rival. It is capable of infinite duplication to an unlimited number of people (provided they have access to a computer). The problem here is that it removes incentives for people to pay for such goods, as they can listen to the song as many times as they like on youtube or record the song whilst playing it on youtube using a recording program. This is what IP rights are designed to control. Whether or not you agree with that aim is up to you.

Also, ever heard of something called Fair Use? These details get trampled underfoot by the corporate brainwash campaign, which you've obviously bought into:

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

Personally, I don't think full allowance of YouTube publication would make much of a difference, commercially. I know the main thing I use it for is sending others a song or video whereas I couldn't with a hard copy--something buying a CD or DVD wouldn't change. If I like an artist's songs I hear on YouTube, I'll download their album, and then maybe pay to see them live. Actually, I just got back from seeing Lil' Wayne, Nicki Minaj, and Rick Ross in Buffalo yesterday--I wouldn't have got into the guy's music in all likelihood if it weren't for file-sharing, and now I've picked up a poster, a t-shirt, and $300 in concert tickets.

. . .Of course, that's not to suggest that file-sharing is making the industry more profitable. But who cares? Major record labels have never done scat for artists, a download is not akin to physical theft, and half of the great popular music songs were stolen from somebody else anyway, before you downloaded them on Pirate Bay.

I think if you look into the background of fair use clauses such as this you'll find that the use they're referring to is in reference to the artist's work in a work of your own, such as writing lyrics in a gig review, etc. I really don't think that applies in the case of downloading music for personal pleasure, as you are circumventing the exact contract relationship IP rights are designed to protect, which I hardly think can be called "fair use"...

And yeah, major record labels can be dicks to artists, but I've never viewed this as an acceptable excuse to download music illegally. Some money is better than no money, and if the artists were unhappy about the deal they're getting then they wouldn't be in it! I suppose it helps that very little music I listen to could ever be described as being on a "major" label, but still...

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.

What do you mean poverty isn't an excuse to steal? Of course it is!

Let me hit you with a little bit of basic level political philosophy. There is a social contract. It requires that citizens adhere to the rules established by a government, provided the rules are fair. When the rules are fair, it is the moral prerogative of the government to punish citizens for disobeying them. When they are not fair, it is the moral prerogative of citizens to subvert them by the means available.

This is, in fact, what a revolution is--the appropriation of government property by masses who've (often) been grossly abused by a small elite. Even crime is mostly the product of disenfranchisement--there are always sickos out there, but crime rates globally basically correlate with levels of poverty and oppression.

If people are oppressed enough by legal means, it rationalizes the violation of their means of oppression--in this case, laws. I'm not saying that the demographic that uses the Escapist is "oppressed", by any means, but I just object to your juvenile, Randian use of the term "never."

Declaring there to be a social contract is pretty presumptuous, don't you think? Social contractarian theories are just one jurisprudential explanation of just society among many... However, being American I imagine you might have been taught that such theories are gospel (I'm not saying this to be rude, but common national ideals in the USA conform tightly to Lockean and Nozickian paradigms).

Also, you seem to be skewing the context of what we're talking about here. In the case of IP rights, the kind of uprising you depict would surely be in rallying against patents for things such as pharmaceuticals etc. not copyrights in artistic works?

I would also be interested to know how the use of the term "never" can be "Randian". I assume you are referring to Randian objectivism, but how or why I have no idea...

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

As someone who hopefully will be making films in the future, I want my work protected. Youtube nor does any other site on the internet deserve to be exempt.

[sub]I do have some other copyright issues that I would love to have fixed...[/sub]

 

[WolfEdge]

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.

Yes, because Youtube is clearly robbing them of millions.

That's not the point and you know it. Intellectual and artistic property is still PROPERTY, and therefor the owner of that property has a right to decide who does and does not have access to it. The "all information should be free" argument doesn't work because information holds inherent value, and requires the expense of time, effort and (in most cases) physical materials in order to manifest as anything other than an idea.

By giving Youtube a slide when it comes to illegal content (which they profit from through advertising) it sets a very iffy and unpredictable precedent, as well as a dangerous slippery slope. Not only does that make it ok for Corporations to farm content so long as they THEMSELVES aren't the ones uploading/stealing said content, it also further alleviates any form of retribution done to the individuals that performed the acts in the first place. If Youtube isn't worried about monitoring it's content for copyrighted material and, indeed, would probably ENCOURAGE intellectual theft because THEY can't get in trouble, then what little form of consequence that existed for these acts suddenly disappears.

 

[Baneat]

Maybe if there was an effective way to DRM the audio channel on "song" videos (Ones that are flagged as songs, non-flagged song videos can be flagged by users and appropriate measures taken). Maybe also reduce the sound quality to the point that it's fine to listen to it through your PC speakers but will sound like shit through your Sennheisers (Mostly true as it is).

 

[The_Yeti]

Dude, its the internets, copyright laws don't mean shit once something gets on popularized free download sites.

People of the media, if you don't want your media shared freely on the internet, quit the media business!

 

[KaiRai]

Well I think they should. It's not like people are youtubing their iPods or anything. One thing that really annoys me is if someone posts a video with a song in it, they jump on it like children screaming "Mineminemineminemine!"

They're basically a child's ideology in an adult's world. They have the power to control music distribution and they just want more power. That simple.

 

[WolfEdge]

Fuck the corporations, I would be fine with youtube being exempt.

Youtube IS a corporation.

Paradox??

 

[jpoon]

Fuck the corporations, I would be fine with youtube being exempt.

Youtube IS a corporation.

Paradox??

Haha, yes very much so!

PS - I'm no fan of Youtube either.

 

[EzraPound]

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.

Kind of missed the point, here--that YouTube doesn't involve the possession of media, therefore the piracy argument is even more tenuous than it would be with downloads (which is enough of a minefield, anyway). Also, where does your logic end? If users sharing videos with each other on YouTube is "releasing", then is someone playing an album for someone else doing the same? Presumably you're predicating your argument on some standard of reproduction.

The problem I find with your argument about playing the album vs. posting a video on youtube is that by playing an album the music retains its rival nature, i.e. that it is data physically embodied in the form of a disk. If all music was stored this way only, it would be a rival good, as only people with access to the disk could use it, and as such its distribution could be more easily controlled.

If posted on a website such as youtube, however, the IP embodied in the work becomes non-rival. It is capable of infinite duplication to an unlimited number of people (provided they have access to a computer). The problem here is that it removes incentives for people to pay for such goods, as they can listen to the song as many times as they like on youtube or record the song whilst playing it on youtube using a recording program. This is what IP rights are designed to control. Whether or not you agree with that aim is up to you.

Also, ever heard of something called Fair Use? These details get trampled underfoot by the corporate brainwash campaign, which you've obviously bought into:

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

Personally, I don't think full allowance of YouTube publication would make much of a difference, commercially. I know the main thing I use it for is sending others a song or video whereas I couldn't with a hard copy--something buying a CD or DVD wouldn't change. If I like an artist's songs I hear on YouTube, I'll download their album, and then maybe pay to see them live. Actually, I just got back from seeing Lil' Wayne, Nicki Minaj, and Rick Ross in Buffalo yesterday--I wouldn't have got into the guy's music in all likelihood if it weren't for file-sharing, and now I've picked up a poster, a t-shirt, and $300 in concert tickets.

. . .Of course, that's not to suggest that file-sharing is making the industry more profitable. But who cares? Major record labels have never done scat for artists, a download is not akin to physical theft, and half of the great popular music songs were stolen from somebody else anyway, before you downloaded them on Pirate Bay.

I think if you look into the background of fair use clauses such as this you'll find that the use they're referring to is in reference to the artist's work in a work of your own, such as writing lyrics in a gig review, etc. I really don't think that applies in the case of downloading music for personal pleasure, as you are circumventing the exact contract relationship IP rights are designed to protect, which I hardly think can be called "fair use"...

And yeah, major record labels can be dicks to artists, but I've never viewed this as an acceptable excuse to download music illegally. Some money is better than no money, and if the artists were unhappy about the deal they're getting then they wouldn't be in it! I suppose it helps that very little music I listen to could ever be described as being on a "major" label, but still...

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.

What do you mean poverty isn't an excuse to steal? Of course it is!

Let me hit you with a little bit of basic level political philosophy. There is a social contract. It requires that citizens adhere to the rules established by a government, provided the rules are fair. When the rules are fair, it is the moral prerogative of the government to punish citizens for disobeying them. When they are not fair, it is the moral prerogative of citizens to subvert them by the means available.

This is, in fact, what a revolution is--the appropriation of government property by masses who've (often) been grossly abused by a small elite. Even crime is mostly the product of disenfranchisement--there are always sickos out there, but crime rates globally basically correlate with levels of poverty and oppression.

If people are oppressed enough by legal means, it rationalizes the violation of their means of oppression--in this case, laws. I'm not saying that the demographic that uses the Escapist is "oppressed", by any means, but I just object to your juvenile, Randian use of the term "never."

Declaring there to be a social contract is pretty presumptuous, don't you think? Social contractarian theories are just one jurisprudential explanation of just society among many... However, being American I imagine you might have been taught that such theories are gospel (I'm not saying this to be rude, but common national ideals in the USA conform tightly to Lockean and Nozickian paradigms).

Also, you seem to be skewing the context of what we're talking about here. In the case of IP rights, the kind of uprising you depict would surely be in rallying against patents for things such as pharmaceuticals etc. not copyrights in artistic works?

I would also be interested to know how the use of the term "never" can be "Randian". I assume you are referring to Randian objectivism, but how or why I have no idea...

1) I understand your point here, but your comments about "rival nature"--you should admit--are debatable, since YouTube does not provide a manipulable hard copy. In areas of such subjectivity--keep in mind libraries run contrary to the interests of booksellers in much the same way, but are so trenchant no one will argue against them--I generally think that a liberal copyright policy is good, since it helps ensure broad public access to media; a goal I think is generally more important than the record biz's profit maximization.

Actually, a judge in Canada ruled a few years back that he saw no difference, even, between downloading a song from Limewire for personal use and photocopying a document from a library--which should shed some light on how multifarious the arguments for and against are.

2) The application of Fair Use clauses vacillate greatly overtime. Several decades ago, for example, it was fairly unprecedented that offhand, photocopied documents used in classes had to be subjected to copyright provisions, but now said practice is increasingly common. I think it's in the interests of the public sphere to safeguard the rights of consumers, and citizens.

Also, your argument about choice makes more sense in a post-Internet environment, but keep in mind for a long time the record industry was an oligopoly with no foreseeable escape route--in fact, arguably the kind of corporate cartel anti-trust laws are meant to protect against (because they eliminate the choice you describe--people's independent bargaining power). In this sense, protestation makes more sense, since it's not as if there were an abundance of choices available if you wished to sell your music other than to submit to barefaced exploitation.

3) I'm a Canadian, and actually not a big fan of liberal philosophy--I'll take Burke, or Foucault instead--so while I was aware that the view I was presenting was myopic, I didn't expect to get taken up on it seriously, either. Nonetheless, I think social contract theory does an adequate job explaining the flexibility of moral correctness as it applies to disputes between the government and citizens--that the matter of whose in the right is conditional, which means that social manifestations such as stealing are not always wrong.

And yeah, patents and whatnot for pharmaceuticals are issues of greater import, but that doesn't mean copyright laws are a write-off that doesn't factor in the essential public interest--to the extent that they're skewed against the populace at large, or artists themselves, they can be mechanisms of actualized oppression. Whatever else, anyway, the proliferation of file-sharing has been beneficial for most artists: rather than having to work within a tightly-controlled oligopoly, in which publicity is meted out to a small handful of artists apt to maximize industry profits, now people's musical tastes have diversified owing to the sheer variety of mediums they can receive music from. The result of this generally is that--while we may not see another Thriller--your garden-variety talented musician (not a contradiction in terms, necessarily) can attract some interest via YouTube or Pitchfork, and maybe hope to charge a bit more for tix as a consequence or sell a few t-shirts and gewgaws.

Oh, yeah, and they've obviously abetted the musical literacy of the public, too. So who's complaining?

 

[cerealnmuffin]

I actually found a few artists thanks to getting to listen to them on youtube. I would look up people's recommends on amazon and pull them up on youtube, listen to them, and then buy the cd or at least the mp3 if it was something I really liked.

I don't think whole movies should be put up, but you have to watch it in parts which can be annoying and if it was really good someone would pick it up.

I think the main issue is that many times people do the fairuse when making let's plays, rant reviews, and funny videos, but they still get their videos or accounts banned due to copyright. The video creators are within copyright law to make such videos, but the youtube admins would rather take down a video without really investigating that. A few really great and funny let's players lost their accounts due to that. Also the net comedian Cinema Snob had it happen to him a couple times.

 

[Plurralbles]

youtube is getting money from someone elses work. Fuck that.

What... someting... once big and successful enough adn part of YOUR every day life... is exempt from internationl law? Not cool, bro.

 

[crudus]

Companies have their own youtube accounts where they get money for you listening to their music even if you have no intention of ever buying the music in the first place. I can kind of see why some record companies do it the way they do it now. Their music still gets out and they still get money.