Why YouTube Needs the Rights to Your Video

erlichson writes "There has been a lot of controversy over the YouTube terms of service. Why are consumers surprised? Fundamentally, YouTube's business model requires that they get the rights to redistribute your content. This note analyzes an alternative publishing model available to consumers that doesn't require granting a license to your content, but the trade-off is that you won't get the same level of distribution."

Comments

Why are consumers surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because many think there is such at thing as a free lunch. They are wrong but that's what they think.
Just post a story here about ads and banner blockers and you will see.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Eightyford]

Because many think there is such at thing as a free lunch.

There isn't?

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[pla]

Because many think there is such at thing as a free lunch.

Uploading a music video certainly goes to far. Small clips from a movie might come under fair use. But when people post what amount to home movies - Yes, they most certainly do have every right to upload that to YouTube.

Free lunches exist - And in fact, when not in a climate of scarcity, people (and even many "dumb" animals) will gladly share that of which they have a huge surplus. Well, "bits" exist in as close to a limitless supply as anything we've ever experienced, and plenty of people will gladly share their bits, even with trolls like you.


And as for banner ads... Please, tell me who gets the free lunch from whom in that situation - The parasites that think they own my eyeballs just because they put up a web-page, or the people who choose not to read the Chick pamphlets that come with that "free" lemonade?

Or, put another way, does exploiting the human feeling of gratitude count as more or less sociopathic than suppressing that same feeling? Personally, I'd say the former commits a deliberately "evil" action, while the latter results as a learned response from dealing with assholes falling into the first category. YMMV.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many businesses which provide "free" service and don't lay claim to your content. In fact I believe that YouTube is going to get into hot water if they go ahead with the "all uploads are belong to us" plan. There's lots of illegal stuff on YouTube and now it's not yours but theirs, so if there ever was a shadow of a doubt that they're breaching copyright, they can kiss that goodbye now.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Seiruu]

Is sharing a surplus actually a Free Lunch philosophy?

Technically, leftovers are still things you've essentially WORKED for. So even though one might benefit from it without working for it, doesn't mean someone else didn't put that amount of work in it to achieve it. Isn't that the real philosophy of the No Such Thing As A Free Lunch?

Essentially, it's like energy in a closed system: no matter what you do, nobody gains anything extra, it's always the same amount. You gain x here, but you'll lose x there.

In an "open system", one might wager something like the sun being a "free lunch". But even that could probably be argued.

If sharing surpluses is "a free lunch", then so is stealing.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[vertinox]

Because many think there is such at thing as a free lunch. They are wrong but that's what they think.

Technically, I used to get free lunches all the time, but I had to waste time listening to bad powerpoint presentations of sales people who I had no intention of buying anything from.

But seriously, nothing is free except air and the light from the sun, but cost is minimized to an extent it might as well be free. When your cost to produce comodities reaches near zero (bandwidth, hardware, and electricity) then your product or ad space could be sold for extremely low prices and you still make enourmous profit (depending)

However, we haven't reached that point (yet) mostly because it still costs an arm and a leg to host full streaming HD quality video and unless you are Comcast, Google, or Verizon you really don't have the resources needed to give it away for free forever like YouTube.

However, what happens in 20 years when bandwidth exceeds full motion HD video and you can download a 1000 TB in just a few seconds and you can host your own super webserver from your laptop? I mean full imersion can only go up to the point where we can't tell the difference between reality and our downloadable entertainment?

At that point in our lives (if we are still around) everything will literally become free at least with Intellectual Property (in a sense) because we've saturated the known universe with material that no one is going to bother paying for either through piracy or home made junk or reality TV etc. I dunno... Its just a guess.

However, in 20 years we might have robotics making things you buy at the store for free as well... But as they mentioned in the technological singularity article a few stories back... Well... It might be a moot point.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Columcille]

You have no right to upload anything to YouTube. However, YouTube has given you permission to upload things, so long as you follow their conditions. They can quite easily take away that permission and all you could do is whine about it.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[fishbowl]

>There's lots of illegal stuff on YouTube

Oh really? Like what? Illegal in what jurisdiction, anyway?

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[orasio]

As another poster said, the YouTube users the article deals with are not consumers.
In fact, they are providers, just the opposite.
You might call them customers, but they don't act primarily consuming any YouTube product, they are the ones that provide the most important part of the bussiness.

Of course, what they require is fair enough to me. If they are going to host your content for free, they need first a license for that content, and as a legal shield, they ask for the right to edit your content, in case you are a stupid bastard who would sue them for publishing for example portions of your video instead of the whole of it.
The part where they retain rights to other distribution means is fair enough, provided they are actually paying for your distribution, they get some potential earnings, aside from the ads they can run with your videos.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Traiklin]

How does having a BBQ where you invite people over work?

You worked to get the money for the House, The Grill, the charcoal/propane, the lighter fluid, the matches, the food to cook on it, the beverages to drink (a surpluss of them since it's more then you will eat or drink).
Yet everyone you invited over can't have any of it? since it would be stealing (by your own admission) since they did nothing to earn it.

So would that be considered a Free lunch or Stealing?

Same goes for anything else, you work and work and work for something and decide to share it with the world but there are so many limits put on it against your will that anyone who looks at it, listens to it or uses it can get sued or harassed for doing what you had intended them to do.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Seiruu]

No, having a BBQ party is not a free lunch. YOU put effort in creating food for more people. They may not have paid for it (btw, I'm not trying to say it's stealing) but it's not a "free lunch" since someone worked to put that amount of food "on the table".

The whole philosophy of There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch is not about perspectives, it's about things "overall" speaking.

Hence giving food away is not "a free lunch" much like stealing something isn't.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[anagama]

With the BBQ, there is some expectation of a quid pro quo -- you invite your buddies over and in a vague sense, probably expect your buddies to invite you over some time and stick a "free" beer in your hand. Now, people don't go around keeping spreadsheets of how many beers their buddies owe them, but we've all probably experienced the friend who becomes a mooch and eventually, the mooch isn't invited to more BBQs. In essence, the mooch got a few free lunches by violating a common social expectation.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Seiruu]

True, but like I said, it's not about (individual) perspectives.

