very well said.ShootingArts said:
More Youtube videos. Free marketing, free entertainment, no fuss, sorry Russ
- Thread starter Handsumm
- Start date
ShootingArts said:
I still couldn't care less. BCN posted the videos to youtube - obviously for people to watch them (not to ignore them). I watched them and I don't regret it at all, nor do I feel guilty about breaking any law intentionally or unintentionally.
Russ Chewning said:
Oh No, Sir. you got it all wrong. I wasn't even trying yet
! Russ Chewning said: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?
Russ
Ouch....You got me Russ....... You got me all wrong
! Sorry Russ, but I'm not in love with Pat Fleming. and besides, it isn't nice to see that I steal Pat away from you. I know you've spent a lot in him and I believe that you are entitled of such happiness. Best Wishes Russ ~! John Barton
New member
Russ Chewning said:
The law is clear? Can you cite how an ordinary citizen is able to determine what is "illegally posted"? What mechanism is in place to differentiate from legal and illegal downloads?
By this definition it is illegal to consume counterfeit Coca-Cola. It is also illegal to purchase an Instroke copy by this reasoning.
The truth is however that there is no reasonable way for the consumer - i.e. the one doing the consuming to determine the authorization of the person doing the providing.
The hinge is profit here. When someone receives goods with the intention of distributing them for profit then one is breaking the law IF they are receiving stolen goods. The onus is on the proprietor to make every attempt to determine legality of the transactions they enter into. The ordinary consumer is not able to and not burdened with obtaining the legality of the goods and services they receive. The assumption that most courts follow is that the consumer is the least knowledgeable and the most vulnerable in transactions. The legal basis is that it is perfectly reasonable for the consumer to assume that the provider of goods has the right to do so. There are exceptions however such as the guy selling car stereos out of his trunk but again it would be hard to prove that the consumer knew that the seller had no right to sell the goods. At worst the consumer could be found guilty of not possessing common sense, which is not a crime.
If someone is distributing intellectual property that they do not own for free then they are indeed breaking the law. But the receiver of such is not unless it can be proven that he knew of the illegality of the goods and is therefore complicit in the theft.
This is why we have a presumption of innocence instead of a presumption of guilt. If the Music Industry ever sued me for alleged illegal downloading then they would have a sever fight on their hands. I would welcome it as it is a severely flawed presumption of guilt that they follow and they get people to cave in and settle so they can make a huge show of "going after" people when in reality they have almost no chance against any halfway competent attorney.
At least this is my view on it as a pre-law dropout.
On another note: Strickland plays like a monster but he is also a HUGE hypocrite. He breaks with a shorter cue and he jumps with a shorter cue. Both of these things are CLEAR to see in the BCN videos, where he plays Reyes and Morris. I have to admit that I really love his style when he is on. Strickland is the TRUE Rocket. He one strokes almost everything without the slightest hesitation and seems to come with monster shots at the right times.
Thanks BCN - I am definitely subscribing again to the next tournament you broadcast!!!!!!
Are we talking about this again?
Stop sucking up all the bandwidth!
Stop sucking up all the bandwidth!
John Barton
New member
Russ Chewning said:
Russ, did you obtain permission to post that picture of the Hamburgler? Is Mike going to get sued because you posted a picture that you don't have the right to use and he profits off it indirectly when someone clicks on an ad surrounding that content.
I believe that the issues of user submitted content on websites that are effectively communities built on user submitted content have been solved long ago. The website owner, nor the ISP, can be held responsible for all the content that is hosted there when it is user submitted content. All they can do is respond to complaints from the owners of intellectual property and act according to the law.
Also, posting anything from Fox news as "proof" is pretty thin ice.
What is really happening is that people are developing technologies that "read" digital content like photographs and videos and then can determine if it is being illegal broadcast or not. So for example if all content providers register their digital files with the service that make a digital signature of it then what will happen is that all content uploaded to places like YouTube will be automatically verified against the database of signatures and then then if found to match the onus of proving the right to post(broadcast) falls back onto the person doing the upload, where it should be.
It is up to the content creators to protect themselves. YouTube cannot be expected to do it any more than a flea market owner can possibly check the authenticity of the goods sold at his market. YouTube can however cooperate with and use whatever technologies come about to help the IP owners to help themselves.
YouTube and Google are protected. The user agreement that each user agrees to states quite clearly that users are forbidden from uploading content that they do not own or don't have the right to. Thus they risk termination if they violate that agreement. YouTube has done what it could to indemnify itself against illegal content. It's CBS's job to police YouTube not YouTube's job to protect CBS.
