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

[Russ Chewning]

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 !

Nah.. Then I'd have to kiss someone's sh***y baby, and I'd have to mingle with the unwashed masses, who are probably fresh from watching American Idol, WWF RAW, NASCAR, and eating gumbo.. In the buff. (Smorg, you sick barstard, lol)

I'd have to get a tetanus shot, and Ima scared of needles..

Russ

 

[Scaramouche]

Nah.. Then I'd have to kiss someone's sh***y baby
Russ

I am sure that, if you refused to kiss babies, the babies would be most grateful.

 

[Russ Chewning]

I am sure that, if you refused to kiss babies, the babies would be most grateful.

Oh come on.. You KNOW them babies want it...

 

[BVal]

????

Nah.. Then I'd have to kiss someone's sh***y baby, and I'd have to mingle with the unwashed masses, who are probably fresh from watching American Idol, WWF RAW, NASCAR, and eating gumbo.. In the buff. (Smorg, you sick barstard, lol)

I'd have to get a tetanus shot, and Ima scared of needles..

Russ

I see your point with the other two examples but what is wrong with NASCAR and gumbo?

BVal

 

[Russ Chewning]

I see your point with the other two examples but what is wrong with NASCAR and gumbo?

BVal

ZOOOOOOMMMMM!!

......Hey Billy Bob.. You and Suzie May goan come over and grill this weekend?

Ayup....

You bringing the beer?

Anope...

Hmmm... Is Suzie May goan be wearing a halter top, like normal?

Ayup....

I'll bring extra beer then!

ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMM!




Russ

 

[BVal]

ZOOOOOOMMMMM!!

......Hey Billy Bob.. You and Suzie May goan come over and grill this weekend?

Ayup....

You bringing the beer?

Anope...

Hmmm... Is Suzie May goan be wearing a halter top, like normal?

Ayup....

I'll bring extra beer then!

ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMM!




Russ

I guess that is a pretty common and simple way to think of NASCAR and the fans, but that would be like somebody assuming that pool players are all a bunch of shady gamble-o-holics that drink and do drugs all the time. We both know that is not true now don't we.

 

[John Barton]

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

Sorry, but as one who went to court with both a registered copyright and a registered trademark and "clear" evidence of infringement of both it is never a "slam dunk" case if the defense is halfway competent.

Sorry but it cost me over $30,000 in legal fees and several hundred thousand in unrecovered lost revenue to prove my ownership of what I owned.

And my story is but a drop in the bucket compared to most like it.

Just because someone registers a copyright does not mean they own it. If you draw a logo then you own it. If I register it in my name and you don't protest then the registration is granted to me. That still doesn't confer ownership to me.

A registration is merely a statement by me that I own it that is on record. In the case of copyrights there is no publication of applications for anyone to protest. In the case of trademarks the government publishes the application for opposition and if none is forthcoming then they grant the registration. In neither case does the government grant "ownership". What they grant is an official record of claim, same as a claim to a mine. Ownership can be contested in court and registrtions are quite often changed or stricken from the record when it is found that the registrant is not the owner of the property being registered.

People and companies "claim" jump all the time. It was done to us in the case of the Fury cues. Originally the name of the Fury cues was Rage. Cue and Case Sales registered the name Rage as a trademark even though they had no cues for sale and had never sold cues under that brand. The intent was to prevent the launch of a new brand. While we could have protested and filed a complaint or a suit we opted to simply change the name.

Intellectual Property law seems quite cut and dried on the surface but is actually quite a murky swamp to navigate once you are in a dispute. And sadly it is often the deepest pockets which prevail instead of the wronged parties.

 

[Russ Chewning]

I guess that is a pretty common and simple way to think of NASCAR and the fans, but that would be like somebody assuming that pool players are all a bunch of shady gamble-o-holics that drink and do drugs all the time. We both know that is not true now don't we.

I know all NASCAR fans aren't like that, but I live in a rural area, and I also know, a LOT are! LOL!

Also, I don't know if most people think we gamble, drink, and use drugs all the time.. Most people don't know pool well enough to know anything other that we are a generally "sinister" bunch, who will rob you blind through one type of scam or another... And it's generally true! Heh heh... How many pool players you know who aren't looking for an edge AWL the time?

Example.. There is a military officer who has gotten into chess lately. He has been pestering me to play him a game.. I never told him I used to be on the chess club in HS, and told him little more than "I know the rules".

Now, I know he is a beginner, and as soon as he asked me to play, I was looking for an angle, so I told him I don't know how to play that well, (which is TECHnically true.. I have played against some great players, and I am nowhere near Master level) and generally made it seem like I was afraid to play.

