Slashdot Mirror
Fair Use for YouTube & MySpace Users
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A few years back, documentary filmmakers didn't know what copyrighted clips they could safely include in their films as a 'fair use'. Now there's a well-accepted set of 'best practices' that establishes rational, predictable rules. The same folks who brought rationality to the world of documentary filmmaking are about to work their magic in the user-generated online content space, including user-created videos on YouTube and user-created music on My Space. They said: 'Nonprofessional, online video now accounts for a sizeable portion of all broadband traffic, with much of the work weaving in copyrighted material ... A new culture is emerging — remix culture, an unpredictable mix of the witty, the vulgar, the politically and culturally critical, and the just plain improbable ... What's fair in online-video use of copyrighted material? The healthy growth of this new mode of expression is at risk of becoming a casualty of the efforts of copyright owners to limit wholesale redistribution of their content on sites like YouTube, and of videomakers' own uncertainties about the law.'"
Isn't there a legal definition of what is and what is not fair use? Or is it so vague that we have to make up rules and hope the **AA's approve?
Unpleasantries.
Disney teaches copyright
dk-
I've seen several that are still up and obviously placed (with the proper tags and stuff) as I have seen ones that were pulled down for copyright violation. Do they or do they not violate copyright? Are only the ones 'caught' for violation pulled down while others thrive as the copyright holders allow them to stay up for free advertisement? Shouldn't Youtube voluntarily pull these to avoid potential copyright infringement?
Oddly enough, even AFTER Google bought Youtube, I found severl 'pulled down' Youtube videos on Google video. These were TV shows mind you.
Cheers!
Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
There needs to be a thousand examples of "fair use".
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
So taking a 5-second clip of Dragon Ball Z and changing the play speed to create a 5-minute masterpiece is fair use, right?
you broke the FR0STY P1SS law!
hello cruel world
Google/YouTube hides under the fact that US copyright law puts the responsibility of reporting violation on the copyright holders. The problem is that a copyright holder should not be reasonably expected to scrape all of YouTube and all other similar sites every day/hour to look for violations just to have somebody else repost the video after it is taken down. I believe in fair use, but YouTube just spits in the face of copyright holders by throwing up their hands as if it is completely beyond their control. YouTube doesn't want to invest the time and money to perform their due diligence, but expects copyright holders to do it for them. It is clear that the laws on the books were written when publishing or broadcasting content was out of the reach of normal people. The law does not reflect any of the challenges faced by the current situation.
Perhaps a video takedown should also spur relinquishing all profits generated by the infringing video to the copyright holders. Perhaps then the copyright holders would see hunting violating clips on YouTube a worth-while use of time and YouTube would be more careful about what they allow to be posted. Of course, YouTube would probably give the excuse that it would just be too hard to track earnings in such an isolated way.
we all agree that fair use is a good thing as long as you dont make money
but sites like youtube etc are commercially exploiting clips by way of advertising which is no different than selling pirate dvd's in the first place, in fact YT probably make more cash by adverts than a dvd seller will ever dream of so its understandable that these copyright holders are getting pissed off at them
fair use for free is one thing, commercial distribution for profit is something else
copyright law was originally intended to reward content creators for their work, to give them incentive to create content. however, copyright law has been hijacked by the economic middlemen, the distributors, such that the reward content creators get doesn't matter anymore (and is significantly reduced)
and we are supposed to respect this. why? why must we respect this?
copyright law has been inculcated and grown according to corporate interests nowadays and has morhped into something completely different form its original purpose. it's a cancer. and now it threatens to kill the public domain, making increasing incursions on what is considered free and fair use
hey, how about most everything is free and fair use, and fuck you to corporate-backed copyright law? is that crazy? who tells you that's crazy? the corporate-backed lawyers?
copyright law itself is the problem, the notion of intellectual property itself is the problem. it has been warped form its original purpose and has been corrupted. it's cancerous corporate growth fueled by the almighty buck, and now it threatens to kill the very creative centers that their money comes form in the first place
here's an idea dear corporate music and corporate video: you can extend the copyright on mickey mouse forever, and pump cash out of that icon forever. and you will get diminishing returns over the years. or you can let it go, and watch your "property" morph into a million stepchildren, one of which will be the next mickey mouse for you to pump money out of
in other words, if you relaxed on the stifling laws and their continued growth, and backed off a bit, you might be surprised to find the emergence of more properties for you to exploit. those properties come from somewhere: creative ferment. but right now your laws stifle and lay waste to that very same garden of creative ferment that your life blood runs from. and you are too oriented to the almighty covetous greedy buck, too shortsighted to see, that the continued cancerous growth of your laws (they certainly aren't the public's laws) is killing your future growth. you'd rather bleed fossil intellectual property assets then relax and let more modern and vital ones be born. because you bleed the creative commons dry with your laws. if you covetously protect your "property" from the public domain to the bitter end, you actually wind up with diminishing returns
the whole idea of intellectual property in the very first place was to provide for a comfortable and ratinoal boundary between private domain and public domain. but under the tutelage of legions of corporate lawyers and the thirst for more money, it has grown into a cancer, that frankly, needs to be broken before it gets fixed. because there is no incentive for corporate lawyers to respect the public domain
and so the public domain must go "illegal". copyright law and intellectual property has ceased to resemble anything moral or even financially sound anymore. all it does is kill our shared free public cultural riches for a set of diminished fossilized corporate private riches
ip law is corrupt and broken. don't respect it. it deserves to be broken. do your best to break it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I was thinking of putting together some technical podcasts and wanted to Jazz it up a bit with 5 - 10 sec introductory clip.
