You seem to be missing the point here: creating your own content in no way prevents big companies from getting YouTube to take down your original content, and even shut down your account.
You're missing my point: you're less likely to run into trouble with your own original content.
The original purpose of copyright was to allow the little guy creating original content to make money from it.
The key emphasis is original content. Most YouTube content creators aren't creating original content, but using someone else's copyrighted content, slapping some commentary on it, and calling it fair use. And later scream bloody murder when the copyright owner dings them. You want to make money on YouTube, do it the hard way with original content.
I'm confused. I was directly addressing your points:
I'm talking about YouTube. You're talking about everything else not related to YouTube.
It's 100% legal and 100% covered by fair use, do I need to get a lawyer on retainer and form an LLC to protect myself from immense legal costs so I can make $20 bucks a month from stupid T-shirts?
If you're drawing enough income to live off of, say, $50,000 per year, you really need to form a business entity. If you have your own corporation, you can set up a qualified retirement plan and sock away more money for retirement than you can legally as a wage slave. There are many other tax advantages as well, as the tax laws were written for corporations.
The point is there is very little truly original content, so punishing people for making collaborative works is a fools errand.
The fantasy books I pointed out were all inspired by LOTR. But the Tolkien estate never filed a copyright claim against them because the storylines, characters and place names were all different for each one. If someone wrote fan fiction in the LOTR universe, and published it as "collaborative work", they would get sued for copyright infringement. This is where many people on YouTube get into trouble because they don't understand the narrow definition of fair use.
You're the one diving off into the deep end here. I have two points in this discussion: 1) Create your own content rather than use someone else's copyrighted content. 2) If you're making serious money from your content, you better have a business to back it up, either as an LLC or C-corp with proper legal advice.
[...] Tolkien's Lord of the Rings [...]
I can a name a few LOTR wannabes... "The Belgariad" by David Eddiings, "The Wheel of Time" by Robert Jordan, and "The Shannara" by Terry Brooks.
It's also a sure indication that copyright law is broken.
If your business model is to create videos from slapping together other people's copyrighted work and claiming it as your own copyrighted work, you're looking for trouble. This is where people are getting into trouble.
Copyrights is supposed to encourage the creation of new works, not inhibit it.
Nothing prevents you from creating your own original copyrighted works.
It's obviously not meant for plebians. It's meant for the programmer who makes >$200 an hour, i.e. the time lost to compiling is worth more than this extreme high-end CPU is.
I did a PC refresh project at a Fortune 500 company a few years ago. The initial batch of Dell workstations had six-core processors. But Dell ran out of six-core processors and dropped in eight-core processors. The senior engineers almost broke out into a riot since they grabbed the initial shipment and the junior engineers were getting the eight-core processor workstations, upsetting a delicate pecking order throughout the office.
Why's that? Fair use is on solid legal ground. You can't sue someone merely for taking short segments of a video and adding commentary.
The problem is most YouTube content creators don't understand the concept of fair use. They want a broad definition to cover anything and everything when "solid legal ground" applies only to a narrow definition.
You haven't cited these lawsuits you mentioned, but if their whole basis is just taking short segments and adding commentary or parody, the plaintiffs will lose, pure and simple.
Check out this YouTube video by Eli of Failed Normal. He discusses the consequences of fair use, including the lawsuits playing out. Starting six minutes in.
How should a singer-songwriter confirm that his song is original before posting it to YouTube, SoundCloud, or another site intended for publishing original video or music in order to avoid losing his account on said site?
No one will care about your song or video unless you're making some serious money on YouTube. Attorneys go where the money is. If you don't have it, they're not suing you. Until then, you're more at risk for a DMCA takedown notice and being banned from YouTube.
And how do Google think people can create their own copy/edit montages of other peoples' videos.
That's another can of worms. Too many people are creating videos using other people's copyrighted work, get called on it, and scream "fair use" for what they're doing. Several lawsuits are underway regarding that issue. It's better to create your own unique content that doesn't use other people's copyrighted content.
Besides, that photo doesn't refute your ridiculous claim that you haven't gone under 350lb even though you consume 1500 calories a day.
What I refuted was the impression that I was tub of lard or a butterball. I got muscle mass from working out at the gym for a decade. I'm starting my third month on my 1,500-calorie diet. It would be foolish to expect instant miracles.
I hate to be that guy that says you're doing it wrong but...:)
My employer got it wrong by getting a 15" Dell laptop that weighs six-pounds. I locked the laptop in the docking station and threw away the combination. No way I'm going to drag that back and forth between home and work.