Technically, you can buy a friend a beer without ever getting anything back, goodbye party or whatever. Does that mean the beer is free? For him it is, but realistically, it costed you to give him that beer. So it's not a free lunch.

In your case, you lost something which he gained. So which part of that would be the "free lunch"? It's not, you paid for it, he got it.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[aichpvee]

free lunch
n. Slang.

Something acquired without due effort or without cost.
---

free lunch

Something acquired without due effort or cost. For example, In politics there is no free lunch; every favor calls for repayment. This expression alludes to the custom of taverns offering food free of charge to induce customers to buy drinks. It was soon extended to other kinds of gift but is often used in a negative way, as in the example. [First half of 1800s]

http://www.answers.com/free+lunch&r=67

You're wrong. Now please stfu. You've trolled enough on the topic.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[x_MeRLiN_x]

No - not in the case of your example anyway. Cost isn't necessarily financial. Take a guess as to what the cost of eating rotting food from the garbage would be. Disease? If it was indeed cost-free, as you say, everyone would be doing it, no? :)

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean full imersion can only go up to the point where we can't tell the difference between reality and our downloadable entertainment?

Why stop there? Why not make entertainment better? Finally, it'd be a MMOG where everyone is addicted, because even if they're an awesome stud who screws three hot women daily (way off the scale of "having a life" most people use when taunting "geeks"), the game would be better.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Seiruu]

Are you talking to me? You've only enforced my point...

TANSTAAFL means that a person or a society cannot get something for nothing. Even if something appears to be free, there is always a cost to the person or to society as a whole even though that cost may be hidden or distributed. For example, you may get free food at a bar during "happy hour", but the bar-owner must recover that marketing expense somehow, perhaps by charging slightly more for drinks or other food, and even if you personally never buy those drinks or that other food, someone else has to or the bar will go out of business.

It is thought that TANSTAAFL may not always hold at the individual level, depending on the interpretation of the phrase; for example, some may argue that mothers often provide their children with lunch at no cost. But that food still had to be produced by someone somewhere, so even though the cost isn't paid by the children themselves, it is still paid by someone.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I mean full imersion can only go up to the point where we can't tell the difference between reality and our downloadable entertainment?

That'll never happen - what's the point of the itnernet if it doesn't mean downloading videos of freaky sex I won't be having?

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[kz45]

"You worked to get the money for the House, The Grill, the charcoal/propane, the lighter fluid, the matches, the food to cook on it, the beverages to drink (a surpluss of them since it's more then you will eat or drink).
Yet everyone you invited over can't have any of it? since it would be stealing (by your own admission) since they did nothing to earn it."

this is bullshit. For starters, those are finite things. Once they are gone..you need to get more. It's not the same thing with digital goods.

"Same goes for anything else, you work and work and work for something and decide to share it with the world but there are so many limits put on it against your will that anyone who looks at it, listens to it or uses it can get sued or harassed for doing what you had intended them to do."

you are allowed to share the one copy you purchased. Going with your grill scenario: It would be equivalent of buying one bag and then giving the rest out to your friends at no cost.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

If nothing else, I'm heartened by the fact that others consider beer lunch too.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

And as for banner ads... Please, tell me who gets the free lunch from whom in that situation - The parasites that think they own my eyeballs just because they put up a web-page, or the people who choose not to read the Chick pamphlets that come with that "free" lemonade?

What the fuck are you talking about? If someone puts up a page, they expended energy doing it. The creator can put whatever content they want on the page. You want information separated from ads? Fine, your right. But to dictate to a content creator the rules upon which they create their content (a web page) before you see it is asanine.

OMG! I have been hit with passive advertising and have to bitch about it! Get some self accountability and ignore it like the rest of us you dipshit.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

If nothing else, I'm heartened by the fact that others consider beer lunch too.

Try some stout. ;)

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[woolio]

However, what happens in 20 years when bandwidth exceeds full motion HD video and you can download a 1000 TB in just a few seconds and you can host your own super webserver from your laptop? I mean full imersion can only go up to the point where we can't tell the difference between reality and our downloadable entertainment?

Nothing... We will have run out of extractable oil by then. The developed countries will be lucky to have enough food, much less maintain high-speed internet to the public.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Hosiah]

We're just going to have to wait a couple of generations and see if the gene pool ups it's standards, aren't we?

I mean, you were born for free. Did your parents give you the bill for raising you? You live in a free country. Where's your payment to the revolutionaries who fought and died so you could have it? Don't tell me your tax dollars are there to compensate patriots for their deaths - I think that if that was all they were fighting for, they would have said "Forget it!" Somebody, somewhere (I hope!) loves you for free. Public libraries are free. No, the piddling taxes that some people pay don't count; you can pay zero taxes and still use the library anyway. Solar power is free. Air is free. Rain is free. I plant seeds in my yard and a garden grows for free. And then there's all the free Internet you surf, plus that you can post your trolls for free.

This "technology" stuff must still be new to everybody, but the idea behind technological progress is to keep giving humanity more and more benefits at less and less cost. To achieve the pinacle of that goal, we will someday eventually abolish the need for money at all. Part of that progress is open source software, all free. More important than that is open technology. We aren't there just yet (it will help when we get solar power to be more efficient than 6%), but we've come a long way from stone knives and bear skins, too.

When a scientist discovers something, they share their knowledge freely and it is passed down to future generations forever. For free. The same for any art - did Leonardo da Vinci include terms of use in his notebooks? Did Beethoven write a DRM program into the beginning of his symphonies? Did Moses copyright the first five books of the Bible? Did Michaelangelo watermark the Sistine Chappel? Did Charles Babbage, the first hacker, patent any of his technology? True, these craftspeople were, in some cases, paid a small sum for their services at the time. But when they died, the beauty and intelligence of their work didn't go away.

"No Free Lunch" - oh, how the greedy trolls of the world who love nothing but gold in their pocket wish it were so, with all their tin-plated hearts! Nevertheless, the people are sharing for free, and they're having a blast doing it. Even if they weren't, it would be worth it just to piss off people like you.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[ShakaUVM]

Yes, it will be *terrible* when we'll have to switch to the much cleaner Fischer-Tropsch oil. :p

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Tim Browse]

See, it started off as a fairly good point about some things being free, but then it just got silly.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[digitalcowboy]

Now, people don't go around keeping spreadsheets of how many beers their buddies owe them ...