After letting him pester me for another two weeks, I said "Okay, I'll play you if you take your Queen off the board", and because I had laid it down so well, he said okay.

Then, I waited two more days, and said, "Okay, we're playing, you spotting me a Queen, for a fancy coffee, right?" He hemmed and hawed, and I said "Listen, man.. You're the chessplayer here.. You beeen playing all these European guys, you're gonna slaughter me.. I just hope you don't end up taking all my pieces.." (A fear of amateurs is "getting all their pieces taken, rather than getting checkmated..)

And he finally agreed to the coffee bet. I'm stealing here.. I mean..... REALLY. And I'm gonna try to trap Efren for $10-$20 at DCC the same way too, lol..

Poolplayers are always looking for an edge.. Even when it doesn't mean anything and we like the other person.. It's in our nature.. That's the "something sinister" that civilians sense about us...

Russ

P.S. The fellows I work around have quickly learned not to bet me on anything, no matter how "sure" the bet sounds... I got someone on the whole "I'll spot you 5 balls in eight ball" hustle.

 

[BVal]

Hi Russ,

I understand you were probably just jokin' around.

I always just play the best that I can all the time. If I can do that than it doesn't matter what "edge" I have on somebody to win because it doesn't matter what they do anyways.

Anyways, I enjoy your posts. Most of them make me laugh a little.

BVal

 

[John Barton]

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

I read the article. The most interesting quote in it is "you're not a lawyer and you don't even play one on TV."

There is nothing in it that proves a conclusive "slam dunk" case for Viacom or even close.

YouTube is not making advertising money off of the content unless you can PROVE that a user clicked on an ad as a direct result of viewing a video. Tying that action to particular content is where the whole burden of proof lies.

And I am sorry, but Viacom's agreements with their partners have nothing to do with YouTube. YouTube is providing a hosting service just as HostGator does for me. With HostGator's backend it take me about 20 clicks more to have video available to the world. And if I post Viacom content on my blog then Viacom needs to find me first to deliver their cease and desist notices. At least YouTube complies on behalf of the content owners whereas HostGator doesn't get involved. So by that standard YouTube actually provides a more secure environment for content owners to have their content protected.

Free scripts are available everywhere for anyone to start a video hosting site. The barrier to entry to become a YouTube is ridiculously low.

And one thing that everyone is forgetting is that statistically speaking the amount of people viewing commercial content over the internet is super low compared to the amount of people viewing it through broadcast mediums. So the other thing that needs to proved is harm. When it all comes out at court I believe that Viacom will have a hard time proving that they are being harmed significantly by YouTube's providing a video hosting service.

 

[wayne]

I know all NASCAR fans aren't like that, but I live in a rural area, and I also know, a LOT are! LOL!

Also, I don't know if most people think we gamble, drink, and use drugs all the time.. Most people don't know pool well enough to know anything other that we are a generally "sinister" bunch, who will rob you blind through one type of scam or another... And it's generally true! Heh heh... How many pool players you know who aren't looking for an edge AWL the time?

Example.. There is a military officer who has gotten into chess lately. He has been pestering me to play him a game.. I never told him I used to be on the chess club in HS, and told him little more than "I know the rules".

Now, I know he is a beginner, and as soon as he asked me to play, I was looking for an angle, so I told him I don't know how to play that well, (which is TECHnically true.. I have played against some great players, and I am nowhere near Master level) and generally made it seem like I was afraid to play.

After letting him pester me for another two weeks, I said "Okay, I'll play you if you take your Queen off the board", and because I had laid it down so well, he said okay.

Then, I waited two more days, and said, "Okay, we're playing, you spotting me a Queen, for a fancy coffee, right?" He hemmed and hawed, and I said "Listen, man.. You're the chessplayer here.. You beeen playing all these European guys, you're gonna slaughter me.. I just hope you don't end up taking all my pieces.." (A fear of amateurs is "getting all their pieces taken, rather than getting checkmated..)

And he finally agreed to the coffee bet. I'm stealing here.. I mean..... REALLY. And I'm gonna try to trap Efren for $10-$20 at DCC the same way too, lol..

Poolplayers are always looking for an edge.. Even when it doesn't mean anything and we like the other person.. It's in our nature.. That's the "something sinister" that civilians sense about us...

Russ

P.S. The fellows I work around have quickly learned not to bet me on anything, no matter how "sure" the bet sounds... I got someone on the whole "I'll spot you 5 balls in eight ball" hustle.

So basically you are a liar, a con man and a thief with high moral standards.

 

[CreeDo]

Yeah but ...

