YouTube

[captainCorr]

Ok, forgive me for asking, but....what's the Forums' policy on 'YouTube (http://www.youtube.com)' (linking)?

Because 'YouTube' is (becoming) quite popular at the moment and it's a bit unclear if linking to 'YouTube' is allowed on the Forums or not.

Thanks :)

[jgb 15]

IDK but you tube is popular and it is also known for it's many videos but you might just want to make sure before you do it.

[Troll]

I don't know what the policy on it is.

[Annette]

What is it? :confused:

[captainCorr]

Check out the site (http://www.youtube.com)....it's an 'online streaming video sharing service'..

[aFinn]

Ok, forgive me for asking, but....what's the Forums' policy on 'YouTube (http://www.youtube.com)' (linking)?

Because 'YouTube' is (becoming) quite popular at the moment and it's a bit unclear if linking to 'YouTube' is allowed on the Forums or not. Thanks for bringing this up. As with any new 'issue' it might take a while for a moderation 'limit' to set place. Basicly, if the content is copyrighted, you can't link to it, just like Forum rules say. For example, a Shania video or tv performance cannot be linked to here.
Though there are lots of websites using this service to host original content, and there are so called homevideos etc. Once a new issue is brough up or develops, we take a case by case take on it, and once a trend is created, a line in moderation is created too. It's good to discuss a new issue like this, so that everyone knows what is allowed and what is not. If you have specific link questions, you're welcome to contact a moderator first before posting to ask if it's allowed, and we'll go from there.

[Troll]

Thanks for the info Marika.

[FinnFreak]

You wouldn't believe the number of Digital Millennium Copyright Act notifications YouTube gets... and they comply, by removing the copyrighted material.

Then, they kick out the person who submitted the files in the first place, as it's against YouTube's Terms of Use.

...but sooner or later, they will be going to court.



YouTube™ Terms of Use


5. User Submissions

C. In connection with User Submissions, you further agree that you will not: (i) submit material that is copyrighted, protected by trade secret or otherwise subject to third party proprietary rights, including privacy and publicity rights, unless you are the owner of such rights or have permission from their rightful owner to post the material and to grant YouTube all of the license rights granted herein; (ii) publish falsehoods or misrepresentations that could damage YouTube or any third party; (iii) submit material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, pornographic, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate; (iv) post advertisements or solicitations of business: (v) impersonate another person.

http://www.youtube.com/t/terms


Viral video site poses challenge for Hollywood

As YouTube takes off, media companies try to decide if it's friend or foe

By Andrew Wallenstein
Hollywood Reporter
Updated: 6:18 p.m. ET March 21, 2006


Lots of notoriety, but no lawsuits ... yet


But for all the notoriety YouTube has earned, the site has not been sued, nor has it even received a cease-and-desist letter. What YouTube has been bombarded with are Digital Millennium Copyright Act notifications, which compel Web sites to remove copyright-infringing material.

YouTube has received high marks from most companies that credit the Web site with complying quickly with removal requests.

"YouTube has been a good corporate citizen and taken off copyrighted material," says a spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Assn. of America, the lobbying arm for the major Hollywood studios. "We'll continue to monitor what they do. Right now the indication is they are willing to work with us."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11945604/wid/7279844/



It doesn't matter one bit, what service provider is used - if one doesn't have the permission for distribution, you don't.


John - :smirk:

[captainCorr]

The thing is, it won't help.. 90% of what's on 'YouTube' is.."illegal"/against copyright. So the only thing that "helps" get all the copyrighted stuff off of it, is shut 'YouTube' down..

And believe me, 'YouTube' is the first of many sort-like sites [to come]..:smirk:
One way or the other, they have to come up with something, they have to come up with 21th century rules.

[FinnFreak]

:uhh:

...and here I thought even China was slowly shifting from communism towards commercialism... :smirk:


Sorry, but I think we've already answered your question on where the Forums stands on this issue: what the international laws say.


EXACTLY: they have to come up with 21st century rules.


And respecting the rights of the copyright holder is the key - they pay for the development & production, their operations are legitimate - therefore it's their property and responsibility to re-think more effective ways of marketing & distributing their goods - it's not for others to mess around with.


It's true - the more powerful ways of communication and advanced technology have created an opportunity for some to quickly distribute copyrighted material or information - and set up manufacturing/distribution facilities where clothing, footware, electronics, entertainment products, software, quality design items, etc. are produced/distributed with considerably lower levels of quality & with no guarantees - but are difficult for the consumer to distinguish from the real thing.

Piracy, those leeches - who take advantage of other peoples work & manufacture poor quality copies - gain NO sympathy points from me, as there are usually several other criminal activities involved: if you produce pirate products, you probably have to distribute them illegally - setting up smuggling logistics can move besides bootlegs, also other illegal substances, drugs, human slave trafficing... and the list goes on... increasing poverty in the world, instead of diminishing it.


And if they don't do their R&D work honestly like they should, they most certainly don't pay their taxes - or pay their employees decent salaries, with healthcare benefits.


Many complain how today's music lacks originality - how there are so few quality acts - it's because people are lazy, trying to go over the fence where it's the lowest - and many copy others' ideas, instead of coming up with their own.


No, we got to work - and work hard.

Nobody should ride for free.


...and if people would just bother to think more carefully about this issue, cut down on excessive spending on instant gratification & rather look at methods of durable development... we would in the end gain more, by paying less & being less selfish.


John - :smirk:

[captainCorr]

If only more people would think like you..which unfortunately isn't the case [at all], espcially in these times of economical/financial depression..:smirk: :)

Besides, I wasn't 're-asking' the question posted in the very first post FYI, I was just merely stating a statement.

[FinnFreak]

If only more people would think like you..which unfortunately isn't the case [at all], espcially in these times of economical/financial depression..:smirk: :)

Besides, I wasn't 're-asking' the question posted in the very first post FYI, I was just merely stating a statement.

:funny:

ok, in that case: forget everything I just said..! :p


John - ;)

[FinnFreak]

http://www.youtube.com/img/logo.gif


ALL YOUR VIDEO ARE BELONG TO US.


UPDATE: No, we haven't been hacked. Get a sense of humor.

UPDATE 2: Apparently we can't spel.

UPDATE 3: Please stop calling the office, we're trying to work in here.


Source of http://www.youtube.com/

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title>YouTube - Your Digital Video Repository</title>
<link rel="icon" href="favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon">
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon">
</head>

<body>

<div style="margin: auto; text-align:center; padding: 20px;">
<img src="/img/logo.gif" width="180" height="71" hspace="12" vspace="12" alt="YouTube" />
<div style="font-size:16px;">
<br>ALL YOUR VIDEO ARE BELONG TO US.
<br>
<!--
You have reached YouTube, the premier digital video repository on the Internet. We are currently working on the site.
<br>
<br> We'll be back soon...
<br>
-->
</div>
<div style="margin: auto; text-align:left; padding: 20px;">
<br>UPDATE: No, we haven't been hacked. Get a sense of humor.
<br>
<br>UPDATE 2: Apparently we can't spel.
<br>
<br>UPDATE 3: Please stop calling the office, we're trying to work in here.
<br>
</div>

</body>
</html>


John - :p

[jgb 15]

The thing is in my opinion, You tube doesn't allow videos of all sorts and for one has the ability to allow the poster to make videos exclusive to those he/she chooses. But sooner or later they need to better protect the agreements because I know some people dont own the copyright and post anyway. But there is also a thing called mentioning the source and then it's ok as long as ownership isn't claimed.