You've clearly not met all of my friends yet. The next time you're in the neighborhood, stop by for a beer and I'll introduce you.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Fred_A]

Now, people don't go around keeping spreadsheets of how many beers their buddies owe them

Why else would PDA versions of spreadsheet programs be so popular ?

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[jZnat]

I think he's referring to the content that uploaders don't have the copyrights for.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[pla]

But to dictate to a content creator the rules upon which they create their content (a web page) before you see it is asanine.

When did I dictate that they can't have ads?

I just said that they can't count on me actually viewing those ads. You can give me as many religious tracts as you want, but good luck forcing me to read them.


What the fuck are you talking about?

Good question - Did you read something entirely different and reply to the wrong post?

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with a free lunch; I think most people are aware of and have no problem granting YouTube rights to make money off their contributions on the internet and via their website. That their policy now says all media formats and all media channels is quite different and more problematic. However, given the resolution of most YouTube submissions, really the only channels affected would be iPods and cell phones. Its highly unlikely they would sell videos or broadcast television shows, but if they did I can see cause for concerns. Once downloads or DVDs are allowed it becomes impossible to remove from the public sphere.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[anagama]

"No such thing as a free lunch" has a couple meanings and I think the most commonly meant of these is the second:

1. General: Everything costs money and somebody always pays.
2. Specific: Even if your lunch is free, you will have to pay for it in another way.

I wonder

[Mysteerie]

If youtube will start selling dvd's of mixed content. I.e. top 100 view videos of 2006, etc...

Re:I wonder

[Zaphod2016]

I will go one further, and suggest the YouTube cable channel.

For your consideration:

• Reality TV
• Adult Swim
• The MySpace phenomenon

Please note: 10 years ago, *I* would have modded this suggestion "-5, What are you smoking?"

Re:I wonder

[apflwr3]

Here's a big problem-- Youtube may claim a license/ownership in their TOS. But if they try to sell the videos for profit, they will in all likelihood open themselves up to lawsuits from any subjects in the video who did not grant permission for their likeness to be used. You simply cannot film a person who is not a public figure (e.g. politician, celebrity) and distribute it without an agreement. Or to be precise, you CAN (it's not illegal) but you will be sued (especially if you make a profit) and you will most likely lose.

Say a high school kid films another guy lighting farts on fire at a party and throws it up on Youtube. Did the fart-lighter sign a personal release? How about the crowd of people in the background, especially if their voices can be heard? Did the owner of the house sign a location release? I'm not even going to get into the problems that will arise if a copyrighted song is playing in the background. If any of these parties think Youtube is making a profit from this video they could sue. I'm not even sure they're wrong, I certainly wouldn't want a video of myself circulating on the internet without my permission-- and I would certainly do what I could to put a stop to it if someone else was making a profit.

I should also add, by the way, that a minor cannot sign a release. So even if the fart-lighter says you could post the video, his parents might feel otherwise-- and, yes, they could sue.

This is a problem that's going to bite Youtube in the ass sooner or later-- say when the parents of the next Star Wars Kid sues Youtube for being a party in the distribution of the video. Since Youtube is licensing the video rather than washing their hands and saying they don't have anything to do with their content, they will certainly be named in any lawsuit. And if they're making a profit from this video they will certainly be liable for damages.

And no, I'm not a lawyer. But I have been an assistant producer at a production house that makes reality shows and documentaries and I've seen the great lengths they need to go to to secure releases-- and dealt with the legal department extensively over the inevitable problems. Producers actually have to take out insurance policies to protect themselves against oversights.

Re:I wonder

[conigs]

I don't think youtube will turn and directly sell videos, either singularly or as a collection for the reasons you mention. And especially because many of the people in these videos are minors. However, while I didn't go over every square inch of the TOS (or even one square inch actually... I'm just that lazy and it's time for bed), there may be implied or explicit language that states the uploader of the video has obtained proper documentation for the subjects in said video. This way, if any discrepencies come up, they can redirect the inquiries to the uploader and relieve themselves of that burden.

What I find interesting about this whole uproar is people saying "They can't take our videos and do what they like. How dare they say they have a license to the content we created." Let's look at it from this perspective: You put a lot of work into a decent video, take it to festivals, perhaps even sell a few copies. Now someone who bought it says "hey this is neat!" and makes some copies for friends, who in turn make copies for their friends. Suddenly, your work is floating out there and you had no idea. While you may be flattered that so many people like it, you realize that they were never granted a license to redistribute your work and you've lost control of the distribution of your hard work. Sound familiar? It's the mantra of the *AA. I just find it interesting that as a collective, the internet community seems to have a completely different attitude concerning the distribution/rights of their own work than the work of "the faceless studios/labels."

Now, I realize I'm am generalizing. I'm also not entirely sure I believe the scenario I just described. I'm just putting it out there as food for thought. I think if someone realized that their short little videos they put on-line can turn a profit for themselves, they'd fight tooth and nail for control over that video and try to make every penny off it they can. This doesn't excuse the recent "war on piracy," but rather puts it into a little different perspective.

But as I said before, it's late and I should be sleeping. So season this post with salt to taste.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most people qualify two levels of this. There's the personal level where I grab a tv show off p2p that I missed on tv (or being australian a commerical tv station has held off showing for 5 years) which most people are okay with because they've probably done it at least once (with video tapes for decades). Then there is the commercial level which is less well recieved. The people mass producing and selling company level amounts of material. Personal use v Commercial. And youtube would definitely fall on the commercial side.

why consumer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did this use of 'consumers' come from? I hear it all the time and I despise it.

Re:why consumer?

[kfg]

Where did this use of 'consumers' come from?

http://www.hbs.edu/

Why the rubes^H^H^H^H^H general populace themselves use it is beyond me.

KFG

Re:why consumer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was about to post something, but then I noticed the security word was "canvass". Like, with two S. What the fjuck?

