More Youtube videos. Free marketing, free entertainment, no fuss, sorry Russ

PKM said:
I am curious, is the law clear that viewing a copyrighted video (released without permission) on YouTube is stealing?
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll grant that that simple "viewing" may be on shaky ground as far as illegality. But there are a lot of programs out there for saving illegally (and legally) posted copyrighted works to your hard drive. In that case, yes, the law is clear. Actual downloading of illegally posted copyrighted works is illegal.

Thanks for the correction.

Russ
 
Russ Chewning said:
Okay, I'll grant that that simple "viewing" may be on shaky ground as far as illegality. But there are a lot of programs out there for saving illegally (and legally) posted copyrighted works to your hard drive. In that case, yes, the law is clear. Actual downloading of illegally posted copyrighted works is illegal.

Thanks for the correction.

Russ
Click to expand...

In that case, I never downloaded a thing. Where do you get off calling me a thief (publicly) in accordance with your own definition?
 
Hail Mary Shot said:
wait, does this mean that we are also guilty of unlawfully watching tv copyrighted programs since we didn't ask permission to view them? OMG !!! TV has gone exclusively PAY PER VIEW !!! lol !
Click to expand...

....... I think you're being a little smart-assed here, aren't you? First of all, if it is a broadcast program, permission to view is implied. You and everyone else in the world knows this. If it is cable, permission is implied for all cable subscribers.. You, and everyone else in the world knows this.

YouTube is an entity where everyone knows users may have no affiliation with the copyright owner. For this reason, all YouTube users should be aware that they may be viewing pirated material. Most YouTube users do not care, and will gladly watch any material they can get their hands on, regardless of the disapproval of the copyright holder.

What I have been trying to do on here is to appeal to the pool community not to view YouTube videos that are pirated, lest Pat Fleming, who is NOT making a bunch of money off Accu-Stats, goes out of business.

The BCN links? Fine.. They're legal. But that does not justify the response I got for taking steps to ensure they were legal. I got the idea the forum posters would have perfectly happy if Pat Fleming never knew of these videos online, whether legal or not.

Didn't you? :D :D :D

Russ
 
cajunbarboxplyr said:
Someone's nose is pretty chocalote coated right now......
Click to expand...


M3BrownNose_400.jpg


I think his is the one in the middle blocking the 3 ball.
 
Russ Chewning said:
Okay, I'll grant that that simple "viewing" may be on shaky ground as far as illegality. But there are a lot of programs out there for saving illegally (and legally) posted copyrighted works to your hard drive. In that case, yes, the law is clear. Actual downloading of illegally posted copyrighted works is illegal.

Thanks for the correction.

Russ
Click to expand...
Woops. I've got about 30 hours of video on my iPod. I better erase it before the youtube video copying police (or the RIAA)find me.
 
Russ Chewning said:
YouTube is an entity where everyone knows users may have no affiliation with the copyright owner. For this reason, all YouTube users should be aware that they may be viewing pirated material.
Click to expand...

I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that YouTube has a policy regarding copyright infringement (see http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy ) and will remove videos that the rightful copyright holder requests be removed. Based on that policy it might be reasonable for users to have the expectation that the material on YouTube is not pirated.

Dave
 
DaveK said:
I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that YouTube has a policy regarding copyright infringement (see http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy ) and will remove videos that the rightful copyright holder requests be removed. Based on that policy it might be reasonable for users to have the expectation that the material on YouTube is not pirated.

Dave
Click to expand...

Google HAS to put up anti-piracy policy letters. But it is widely believed in the IT industry than YouTube will be Google's undoing. The reason is, that based upon YouTube's setup, it is impossible to effectively police piracy. Google has tried to make token efforts, but content providers are gearing up to sue Google for everything it's worth.

YouTube was BUILT on piracy.

See the story.. Why Google might be brought down by YouTube

Russ
 
Russ Chewning said:
First of all, why on EARTH would I have any problem with a company posting it's OWN stuff free for advertising??? They have every right to do so. The point is, they are the one making the business decision. If it turns out to be a bad one, they they will pay for their OWN mistakes.

But when someone ELSE decides to put a company's product up for free, in full OR in part, then they are taking the business decisions away from the business owner. I don't see where the misunderstanding is. You can't TELL a business owner how to conduct business, unless you're the government. You can't force a business owner in the direction you'd like him to go by putting his stuff online without his permission.

That's just the way it is. Now, BCN MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT have permission to post what they have on YouTube. Only BCN and Accu-Stats knows what the full details of their arrangements are. I only asked if Pat Fleming knew about the YouTube videos. And everyone attacked me for telling him they were. Seems like suspicious behavior, for people who believe they are in the right.

I just finished a Business Law class, so I'll break it right on down for you.

It is illegal for anyone who does not have specific permission, to take the steps of posting those videos on YouTube. Period. End of story. The law is VERY clear on this. If you wish, I will look up the applicable Codes and/or Acts and post them. Do I need to?

What consumers believe to be in the best interests of the business is absolutely, unequivocably, 100% IRRELEVANT.

What I have railed against is the people who only follow the laws that are convenient for themselves. Posting videos on YouTube without Pat's permission is completely illegal, but a lot of the posters on this board don't care, because they are getting enjoyment out of it. But they'll be the first to complain how there is no good tournament coverage when Pat goes out of business.

Again, I have absolutely NO problem with an individaul company decides to put their own intellectual property online for free. The fact that you did not garner that from my previous posts PROVES that you didn't bother to readthem, or consider my side of the discussion.