So that is something everyone needs to know about the site. If ya dont own it dont claim it as your works give credit where it is due. Thats what will make the diffference on that site. So far it's doing fine and when complaints are sent then theres a problem they will have to work out.

If the owner doesnt complain of distribution it really isn't against the rules yet. Broadcast Yourself... and then it is up to the owner what happens soas long as their cool the site will be successful.

[FinnFreak]

But sooner or later they need to better protect the agreements because I know some people dont own the copyright and post anyway. But there is also a thing called mentioning the source and then it's ok as long as ownership isn't claimed.
...

If the owner doesnt complain of distribution it really isn't against the rules yet. Broadcast Yourself... and then it is up to the owner what happens soas long as their cool the site will be successful.

umm... not really: one also needs permission from the copyright holder for distribution as well.

It *is* against the rules - whether the owner complains or not.

Is it not a crime, if you haven't noticed, that you've been robbed..?


John - :)

[Shania's4life!!]

I still don't get how linking to a Shania tv performance or interview would significantly infringe copyrights. Lets say it is a popular show like the Tonight Show, you wouldn't be linking to the whole show...just a small portion of it. How is that much different from taking 100+ caps and sharing them? or writing a transcript? or lending someone the tape? or, I dunno...uploading it on the Internet?

It's all the same thing really, the latter is just more convenient yet they are judged by different standards. This world is too politically correct, which is why I support things like youtube.

[aFinn]

I still don't get how linking to a Shania tv performance or interview would significantly infringe copyrights.This issue is discussed about 7 times in the Copyrights & piracy thread in this forum, so I won't get into it anymore, it's over and done.


From the Forums rules:

Copyrighted Material

You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you. Unauthorized files (audio or video or illegal software) are not permitted. This includes, but is not restricted to, linking to such files or pirated software, asking for such files, posting content with the intent to encourage such behaviour, and suggesting means through which such files or software may be obtained. Failure to comply with this may result in termination of your membership to the forum, and if deemed appropriate, legal action will be sought.

[Shania's4life!!]

Yeah I know, although,

You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you.

Where exactly do you draw the line with this? because there is still a lot of copyrighted material posted on this site. Providing it isn't something which is available commercially, outlawing audio and video just seems like an unnecessary restriction. How does it break any more "copyright laws" then posting something such as magazine scans, transcripts, photos etc.?

[aFinn]

Ady, like I said before, these issues have been discussed already in the other thread, all questions and points were raised multiple times, asked and answered, I won't start it again as there are only same questions and same answers. I'm sorry.

[cftennisnative3]

I love YouTube :D:p

[FinnFreak]

...so will the lawyers...


John - ;)

[cftennisnative3]

...so will the lawyers...


John - ;)
most likely....so I gotta love it while we still have it :p...

[Shania's4life!!]

The only downside with youtube is that you can't actually download the files. ...well you "can", there are ways around it, but all the videos that are uploaded on that site are converted to a crappy flash format. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why there hasn't been any lawsuits against it yet? Videos have been removed through copyright holder's request though (a lot of WWE stuff for instance) but that isn't surprising considering how extremely tight they are about their video library.

[matty]

What's wrong with them being tight? It's their product why should they give it away? They pay the wrestlers to wrestle, they pay the production guys to make it. Are they not allowed to get anything back? :rolleyes:

[cftennisnative3]

The only downside with youtube is that you can't actually download the files. ...well you "can", there are ways around it, but all the videos that are uploaded on that site are converted to a crappy flash format. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why there hasn't been any lawsuits against it yet? Videos have been removed through copyright holder's request though (a lot of WWE stuff for instance) but that isn't surprising considering how extremely tight they are about their video library.
yeah, that's the only downside. Hmm...maybe that is the reason :dunno: . I was so happy to be able to see some of the Shania stuff I wasn't able to see from the past :D

[canoilers]

umm... not really: one also needs permission from the copyright holder for distribution as well.

It *is* against the rules - whether the owner complains or not.

Is it not a crime, if you haven't noticed, that you've been robbed..?


John - :)A new twist on, if a tree falls in the forest.............. I like it, very much so. :D

[FinnFreak]

A new twist on, if a tree falls in the forest.............. I like it, very much so. :D

Nononono...

...it's Kate's (shaniarools) riddle that really does the trick:


"If Shania's singing in the forest, but nobody's listening - does she still rool..?"


John - ;):up:

[canoilers]

Well theres no toping that one, thats pure classic forums. Yeppers that was one of the best ever lines. :D

[Shania's4life!!]

What's wrong with them being tight? It's their product why should they give it away? They pay the wrestlers to wrestle, they pay the production guys to make it. Are they not allowed to get anything back? :rolleyes:


Well..nothing, but it isn't doing any damage to their product, just a place where people can go to experience some nostalgia.
Plus the fact that many of the videos that crop up on youtube are rare things which people have probably never seen and wouldn't even know exist if it wasn't for the Internet. It's the same with Shania related videos, she's done many performances/interviews in her time which a lot of fans haven't had the luxury of being able to view or hear (for whatever reason), and and aren't likely to be re-aired on TV in the next...decade, or ever again for that matter. So what harm is there in them being available on the Internet? It is things like youtube that have the potential to make new fans, people who would otherwise be in the dark.

[Troll]

Nononono...

...it's Kate's (shaniarools) riddle that really does the trick:


"If Shania's singing in the forest, but nobody's listening - does she still rool..?"


John - ;):up:

That is an awesome riddle

[FinnFreak]

Well..nothing, but it isn't doing any damage to their product, just a place where people can go to experience some nostalgia.
Plus the fact that many of the videos that crop up on youtube are rare things which people have probably never seen and wouldn't even know exist if it wasn't for the Internet. It's the same with Shania related videos, she's done many performances/interviews in her time which a lot of fans haven't had the luxury of being able to view or hear (for whatever reason), and and aren't likely to be re-aired on TV in the next...decade, or ever again for that matter. So what harm is there in them being available on the Internet? It is things like youtube that have the potential to make new fans, people who would otherwise be in the dark.

As mentioned earlier - it's not for others to decide.

Many would like their performances to be presented in a controlled high-quality fashion - and others would prefer some clips to fade away completely from peoples' memories.

I think posting clips of copyrighted material without permission is downright rude.


John - :smirk:

[canoilers]

So then I guess the posting of copyrighted porn is a real no-no. :p

[FinnFreak]

So then I guess the posting of copyrighted porn is a real no-no. :p

:biglaugh: - !!!


...heck, I've got to dig up the quotes thread at some point... - that one's a real gem..! :funny::up:


John - :D

[canoilers]

I was bound to have one at some point, I mean its not like I ever shut up. :p

[Shania's4life!!]

As mentioned earlier - it's not for others to decide.

Many would like their performances to be presented in a controlled high-quality fashion - and others would prefer some clips to fade away completely from peoples' memories.

I think posting clips of copyrighted material without permission is downright rude.


John - :smirk:


But surely the copyright holders are aware that by airing something on national television they are putting their work at risk of being recorded/copied/captured/distributed etc. in some form, with the use of devices which are perfectly legal, so are they really in a position to complain? If it were something more private then the copyright infringement would make more sense (like album leaks, concert bootlegs, home videos etc.)