Re:why consumer?

[masterzora]

Yes, canvass is a real word, not a misspelling of canvas.

Renaming

[Eightyford]

I heard they were renaming their company to OURTUBE.com

Re:Renaming

[bhima]

I Think you meant 'Theirtube'

Re:Renaming

[AndreR]

More like OURPIPE.com.

You see, in the internet, things like, say, videos, get to people's homes by pipes. Or tubes, for that matter.

Re:Renaming

[LordMydrin]

Actually, I think it would be UsTube.com or WeTube.com, since 'you' is not a possessive form. Oh, wait... you were joking... :-D

Re:Renaming

[Joebert]

I heard they were renaming their company to OURTUBE.com

Really ? I heard it was YOUSHAFT.com

There was even a commercial that had the Two-Headed Monster from Sesame Street with the letter U, & a picture of a shaft.

Re:Renaming

[Doytch]

Not WiiTube.com?

Re:Renaming

[PhrostyMcByte]

Regardless of who owns it, I think YouTube demonstrates that if you build a big enough tube it won't be clogged. Proof enough against the new ISP moneygrab, if you ask me!

Re:Renaming

[Fred_A]

OTOH nobody uploaded an Internet to yourTube either. Who knows what will happen when someone tries that ?

Wow!

[TheSpoom]

A comparison of Phanfare and Youtube by Phanfare! Clearly as unbiased as one can get.

Re:Wow!

[Greventls]

Much like a comparison of windows and linux by linux distros?

Re:Wow!

[TheSpoom]

Much.

Re:Wow!

[smackenzie]

Why was this modded offtopic? TFA is a Phanfare blog entry that, while not being particularly offensive in handling another business model, is clearly commercial. The article summary doesn't do a good job mentioning that this is a Phanfare note, comparing Phanfare to YouTube!

It's simple

[Data Link Layer]

If you want to a massive amount of people to see what you have created you have to give the website you are posting it to right to use it anyway they want. Same works with deviantart and myspace, what is posted there they can use it free of charge. If you want it so only you can redistribute it then very few people will likley see it.

Re:It's simple

[kfg]

If you want to a massive amount of people to see what you have created you have to give the website you are posting it to right to use it anyway they want.

Why?

If you want it so only you can redistribute it then very few people will likley see it.

Do you think that there might be something between these two extremes that might function, like, oooooooh, say, a limited license?

KFG

Re:It's simple

[caino59]

I don't see why myspace and youtube pick up the creative commons licensing schema....this is exactly what CC was created for...

Slashvertisement?

[Anonymous Coward]

This note analyzes an alternative publishing model available to consumers that doesn't require granting a license to your content...

s/analyses/advertises/

Re:Slashvertisement?

[John Nowak]

If you're going to use that regexp for the above, you need to add the English to American flag:

s/£->$[analyses]/advertises/

would this stop OS content distribution?

[hguorbray]

Asked and Answered (I think)

I wonder if creative commons licensed videos would be a problem for YouTube with these new terms?

If they restricted redistribution of content that was emanating from their site or assigned themselves any extra rights regarding editing or ownnership or restricted further distribution I think that it might.

They would probably just say that you can't put up any content with a license which would be violated by their doing what they wanted with it.

-What's the speed of Dark?

Re:would this stop OS content distribution?

[BrynM]

I wonder if creative commons licensed videos would be a problem for YouTube with these new terms?

By uploading the content to their server, they could argue that you are granting them a seperate specific license (their terms of service) and thus do not have to abide by the license you offer to the general public.

They would probably just say that you can't put up any content with a license which would be violated by their doing what they wanted with it.

With a seperate license granted, this becomes moot.

Re:would this stop OS content distribution?

[Anonymous Coward]

I recommend you
a) Learn to read
b) Read the terms in question
c) Look up the term "non-exclusive"
d) Learn what a license is and the concept of multiple licenses.
e) Stop asking stupid questions.

Re:would this stop OS content distribution?

[zotz]

[By uploading the content to their server, they could argue that you are granting them a seperate specific license (their terms of service) and thus do not have to abide by the license you offer to the general public.]

Yes, but unless your work was first generation (all original to you) then you may not have the rights to give them this seperate license. Say for instance you released a Creative Commons BY-SA licensed video containing CC BY-SA licensed music in the sound track.

So it may not be possible and so not moot.

all the best,

drew
(da idea man)

Re:would this stop OS content distribution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably youtube's submission form has some click-thru stipulating their license and submitter's acceptance thereof...

But what if you had a collabarative work which was collectively released as Creative Commons, or some other license which forbade removal of modification and further redistribution rights????

I guess it would be the artist or agent's responsibility to not submit in that case and that there would be some sort of 'good faith' clause stipulated by the site that the submissions were unencumbered to abide by their terms...

-hguorbray (responding to my post semi anonymously to preserve precious karma..precciouss..)

same with journals

[Anonymous Coward]

Same problem with publishing research. Some journals try to suppress your right to share your paper freely on the web. So generally only people who's institution has a subscription can see the content.

The answer is competition - post your video on a website with better terms of service and publish in journals that don't have 'embargo' policies on sharing your own work.

I don't want to equate the problems of ownership of cheezy webcam thong videos with the problem of ownership of academic research publications, but the main problem as I see it is that I'd rather sit around watching the aforementioned videos than read the dozens of journal articles I'm supposed to be reading instead. Christ I'm never going to graduate. F***! now I'm blathering on slashdot. Must turn off internet...

Re:same with journals

[TheRaven64]

I have yet to find a reputable journal that does not allow you to retain the right to place a copy of your paper for download on a personal not-for-profit web site (although most do require copyright be assigned to them).

For journalists it's slightly different. Some of the places I write for require copyright assignment, some don't. Here, if they do require copyright assignment then you lose all rights to the content. If they don't, then you can do what you like with it; I contributed a tutorial I had written to the doc project for the program it covered after publication, for example (on the condition that they linked to the original publication if they used it).

Re:same with journals

[DerekLyons]

Same problem with publishing research. Some journals try to suppress your right to share your paper freely on the web. So generally only people who's institution has a subscription can see the content.
 