Russ
Click to expand...


I just stay out of other peoples business and tend to my own, it pays better. However I dont disagree with your statments.:)
 
I have a hard time with the concept of "you've stolen something by receiving a free copy of it, because you might have paid for it in the future".

Stealing is pretty clear cut when it's physical stuff. An object actually goes missing from somewhere, and that object is now in your possession. It's not the same with digital stuff though... nothing's missing from the 'victim' except what I guess you'd call "potential money".

I understand that the guy who has youtubed the video probably won't pay to see it again. But can you really fault (or prosecute) people for something they might or might not do in the future?

Mostly I'm just playing devil's advocate. I've downloaded stuff but I also grab an accustats video whenever I have some spare cash. When I have none to spare, I think it's nice to be able to get a fix with youtube while I wait for the next check.
 
DaveK said:
I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that YouTube has a policy regarding copyright infringement (see http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy ) and will remove videos that the rightful copyright holder requests be removed. Based on that policy it might be reasonable for users to have the expectation that the material on YouTube is not pirated.

Dave
Click to expand...

And furthermore, why is it the content owner's responsibility to police the users of a third party? I can understand putting this requirement on a content owner if the violater is a single webpage, but YouTube is essentially million of web pages all put together.

YouTube makes a lot of money through advertising off of the illegal content, so it is YouTube's responsibility to police itself, not the content owner.

There might be thousands of individual users posting up a specific intellectual property. Per day. Which would require multiple employees at the content owner's business to monitor. Not to mention monitoring secondary websites who download the intellectual property through YouTube and then re-host it for it's own customers. When YouTube is the one making all the money off the illegal content, why would the burden of monitoring fall on the owner? Why must the content owner hire new employees, increasing it's business costs, because of the action (or inaction) of a third party like YouTube?

People really need to do a little reading on Digital Rights Management before they express an ill-informed opinion.

Russ
 
Last edited:
Russ Chewning said:
And furthermore, why is it the content owner's responsibility to police the users of a third party? I can understand putting this requirement on a content owner if the violater is a single webpage, but YouTube is essentially million of web pages all put together.

YouTube makes a lot of money through advertising off of the illegal content, so it is YouTube's responsibility to police itself, not the content owner.

There might be thousands of individual users posting up a specific intellectual property. Per day. Which would require multiple employees at the content owner's business to monitor. Not to mention monitoring secondary websites who download the intellectual property through YouTube and then re-host it for it's own customers. When YouTube is the one making all the money off the illegal content, why would the burden of monitoring fall on the owner? Why must the content owner hire new employees, increasing it's business costs, because of the action (or inaction) of a third party like YouTube?

People really need to do a little reading on Digital Rights Management before they express an ill-informed opinion.

Russ
Click to expand...
Or instead of expressing an ill-informed opinion,Just DON'T read russ's threads:p
 
Words to live by, for sure. I think by skipping Russ' threads I'll keep myself better informed and my sanity in tact.

jimmy-leggs said:
Or instead of expressing an ill-informed opinion,Just DON'T read russ's threads:p
Click to expand...
 
it is clear cut

If you received something from someone who didn't own it and wasn't authorized by the owner to send it, then it is stolen property.

Surely at least some of you have noticed the music industry making examples of individuals who have only downloaded a song or two? Punitive damages are $30,000 per song or more the last I knew so the music companies are being generous when they offer to settle for a few thousand a song. That $30,000 each applies to images and video's too. Some people jump for joy when they find that their stuff has been stolen. There is software out there that people run every morning checking the net for their files and it isn't expensive software. I fully intend to run it if I put my stock photography back up. I will nail anyone to a cross that I catch stealing my property as I have mentioned before. I value my digital property at least as much as my personal property.

Improper distribution can lessen the value of digital property and many people use the income from these properties collected over a career as their retirement. How angry would those of you who think this is OK be if someone stuck their hands into your retirement funds? How about this week's paycheck? What is being stolen is being sold for current income too.

I don't think anyone has a real problem understanding the concept of digital property. Being ignorant, or deliberately obtuse is not a defense in a court of law and this is a simple legal question.

Why can't a network simply digitally capture any programming of another network that they happen to like and broadcast it too? Nothing is missing from the first network. Property rights don't end just because some find it convenient.

Hu


I understand that the guy who has youtubed the video probably won't pay to see it again. But can you really fault (or prosecute) people for something they might or might not do in the future?
Click to expand...

You can prosecute them for what they are doing now or have done in the past. You can also collect civil damages. Taster's Choice coffee had a $15,000,000 judgment against them for the misuse of ONE IMAGE!

Take a good look at the part in the red. Fifteen million dollars . . . . one image . . . . Copyright violation rulings have been draconian in the past, against offenders large and small.

Hu
 
you are mistaken

Blackjack said:
In that case, I never downloaded a thing.
Click to expand...


Actually you do download everything you view on the net. Impossible to view anything including this message you see here without downloading it to your computer at least temporarily. These files are sometimes quickly overwritten and sometimes stored for months or years even though you don't consider yourself to have downloaded them because you didn't click on a download button. Even after you can't see these files they can often be recovered which is why the police always haul off computers and why smart criminals physically destroy hard drives.

The child porn that people are prosecuted for is often found in these files, not official downloads. If these files are legal evidence in some cases I would hesitate to say that they can't be used as legal evidence in other cases. Lawyers make entire careers out of copyright law so simple statements are always risky to make but so are casual assumptions that you are doing no wrong.

Hu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top