Being a law abiding individual, I looked into getting a license. What a nightmare! there are restrictions on how often the clip could be played, how many ppl could listen to the clip, etc. In addition to that, there were reporting requirements (I would have to report to the Licensee how many ppl listened to a given clip in a month).
And then there was the expense. For me to acquire an individual license was going to cost thousands of dollars. Some fancy googling and I found a site where I could, in effect, 'share' a licsense for $20 per month but that would only entitle me to 5,000 listener hours (which, of course, I would have to report).
Forget it. Too expensive and too much effort.
Just one real world example of how the lack of a rational fair use policy killed a project
of both Canada and the US.
In fact, I have registered copyrights on file with both the US Library of Congress and the Canadian equivalent - which cost me money to file.
When I or my son make a video, we are Canadians, and we ignore the Soviet-style illegal "laws" of the US.
Fair use is international law - not US only. Not what US courts say.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
sites like youtube etc are commercially exploiting clips by way of advertising which is no different than selling pirate dvd's in the first place
ROFL. Let's examine that.
Your alleged "logic" also demands that bus operators should go to jail when they are found to have given transport to criminals. After all, they are profitting from the illegal activities of their customers.
Try not to make 1+1=5. It makes you look stupid.
It's called multiculturalism and diversity. Remember that diversity is out strength. You people with your White privilege make me sick. It's about being inclusive to other cultures and living in harmony with your neighbors. You should be bending over backwards for Muslims, undocumented immigrants, and African-Americans even if they rob, rape, beat, or murder you or your family. Marxism is the law of the land in almost every part of the world. I'm sick of hearing about white people thinking they have the right to defend themselves from minorities when they are attacked. At least in England they have the sense to put those evil white men away in prison (to be repeatedly gang raped by their multicultural brethren), like Tony Martin, when they do these evil deeds of self defense.
It's all fine and dandy if a white person is violated by a minority because white people are evil and black/brown people are absolute saints who work very hard with the evil white man who has never accomplished anything (FACT: all of today's technology was developed in sub-saharan Africa by blacks and stolen by lazy whites). If you say otherwise you are a RACIST and a HATE CRIMINAL.
What the heck does this have to do with socialism? Could you at least look up the terms you use before you confuse your readers?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But if YouTube is responsible, then the cost of enforcement is simply shifted from one set of copyright holders to another - i.e. to those who use YouTube legitimately. This enforcement increases the cost of providing hosting, which in turn results in fewer venues for creators to distribute their works. Only the largest most powerful companies (like Google) will be able to afford the costs. The end result in the centralization of publishing in powerful middle-man organizations, and the entrenchment of a power disparity between large media organizations and everyone else (since everyone else is or soon will be a creator).
If, however, the cost of checking for rights violations remains with the holder of those rights, then an effective presumption of openness obtains, with wider opportunities for creators to distribute a greater variety of works. Do you want to put the interests of the powerful ahead of those of everyone else?
A law this difficult to enforce (regardless of who's doing the enforcing) may entail costs that exceed its benefits. Though those costs might not put off the major media corporations, for the scenario you outline is entirely in line with their interests.
If the amount of infringement outstrips the copyright holder's ability to police, perhaps the copyright law should be updated to permit it, not forbid it. The law should serve the interests of the populace and not be weighted by their net worth.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
With socialism, which this nation was founded on since at least 1913, 1+1=5 can indeed be true. It's whatever the authorities say it is and if you oppose it you can be imprisoned and/or murdered by the aforementioned authorities. Indeed the bus driver should go to jail if they give transportation to a criminal unless of course the bus driver is a minority. In this country we celebrate tyranny by being asinine and unreasonable. Tyranny and enslavement is after all the bedrock foundation of socialism. Not to mention that a bus driver is a middle class individual (at least fringe middle class anyways) and to establish the North American Union/New World Order the populace needs to be dumbed down so that they may be ruled with little to no resistance thus the bus driver should be in jail.
Your post is complete nonsense.
If someone's material is one the web in complete form and without permission it's a copyright violation. Period. You deserve to be sued and lose!
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Link it or you're a liar
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
a troll at best, a moron at worst, most probably just a stupid kid. don't get your hackles up. roll your eyes and move on
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
magnatune.com youlicense.com flicktracks ioda promonet pumpaudio.com
If you wanted clips from Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc type music, forget it. It's just impractical for the little guy. Maybe you could do like someone else suggested here and get a band/musician to cook something up that sounds like the song you want.
You simply can't quantify, in advance, every circumstance where fair use rights need to be balanced against the rights of the copyright holder.
In most cases, you can apply a little judicial precedent and common sense to figure out if something is fair use or not. And in the cases where you can't, you have a decision:
- Get a license
- Infringe and be prepared to defend your fair use rights should the copyright holder object
- Don't use the material.
It would be nice if there were nice, easy to follow rules - but we are probably better off where there is some room to argue fair use in court on a case-by-case basis than we would be were there specific, detailed, hard rules about what is and isn't fair use that would inevitably lead to the wrong treatment in many circumstances.
paintball
YouTube is not a simple hosting service. YouTube is blindly serving content from unknown sources for ad-generated profit on pages it completely controls. As long as they do that, they should carry the accountability. If they instead move to a model that places ownership, profitability, and accountability to the uploaders, then they can stand on the same legal leg that an ISP stands on by being a middle-man service provider. Any takedown requests would be forwarded to the users uploading infringing content and they would only intervene when necessary.
SUE ME JERKS... pullease!
I desperately need the publicity!
RR