The answer is competition - post your video on a website with better terms of service and publish in journals that don't have 'embargo' policies on sharing your own work.

My brother-in-law (a professor who must publish or perish) puts it succinctly - "I can publish in 'free' journals that few read and that grant commitees don't trust, that lack a track record and may disappear tommorow. Or I can publish where distribution is more limited - but it is available to my colleagues and grant committees and has a long and stable track record".

Re:same with journals

[Mark Maughan]

My brother-in-law (a professor who must publish or perish) puts it succinctly - "I can publish in 'free' journals that few read and that grant commitees don't trust, that lack a track record and may disappear tommorow. Or I can publish where distribution is more limited - but it is available to my colleagues and grant committees and has a long and stable track record".

His field must not have a very good preprint archive like physics does (http://arxiv.org/). In physics we only publish in real journals because they are peer reviewed and that acts as an extra filter to weed out the crap.

Youtube "makes money"??

[gumbo]

From the article:

Folks are apparently surprised that when you post your video to YouTube, you give them the right to distribute it, sell ads against it, and generally make money from it. But this is YouTube's business model. They aggregate an audience around consumer generated video and make money by selling access to that audience in one way or another.

I thought Youtube was going through cash like a late 90's .com, and haven't come close to making any money off of anyone's content yet. Maybe that's why these guys decided to compete with them, wrote their little blog post and got it on here: because they didn't realize that Youtube wasn't profitable? Or they're just figuring that they'll do it right where Youtube has missed the boat as far as making money...

Or maybe my brain isn't what it used to be and I'm completely wrong about this, and Youtube has been insanely profitable.

Re:Youtube "makes money"??

[gumbo]

Oops, I see that Phanfare is a complete different business model and isn't providing anything for free. Never mind.

The license is retractable

[bagofbeans]

Per licence in OP, "The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website.". So a user just has to remove the material to retract the license...

Re:The license is retractable

[Anonymous Coward]

Moreover, by the very badly worded license, it seems you don't even need to remove the specific item in question. The term is worded so poorly, it implies removing ANY submission will terminate all your licenses. So... upload 100 items, delete one and there is no longer a license in effect on the other 99... (under a strict literal application of the terms, at least).

Minors

[Anonymous Coward]

How much of YouTube's content is submitted by teenagers? Quite a bit, I have seen.

Minors cannot enter into contracts. Seems like a rather stunning flaw in thier business model.

Re:Minors

[Bieeanda]

I'd venture to suggest that at least thirty to forty percent of the stuff on Youtube is also copyrighted to someone other than the poster, as well, which makes contractual claims entertaining too. Every time some twit's collection of full episode rips gets taken down, they just go ahead and re-upload them.

Re:Minors

[kfg]

Minors cannot enter into contracts.

a)False

b)Not all teenagers are minors

KFG

Re:Minors

[nullforce]

Minors can enter into contracts; however, they can exit or void most contracts while they remain under the age of maturity. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/can- a-minor-contract.html

Re:Minors

[aarku]

Interesting point... So minors can't technically buy any software with a license agreement on it?

Re:Minors

[staeiou]

Minors cannot enter into contracts. Seems like a rather stunning flaw in thier business model.

Wrong. Minors can enter into contracts, but they also have the right to nullify any contract as long as they are still under the legal age. So for anyone who is making a contract with a minor, it is worse than worthless, because while the minor can get out of it at any time, that same luxury is not given to whoever signed the contract with a minor. Of course, if two minors sign a contract with each other, then either of them can break it.
 

Re:Minors

[MJOverkill]

No, they can buy it. They are just not bound to the terms of the license. The terms of sale do not include accepting the license, only the terms of USE. Since returning the product for license refusal is also an article under said license, the minor is also not bound by that. I've never heard of this actually being testing in court; that would be an interesting case (Honestly, your Honour, my 14 year old cousin installs all my software!). This is why MMOGs are beginning to require that the account owner be of 18 years of age or older, and part of the agreement is that the owner takes responsibility for all use of the account.

Note: My knowledge is only for Canada, I think the U.S. does actually allow minors to enter into contracts. Canada, however, does not.

Re:Minors

[westlake]

Minors cannot enter into contracts. Seems like a rather stunning flaw in thier business model

Minors can make contracts. What minors do not have is an unconditional escape claue: Lecture Notes - Contracts - Capacity A minor cannot, for example, pick and chose which part of a contract he wants to renounce. It is all or nothing.

Re:Minors

[Godeke]

a) False

While it is true that minors can enter into contracts, those who accept such contracts are generally fools. It is very easy to break such contracts. Thus the requirement of an adult guardian to sign for virtually everything a minor contracts for.

Re:Minors

[Pseudonym]

Seems like a rather stunning flaw in thier business model.

My first reaction was: "Woah! YouTube actually has a business model?!"

Re:Minors

[kfg]

. . .those who accept such contracts are generally fools.

a)True

b)A rather different issue :)

Nor a simple one, although I will posit that it seems likely a court would rule that a minor did not have legal understanding of the ramifications of the MyTube license when he posted his music video to it.

Not sure at all that this would have any serious ramifications on MyTube's business model.

KFG

Re:Minors

[Anonymous Coward]

Minors are a subset of teenagers, moron. Why did you think he mentioned one after the other?

Re:Minors

[drawfour]

In the US, minors can enter into contracts. However, they are granted the right to void a contract in it's entirety if they choose. Certain types of contracts cannot be voided at will, though. As for licenses, they can enter into the license agreement/contract and then void it later, but that just means that they are now infringing on the copyright.

Re:Minors

[kfg]

Minors are a subset of teenagers, moron.

False. The sets intersect.

I may be a moron, but I'm a moron who has studied the legal rights of teenagers . . . and set theory.

KFG

Re:Minors

[Random832]

Eh - regardless, enough people use the term "teenagers" to refer to 13 through 18, or even 12 through 18, that it's not worth nitpicking.

A Word Form Senator Stevens

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube is just you cable from you computer to you modem what gets you to the Internets' Tubes.

