YouTube Is Sending Copyright Offenders Back to School [VIDEO] - Polidicks

The video feels like it's mocking piracy and copyrights. I personally couldn't take it seriously. And having HTF does not help. Also if this was true, RWJ would be banned for life. I wish he was...

Fuck that shit, I'll upload whatever the fuck I want to. [sp]I'm not from the U.S.[/sp]

Wow this is plain propaganda at its best.

I feel patronized.

[QUOTE=iSnubWaitWhat;29189778]Fuck that shit, I'll upload whatever the fuck I want to. [sp]I'm not from the U.S.[/sp][/QUOTE] except the owners of the copyrighted content usually are

Funny, youtube does shit to music, but they don't seem bothered with movies. You can find parts of it.

I watched that video, was fine. But do i care? No.

inb4 they view all my retarded videos and ban me for having hendrix songs in the credits :downs: [editline]15th April 2011[/editline] are there any sites out there that arent becoming total dicks? i mean like YT but not as tarded.

[QUOTE=chewgo;29188948]The thing about Youtube is that it DOESN'T cohere to copyright laws. It shits its pants everytime a corporation sees its content on Youtube, takes it down and says "YOU ARE VIOLATING COPYRIGHT LAW, ENJOY OUR DICK IN YOUR ASS." It doesn't matter if it's "fair use," they'll remove it with the slightest complaint from a corporation. Wow, fuck you youtube and your lying videos. In this video, they explicitly showed someone parodying a song by showing dancing to it, and saying that it's AGAINST copyright law. It was shown to be PROTECTED COMPLETELY by this: [url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/20/MNU412FKRL.DTL[/url][/QUOTE] Did you read the article you linked? If someone uploads them dancing to an entire song, the copyright holder has every right to remove it. However if it's just a 30 seconds clip with the music you are in the right as it falls under the fair use law. For remixes and parodies: With remixes it entirely depends on how much of the song you used and how similar to the original song it is. But they are classified as a derative work so by law you have to ask permission from the copyright holder, but as I said some remixes might fall under the fair use law. [url=http://www.legalzoom.com/intellectual-property-rights/copyrights/what-are-derivative-works-under]Source for this[/url] As for parodies they are completely protected under the fair use law as they often have to use a lot of the original work, to make it feel like the original. [url=http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html]Source for parodies[/url]

[QUOTE=Crimor;29188139]Nope, remixes DO NOT require the authors permission, hence how weird al, and dj's can do what they do. Youtube doesn't even know the copyright laws[/QUOTE] Actually Weird Al does need permission. He gets in trouble from time to time, like his parody of James Blunt's song "You're Beautiful" got him in trouble because James Blunt didn't want his song being parodied in that way or something even though he gave permission.

after google took over...

[QUOTE=Ignhelper;29190106]Funny, youtube does shit to music, but they don't seem bothered with movies. You can find parts of it.[/QUOTE] Youtube has like 10 hours of content uploaded every minute. They have a lot to go through.

[QUOTE=chewgo;29188948]The thing about Youtube is that it DOESN'T cohere to copyright laws. It shits its pants everytime a corporation sees its content on Youtube, takes it down and says "YOU ARE VIOLATING COPYRIGHT LAW, ENJOY OUR DICK IN YOUR ASS." It doesn't matter if it's "fair use," they'll remove it with the slightest complaint from a corporation. Wow, fuck you youtube and your lying videos. In this video, they explicitly showed someone parodying a song by showing dancing to it, and saying that it's AGAINST copyright law. It was shown to be PROTECTED COMPLETELY by this: [url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/20/MNU412FKRL.DTL[/url][/QUOTE] It's not Youtube, it's Google. Blame Google for all this privatized crap they brought onto their networks.

Can't wait to make a YTP out of this video.

[QUOTE=Bryanrocks0;29192613]Actually Weird Al does need permission. He gets in trouble from time to time, like his parody of James Blunt's song "You're Beautiful" got him in trouble because James Blunt didn't want his song being parodied in that way or something even though he gave permission.[/QUOTE] Then it probably wasn't a copyright issue. Parodies aren't really classified as derative works and fall under the fair use law.

laughed my head off when they said, "then they could remove your youtube account!" just make a new one.