As far as permission goes, does that apply to video and audio only? pictures are usually copyrighted, but having to get permission each time you want to post a photo of Shania sounds ridiculous to me.

[aFinn]

airing something on national television they are putting their work at risk of being recorded/copied/captured/distributed etc. in some formIt's the distribution part that is the key versus recording to private use. You don't have the right to re-distribute. Production companies decide if they sell series and how many re-airing rights with tv shows/series. You see this all the time with requested tv series. If tv company hasn't purchased/wasn't allowed to purchase re-airing rights, some tv series only air once in a certain country despite frequent requests from viewers. Later those tv series will probably be released as a dvd box.

[captainCorr]

As far as permission goes, does that apply to video and audio only? pictures are usually copyrighted, but having to get permission each time you want to post a photo of Shania sounds ridiculous to me.

No, it applies to pictures too, especially HQ pictures. In fact what we're doing at the moment with the HQ's is quite illegal too. Whether it's audio, video or (HQ) photographs. I see no reason why it should be dealt with differently. It's all the same ['problem'].

You know what, it's even worse with HQ pics, you know why? Because a lot of times magazines/photograph agencies request forums/sites to take those pics down (and they usually comply), I name 'Maxim' & 'Blender'. They are quite active in this area, which is not the case at all with for example video sharing. I'll even bet that when Shania does another Maxim/Blender shoot and HQ pics of that shoot are posted here, they will contact this forum to remove them.

So no, there's no difference between video, audio & photos.

[matty]

Well..nothing, but it isn't doing any damage to their product, just a place where people can go to experience some nostalgia.

No? So if everyone downloaded their matches illegally, how would they stay in business and continue producing the product?
As far as I'm aware you can buy more or less every WWE event, with certain exceptions like Over the Edge 1999, because Owen Hart died that night and obviously the circumstances surrounding it aren't really suitable for viewing.
If anything remotley good happens on Raw/Smackdown/Velocity etc it gets re-aired on other broadcasts and will usually find its way on to the best of the year DVD's. So there is no excuse for wanting to download WWE matches because they make sure that the fans get everything they want. IMO they're one of the best entertainment companies when it comes to keeping their fans happy. I've bought hundreds of WWE wrestling videos/DVD's over the years because they give great value, and if someone wants to get WWE stuff from the net, they just need to join WWE.com, because you can view old matches and other cool rare stuff on there. At the end of the day some people aren't prepared to pay for something they want anymore. That's my view on buyable things anyway. When it comes to TV apperances etc then I think we should be able to share it, that's just my opinion and I'm not gonna complain about changing the rules of this place. But how much Shania stuff is shown in America/Canada that people in the rest of the world can't see? A lot, now if we could see it on an offical website that would be okay, but we can't, so what are we mean't to do? :dunno:

[captainCorr]

so what are we mean't to do? :dunno:

Apparently share it behind-the-scenes/in secret..:smirk: :)

[Shania's4life!!]

It's the distribution part that is the key versus recording to private use. You don't have the right to re-distribute. Production companies decide if they sell series and how many re-airing rights with tv shows/series. You see this all the time with requested tv series. If tv company hasn't purchased/wasn't allowed to purchase re-airing rights, some tv series only air once in a certain country despite frequent requests from viewers. Later those tv series will probably be released as a dvd box.


If someone was distributing something...like their own recorded versions of a show series and selling them to try and make a profit then I agree. But otherwise, I think there is a line. No one is going to sue someone for uploading a 2 minute clip from the news, for example, but is that any less infringing then uploading a 2 minute clip from a tv show that "may or may not" eventually be released commercially? It's not so much about rights as it is about money.

[Shania's4life!!]

No? So if everyone downloaded their matches illegally, how would they stay in business and continue producing the product?
As far as I'm aware you can buy more or less every WWE event, with certain exceptions like Over the Edge 1999, because Owen Hart died that night and obviously the circumstances surrounding it aren't really suitable for viewing.
If anything remotley good happens on Raw/Smackdown/Velocity etc it gets re-aired on other broadcasts and will usually find its way on to the best of the year DVD's. So there is no excuse for wanting to download WWE matches because they make sure that the fans get everything they want. IMO they're one of the best entertainment companies when it comes to keeping their fans happy. I've bought hundreds of WWE wrestling videos/DVD's over the years because they give great value, and if someone wants to get WWE stuff from the net, they just need to join WWE.com, because you can view old matches and other cool rare stuff on there. At the end of the day some people aren't prepared to pay for something they want anymore. That's my view on buyable things anyway. When it comes to TV apperances etc then I think we should be able to share it, that's just my opinion and I'm not gonna complain about changing the rules of this place. But how much Shania stuff is shown in America/Canada that people in the rest of the world can't see? A lot, now if we could see it on an offical website that would be okay, but we can't, so what are we mean't to do? :dunno:


I think the people distributing entire PPV's is what is affecting their business, although with it being live TV it can't be by much (I think their buyrates are still doing well despite illegal filesharers). Distributing 1 match, or 1 segment wouldn't really affect anything in the long run, all the real wrestling fans would likely buy the events that interest them anyway regardless of whether or not they're on the Internet.

[matty]

I think the people distributing entire PPV's is what is affecting their business, although with it being live TV it can't be by much (I think their buyrates are still doing well despite illegal filesharers). Distributing 1 match, or 1 segment wouldn't really affect anything in the long run, all the real wrestling fans would likely buy the events that interest them anyway regardless of whether or not they're on the Internet.

I see your point, however the other main thing that's really affecting their business is low ticket sales for Smackdown and it's house shows. I'm not sure if that's still the case as I've not payed attention to the behind the scenes stuff in a while, but they are using smaller venues.
So why doesn't downloading/distributing one match affect them in the long run? Say for example 1000 fans want the Wrestlemania 15 main event. Now that was in the attitude era so in order to sell it now they need to change/dub the logos within the show and alter the DVD packaging, now I'm not saying that costs a lot but it's still money. Anyway those 1000 fans download or get the match illegally. They can still be "real fans" but they just want that match. Now the DVD of the show costs betweem £15 - £30, so that means they've lost anywhere between £15,000 - £30,000 from people just downloading/getting one match illegally, the affect of that will just snowball. The same can apply to any good match from Raw/Smackdown as well because the good ones, as I said tend to make it to DVD. So if you combine that with falling ticket sales, they're going begin finding it hard to make a profit and stay in business.
I doubt you'd have the same mind set if someone was doing it to your business without permission.

Again my argument is just based on stuff that's buyable, not random TV apperances.

[Shania's4life!!]

I see your point, however the other main thing that's really affecting their business is low ticket sales for Smackdown and it's house shows. I'm not sure if that's still the case as I've not payed attention to the behind the scenes stuff in a while, but they are using smaller venues.
So why doesn't downloading/distributing one match affect them in the long run? Say for example 1000 fans want the Wrestlemania 15 main event. Now that was in the attitude era so in order to sell it now they need to change/dub the logos within the show and alter the DVD packaging, now I'm not saying that costs a lot but it's still money. Anyway those 1000 fans download or get the match illegally. They can still be "real fans" but they just want that match. Now the DVD of the show costs betweem £15 - £30, so that means they've lost anywhere between £15,000 - £30,000 from people just downloading/getting one match illegally, the affect of that will just snowball. The same can apply to any good match from Raw/Smackdown as well because the good ones, as I said tend to make it to DVD. So if you combine that with falling ticket sales, they're going begin finding it hard to make a profit and stay in business.
I doubt you'd have the same mind set if someone was doing it to your business without permission.