ShootingArts' points seem valid but kinda conflicted, he's antipiracy but points out that the punitive fines are 'draconian', which makes the content holder look like an ass. He also mentions you don't have to technically 'agree' to download it (e.g. by clicking a download button) but cites the example of a pedophile having pics in his browser cache or something... again that undermines the point because that's not talking about content that's illegal to copy, it's content that's just plain illegal... and obviously we're gonna throw the book at a pedo. It's a little nasty to compare youtubers to pedophiles even if it wasn't intentional

What I think is wrong is prosecuting people for getting the 'stolen goods'. If one guy buys a video, rips it, posts it, and then 200,000 people view it, I don't see it as 200,000 crimes. I see it as one crime - a guy made an illegal copy of the video, knowing it was protected. Charge him 200,000 times the usual fine if you want, but don't try to file 200,000 lawsuits.

I see this as the legal equivalent of receiving of stolen goods. That's a well-defiined legal concept and the gist of it is:
Receiving stolen property is defined by statute in most states. Generally it consists of four elements: (1) the property must be received; (2) it must have been previously stolen; (3) the person receiving the property must know it was stolen; and (4) the receiver must intend to deprive the owner of his or her property.

1 and 2 definitely happened. 3 and 4 are both very arguable.

If I buy a watch from somewhere, and it looks legit, and later it turns out that the watch is stolen, I don't get prosecuted. If it's an illegal knockoff of a brand name, like Rolex, I don't get prosecuted. I might if I could have easily seen it was stolen (he's selling it out of the back of a truck in front of an alley, at 10% of the usual price) but otherwise I'm an innocent party. He's the thief, not me. That doesn't change if he just hands me the watch for free instead of charging money for it.

You can't argue that people who click youtube links should know they're watching a copyrighted work, because as Mr. Barton pointed out it isn't always clear. Youtube DOES have plenty of legal videos. Probably the majority of them are legal. So I shouldn't be prosecuted just because some guy posts a link and I clicked on it. It's not even practical to prove that I watched it since it starts downloading and playing automatically the instant I click the link.

We already have laws to deal with those who illegally steal or copy goods, and as Hu pointed out they can have very stiff penalties. We don't really need to penalize more people or create better laws, just enforce the ones we have. That means punishing the uploaders, not the downloaders.

I also don't see the youtube/google suit as a slam dunk because the generating of revenues was incidental, they aren't TRYING to profit off of other people's copyrighted content. The ads are put on movie pages indiscriminately, through some script that can't differentiate between what's copyrighted and what's not (sorry to Mr. Barton, but there's no technology that can do that and probably never will be). Both companies promptly take down anything that gets reported. I think that fact puts them in the clear. The equivalent would be when a web host or ISP hosts illegal content unknowingly. There is a specific law in place that protects the ISP, and I think it may be used as a valid defense in the youtube/google suit:

The Online Liability Standardization Act of 2002, which was introduced in late February by Congressman Robert Goodlatte, R-VA, creates a uniform protocol of punishment for all charges against an ISP, encompassing everything from drug sales and fake I.D to child pornography and terrorist attacks. But it also protects ISPs from criminal liability for illegal activities of third-party users, as long as the ISP did not create the content and its senior employees were unaware of the activities.

Re: "it's not ok to steal just because you can't afford it" (my paraphrase). Russ, I agree with you if you phrase it that way. What I'm talking about is situations where the money absolutely won't be spent anyway. I know I couldn't prove the truth of to you or anyone else (much less a court of law) but I feel like it shouldn't be held against me if I can't afford entertainment but I get entertained anyway. Yes, I gained something for free, but that doesn't mean the 'entertainer' lost anything. It's theft when someone loses something. I'm not so sure it's theft when they might have lost something. I'm positive it's not theft when they definitely aren't losing something.

Anyway, I somehow sleep at night

 

[Russ Chewning]

So basically you are a liar, a con man and a thief with high moral standards.

I'm a saint compared to most of the pool players I've met.

I never lied to the guy... I told him I didn't play that well, and that is technically true.. I don't play well enough to beat any but the bottom 10% of tournament chess players.. It's not my fault how he interprets that. Now, if I said that I didn't even know the rules, and asked him to teach me, to set him up for an elaborate scam, you'd have a point.

And as far as being a thief.... "Negotiating" in games of skill is the one area I loosen up a bit in. You never know when the other guy is laying down as well, so you better get the best game you can.. Furthermore, he is gonna know in about 10 moves that he is outmatched, there's not gonna be any "laying down" to keep him on a string.