Phanfare

[linvir]

With Phanfare, you are paying to publish and archive your video. Not only do you retain the rights to your content, but we claim no right to distribute, remarket, or otherwise make money on your content

Wow! What an incredibly innovative publishing model! Wait, I'd better make sure I have this right:

1. I pay them
2. They provide a service in return

AMAZING! It's almost like a paid photobucket account, or say, a normal hosting service, but look! It's got flash, a free trial, a mix of over and undersized fonts, and lots of glaring colours, so it's obviously Web 2.0 and therefore a new idea entirely!

Controversy? Still?

[gumbo]

By the way, is there really still any controversy over Youtube's new TOS? Even the EFF guy came out and said that it's not a big deal:

YouTube wants to CYA itself in case it flows into new formats with old videos, e.g., cell phone downloads. They don't want to have to go back and relicense all the content in new mediums. And its also true that simply yanking the video will cut off all their rights, which is a powerful weapon to keep them in check.

I guess it's just their competitors that wrote that article that want to keep the "controversial" label going, and apparently it's working.

Rant about 'consumers'

[wish bot]

Did you think for a moment about your use of the word 'consumers'? Yes, I know it was in the summary as well, and that this is a general trend rather than something specific to Slashdot. We're talking about people uploading (possibly) their OWN CONTENT to YouTube, and we call them 'consumers'? In almost every post on Slashdot these day, when we're talking about a collective group of persons, the word 'consumers' is used.

There used to be some better words - 'people', 'citizens', 'females under 25', etc.

All that this indiscriminate use of the word 'consumers' does is reinforce the notion that your sole purpose in life is to consume.

Stop it with the 'consumers' bullshit. Be people again. Give some respect to all these other individuals in the world by calling them 'people' too.

/rant

Re:Rant about 'consumers'

[Firehed]

It comes with the capitalism. If you don't want to be considered a consumer regardless of what you do or who owns the content, you've gotta head somewhere else. Citizens don't exist anymore, at least not in our land of buying votes. You'll notice the same effect doesn't seem to occur in the wartorn parts of Africa or other places where there's more to life than the dollar.

Re:Rant about 'consumers'

[aichpvee]

The worst one is when people refer to themselves as a "consumer" in a context where it isn't appropriate, which is most of them.

Re:Rant about 'consumers'

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said, and I wish you could be modded up to +10 because that's what you deserve.

The poverty of language and semantics is so much wider than the "consumers" thing though.

Every day here on Slashdot I see the same tired, embarrasing cliches trotted out, cliches
that so transparrently reveal the extent of brainwashing prevelant in the US. I'm sure Chomsky
and Orwell have a lot to say about this, but you know, every time you use one you entrench its
poison further in the minds of others.

There's another one right here in this thread, the "No free lunch" fallacy. Americans cannot handle the concept of abundance. They are so programmed to accept the idea that everything must have an owner and a cost that they are unable to make simple observations like the fact that silicon chips are just organised sand, silicon is the 3rd most abundant element on Earth and therefore the price (not the value) of CPU's and memory chips are arbitary. This fundamental belief that everything has a cost infects every thought they have.

Then they extend this to believing information has intrinsic value. That it can be property. That it costs money to exchange information.

This nothing less than the road to insanity.

Who pays for the air? It can't just come from nowhere can it?

Life existed on Earth for 600 million years before anybody thought of money.

And yet to imagine life continuing to exist without it is more than the brain of an average American
(the worlds "superpower" nation) can grasp.

Please try and break out of your tiny little minds.

Re:Rant about 'consumers'

[masterzora]

Then they extend this to believing information has intrinsic value. That it can be property. That it costs money to exchange information.

This sounds familiar.... US History is coming back to me.

"How can somebody own land?" -- Native Americans when Europeans came to the Americas.

Yes, I firmly believe that information shouldn't be owned, but that doesn't mean it can't be. Ownership is merely an agreement between people and/or society. So long as the majority of society agrees that information has intrinsic value and that it can be property and have cost, it does and it can.

Re:Rant about 'consumers'

[Anonymous Coward]

But they are consumers, or customers, or clients, or partons. They are using the service that YouTube provides.

Re:Rant about 'consumers'

[Anonymous Coward]

All that this indiscriminate use of the word 'consumers' does is reinforce the notion that your sole purpose in life is to consume.

It is. Deal with it.

Re:Rant about 'consumers'

[tinkerghost]

[sarcasm]
Oh sure, and next you're going to tell us that you want to be a person and not a human resource.
[/sarcasm]

Revver

[Sanity]

Revver asks only for the right to distribute your content (under a Creative Commons no-derivs license) with unobtrusive advertising attached, and they share the revenue with you on a 50:50 basis. Revver's model is also more "behind the scenes" than YouTube. Revver users include EepyBird (the mentos and diet coke fountain guys), and Ze Frank, a popular video-blogger. EepyBird has already made over $30,000 through Revver in just a few weeks.

[Disclaimer: I am one of the founders of Revver]

Re:Revver

[RAY GOLD]

I've Never had an issue with distribution, someone always seems to be willing to redistribute!

Re:Revver

[jrumney]

(under a Creative Commons no-derivs license) with unobtrusive advertising attached

So how does that work then?

Bars perminent media?

[SuperKendall]

One thing I was wondering about the licence was what would happen if they started selling DVD's of more popular things. I guess they couldn't do that if you can retract the licence at any time like that...

Obligatory...

[pdscomp]

YouTube's response to this: All you(r) tube are belong to us!

Re:Obligatory...

[darkitecture]

YouTube's response to this: All you(r) tube are belong to us!

Actually, all your tubes belong to Ted Stevens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

OT: deviantArt

[kn0tw0rk]

As an artist that has put up stuff on dA, I'd like to say that originally I was loathe to put 'content' up there, but as I thought about wether I wanted exposure or to retain complete control/ownership I decided that I'd rather get exposure. But I have chosen which works I wanted to put up there, which is primarily my older works, and have several recent pieces that I wont put up as I feel they are superior to my earlier ones.

And its not like dA have total ownership of the pieces I've put up, IIRC they have a limited license to cover themselves legally, and I can still put up the pictures on another site if I choose. One day when I decide to upgrade my membership there so I can sell prints, dA will still only have a limited license and I could still sell prints at local markets/fairs.