Again my argument is just based on stuff that's buyable, not random TV apperances.

It really depends on how well their DVD/VHS catalog actually sells...I wouldn't know, but most fans probably record the live PPV's directly from TV rather then waiting for them to be released on DVD, which is understandable considering they are payng for it anyway, so there will be a large portion of fans who aren't willing to re-buy an event all over again. The people who download or watch videos on the Internet for free aren't all necessarily potential buyers either, most just do it because they can and because they don't have to pay to see it.
As for the loss in profits, it's true that wrestling isn't half as popular as it used to be in the 90's, but I don't think things like illegal downloads are really to blame for that...

[Roger]

Posts below have been moved from another thread



a couple of you tube related posts and links. we don't support unlawful distribution of copyrighted material.

Shania's official fan club has a whole thread entitled Shania's Youtube Videos.

[aFinn]

In case you haven't noticed Roger, this isn't the same site :p

[Roger]

In case you haven't noticed Roger, this isn't the same site :p

Oh! Thank you for pointing that out, Marika! ;) :)

But the people reading this may not realize that a lot of Shania's appearances are available at the OFC via links to youtube.

[aFinn]

Roger, I'm really, really tired now, another time and place for this discussion, ok?

[Shania's4life!!]

How do you define "copyrighted"? because most countries have different copyright laws, and if you want to get technical then there is already a lot of copyrighted material posted here anyway, so why is there such a strict filtering when it comes to audio or video?
I know this is beating a dead horse but I still don't understand why these rules are enforced. I honestly can't think of a single other website that wouldn't allow linking to youtube. :huh: ...well, except for the "shaniaboards". Most of the videos on youtube would fall under the fair useage clause of the US Copyright Act anyway, no authorities are going to come knocking at your door with lawsuits over some 2 minute clip of Shania Twain talking.

[FinnFreak]

How do you define "copyrighted"? because most countries have different copyright laws, and if you want to get technical then there is already a lot of copyrighted material posted here anyway, so why is there such a strict filtering when it comes to audio or video?
I know this is beating a dead horse but I still don't understand why these rules are enforced. I honestly can't think of a single other website that wouldn't allow linking to youtube. :huh: ...well, except for the "shaniaboards". Most of the videos on youtube would fall under the fair useage clause of the US Copyright Act anyway, no authorities are going to come knocking at your door with lawsuits over some 2 minute clip of Shania Twain talking.

cop·y·right

–noun

1. the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc.: works granted such right by law on or after January 1, 1978, are protected for the lifetime of the author or creator and for a period of 50 years after his or her death.

–adjective

2. of or pertaining to copyrights.

3. Also, cop·y·right·ed. protected by copyright.

–verb (used with object)

4. to secure a copyright on.


The line has to be drawn somewhere.


There are plenty of websites who do NOT allow linking to YouTube.


If a record label makes a deal with the company, to quickly resolve a dispute without the need to go to court, well... that's good for them. Still, it does not eliminate the fact, that most of the material there is still distributed without permission. And that, is WRONG.

And we don't have to jump on each bandwagon that comes our way.

As mentioned before: websites have been, are being closed & will be closed all the time - because of copyright violations... and just because you don't get caught or sued, doesn't mean that you are in the clear.



October 13th, 2006

Finnish comedian not amused at P2P

http://finnmetal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/heikki_silvennoinen.png


Ilta-Sanomat reports that the Tampere police has initiated an investigation into alleged illegal sharing of Kummeli movies over the Internet. The Kummeli actors are pissed off at their latest movie “Kummeli Jackpot” hitting the P2P networks. The DVD is officially released today, but the torrent has apparently been available for quite some time already. “This is so wrong!” cries Kummeli funny-guy Heikki Silvennoinen, “You do all the work, but don’t get the salary you’re supposed to get. That’s like stealing money from someone’s bank account.”

In other news, Universal Pictures releases a special “Imperial edition” DVD of Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning, a movie that was released for anyone to download for free over the internet.


Heikki Silvennoinen: "Ihan vastaavaa kuin että joku veisi toisen ihmisen tililtä rahaa. Kyllä tuollaiseen pitääkin puuttua! Piratismi on kiusallinen vitsaus, josta kärsivät meidän lisäksemme myös monet muutkin esiintyvät taiteilijat"...

"Kyllähän me siitä lähdetään, että nää on mun maitani... tossa toissapäivänä tuli pari nörttiä tohon parinsadan kilometrin päähän norkoilemaan. Siinä ne sitten läppärillä lataili Kummeli-videoita YouTubesta ja nauro räkätti päin naamaa niin MÄÄHÄN NE MYRKYTIN!"



John - :)

[FinnFreak]

Roger, I'm really, really tired now, another time and place for this discussion, ok?

:uhh: - are you absolutely SURE you want to discuss copyrights... AGAIN..? :really:


John - :p

[Roger]

Well, like it or not, this topic will keep coming up again and again. IMO the whole concept of copyright is crumbling in the face of unstoppable technology. I will voluntarily lay off this topic though. That is preferable to having a thread closed again. Stifling discussion does violence to the integrity of this board.

[FinnFreak]

Well, like it or not, this topic will keep coming up again and again. IMO the whole concept of copyright is crumbling in the face of unstoppable technology. I will voluntarily lay off this topic though. That is preferable to having a thread closed again.

I should mention, that there are also technologies being developed to prevent the downfall of existing structures. Naturally, the consumer needs must not be forgotten - middle ground should be found, where all parties would benefit from each other... otherwise, the whole process is artificial & collapses under it's own impossibility sooner or later...




Stifling discussion does violence to the integrity of this board.

I agree - it stinks on ice.


John - :)

[angwags]

What about all the copyrighted photographs on this site then? :huh:

[aFinn]

Just a couple of points. Pictures and articles are also copyrighted and I know messageboards that allow just links to those. At the moment though ShaniaForums restrictions are with video and audio links and files, mostly due to the age we live in. I have a few times asked if members would like to see the picture forum gone, but I haven't seen many that support that.

TV networks do care about these video sites, just as an example a few Finnish networks have demanded that YouTube remove content these networks have rights to.
It is possible that at some point network and production companies reach distribution agreements and copyrights payments deals etc with various video sites on the net, until that happens we do not support illegal distribution of copyrighted material. There are some signs about certain companies forming minisites under YouTube etc, we will see how that developes.

From our rules:
Copyrighted Material

Unauthorized files (audio or video or illegal software) are not permitted. This includes, but is not restricted to, linking to such files or pirated software, asking for such files, posting content with the intent to encourage such behaviour, and suggesting means through which such files or software may be obtained.


:uhh: - are you absolutely SURE you want to discuss copyrights... AGAIN..? :really:


John - :pI have no intention of going 7 rounds again saying the exact same things as before. :uhh:
Copyrights & Piracy Discussion (http://www.shaniaforums.com/showthread.php?t=29415)

Besides I don't even understand all the hassle, those that wish to view illegal content know where to go and what to do, there is no reason at all to post links in a messageboard that doesn't permit that. :huh:







What's the future of digital distribution, we will see.



Red Herring - October 19, 2006


Music Takes Digital Control

Battle-weary music industry bypasses Napster and YouTube and channels directly to fans


The music industry will attempt to rehabilitate its rocky relationship with the Internet by bypassing troublesome middlemen, such as Napster and YouTube, and communicating directly with its legion of music and music-video fans.