If I were a major advertiser I would demand that the programs I advertise on be placed online in every free video hosting service like YouTube. The truth of the matter is that videos viewed on YouTube are 100% by choice. There is no hit or miss in reaching consumers - they CHOOSE to view the videos so therefore they are viewing the ads as well. And unlike television, there is no clicker to channel surf away or even a good way to avoid the commercials as you can do with a DVR. The answer for content creators is to use the medium rather than seeking to destroy it through restrictions.
John Barton said:Russ, did you obtain permission to post that picture of the Hamburgler? Is Mike going to get sued because you posted a picture that you don't have the right to use and he profits off it indirectly when someone clicks on an ad surrounding that content.
I believe that the issues of user submitted content on websites that are effectively communities built on user submitted content have been solved long ago. The website owner, nor the ISP, can be held responsible for all the content that is hosted there when it is user submitted content. All they can do is respond to complaints from the owners of intellectual property and act according to the law.
Also, posting anything from Fox news as "proof" is pretty thin ice.
What is really happening is that people are developing technologies that "read" digital content like photographs and videos and then can determine if it is being illegal broadcast or not. So for example if all content providers register their digital files with the service that make a digital signature of it then what will happen is that all content uploaded to places like YouTube will be automatically verified against the database of signatures and then then if found to match the onus of proving the right to post(broadcast) falls back onto the person doing the upload, where it should be.
It is up to the content creators to protect themselves. YouTube cannot be expected to do it any more than a flea market owner can possibly check the authenticity of the goods sold at his market. YouTube can however cooperate with and use whatever technologies come about to help the IP owners to help themselves.
YouTube and Google are protected. The user agreement that each user agrees to states quite clearly that users are forbidden from uploading content that they do not own or don't have the right to. Thus they risk termination if they violate that agreement. YouTube has done what it could to indemnify itself against illegal content. It's CBS's job to police YouTube not YouTube's job to protect CBS.
If I were a major advertiser I would demand that the programs I advertise on be placed online in every free video hosting service like YouTube. The truth of the matter is that videos viewed on YouTube are 100% by choice. There is no hit or miss in reaching consumers - they CHOOSE to view the videos so therefore they are viewing the ads as well. And unlike television, there is no clicker to channel surf away or even a good way to avoid the commercials as you can do with a DVR. The answer for content creators is to use the medium rather than seeking to destroy it through restrictions.
John,
I believe Russ needs to learn about Business Law !
anyway, It's nice to see a fellow former Law advocate support and point out some logical and realistic approach. It might be difficult for Russ to comprehend or even acknowledge such situations, most especially if a person is driven by his blind following or probably his lack of intact with reality. inductive argumentation is the most funniest fallacy there is known to man. like for e.g. "AZB members are thieves, Russ is an AZB member, thus RUSS is also a
.
few people care
Few people care whether they are viewing legal digital property or not. Most seem to have no hesitation about stealing anything posted on the net either. The BCN video's are not the only ones in question in this thread and in truth you are too intelligent and knowledgeable of a person to not know that the bulk of video of major events on youtube is stolen property.
When you are content to defend the low ground in this thread it will make it very hard for you to take the high ground in other threads as you have in the past and claim moral superiority to other posters or other people in general.
Hu
Blackjack said:
Few people care whether they are viewing legal digital property or not. Most seem to have no hesitation about stealing anything posted on the net either. The BCN video's are not the only ones in question in this thread and in truth you are too intelligent and knowledgeable of a person to not know that the bulk of video of major events on youtube is stolen property.
When you are content to defend the low ground in this thread it will make it very hard for you to take the high ground in other threads as you have in the past and claim moral superiority to other posters or other people in general.
Hu
Russ Chewning said:
It always has been up to copyright owners to defend their claim, where have you been ! Nobody else has any interest
The difficulty of defending ones rights does not affect the situation Russ, 1 page or 1 brazillion pages, it's all the same. Did you pass that Business Law class ?But this "why is life so unfair" whining does not address my contention that YouTube users can have some expectation of the video material being properly presented because the system has a built in method for having improperly posted material removed, and because that process is being used when called into action. Two replys and no direct response to what I wrote, do you understand the point I'm trying to make ?