Just because I am a moral person does not mean I cannot participate in a good spirited "sting" of a buddy. For the cost of a cup of coffee, he's going to learn NEVER believe someone who says they don't play well when a bet comes into the picture.

Come on wayne.. Yer ssssssssssstretching it a bit, eh?

Russ

 

[ShootingArts]

copyright office says differently

John,

The law is indeed a quagmire as I have mentioned earlier. Too easy to find contradicting precedent. However, a registered copyright is a certificate of ownership much like a deed to land or title to a vehicle, it isn't merely a claim. A registered copyright is proof of ownership and it takes a great deal to overturn that. This actually sounds like what you are saying, you were first to market using a name but someone else already owned the copyright or registered it after you were using the name but had not registered it. They would be the ones entitled to use the name.

Recently a friend's development team created some proprietary software based on some open architecture software that they did buy the right to use but of course not the actual software. In a legitimate accident the team sent in many pages of the code of the original software when they registered their own program. When they found the error they immediately contacted the copyright office. They were told that the code sent in error had not been previously registered and they were the legal owners of that code, even if this was unintentional.

I have no idea if they transferred the rights to the code to the original developers or if there is just a gentleman's agreement between the two parties that the code actually belongs to the first company. Maybe they simply kept the ownership. Ethical or not, it would be legal. We aren't talking peanuts here either. The sales for the final software were almost a half million dollars in the first month.

Hu

Sorry, but as one who went to court with both a registered copyright and a registered trademark and "clear" evidence of infringement of both it is never a "slam dunk" case if the defense is halfway competent.

Sorry but it cost me over $30,000 in legal fees and several hundred thousand in unrecovered lost revenue to prove my ownership of what I owned.

And my story is but a drop in the bucket compared to most like it.

Just because someone registers a copyright does not mean they own it. If you draw a logo then you own it. If I register it in my name and you don't protest then the registration is granted to me. That still doesn't confer ownership to me.

A registration is merely a statement by me that I own it that is on record. In the case of copyrights there is no publication of applications for anyone to protest. In the case of trademarks the government publishes the application for opposition and if none is forthcoming then they grant the registration. In neither case does the government grant "ownership". What they grant is an official record of claim, same as a claim to a mine. Ownership can be contested in court and registrtions are quite often changed or stricken from the record when it is found that the registrant is not the owner of the property being registered.

People and companies "claim" jump all the time. It was done to us in the case of the Fury cues. Originally the name of the Fury cues was Rage. Cue and Case Sales registered the name Rage as a trademark even though they had no cues for sale and had never sold cues under that brand. The intent was to prevent the launch of a new brand. While we could have protested and filed a complaint or a suit we opted to simply change the name.

Intellectual Property law seems quite cut and dried on the surface but is actually quite a murky swamp to navigate once you are in a dispute. And sadly it is often the deepest pockets which prevail instead of the wronged parties.

 

[Blackjack]

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

I watched the videos because they were available for viewing via youtube... and I still don't care what you or Russ think about it. Sorry. I'll try to GAS tomorrow.

 

[ShootingArts]

your old website appears to be gone

I watched the videos because they were available for viewing via youtube... and I still don't care what you or Russ think about it. Sorry. I'll try to GAS tomorrow.

Your old website appears to be gone or I would post the statement you had forbiding the improper usage of your own digital property, your articles you posted on the net.

Digital = Digital

Why isn't what is good for the goose good for the gander?

Hu

 

[wayne]

I'm a saint compared to most of the pool players I've met.

I never lied to the guy... I told him I didn't play that well, and that is technically true.. I don't play well enough to beat any but the bottom 10% of tournament chess players.. It's not my fault how he interprets that. Now, if I said that I didn't even know the rules, and asked him to teach me, to set him up for an elaborate scam, you'd have a point.

And as far as being a thief.... "Negotiating" in games of skill is the one area I loosen up a bit in. You never know when the other guy is laying down as well, so you better get the best game you can.. Furthermore, he is gonna know in about 10 moves that he is outmatched, there's not gonna be any "laying down" to keep him on a string.

Just because I am a moral person does not mean I cannot participate in a good spirited "sting" of a buddy. For the cost of a cup of coffee, he's going to learn NEVER believe someone who says they don't play well when a bet comes into the picture.

Come on wayne.. Yer ssssssssssstretching it a bit, eh?

Russ

You lied when you said he would slaughter you. You stole since you were robbing him. You conned him into a game he couldn't win. But yes I was stretching it a teeny bit since you were only embarrassing him for a cup of coffee. I certainly wouldn't put that kind of effort in for nothing, if you pulled a con like that on me, I would just think of you as a loser.