Universal Music U.K. said Thursday it will test a set of branded Internet broadcast channels through which the company and its artists will deliver music, video, concert footage, and behind-the-scenes chats directly to PCs, PDAs, cell phones, and other digital media devices.

The move is a significant departure for a music content owner like Universal Music, which intends to roll out the broadcast network beyond just the United Kingdom.

Music companies have traditionally communicated with consumers through radio and TV. Music content owners have participated in an ongoing, mutually beneficial relationship with the radio industry for more than 50 years. That relationship has been enhanced by the emergence of satellite radio.

The industry has also developed close and profitable relationships with music-oriented TV networks such as MTV and VH1, and popular music-based TV shows such as American Idol. Performers and TV hosts move seamlessly across a nonexistent music-TV divide.


Combative Digital Relationship

But no such seamless relationship exists in the digital world. The industry’s relationship with Internet-based middlemen such as the P2P file-sharing firms and the online video companies such as YouTube has been problematic and adversarial, to say the least.

The industry has also had a combative relationship with Apple, which has been criticized for its pricing inflexibility.

“The software and hardware industries have used the music industry’s content to accumulate billions in market cap on the backs of everybody from Shania Twain to Mariah Carey,” said Robert Kelly, chief executive of WWEBNET (World Wide Electronic Broadcast Network), the company behind the broadcast channels.

Five-year-old WWEBNET has more than 70 contracts with entertainment companies, including all of the major music labels.

“The music industry understands that if they don’t get control of their consumer networks and their digital distribution, they can get gobbled up by the likes of Google, Apple, and Microsoft,” he added.


Feeding at the Revenue Trough

The music-Internet relationship has played out in U.S. courts for the most part, although Google’s recent acquisition of YouTube is shifting the focus of the relationship from copyright infringement to the potential windfall available from advertising.

Radio and TV provide the music industry with an avalanche of free publicity without feeding from the industry’s revenue trough. The industry claims that music file-sharing firms such as Napster compete with them directly.

The music industry continues to wallpaper the landscape with lawsuits in an effort to deter fans from illegally downloading its music, and online video enthusiasts from using its video content without permission.

But the industry is also casting about for technological accommodations on the web through which it can better protect its content from pilferage, and Universal Music’s latest direct-to-consumer broadcast channels are the latest vehicles.


Taking Control

The technology behind the broadcast channels comes from New York City-based WWEBNET. It is a hosted service that delivers multimedia content directly to the fans’ PCs or other devices.

The users download and install the channel application on their digital devices, and a resident desktop icon alerts them when new content is added.

WWEBNET operates the system, but it appears to the consumer as a Universal Music-branded product. The system has e-commerce, content management, and advertising capability built in.

“Entertainment companies can distribute content or advertising on a worldwide basis,” said Mr. Kelly. “This is a sea change for entertainment companies. This gives them the ownership of their distribution network and direct access to advertising revenue generated around content distribution.”


http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=19261&hed=Music+Takes+Digital+Control&sector=Industries&subsector=EntertainmentAndMedia

[Shania's4life!!]

cop·y·right

–noun

1. the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc.: works granted such right by law on or after January 1, 1978, are protected for the lifetime of the author or creator and for a period of 50 years after his or her death.

–adjective

2. of or pertaining to copyrights.

3. Also, cop·y·right·ed. protected by copyright.

–verb (used with object)

4. to secure a copyright on.


The line has to be drawn somewhere.


True, but how do we determine where to draw that line?

From the US copyright office on "fair use":

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.



There are plenty of websites who do NOT allow linking to YouTube.

Maybe there are, but there are a lot of websites which are a lot huger then this one (therefore have a larger reputation to attain in order to avoid unlawful attention) that don't condone illegal actions yet have no problem with youtube linking. Youtube is like the fastest growing and 6th largest website on the Internet right now, if the government considered it illegal then they would have shut it down by now.



If a record label makes a deal with the company, to quickly resolve a dispute without the need to go to court, well... that's good for them. Still, it does not eliminate the fact, that most of the material there is still distributed without permission. And that, is WRONG.

Using that frame of logic, posting photos, news articles, transcripts, magazine scans etc. "without permission" here is also wrong.
What if someone obtained the permission to post a Shania video clip here, would you consider it ok?



And we don't have to jump on each bandwagon that comes our way.

As mentioned before: websites have been, are being closed & will be closed all the time - because of copyright violations... and just because you don't get caught or sued, doesn't mean that you are in the clear.


The majority of websites that get shut down are those that either distribute copyrighted material for profit or distribute commercially available material for free. Keep in mind youtube is currently the 6th largest website on the Internet and it doesn't make profit from the videos uploaded, if there were any legal problems with youtube then the authorities would go to youtube seeing how that would be the major source of all the content, not some third party.



October 13th, 2006

Finnish comedian not amused at P2P

http://finnmetal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/heikki_silvennoinen.png


Ilta-Sanomat reports that the Tampere police has initiated an investigation into alleged illegal sharing of Kummeli movies over the Internet. The Kummeli actors are pissed off at their latest movie “Kummeli Jackpot” hitting the P2P networks. The DVD is officially released today, but the torrent has apparently been available for quite some time already. “This is so wrong!” cries Kummeli funny-guy Heikki Silvennoinen, “You do all the work, but don’t get the salary you’re supposed to get. That’s like stealing money from someone’s bank account.”

In other news, Universal Pictures releases a special “Imperial edition” DVD of Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning, a movie that was released for anyone to download for free over the internet.


Heikki Silvennoinen: "Ihan vastaavaa kuin että joku veisi toisen ihmisen tililtä rahaa. Kyllä tuollaiseen pitääkin puuttua! Piratismi on kiusallinen vitsaus, josta kärsivät meidän lisäksemme myös monet muutkin esiintyvät taiteilijat"...

"Kyllähän me siitä lähdetään, että nää on mun maitani... tossa toissapäivänä tuli pari nörttiä tohon parinsadan kilometrin päähän norkoilemaan. Siinä ne sitten läppärillä lataili Kummeli-videoita YouTubesta ja nauro räkätti päin naamaa niin MÄÄHÄN NE MYRKYTIN!"



John - :)


Youtube isn't like bittorrent, it doesn't allow people to download or distribute commercial products such as albums or DVD's so I don't see how that is relevant. A lot of the clips posted on youtube are so obscure that they couldn't possibly "hurt" the "potential" profits of the creators, especially considering most of the stuff on there has such little no market value anyway therefore will never be released commercially.

[aFinn]

Referring to the Fair use act: Length of clips of any tv shows, with or without Shania, vary tremendously from a few second clips to whole shows in multiple parts. It is impossible to start to determine with each clip what portion of the original show it is from and it is also impossible for us to know the value, the different provisions that are in effect etc etc, and furthermore any links on a videosite contain links to other similar files, and even if we would find one clip we possibly could allow, the other links wouldn't be ok. Conclusion: we cannot allow links.



Ady, just a hint, like I said before, you can say these things over and over, but they are asked and answered previously already.

[Shania's4life!!]

Just a note, my posts on this issue are not an attempt to try and persuade "change" of rules here at the forums, they are just merely a discussion. Personally, the whole issue of copyrights and legality gets on my nuts, there is no doubt copyright law is a messed up law.