Maybe I'm going about this wrong, as I'm not 100% sure of what is the right way to do this, so if anyone from the /. gallery wants to comment, feel free.

Re:OT: deviantArt

[databoss]

There are a couple important distinctions between the YouTube and deviantART agreements, although I find both dispicable. The YouTube license is transferrable without limitation, while the dA agreement is only transferrable in very specific cases. This is important because if YouTube sells content to a third party there is some ambiguity about what the third party can do if the user later removes their content from YouTube. Another important point is that the dA agreement allows them to modify content. If they do so in such a way that violates a law or makes it more offensive to someone and they wind up getting sued, the original user is still fully legally responsible.

pirate uploading

[njahnke]

what recourse is there when people upload your content to youtube, stripping your name off?

Re:pirate uploading

[dixon]

the same recourse left to the large media companies: litigation.

About the right of ownership

[Antony-Kyre]

There are some websites which will do worse, which in one part will claim that they will own your material, and will also state that you, the poster, own your material. A conflict in the terms.

The important thing is this. Do you have a right to force them to remove all of your content off their site upon your own request?

Yeah, but that's okay

[Anonymous Coward]

Minors cannot enter into contracts. Seems like a rather stunning flaw in thier business model.

Yeah, but that's okay, because all the Minors are doing anyway is uploading Cartoon Network Adult Swim episodes, which they don't have the right to redistribute even if they could enter contracts.

I submitted this story on 7/20 and it got rejected

[bacterial_pus]

Boo!

troll

[vermox]

From the BB post:

reader comment:
I hate to be put in the position of trying to defend an onerous license... but the excerpt you posted on BoingBoing is a little misleading. It continues, "...The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website."

That last little bit is pretty important. It means that if you remove the work from the YouTube site, they have to stop using your work. So there is some protection for users who have uploaded original content. If YouTube were to sublicense your content to an advertising agency, for example, and you were to remove the content--thus revoking the grant under the terms of the agreement--then the agency's license would be revoked as well. That's not really a tenable situation for advertisers or businesses, who are unlikely to sublicense content with such strings attached.

So it looks like a good old case of incendiary, tabloid-like, pseudo-journalism to me. Nothing to see here people, move along.

I disagree

[bogie]

I call BS on that arguement. Then why do movies work? Somehow big studios are able to ensure tight control over their works when massive amounts of people see it.

Why can't crapspace et al have strict rules that are favorable to user ala what big studios have? Both big studios and users are putting up content that distributors make money off of. Myspace has an even better deal then movie theaters. They get the content for Free, make money off of it, and then tell the users to go F themselves if they want any sort of protection. They are IMHO even more beholden to look after users content because they pay nothing to acquire it. I'm honestly not up to speed on this whole situation but from the summary something here sounds very wrong.

Re:I disagree

[Marcos Eliziario]

Well, they have lots of cash to promote and distribute their productions.

Re: mooch still pays

[Anonymous Coward]

In essence, the mooch got a few free lunches by violating a common social expectation.

The mooch that gets kicked out of the group pays for it by losing one of his social connections. That connection might have been worth a lot more than just a few free lunches/beers in the long run. For example, someone in that circle may have been able to hook him up with a higher paying job...

TANSTAAFL is absolutely true

[MerlynEmrys67]

Doesn't mean you have to define it with money. Worked for a startup that the CEO would pay for lunch on a quite regular bassis. His comment was that the lunch was to guarantee attendance - so he (or anyone else) could say things that everyone in the company needed to know.

Cost to Me - 0
Time I spent - 1 hour

So the cost was 1 hour of my time that I used to pay for lunch.

Cost to the CEO - 15ish * #employees, obviously worth it to him for an hour of our time.

So yes, I believe in TANSTAAFL - a firm believer... There is a cost to EVERYTHING, you just have to figure out what it is, and if you are willing to pay it.

You Tube Mistake

[walnutmon]

It seems like this kind of press will really kill all inventive and intersting content that can show up on a site like YouTube.com. While there will still be a lot of the garbage, the stupid videos that people put up just to get their quick internet exposure, the creative people out there who are tying to create something fun and interesting for people to watch most certainly will refrain from putting their work on YouTube after knowing the terms of use.

Think about putting a bunch of time into making a video, possibly getting a lot of people who want your work. Then having YouTube selling YOUR work to someone else, who now owns your idea, and your finished video. I know some artist do stuff for the love of art, but even they don't want it ripped off in any way that YouTube sees fit.

They had better fix this problem, or we will see a sharp downswing in good content on that site. On a site that is already filled with garbage, that could be the last nail in the coffin. If they don't change, I guarantee another site will come along that will.

Re:You Tube Mistake

[porcupine8]

Then having YouTube selling YOUR work to someone else, who now owns your idea, and your finished video.

They can't sell it to someone else - they can only let someone else use it. If you actually read the terms (or TFA for that matter), you'd see that the user retains ownership AND YouTube loses all rights when you take it down. So they could, for example, let a car company use your video in an ad and get paid for it. But:
1) the car company wouldn't own the video, you still would
2) if you take it off of YouTube, their right to let the car company uses it goes away, as does the car company's right to use it
3) 2 makes it very unlikely that a car company would actually spend money on an ad that could get pulled at any moment, with no notice, for no reason
4) 1 makes it very unlikely that a car company would actually spend money on it, because since you still own the video you could sell the rights to the same video to a rival car company at any time, and there's nothing they could do about it.

And of course, if they were to distribute it in physical media, then as soon as you take it off the site you could sue them if they don't destroy the CDs/DVDs it's on.

Overall, the way it's structured it makes it very unlikely that it would be abused in any way that users would really mind. If anything, videos are likely to be used in ads for YT itself and that's about it.

Re:You Tube Mistake

[walnutmon]

Thanks for clearing that up, but why would they tell the user that they have so many rights over the content? It seems like overkill, and the only right they should tell the user they have is that which they can post your work. Why would they want the right to own your work, only while it is on their site? Isn't that just begging for a lawsuit in the future, because if anyone uses the work on that site, then is pulled, the people who are using the work at that point no longer have the right to use it... Why not just never give that right in the first place.

While I believe your right, because I don't know much about this subject, their terms seem somewhat misleading.

Re:Controversy? Still?

[danielk1982]

Exactly. There is no controversy.

YouTube gets a license to re-distribute your content (and its always yours) while you have it uploaded. If you don't like it, yank it off and magically, they no longer have any rights to your video. I think this is a very fair policy that works very well for youtube's distribution model.

MOOT POINT

[mrshowtime]

I'm sorry, I thought that point of uploading videos to youtube was to gain maximum exposure. You do not give up your copyright protection at all. It's like sending a cd to every radio station in the country and then they actually play it on the air. You can't then turn around and say "Hey, I'm angry at you that you played my cd on the radio!!!"

In the end, if you want anonymity, just give your uploded video a stupid filename like ##%35yo0safa, so nobody will be able to find it unless they are looking for it.

You can always send youtube.com a cease and decist via a lawyer stating you own the copyright and to stop distribution immediately.

One Million Monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

So they hope that their millions of customers, filming random crap, will eventually come up with the combined works of Kubrick, given infinite time? They'll just print it and dump it on the big silver screen, making billions.

"Ford! There's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they've worked out."

Brilliant!

THIS IS AN AD ARTICLE

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the "blog" site, look at the advertiser's, sorry, submitter's site... DUH! Just someone(s) trying to cash in on youtube's fame.

Is someone making a better slashdot that isn't all about corporate schilling?

they don't/shouldn't have sublicense rights

[Anonymous Coward]

they don't need that. See mixxer.com for a model to freely redistribute without ganking the creator's rights.

Publishing is the same in science

[adachan]

When you publish a scientific article in a journal, you sign over the rights to own the article to the publisher. In effect, its theirs, however, the data is still owned by the author i believe.

Re:Publishing is the same in science

[VDM]

Yes, data is still owned by the Author (of course); the scientific article, as is, becomes owned by the publisher. This is the reason why often you can find online just the preliminary (unedited) version, which usually is almost the same but not really the same. The open access model is rather different, because rights remain to the author. However you pay to publish.
From the little I know, also when publishing an article on a generic magazine or review, rights are transfered to the publisher as default, unless stated differently on a contract.
The fact is that with paper media this was matter of few people, with the web more and more become suddenly interested and wonder about these legal issues, which are nothing new.

Re:I am so sick of MONEY defining everything.

[pete6677]

Sounds all well and good until you consider the fact that you do in fact need to eat. You either work for your own food or have someone else provide it. If you can consistently get a "free lunch" from someone else, more power to you, but don't be surprised when that person eventually gets tired of feeding your lazy ass for free.

Re:OT: deviantArt legal questions.

[kn0tw0rk]

IANAL so I now have a bunch of questions about the point you raised over the dA agreement that allows them to modify content. For reference the submission agreement http://about.deviantart.com/policy/submission/

Under 3e it states : Artist acknowledges that Artist will not have any right, title, or interest in any other materials with which Artist Materials may be combined or into which all or any portion of Artist Materials may be incorporated.

So does that part of the agreement absolve me of responsibility for a work which has been modified by dA?

Or only in the case of when its been combined with other works?

And if the worst case situation was that I was liable, would I have to go to the USA for the court proceedings? Or would they be held in Australia where I live?

Lastly, if in court I was able to provide the physical originals of my pictures that were scanned and then sent to the dA server, would this count for anything in my defence?

What's the big deal?

[ben there...]

If you want free exposure and viral marketing, post a clip on YouTube. If you want exclusive rights to your content, post it on your own site. If you really think you can make money from your content, you can afford a webmaster and hosting.

Re:OT: deviantArt legal questions.

[databoss]

So does that part of the agreement absolve me of responsibility for a work which has been modified by dA? It definitely absolves you from the responsibility of making money off of it. I'm not a legal expert, but since it doesn't explicitly mention legal responsibility in the context of derivative works, it probably either depends on precedent or the whims of the judge if there isn't one. And if the worst case situation was that I was liable, would I have to go to the USA for the court proceedings? Or would they be held in Australia where I live? I do recall a case where a US citizen got in trouble with the German government for selling nazi memorabilia (which is illegal in Germany) on ebay.com (not ebay.de). I'm guessing that most cases like that are settled out of court and involve lots of paperwork being exchanged by lawyers.

Rights are many and varied.

[bandmassa]

YouTube may need to gain a right to your video through the terms in order to distrbute that video, but there's a difference between a right to distribute and a right excluding all other rights (ie taking over the copyright) which would be a lawyers' picnic if they tried that through a simple shrink-wrap agreement. I'd say if people don't like the terms, take their video down. Nothing to distribute, no rights over it, then let them sue if you put it up somewhere else, I doubt a judge or jury would extend that sort of right to any company (unless they were corrupt iand in the pay of the plaintiff.)

But, it's "fair use"!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the problem here? Just have them claim "fair use" and they can do whatever they want with it regardless of how you want it distributed.

Or, would this be a classic case of the Slashdot double standard?

Just Advertisements

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube probably just wants to make sure they can use these home-movie clips in advertisements in traditional media outlets. Like that cell phone service that offers "viral videos" and it shows like 1/2 second of the video of the night club dancer who falls over.

The message is that YouTube is no longer a place for videos you care about controlling. No big deal, just be aware.

try using a creative commons friendly site

[pfz]

instead of you tube. suggest to friends to check out http://creativecommons.org/ or if you're completely clueless watch "Alternative Freedom" http://alternativefreedom.org/?page_id=5

Re:I am so sick of MONEY defining everything.

[FurryFeet]

Sounds all well and good until you consider the fact that you do in fact need to eat. You either work for your own food or have someone else provide it. If you can consistently get a "free lunch" from someone else, more power to you, but don't be surprised when that person eventually gets tired of feeding your lazy ass for free.

Your mom called. She said to drop out of elementary school, get a job and buy your own food, you lazy brat.

Re:I am so sick of MONEY defining everything.

[pete6677]

Funny, that's what I was saying to the poster I originally replied to. Was that you, posting anon?