I guess I am more moral than you since I don't do these type of things to gain an edge in the pool hall and not all pool players are as you described.

I generally work out what I think is a fair spot without any lies or deception and then try to win with skill and determination. I sometimes over spot and try to outrun the nuts. It works for me.

 

[Russ Chewning]

You lied when you said he would slaughter you. You stole since you were robbing him. You conned him into a game he couldn't win. But yes I was stretching it a teeny bit since you were only embarrassing him for a cup of coffee. I certainly wouldn't put that kind of effort in for nothing, if you pulled a con like that on me, I would just think of you as a loser.

I guess I am more moral than you since I don't do these type of things to gain an edge in the pool hall and not all pool players are as you described.

I generally work out what I think is a fair spot without any lies or deception and then try to win with skill and determination. I sometimes over spot and try to outrun the nuts. It works for me.

Fair enough.. I always thought that all is fair in love and betting.. Before a bet is made, I always thought it was each participants responsibility to look out for himself. I don't believe in dumping backers, and other similar tactics, but as far as a little hustling, it's awllllllllllll good.

But, we can still be friends.. Mebbe we can meet up at DCC or something.. What state you in? What pool hall do you regularly play at? What time do you usually play? How often do you get paid? Do you drink when you play?.. And finally.. do you have any identifying features that make you recognizable from across the pool hall?

Russ

 

[Russ Chewning]

Your old website appears to be gone or I would post the statement you had forbiding the improper usage of your own digital property, your articles you posted on the net.

Digital = Digital

Why isn't what is good for the goose good for the gander?

Hu

He's already come on here and said that it's just something authors and such have to deal with.

Funny, he didn't seem to have any thoughts on the matter before I started criticizing him for being hypocritical.

And even if he REALLY believes it's just something that authors just have to deal with, then why did he bother putting up the warning on his site?

Russ

 

[ShootingArts]

reasonable person

ShootingArts' points seem valid but kinda conflicted, he's antipiracy but points out that the punitive fines are 'draconian', which makes the content holder look like an ass. He also mentions you don't have to technically 'agree' to download it (e.g. by clicking a download button) but cites the example of a pedophile having pics in his browser cache or something... again that undermines the point because that's not talking about content that's illegal to copy, it's content that's just plain illegal... and obviously we're gonna throw the book at a pedo. It's a little nasty to compare youtubers to pedophiles even if it wasn't intentional

What I think is wrong is prosecuting people for getting the 'stolen goods'. If one guy buys a video, rips it, posts it, and then 200,000 people view it, I don't see it as 200,000 crimes. I see it as one crime - a guy made an illegal copy of the video, knowing it was protected. Charge him 200,000 times the usual fine if you want, but don't try to file 200,000 lawsuits.

There is the "reasonable person" test applied in many cases. If you are watching somebody's backyard party you can reasonably assume that the poster owns the footage. If the same person posts professional quality video of an NFL football game a reasonable person would conclude he didn't have the right to do so.

Youtube is well aware that there are huge amounts of stolen property posted there. This may well make Youtube the internet equivalent of a vacant lot where stolen property was being sold a few years back. This lot got so busy it was basically a flea market for stolen goods, multiple unconnected thieves and buyers met there. One day the police came through and arrested everyone present for dealing in stolen property, several dozen people. This was a known spot for fencing and anyone there was assumed to know they were dealing in stolen property.

A bit disingenuous to claim that we must be absolutely sure something is stolen before we decide it isn't to be watched. The "reasonable person" guideline should apply. It was also a bit disingenuous for BlackJack to claim what he did was fine because he didn't download the video also. That is why I pointed out a few simple truths. I think I made it plain that I was only pointing out that the same type of downloads that he made have been used as evidence in other areas. I don't consider software pirates in the same league as child molesters but the damage that they do can range from petty theft to ruining a person financially, wrecking their health, and indirectly killing them.

To the victim it makes no difference if one person stole a million dollars from them or a million people stole one dollar each. The admittedly draconian laws concerning copyright theft are to make an example of a few of those one dollar thieves to hopefully discourage most of the rest of them. To penalize someone $30,000 for taking a song that can be purchased for a few dollars seems rough but if it gives a thousand others pause then the penalty works.

I think the laws are harsh. I think they are too infrequently applied. I think theft applies to anything that has value or anything that can be owned. I fully agree with you that we have plenty of laws on the books now to cover most things. I favor fewer laws more rigidly enforced not more laws to be ignored. Hope this firms up my position concerning digital property and the law for you. There are no conflicts in my mind.

Hu