[aFinn]

Just a note, my posts on this issue are not an attempt to try and persuade "change" of rules here at the forums, they are just merely a discussion. Personally, the whole issue of copyrights and legality gets on my nuts, there is no doubt copyright law is a messed up law.The way you posed your questions/comments led me to believe you were doing that, I got confused, I apologize.
If you wish to discuss copyrights in general, feel free by all means, but what comes to changing forum rules that ain't gonna happen now and like I said, I am not going to get into things already talked to death.

Things within the digital rights copyrights and law will most likely be amended as the world changes and distribution channels change, they will reach different kinds of agreements regarding those, we will see what happens in the future.

[matty]

I've no problem with rules, but I just want to ask. What's the difference between sharing videos on youtube and sharing videos on photobucket? Surely doing both is breaking the law?

The reason I'm asking is someone has and that post seems to be acceptable.

[aFinn]

Could you please point me to the direction of the photobucket thingy so I can investigate, via PM perhaps?

[matty]

Could you please point me to the direction of the photobucket thingy so I can investigate, via PM perhaps?

Here it is, the last post in the thread.

http://www.shaniaforums.com/showthread.php?t=39192&page=6

[aFinn]

lol, okay, thanks, I'll be leaving that for FinnFreak to answer :p

[FinnFreak]

there is no doubt copyright law is a messed up law.

No argument there.


From an industry point-of-view it does not clearly enough protect their rights.

From a consumer point-of-view, their rights have been neglected.

And the poor artists, without whom there wouldn't even be anything to fight about, are stuck somewhere in the middle.


I think the solution to this dilemma will eventually come from the artists, who go independent: own the rights to their work, run their own companies - and decide themselves how, where & when they release their art.


John - :)

[FinnFreak]

I've no problem with rules, but I just want to ask. What's the difference between sharing videos on youtube and sharing videos on photobucket? Surely doing both is breaking the law?

The reason I'm asking is someone has and that post seems to be acceptable.

The difference is: permission.

That clip I shot myself and have posted with permission.

Tarja Turunen and her manager husband Marcelo Cabuli have allowed fans to do this during this tour. They liked that "Air Guitar" clip. Got to meet them personally a week ago. Nice people. I like. ;)


I see how it seems confusing. Everything does in the Forums.

Maybe to reduce confusion, I should remove that link here & instead give a link to Tarja Turunen's Official site, where there's a link to that same file ..?

:uhh:

...I think I just managed to increase the level of confusion...


John - :p

[matty]

Fair enough. I think that's quite cool. Metallica do the same with their concerts. I'd like to be in at a show in the late 80's and early 90's when people had old style camcorders and mics recording the show in the crowd lol.

[Shania's4life!!]

Fair enough. I think that's quite cool. Metallica do the same with their concerts. I'd like to be in at a show in the late 80's and early 90's when people had old style camcorders and mics recording the show in the crowd lol.

I think some artists still allow that, although sometimes the venue security "rules" will conflict with the artist "rules". Like for example, Shania has no problem with people taking pictures with their cameras but at some gigs the security were apparently being a-holes and not allowing it, even taking cameras away from some people, among other restrictions. Makes you wonder why...although at my Shania gigs the security were fairly nice, they had no problem with cameras, they even told us beforehand that Shania will come round the stage so you will have opportunities to go up to her. Not sure what the stance is on recording though...but I do remember Shania waving for some people recording with their cameras/cellphones.

[FinnFreak]

The most famous example of this would be the fans of Grateful Dead... aka

The Tapers

http://www.photog.com/gdead/80s/89/10-08/images/highers/89C51-00.jpg

At first the band allowed the fans to set up their equipment wherever they
wanted - and as the best sound was in front of the sound board... which
caused some problems for the techs to work, the tapers were then moved
behind the sound board to a special area where you had to buy a ticket to
enter. Sharing the tapes was allowed as long as no profits were made from
the recordings.

http://www.dead.net/view/tapers

http://www.archive.org/



John - ;)

[matty]

I think some artists still allow that, although sometimes the venue security "rules" will conflict with the artist "rules". Like for example, Shania has no problem with people taking pictures with their cameras but at some gigs the security were apparently being a-holes and not allowing it, even taking cameras away from some people, among other restrictions. Makes you wonder why...although at my Shania gigs the security were fairly nice, they had no problem with cameras, they even told us beforehand that Shania will come round the stage so you will have opportunities to go up to her. Not sure what the stance is on recording though...but I do remember Shania waving for some people recording with their cameras/cellphones.

The only place I've been to concerts were I've wanted a camera is the MEN and the security there don't seem to mind. They just care if you're taking food and drink in. It really does bother me that people try to stop you taking pics at gigs. Videoing something is different, but there's nothing wrong with a photo or two. You pay to be there, why can't you take some memories away with you? Artists who don't want fans to take pictures are *******s IMO. It's almost impossible to stop now anway, nearly everyone has a camera on their mobile and there's no way someone will take that away.

Apperantly fans aren't allowed to take pictures at football games either. When Bolton played Man Utd a security guy tried throwing a woman out because she took some pictures :rolleyes: Needless to say he got hounded with abuse :p

[Paul]

Ridiculous. I took pics at a Queen concert and sent them to Brian May, he was delighted and posted them on his website, so that kind of shows that artists are ok with it. I think it all comes from using a flash, that does bother them. I think as long as you don't use a flash they are ok, its understandable.

I don't think they have rights to tell you what your memories are! Football matches should allow it, after all the clubs are filming us in the crowd and we don't have a say or get paid!

[Troll]

The most famous example of this would be the fans of Grateful Dead... aka

The Tapers

http://www.photog.com/gdead/80s/89/10-08/images/highers/89C51-00.jpg

At first the band allowed the fans to set up their equipment wherever they
wanted - and as the best sound was in front of the sound board... which
caused some problems for the techs to work, the tapers were then moved
behind the sound board to a special area where you had to buy a ticket to
enter. Sharing the tapes was allowed as long as no profits were made from
the recordings.

http://www.dead.net/view/tapers

http://www.archive.org/



John - ;)

That is interesting.

[UllaCountryGal]

When i went to the Deep Purple concert, we were not allowed to take pictures, because the venue said so. But people were allowed to get drunk and smoke. That's an odd thing. I think it should be the other way around.

[FinnFreak]

I know, it's only rock'n'roll...


John - :)

[SHANIANUTS!]

Ridiculous. I took pics at a Queen concert and sent them to Brian May, he was delighted and posted them on his website, so that kind of shows that artists are ok with it. I think it all comes from using a flash, that does bother them. I think as long as you don't use a flash they are ok, its understandable.

I don't think they have rights to tell you what your memories are! Football matches should allow it, after all the clubs are filming us in the crowd and we don't have a say or get paid!I believe if you read the fine print on the back of your ticket you will see you agreed to this by virtue of ticket purchase.

[FinnFreak]

"Rock stars and their fans... who do these people think they are?!?" - The Big Bouncer


John - :p

[Troll]

I love YouTube :D:p

It can be addictedive.