[QUOTE=clanratc;29191006]Did you read the article you linked? If someone uploads them dancing to an entire song, the copyright holder has every right to remove it. However if it's just a 30 seconds clip with the music you are in the right as it falls under the fair use law. For remixes and parodies: With remixes it entirely depends on how much of the song you used and how similar to the original song it is. But they are classified as a derative work so by law you have to ask permission from the copyright holder, but as I said some remixes might fall under the fair use law. [url=http://www.legalzoom.com/intellectual-property-rights/copyrights/what-are-derivative-works-under]Source for this[/url] As for parodies they are completely protected under the fair use law as they often have to use a lot of the original work, to make it feel like the original. [url=http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html]Source for parodies[/url][/QUOTE] I did read the article, and these are a few excerpts from it: [quote]a federal judge ruled Wednesday that copyright holders can't order one of their songs removed from the Web without first checking to see if the excerpt was [b]so small and innocuous that it was legal.[/b][/quote] [quote]The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose was the first in the nation to require the owner of the rights to a creative work to consider whether an online copy was a [b]"fair use" - a small or insignificant replication that couldn't have affected the market for the original[/b] - before ordering the Web host to take it down.[/quote] A lot of the article is talking about if companies can file copyright suits even if it is fair use and they know it, because most people will hide from their multi-million dollar lawyers, so not all of it is relevant. I believe that anything posted on YouTube i pretty small, innocuous (lol what) and has no affect on the market for the original.

[QUOTE=legolover122;29194520]laughed my head off when they said, "then they could remove your youtube account!" just make a new one.[/QUOTE] It's all cool unless you're a partner and earn money from your vids

[QUOTE=johan_sm;29194686]It's all cool unless you're a partner and earn money from your vids[/QUOTE] if you earn money from your ads then none of this shit applies to you at ALL because you are directly profiting from someone else's work if you use it, and so fair use does not apply.

[QUOTE=chewgo;29194598]I did read the article, and these are a few excerpts from it: A lot of the article is talking about if companies can file copyright suits even if it is fair use and they know it, because most people will hide from their multi-million dollar lawyers, so not all of it is relevant. I believe that anything posted on YouTube i pretty small, innocuous (lol what) and has no affect on the market for the original.[/QUOTE] The company acted that way as they had interpreted the law like they didn't need to check first, that is wrong but it doesn't mean every company does this. If you read the article the company never sued her after the video removal and that Youtube restored her videos as they thought it was covered under fair use. If you feel that the a video that was removed is covered by fair use then just tell Youtube, you can do that by a push of a button when you get the notice that it has been taken down. You won't end up in court for doing that, Youtube will check the video and determine if you or the company is right. Of course you can't know if Youtube is on the company's payroll or if they are biased towards copyright holders in general, but you have to assume that they aren't just like you have to assume that charity money goes to the right people.

[QUOTE=clanratc;29194742]If you feel that the a video that was removed is covered by fair use then just tell Youtube, you can do that by a push of a button when you get the notice that it has been taken down. You won't end up in court for doing that, Youtube will check the video and determine if you or the company is right. Of course you can't know if Youtube is on the company's payroll or if they are biased towards copyright holders in general, but you have to assume that they aren't just like you have to assume that charity money goes to the right people. It seems like you read the article but didn't understand what they are actually talking about, correct me if I am wrong though.[/QUOTE]What did I not understand in the article? I do think that Youtube is pretty damn biased towards copyright holders. Did you watch this video about copyright infringement they made? It showed someone who created a work of their own and also included someone dancing to it. The person made no profit at all, and YouTube claims that that is against copyright law. This article I linked very explicitly stated that that exact thing IS fair use, according to a federal judge.