Dave
not really
Dave,
As I am sure you know, copyrights are defended in two areas, civil and criminal, in the US. Once an owner proves that a felony has been committed then the legal system defends his copyright in criminal cases. A registered copyright and anyone else using the material is de facto proof of a felony unless the other person has written authorization from the owner or his agent to use the property. The same is true in civil cases so although the owner does have to defend his rights in civil court it is normally a slam dunk case for the owner of a registered copyright.
Hu
DaveK said:It always has been up to copyright owners to defend their claim, where have you been ! Nobody else has any interest
Dave
Dave,
As I am sure you know, copyrights are defended in two areas, civil and criminal, in the US. Once an owner proves that a felony has been committed then the legal system defends his copyright in criminal cases. A registered copyright and anyone else using the material is de facto proof of a felony unless the other person has written authorization from the owner or his agent to use the property. The same is true in civil cases so although the owner does have to defend his rights in civil court it is normally a slam dunk case for the owner of a registered copyright.
Hu
ShootingArts said:
I bolded the part of your post that suggests that it is up to the copyright owner to initiate proceedings, the point I was trying to make. I was not saying that the legal system is not involved with these disputes, I was saying "there are no copyright police" to cruise the neighbourhoods and initiate complaints.
Dave, still not a lawyer
you are right
You are right about having to report the theft. Of course every time I had something physical stolen from me, which was dozens of times, I had to report this too before the law took action. A bit of a misstatement on my part that I have to prove theft of copyrighted material before the authorities will act too. I don't have to provide legal proof at that point, just a reasonable indication. Perhaps best to say an actionable level of proof at this point.
I don't claim to be an expert in these matters but as the copyright holder on tens of thousands of properties it behooves me to know a little. Copyright law is a quagmire and nobody knows it all.
Hu
You are right about having to report the theft. Of course every time I had something physical stolen from me, which was dozens of times, I had to report this too before the law took action. A bit of a misstatement on my part that I have to prove theft of copyrighted material before the authorities will act too. I don't have to provide legal proof at that point, just a reasonable indication. Perhaps best to say an actionable level of proof at this point.
I don't claim to be an expert in these matters but as the copyright holder on tens of thousands of properties it behooves me to know a little. Copyright law is a quagmire and nobody knows it all.
Hu
DaveK said:
i'm not going to pick sides on this one, Russ is cool but seems stressed recently, perhaps because of other things than whats on AZ. I like his posts and read alot of them, but i have noticed some stress recently, I hope it passes-I have been there(stress) and its bad. Relax Russ, your unknown friend Fatboy,
It's easy to see from the responses that no one actually read the article I linked to. For the record, it is not a Fox News article, it is simply reposted by Fox News.
If you actually READ the article, you will see why it is a slam dunk case for Viacom to sue Google/YouTube for basically all it's worth. There are contract agreements between Viacom and service providers that cannot be adhered to because of the actions of YouTube.
Please, actually READ the article this time before responding..
Remember, YouTube is NOT just a "hosting" service. They are actually making advertising money off the illegal content. That is the CRUCIAL difference in the eyes of the law. By making money off illegal content, they take legal responsibility for damages caused to the intellectual property owners..
Russ
If you actually READ the article, you will see why it is a slam dunk case for Viacom to sue Google/YouTube for basically all it's worth. There are contract agreements between Viacom and service providers that cannot be adhered to because of the actions of YouTube.
Please, actually READ the article this time before responding..
Remember, YouTube is NOT just a "hosting" service. They are actually making advertising money off the illegal content. That is the CRUCIAL difference in the eyes of the law. By making money off illegal content, they take legal responsibility for damages caused to the intellectual property owners..
Russ
Seems like Russ had done some studies on how to build up a case without actually reviewing any single evidence, since his honor does not permit him to view such what he calls as sinful material or appears to be of taboo nature. maybe YouTube should start to consider offering Russ some KOSHER videos.
Hail Mary.. If you are going to refuse to read the article I linked to, just say so... I'll say you have no intellectual desire to see the other side, and then I'll drop it, since I won't have any hope of convincing anyone that won't even consider a well written essay on why YouTube is costing content providers millions and CAN be held liable.
Russ
Russ
Fatboy said:
Thanks Fatboy,
I appreciate the sentiment... It's just that I have always had little sympathy for those who try to justify unethical acts. And support illegal activities by others.
Some "well-respected" members of the board have went on record as saying they don't particularly care about whether people are stealing content from Accu-Stats. This goes beyond the BCN content. There have been other matches posted on YouTube, and a bunch of people cheer every time someone puts up a new match.