[Alex]

Lately I have been watching the Oral Fixation Tour videos over there, they're great no matter how good or bad is the solution and wuality:D

[dreamer]

I don't use YOUTUBE thye thing about copyright to me is (Shania example) Shania works hard on what she makes it isn't as valuable IMO if you steal something it seems IMO fake and I would not take pride in it

[captainCorr]

I don't use YOUTUBE thye thing about copyright to me is (Shania example) Shania works hard on what she makes it isn't as valuable IMO if you steal something it seems IMO fake and I would not take pride in it
So watching a tv appearance of Shania performing is stealing (from Shania)? :rolleyes: :funny: Good one ;)

[Roger]

I won't get into argumentation of the pros and cons of abiding by copyright laws yet again but I will point out to Shania fans that one benefit of joining Shania's official fan club is that they have a thread devoted to linking to Shania appearances on youtube. So this board is being more Catholic than the Pope.

Also, I belong to a Dixie Chicks board where the lady running it converts all the Chicks' media appearances to Windows Media Player for her members to view and download if they want.


She even makes up DVDs of a lot of Chicks' appearances for a price (just enough to cover expenses). This is done as a means to promote the Chicks. The Chicks know she is doing this and they don't object. This has been a wonderful way for me and other newbies to catch up on old appearances.

I just mention these examples to show that not all messageboards share the views of the people running this one.

[Troll]

That is interesting Roger. Thanks for the info.

[FinnFreak]

I won't get into argumentation of the pros and cons of abiding by copyright laws yet again but I will point out to Shania fans that one benefit of joining Shania's official fan club is that they have a thread devoted to linking to Shania appearances on youtube. So this board is being more Catholic than the Pope.

Also, I belong to a Dixie Chicks board where the lady running it converts all the Chicks' media appearances to Windows Media Player for her members to view and download if they want.


She even makes up DVDs of a lot of Chicks' appearances for a price (just enough to cover expenses). This is done as a means to promote the Chicks. The Chicks know she is doing this and they don't object. This has been a wonderful way for me and other newbies to catch up on old appearances.

I just mention these examples to show that not all messageboards share the views of the people running this one.

Yes, and isn't it fortunate that this board (as some others as well) seems to have some originality and eventually tries to stick to what is the right thing to do, compared to every other messageboard..?


John - ;)

[Shania's4life!!]

I don't think the spirit of sharing within a comminity is a bad thing...and I definately don't see it as wrong, even if it does break some minor copyright laws. Lots of people are unable to see many of Shania's interviews/performances/appearences etc. for various reasons, usually due to the countries they live in, why should these people be denied from viewing something? now that we have the technology to do so, the only thing that is trying to stop this kind of non-profit, generous filesharing is corporate greed.

Fans could just trade tapes with each other, but with the power of the Internet we don't need to do something tedious like that anymore.

[FinnFreak]

To my understanding, the only site that has permission to such activities, is the OFC run by Musictoday...

...and even with them, I highly doubt they really have permission from the copyright owners... rather like the way they handle their customers - since they break trade laws on an every day basis: they just don't care.


http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/piracy-report2006.pdf


John - :smirk:

[Roger]

Yes, and isn't it fortunate that this board (as some others as well) seems to have some originality and eventually tries to stick to what is the right thing to do, compared to every other messageboard..?


John - ;)

"The right thing to do" - hmmm. That is a moralistic viewpoint based on legality. I am not criticizing your standards here any more. I am pointing out to fellow Shania fans that if they want to enjoy Shania appearances, they can do so at the official fan club. I am indicating that outside the Shania world, other board administrators are going even further. "The right thing to do" - that bothers me. It implies others are being unethical. In fact, other administrators interpret what the right thing to do is differently.

Of course Shania fans have a problem. There is no legitimate way for fans to get through to Shania herself. Q Prime is an impregnable defence against all fans. Yet Q Prime pay insufficient attention to the fan club run in Shania's name. MusicToday pay almost no attention at all to what is going on within the club. There is no channel of communication by which you or any other Shania administrator can ask her what she thinks of her appearances on youtube.

By contrast, the Dixie Chicks have no fan club any more. Yet the board administrator and other key members have access to them either directly, or indirectly through the official blogger. So they can get feedback on this and other issues. For example, one of the members who is a professional photographer produced a Chicks calendar based on photos she took at concerts and is selling them at a price sufficient to cover costs and a small donation to St. Jude's Children's Hospital. She was able to get permission because there is communication.

[aFinn]

Shania's official fan club have a thread devoted to linking to Shania appearances on youtube. can ask her what she thinks of her appearances on youtube.In cases where copyright holder is tv network or a production company or part copyright holder is record company, what does Shania, MusicToday (or Q-Prime) have to do with it? :uhh:

And what do the Dixie Chicks have to do with Shania appearences on YouTube? I am confused. :confused:
In every post of yours, whatever the subject, you mention them :uhh:

[Roger]

In cases where copyright holder is tv network or a production company or part copyright holder is record company, what does Shania, MusicToday (or Q-Prime) have to do with it? :uhh:

And what do the Dixie Chicks have to do with Shania appearences on YouTube? I am confused. :confused:
In every post of yours, whatever the subject, you mention them :uhh:

My only point is that other boards have other policies on this question, be they Shania or Chicks (the two I know best).

Let's drop it. You sound irritated. I have made my point.

[FinnFreak]

"The right thing to do" - hmmm. That is a moralistic viewpoint based on legality. I am not criticizing your standards here any more. I am pointing out to fellow Shania fans that if they want to enjoy Shania appearances, they can do so at the official fan club. I am indicating that outside the Shania world, other board administrators are going even further. "The right thing to do" - that bothers me. It implies others are being unethical. In fact, other administrators interpret what the right thing to do is differently.

If I didn't have this viewpoint, I would be sawing the branch I've been sitting on for the last 10 years, 3 days, 5 hours and 29 minutes.


I don't consider myself greedy - it's a job I do & I expect to be paid.


And I've seen what happens with illegal use of intellectual property.


YouTube was intended as a service where people could share their own creations - something they've done themselves. New artists getting their stuff out. Then some wise@ss decides to post stuff (s)he does not own - and the whole thing explodes.

They have no real control over the content for the time being. Some of it is even unappropriate for younger viewers. There's still huge amounts of material that is posted there without permission, and it hurts certain individuals financially. So, slavery can be allowed for the good of the masses..?

I simply can't agree with that revolution. And YouTube will be modified.


John - ;)

[Roger]

My understanding is that 65,000 new videos are added every day to youtube. With that kind of volume, it is hard to see how they can monitor it all. They can remove certain videos when asked but the same video will keep popping up time and time again. If youtube do however become successful at weeding out copyright infringing videos, other sites will simply spring up and host them. This is the kind of thing we have seen with file sharing utilities. Some like Napster have been co-opted. So downloaders moved to other utilities. Some like WinMX were so harassed legally that they shut down. But there is always another utility springing up to take its place. I won't name the one I am now using.

Ethics aside, I see this as something essentially unstoppable. In a sense, it is like global warming. We can wring our hands and pretend we can do something about it but it is more practical to adapt to it.

[FinnFreak]

Ethics aside, I see this as something essentially unstoppable. In a sense, it is like global warming. We can wring our hands and pretend we can do something about it but it is more practical to adapt to it.

To adapt does not mean to simply accept a disease exists... and choose to do nothing about it. Measures by authorities in several countries, are being taken as we speak. The Internet is monitored more closely than ever and ISPs are being shut down and users fined for the committed crimes.

This, however, is fighting the symptoms - when it's more important to go after what causes the disease. More education and discussion is needed.

We CAN do something about just about anything - if we really want to find a solution.

Apathy will get us nowhere.


John - :smirk:

[aFinn]

My only point is that other boards have other policies on this question, be they Shania or Chicks (the two I know best).Isn't that obvious and has been mentioned here before too? So I didn't quite get your point. But if you wish here's another example: another artist's webmaster has frequent direct contact with the artist, and this webmaster censors youtube links.

[Roger]

To adapt does not mean to simply accept a disease exists... and choose to do nothing about it. Measures by authorities in several countries, are being taken as we speak. The Internet is monitored more closely than ever and ISPs are being shut down and users fined for the committed crimes.

This, however, is fighting the symptoms - when it's more important to go after what causes the disease. More education and discussion is needed.

We CAN do something about just about anything - if we really want to find a solution.

Apathy will get us nowhere.


John - :smirk:

Oh dear! "Disease". Emotional phrases like this do not clarify. They obscure. I could equally well argue that the "disease" is the tight, monopolistic control of the music market by moneyed elites.

Look, if you buy a car this year and decide in three years that you want to sell it privately, you can. The car manufacturers backed up by the laws of the land do not say to you "You do not own your car. You have not bought a car; you have just bought the use of a car." They would love to see this situation though because they want to sell more new cars and don't want competition from a used car market.

The internet is doing to the music business what it is doing in all areas. It is empowering the individual at the expense of the elites who usually control the flow of data. So the elites exercise their muscle and bully governments into enacting restrictive leglislation to tell people what they can and can't do with their own property.

There are other more helpful solutions besides merely punitive ones. Before I retired, I was a librarian. So a public library, for example, will buy one book and over time lend it out over 500 times. The publishing industry thus loses sales - not 499 but maybe 10 because most people can't afford to buy every book they want to read, or have to read if they are a student. But society realizes that it is not fair to make the distribution of information and education available only to those who can have a lot of money. So libraries exist. So in Canada and most other western nations, a small amount is paid to the publisher for every time a book is lent out. Over time the publisher gets just as much money as if access to books were restricted to the wealthy but the non wealthy get access to the books too.

So with music, private consumers should be able to swap the songs they have bought amongst themselves without interference from outside forces.

The music companies contend this is all a matter of high principle. I don't think so. It is a grubby attempt to maintain control even after their wares have been sold. Someone interested in the welfare of society as a whole, rather than just the music producers, should be able to devise some method by which both sides, music producers and music consumers, are satisfied.

For example, why can't file sharing utilities keep track of the number of competed downloads and pay a small amount to music producers? Where would the money come from? How about advertisements? This is just one suggestion. In Canada, purchasers of blank media, like CDs, pay a surcharge on each item that goes to the music producers in accordance with the amount of radio play they get. Why can't arrangements like this which benefit both sides be put into place?

This thread is devoted to youtube. But the principle is the same. People should have the right to share videos in their possession. The demand is huge. Can a method be devised so that youtube pays a small amount to copyright holders for every time a video is viewed? Is present society as a whole made a better place when its citizens cannot legally share videos?

As you say, John, maybe more education is needed. Maybe we need to realize that data in any form is a common good. Data should not be the private preserve of those with money.

[FinnFreak]

This thread is devoted to youtube. But the principle is the same. People should have the right to share videos in their possession. The demand is huge. Can a method be devised so that youtube pays a small amount to copyright holders for every time a video is viewed? Is present society as a whole made a better place when its citizens cannot legally share videos?

As you say, John, maybe more education is needed. Maybe we need to realize that data in any form is a common good. Data should not be the private preserve of those with money.

Some sort of counters will have to be applied to those programs, and to YouTube as well IMO... still, there are some interesting phenomenas - like people collecting hundreds of thousands of songs on their hard drives, and never intend to listen to them. Just to collect & share. A private music library.

"It's cool to rebellion"

"Data should not be the private preserve of those with money"..? - how about those with not that much to begin with..? - Do they really have to work for free..? Well, maybe if more artists would starve and suffer for their art, we'd get to hear better songs deep from the souls of the bleeding heart artists ..? ;)

"All Property is Theft - Therefore, I'm Nicking It"

I know, we are both throwing arguments from the opposite sides of the spectrum - but acknowledging the rights of both parties & respecting them is perhaps the only way middle ground can be found.

Yep, more discussion is needed. And both the positive and negative sides around these issues should be portrayed to the public.


John - :)

[Paul]

Some good points for both sides of the arguement, the library example is very similar although I guess the publishers agree for the loans to happen whereas with YouTube there is no such agreement that we know of.

Its a difficult one.

[Roger]

Um, you are putting words in my mouth, John! LOL!! That's okay. I don't think you are completely serious.

I can well understand that for the welfare of this board, you may decide not to link to youtube. I just don't appreciate a moralistic tone because there is another side to this debate.

[FinnFreak]

Um, you are putting words in my mouth, John! LOL!! That's okay. I don't think you are completely serious.:p

heh... I'd much rather be laughing with people, instead of laughing at them.


...and I'm definitely NOT laughing at You.


John - ;)

[FinnFreak]

...here's a link to a somewhat similar discussion on the STC Forum:

The history of DRM (http://www.shaniatwaincentre.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1732)


John - ;)

[Troll]

YouTube wants tech to catch copyright violators
Video-sharing site wants recognition technology in place by September

NEW YORK - Google Inc.'s YouTube hopes recognition technology will be in place in September to stop the posting of copyrighted videos on the popular Web site, a lawyer Friday told a judge presiding over copyright lawsuits.

The lawyer, Philip S. Beck, told U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton in Manhattan that YouTube was working "very intensely and cooperating" with major content providers on a video recognition technology as sophisticated as fingerprint technology the FBI uses.

He said the company planned to have the technology in place in the fall, "hopefully in September."

Viacom, England's top soccer league — The Football Association Premier League Ltd. — and indie music publisher Bourne Co. have filed suits against YouTube that were combined for trial purposes before Stanton.

Beck said the video recognition technology will allow those holding copyrights on videos to provide a digital fingerprint so that if anyone tries to share a copyrighted video, the system will shut it down within a minute or so.

Beck said the company was counting on the software to "hopefully eliminate such disputes in the future."

He said the company believes the new technology goes way beyond what the law requires to stop copyright infringement.

He told the judge the company began only two years ago when one of its two California founders sought a way to send videos of his children to relatives on the East Coast. Since 30 videos were exchanged in the first month, more than 10 million videos have been exchanged worldwide, including hundreds of thousands a day, he said.

Lawyers for plaintiffs in the two lawsuits said they welcomed any improvement that would end alleged infringement of their copyrights but believed YouTube should have acted sooner.

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., a lawyer for Viacom International Inc., said it will take the next year to identify the extent of infringement that continues to happen on "a very massive scale."

"Perhaps the filtering mechanism will help. If so, we'll be very grateful for that," he said.

Viacom sought $1 billion in damages for what it said was the unauthorized viewing of its programming from MTV, Comedy Central and other networks, such as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." In their lawsuit, the soccer league and indie music publisher sought unspecified damages and any profits YouTube made as a result of the sharing of copyrighted videos.

YouTube said in response to the lawsuits that it goes beyond what is required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which gives Web hosts protection from copyright lawsuits so long as they comply with requests to remove unauthorized material.

YouTube said it cooperates with holders of copyrights and immediately complies with requests to have unauthorized material removed from the site.

Verrilli said the plaintiffs are alleging "plain, old fashioned infringement."

He added: "They acknowledge rampant activity and haven't done anything to stop it."

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20000977/from/RS.5/