He doesn't want to answer the question because it would require thinking outside the his little bubble.
Nope. The question was nonsensical as far as it concerns the national debt.
They borrow at next to nothing and loan the money right back to "us" at a much higher interest rate, make the spread and if they ever get into trouble with too many bad loans, well, uncle Sam to the rescue.
That's the fractional reserve banking system. Deposit a dollar into your savings account, the bank can lend out $10 by making a book entry. Where banks get into trouble is lending out too much money ($30 per every $1) and don't have enough money in the safe to cover a bank run. Hence, Uncle Sam has to periodically step in to keep the system liquid. Otherwise, we would have a depression every 25 years or so as we did during the 19th century.
They are a wealth transfer mechanism from the working class to the ultra rich.
That's the nature of economic transactions. If you position yourself on the right side of a transaction, say, buy low and sell high, wealth will transfer to you. If not, wealth will transfer away from you. Anyone can do this.
Then on the 16th of December the Fed raised the interest rates by 0.25 percentage points. Then in January of 2016 the market had the biggest decline since 2009 responding to a mere 0.25% rate 'hike' [...]
That's expected. Wall Street has been addicted to easy money for the last two decades. You can thank Alan Greenspan for that. When the feds raise interest rates in June, expect another stock market correction to take place. When that happens, I'll be buying up my favorite stocks at lower prices in my retirement accounts.
AFAIC you are an ignorant fool, not any different from all the ignorant fools who didn't understand the economy before 2008 and thus couldn't see the clear signs of a bubble that was about to burst.
The gloom-and-doom stories sells The Wall Street Journal, but I based my financial decisions on facts and not emotions. If that makes me an ignorant fool, so be it.
Everything that matters is worse today, the economy has been in a recession, probably a depression all this time.
Uh, no. The recovery has been flat but that's expected. It took 25 years for the economy to recover from the Great Depression. The economy after the Great Recession will take less time than that to return to normal, but it will probably be another decade or so. Eight years is too short for a recovery of this scale.
The amount of money would have been the same, but instead of profits going to the banks, we could have reduced our debt burden and increased net revenue for government spending.
The reason why the federal government has budget deficits is because Congress authorizes more spending that exceeds the amount of tax revenue coming in. The Treasury issues bonds to cover the difference. This problem could be fixed by raising taxes and cutting spending. Of course, that's not a popular position with voters. They want it both ways — less taxes, more spending, and let tomorrow's generation pick up the tab.
We're told that social security will go bankrupt in a few years, in our own lifetime, due to a temporary glut of baby boomers retiring. We have to adjust by accepting smaller payouts and working longer.
It's a lot worse than that. In 2030, all the Baby Boomer will be retired, retirees will outnumber workers, and two-thirds of the federal budget will go to Medicare/Social Security. Taxes will have to go way, way up to pay for everything else. It's better to be poor or rich, but not middle class as they will have to pay for everything.
I'm trying to understand economics, but I don't have the benefit of the standard curriculum.
Being 46, you shouldn't overload yourself, neither with so much fat nor even muscle: your good days are already in your past.
I have a 66-year-old coworker who bench press 285 pounds to stay competitive in martial arts competitions and teaching classes on the weekends. Getting old is not a good enough reason to do less at the gym.
Even dressing in black it's obvious you are dressing a girdle -not to lift some heavy weight, mind you, just for the photograph.
I'm not wearing a girdle. The picture is how I normally look.
I was expecting a true butterball on his last teens/early twenties and you are just (so it looks like) a fat but strong man.
When I worked a contract at a Google data center, my coworkers and I had to move two fully loaded racks on wheels down the hall. Six skinny guys pushed a rack, I pushed a rack by myself. I no longer do physical jobs to avoid getting stuck in those kinds of situations.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a very good defense of YouTube's bad behavior, or of the DMCA.
I'm not defending either YouTube or the DMCA.
You seem to be missing the point here: creating your own content in no way prevents big companies from getting YouTube to take down your original content, and even shut down your account.
You're missing my point: you're less likely to run into trouble with your own original content.
The original purpose of copyright was to allow the little guy creating original content to make money from it.
The key emphasis is original content. Most YouTube content creators aren't creating original content, but using someone else's copyrighted content, slapping some commentary on it, and calling it fair use. And later scream bloody murder when the copyright owner dings them. You want to make money on YouTube, do it the hard way with original content.
I'm confused. I was directly addressing your points:
I'm talking about YouTube. You're talking about everything else not related to YouTube.
It's 100% legal and 100% covered by fair use, do I need to get a lawyer on retainer and form an LLC to protect myself from immense legal costs so I can make $20 bucks a month from stupid T-shirts?
If you're drawing enough income to live off of, say, $50,000 per year, you really need to form a business entity. If you have your own corporation, you can set up a qualified retirement plan and sock away more money for retirement than you can legally as a wage slave. There are many other tax advantages as well, as the tax laws were written for corporations.
The point is there is very little truly original content, so punishing people for making collaborative works is a fools errand.
The fantasy books I pointed out were all inspired by LOTR. But the Tolkien estate never filed a copyright claim against them because the storylines, characters and place names were all different for each one. If someone wrote fan fiction in the LOTR universe, and published it as "collaborative work", they would get sued for copyright infringement. This is where many people on YouTube get into trouble because they don't understand the narrow definition of fair use.
First of all, this is all way off topic from TFA.
You're the one diving off into the deep end here. I have two points in this discussion: 1) Create your own content rather than use someone else's copyrighted content. 2) If you're making serious money from your content, you better have a business to back it up, either as an LLC or C-corp with proper legal advice.
[...] Tolkien's Lord of the Rings [...]
I can a name a few LOTR wannabes... "The Belgariad" by David Eddiings, "The Wheel of Time" by Robert Jordan, and "The Shannara" by Terry Brooks.
I have seen three such "corrections" in my 52 years on this planet.
Statistically, an average person will experience two recessions and a depression in their lifetime.
It's also a sure indication that copyright law is broken.
If your business model is to create videos from slapping together other people's copyrighted work and claiming it as your own copyrighted work, you're looking for trouble. This is where people are getting into trouble.
Copyrights is supposed to encourage the creation of new works, not inhibit it.
Nothing prevents you from creating your own original copyrighted works.
It's obviously not meant for plebians. It's meant for the programmer who makes >$200 an hour, i.e. the time lost to compiling is worth more than this extreme high-end CPU is.
I did a PC refresh project at a Fortune 500 company a few years ago. The initial batch of Dell workstations had six-core processors. But Dell ran out of six-core processors and dropped in eight-core processors. The senior engineers almost broke out into a riot since they grabbed the initial shipment and the junior engineers were getting the eight-core processor workstations, upsetting a delicate pecking order throughout the office.
deca-core = dick a core
Intel doesn't want to be confused with AMD.
The fact that every author needs to first become able to afford a consultation with an attorney before publishing anything is part of the problem.
That's the cost of business.
Why's that? Fair use is on solid legal ground. You can't sue someone merely for taking short segments of a video and adding commentary.
The problem is most YouTube content creators don't understand the concept of fair use. They want a broad definition to cover anything and everything when "solid legal ground" applies only to a narrow definition.
You haven't cited these lawsuits you mentioned, but if their whole basis is just taking short segments and adding commentary or parody, the plaintiffs will lose, pure and simple.
Check out this YouTube video by Eli of Failed Normal. He discusses the consequences of fair use, including the lawsuits playing out. Starting six minutes in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSSzDreoUR8
How should a singer-songwriter confirm that his song is original before posting it to YouTube, SoundCloud, or another site intended for publishing original video or music in order to avoid losing his account on said site?
If you want legal advice, go see an attorney.
How can I ensure success in doing this?
No one will care about your song or video unless you're making some serious money on YouTube. Attorneys go where the money is. If you don't have it, they're not suing you. Until then, you're more at risk for a DMCA takedown notice and being banned from YouTube.
And how do Google think people can create their own copy/edit montages of other peoples' videos.
That's another can of worms. Too many people are creating videos using other people's copyrighted work, get called on it, and scream "fair use" for what they're doing. Several lawsuits are underway regarding that issue. It's better to create your own unique content that doesn't use other people's copyrighted content.
Besides, that photo doesn't refute your ridiculous claim that you haven't gone under 350lb even though you consume 1500 calories a day.
What I refuted was the impression that I was tub of lard or a butterball. I got muscle mass from working out at the gym for a decade. I'm starting my third month on my 1,500-calorie diet. It would be foolish to expect instant miracles.
I no longer have to maintain a relatively flat file directory structure? My directories can finally go to... plaid?!
The answer is obvious.
It's obvious that you're wrong.
I hate to be that guy that says you're doing it wrong but... :)
My employer got it wrong by getting a 15" Dell laptop that weighs six-pounds. I locked the laptop in the docking station and threw away the combination. No way I'm going to drag that back and forth between home and work.
He doesn't want to answer the question because it would require thinking outside the his little bubble.
Nope. The question was nonsensical as far as it concerns the national debt.
They borrow at next to nothing and loan the money right back to "us" at a much higher interest rate, make the spread and if they ever get into trouble with too many bad loans, well, uncle Sam to the rescue.
That's the fractional reserve banking system. Deposit a dollar into your savings account, the bank can lend out $10 by making a book entry. Where banks get into trouble is lending out too much money ($30 per every $1) and don't have enough money in the safe to cover a bank run. Hence, Uncle Sam has to periodically step in to keep the system liquid. Otherwise, we would have a depression every 25 years or so as we did during the 19th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
They are a wealth transfer mechanism from the working class to the ultra rich.
That's the nature of economic transactions. If you position yourself on the right side of a transaction, say, buy low and sell high, wealth will transfer to you. If not, wealth will transfer away from you. Anyone can do this.
The reason why the federal government has budget deficits is [...]
That wasn't the question.
No, that was the answer. ;)
Then on the 16th of December the Fed raised the interest rates by 0.25 percentage points. Then in January of 2016 the market had the biggest decline since 2009 responding to a mere 0.25% rate 'hike' [...]
That's expected. Wall Street has been addicted to easy money for the last two decades. You can thank Alan Greenspan for that. When the feds raise interest rates in June, expect another stock market correction to take place. When that happens, I'll be buying up my favorite stocks at lower prices in my retirement accounts.
AFAIC you are an ignorant fool, not any different from all the ignorant fools who didn't understand the economy before 2008 and thus couldn't see the clear signs of a bubble that was about to burst.
The gloom-and-doom stories sells The Wall Street Journal, but I based my financial decisions on facts and not emotions. If that makes me an ignorant fool, so be it.
Everything that matters is worse today, the economy has been in a recession, probably a depression all this time.
Uh, no. The recovery has been flat but that's expected. It took 25 years for the economy to recover from the Great Depression. The economy after the Great Recession will take less time than that to return to normal, but it will probably be another decade or so. Eight years is too short for a recovery of this scale.
Well, the data today is worse than it was 8 years ago.
Fox News is not an accurate source of economic information.
The amount of money would have been the same, but instead of profits going to the banks, we could have reduced our debt burden and increased net revenue for government spending.
The reason why the federal government has budget deficits is because Congress authorizes more spending that exceeds the amount of tax revenue coming in. The Treasury issues bonds to cover the difference. This problem could be fixed by raising taxes and cutting spending. Of course, that's not a popular position with voters. They want it both ways — less taxes, more spending, and let tomorrow's generation pick up the tab.
We're told that social security will go bankrupt in a few years, in our own lifetime, due to a temporary glut of baby boomers retiring. We have to adjust by accepting smaller payouts and working longer.
It's a lot worse than that. In 2030, all the Baby Boomer will be retired, retirees will outnumber workers, and two-thirds of the federal budget will go to Medicare/Social Security. Taxes will have to go way, way up to pay for everything else. It's better to be poor or rich, but not middle class as they will have to pay for everything.
I'm trying to understand economics, but I don't have the benefit of the standard curriculum.
Get a subscription to The Wall Street Journal.
Creimer is not kidding about being an ass.
That's asshole, not ass. Big difference.
He admits to being a troll in his post history.
I admitted that I love trolling the trolls. After all, Slashdot exists to keep me amuse at work while I wait for a script to run.
Claims to be #350 or so despite hitting gym and only eating 1500 calories, all kinds of antagonism.
Here's my picture at 350 pounds. Enjoy yourself!
http://www.cdreimer.com/images/cdreimer_350.jpg
Being 46, you shouldn't overload yourself, neither with so much fat nor even muscle: your good days are already in your past.
I have a 66-year-old coworker who bench press 285 pounds to stay competitive in martial arts competitions and teaching classes on the weekends. Getting old is not a good enough reason to do less at the gym.
Even dressing in black it's obvious you are dressing a girdle -not to lift some heavy weight, mind you, just for the photograph.
I'm not wearing a girdle. The picture is how I normally look.
I was expecting a true butterball on his last teens/early twenties and you are just (so it looks like) a fat but strong man.
When I worked a contract at a Google data center, my coworkers and I had to move two fully loaded racks on wheels down the hall. Six skinny guys pushed a rack, I pushed a rack by myself. I no longer do physical jobs to avoid getting stuck in those kinds of situations.