This is abhorrent to me. I just can't see stealing someone else's work. None of these people would say that walking into a museum and stealing a painting is okay, so how do they justify doing the same thing digitally?
I guess I just don't get it. The justification of "I'm poor, so I'll steal content until I can afford it" just doesn't fly with me either. Pick your priorities, people. When I was an E-4 in the Army, I brought home less than $1600.00 a month, and I bought quite a few Accu-Stat VHS tapes. And because I bought Accu-Stats videos, mebbe I settled for a used car instead of a new one. Pick..your...priorities.... Don't just steal what you can't afford.
People in America seem to feel entitled to have it all, no matter how little they may make at their job. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Saying you deserve access to intellectual property that was produced for profit "just because you're poor" smacks of socialism to me.
You deserve access to entertainment when you can afford it, nothing more. If you want to look at art... city, county, state governments usually have affordable museums for that purpose. You want to have access to intellectual property produced "for profit", then work a few more hours at work. That's the way I see it, that's the way I saw it when I worked for basically minimum wage in the Army, and that's probably the way I'll always see it.
Getting angry at thieves is not necessarily because I am "stressed" or anything. It's more because I have certain moral beliefs that I believe in very strongly, and will voice my opinion loudly if I want, since America is a free country.
Russ
Russ Chewning said:Hail Mary.. If you are going to refuse to read the article I linked to, just say so... I'll say you have no intellectual desire to see the other side, and then I'll drop it, since I won't have any hope of convincing anyone that won't even consider a well written essay on why YouTube is costing content providers millions and CAN be held liable.
Russ
Kinda Ironic isn't it ? , such words coming from the person who brand people as thieves immediately without the former giving time to evaluate himself the matters on hand. I don't need to read such article coz I'm aware of the facts and do look at both sides of the coin, not just a sole belief that something is evil because I said so. the generalization of your statements gives much controversy than YouTube's dilemma. Hope you got the picture on that.
Russ Chewning said:Thanks Fatboy,
I appreciate the sentiment... It's just that I have always had little sympathy for those who try to justify unethical acts. And support illegal activities by others.
Some "well-respected" members of the board have went on record as saying they don't particularly care about whether people are stealing content from Accu-Stats. This goes beyond the BCN content. There have been other matches posted on YouTube, and a bunch of people cheer every time someone puts up a new match.
This is abhorrent to me. I just can't see stealing someone else's work. None of these people would say that walking into a museum and stealing a painting is okay, so how do they justify doing the same thing digitally?
I guess I just don't get it. The justification of "I'm poor, so I'll steal content until I can afford it" just doesn't fly with me either. Pick your priorities, people. When I was an E-4 in the Army, I brought home less than $1600.00 a month, and I bought quite a few Accu-Stat VHS tapes. And because I bought Accu-Stats videos, mebbe I settled for a used car instead of a new one. Pick..your...priorities.... Don't just steal what you can't afford.
People in America seem to feel entitled to have it all, no matter how little they may make at their job. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Saying you deserve access to intellectual property that was produced for profit "just because you're poor" smacks of socialism to me.
You deserve access to entertainment when you can afford it, nothing more. If you want to look at art... city, county, state governments usually have affordable museums for that purpose. You want to have access to intellectual property produced "for profit", then work a few more hours at work. That's the way I see it, that's the way I saw it when I worked for basically minimum wage in the Army, and that's probably the way I'll always see it.
Getting angry at thieves is not necessarily because I am "stressed" or anything. It's more because I have certain moral beliefs that I believe in very strongly, and will voice my opinion loudly if I want, since America is a free country.
Russ
Russ, are you considering of running for public office? the elections is not that far you know. If you want, I can make you a campaign slogan !
I'm Available As Campaign Manager
OR, we could just steal some:
"Tip-a-canoe and Russ too"
"We Fuss Russ" (think 'I Like Ike")
" A chicken in every pot, A tape in every PC"
"In your heart, you know he's Russ"
and my favorite,"Ride the short bus with Russ"
Doug
.
Hail Mary Shot said:Russ, are you considering of running for public office? the elections is not that far you know. If you want, I can make you a campaign slogan !
OR, we could just steal some:
"Tip-a-canoe and Russ too"
"We Fuss Russ" (think 'I Like Ike")
" A chicken in every pot, A tape in every PC"
"In your heart, you know he's Russ"
and my favorite,"Ride the short bus with Russ"
Doug
.
Last edited: