Should Youtube be exempt from copyright?

[gl1koz3]

I also love when it's "Sorry, the video is not available in your country due to *blahblah insert shit here* by *more shit here* Music Company."

Well, F U, the music company. I never cared for this your music anyway.

 

[jpoon]

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

 

[4173]

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

Define, "fucking over" first.

Taking their money for shitty shit.

Why isn't the answer not giving them money, instead of demanding better shit?

 

[MRMIdAS2k]

Depends.

Should a TV company be able to pull a brand new show that has hit youtube, possibly affecting DVD sales? Yes.

Should a Record company pull the latest single from a popular artist, as it could affect single/album sales? Yes.

Should a TV company pull That 80's TV show that you can't get on VHS/DVD? No.

Should a TV company pull fansubbed foreign language shows if their is no official dub/sub? only in its country of origin.

 

[marioandsonic]

Yes, they should. Youtube is not responsible for what their users upload, they should not be held responsible for same, and should not have to worry about getting sued because someone had a little Metallica going in the background while they worked on a car during the production of a tutorial.

This.

 

[Vykrel]

ofc not... although i think the rules should be tweaked a little. you can end up getting your entire video muted if you use just a few seconds of audio from one of WMG's songs... even if it is just in the background. thats a load of crap, imo.

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

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

Yes. Absolutely.

 

[trebthegamer]

i wish sony would stop claiming TF2 footage

 

[Dana22]

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

Define, "fucking over" first.

Taking their money for shitty shit.

That, doesn't make sense. Unless someone forces you to buy shitty shit.

 

[DarthFennec]

Youtube should not be exempt, that's stupid. Either the rules should change for everyone or stay the same for everyone, but neither Youtube or anyone else deserves exemption, I think.

However, Youtube should hire some guys to look at flags and decide whether videos are actually infringing copyright, because the way it's going now they're just taking down everything that ever gets flagged, without checking if it's infringing or if it fits under fair use or if it has anything to do with copyrighted information at all. Which is stupid.

Also, people `should' (it's their choice, but this is something I think would be best for them to do) be able to understand that putting music and movies and such on Youtube is free publicity, and generally increases sales. Basically, while Youtube shouldn't be able to keep copyrighted material up regardless of copyright law, the creators of copyrighted material should back down a bit and let Youtube keep their stuff up.

 

[Sinisterair]

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

Define, "fucking over" first.

Taking their money for shitty shit.

Cant be that shitty if people are stealing it, don't you think they'd steal something worth while?

 

[geoff900]

The reality of the movie/music industry is they don't want to lose out on money, that's the reality.

There are ways of making money from the internet, Youtube and Facebook is an example of that, but the film/music industry is to scared to change how they make money.

 

[Palademon]

It shouldn't be exempt.

People who actually gave a crap about music they like would pay for it though.

 

[Gigano]

Streaming sites shouldn't be exempt from copyright law, but copyright law should be adapted to better encompass fan made video's etc. which are uploaded on them, perhaps using a song, some imagery, and combine the two. Absolutely no harm in that.

In other words, more focus on "fair use", more clear and extensive interpretation of "abandonware", and inclusion of these terms in jurisdictions which don't have them.

 

[Karma168]

Unlike listening to the radio (le GASP) or your friend's music, it is incredibly easy to rip a song/video off of youtube/elsewhere on the internet. Like, I wasn't even trying and I found out a way to.

I'm pretty sure there are ways of getting copies of video/audio from Youtube too, so anything shared there can be taken as "a permanent copy for yourself", hence breaking the law you mentioned.

True it is simple to steal music off of youtube but that's the responsibility of the person doing the stealing, not youtube. Just because you can steal something doesn't mean you should. At most the site should just beef up security to make it harder to do that.

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.

I'm not talking about plagiarism. You often see "I do not own this song, copyright where due" or something similar in the blurb, they are not claiming they own it merely giving an advertisement; should this be counted in the same way as stealing?

 

[Twilight_guy]

No. Of course its rather short sighted to take down the all the videos for some people since this could be good advertising. The problem is that you could always use youtube and never have to buy the damn music meaning a lost sale. Not to mention using youtube as a legal loophole would make it the nexus of copyright infringement and laundering attempts.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

Unlike listening to the radio (le GASP) or your friend's music, it is incredibly easy to rip a song/video off of youtube/elsewhere on the internet. Like, I wasn't even trying and I found out a way to.

I'm pretty sure there are ways of getting copies of video/audio from Youtube too, so anything shared there can be taken as "a permanent copy for yourself", hence breaking the law you mentioned.

True it is simple to steal music off of youtube but that's the responsibility of the person doing the stealing, not youtube. Just because you can steal something doesn't mean you should. At most the site should just beef up security to make it harder to do that.

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.

I'm not talking about plagiarism. You often see "I do not own this song, copyright where due" or something similar in the blurb, they are not claiming they own it merely giving an advertisement; should this be counted in the same way as stealing?

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.