[QUOTE=Crimor;29188139]Nope, remixes DO NOT require the authors permission, hence how weird al, and dj's can do what they do. Youtube doesn't even know the copyright laws[/QUOTE] "remix" was not the right word, the example was basically a video with the song as background music [QUOTE=Contag;29188884]It's not necessary to get permission if it falls under the fair use genera.[/QUOTE] What I think is stupid is when people post entire FUCKING songs and claim fair use, it's not fair use.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;29194843]"remix" was not the right word, the example was basically a video with the song as background music What I think is stupid is when people post entire FUCKING songs and claim fair use, it's not fair use.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html[/url] [quote]he fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. [/quote] Who's to say (besides a judge) that saying, "this is my favorite song, I like these parts," and posting a youtube video of the song, doesn't fall into fair use's commenting? A YouTube video that includes a popular song in it hardly affects the "potential market" if the same video is uploaded by the copyright holders on YouTube. And the first, main factor: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; All YouTube videos that aren't by partners are for nonprofit education purposes, not commercial at all. If a partner is using copyrighted material, he or she falls out of fair use.

[QUOTE=chewgo;29194811]What did I not understand in the article? I do think that Youtube is pretty damn biased towards copyright holders. Did you watch this video about copyright infringement they made? It showed someone who created a work of their own and also included someone dancing to it. The person made no profit at all, and YouTube claims that that is against copyright law. This article I linked very explicitly stated that that exact thing IS fair use, according to a federal judge.[/QUOTE] Yeah sorry I edited my post. However it doesn't matter if someone gets any profit from it. If someone re-uploads your video of you videotaping the ground you can still file a takedown notice, as copyright has nothing to do with future revenue. Whenever the persons intention was to make profit or not can't singlehandedly decide if it is fair use or not, it has an impact of course.

[QUOTE=clanratc;29194742]The company acted that way as they had interpreted the law like they didn't need to check first, that is wrong but it doesn't mean every company does this. If you read the article the company never sued her after the video removal and that Youtube restored her videos as they thought it was covered under fair use..[/QUOTE] Yeah I shouldn't have said "file copyright suits," but they contacted YouTube and said that there was their work unlawfully on there, which was a complete lie. YouTube responded by removing the video. How many people do you think would be scared from refuting the claim? These super-rich companies have super-funded lawyers, you as an individual can hardly hope to defend yourself. Luckily, this girl seemed pretty well off to have a good lawyer and to sue them for it.

[QUOTE=chewgo;29195136]Yeah I shouldn't have said "file copyright suits," but they contacted YouTube and said that there was their work unlawfully on there, which was a complete lie. YouTube responded by removing the video. How many people do you think would be scared from refuting the claim? These super-rich companies have super-funded lawyers, you as an individual can hardly hope to defend yourself. Luckily, this girl seemed pretty well off to have a good lawyer and to sue them for it.[/QUOTE] Yeah I agree with you that Universal acted unlawfully in this case, but it doesn't represent every copyright holder on youtube. A lot of companies use fear, fear is a powerful tool, youtube should probably be more clear about when you should refute a claim or not.

[QUOTE=clanratc;29195339]Yeah I agree with you that Universal acted unlawfully in this case, but it doesn't represent every copyright holder on youtube. A lot of companies use fear, fear is a powerful tool, youtube should probably be more clear about when you should refute a claim or not.[/QUOTE] I uploaded a video of my favorite clip from a Pokemon episode, with some parts cut out between it, and when YouTube took it down, I claimed that it was Fair Use because I was commenting on it. Then they let it go up for a day before they shut it down again. I don't even know why they pretend to have people who check when videos go down. If you have enough people who flag a video, it goes down. If a copyright claim is made, your video is probably gonna go down no matter what. [editline]15th April 2011[/editline] Oh and I forgot, I added a caption or two on it.

I uploaded almost a full album onto my Youtube account and the frontman of the band actually send me an e-mail saying he was glad the album versions were on Youtube because they're significantly better than the cellphone live video quality.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;29189531]For a lot of songs on youtube, people probably wouldn't even know they existed if they weren't on youtube, it's pretty much free advertising.[/QUOTE] This is so true. If it weren't for the songs in youtube, then I wouldn't be buying music from most of my favorite artists.

[QUOTE=chewgo;29188948]The thing about Youtube is that it DOESN'T cohere to copyright laws. It shits its pants everytime a corporation sees its content on Youtube, takes it down and says "YOU ARE VIOLATING COPYRIGHT LAW, ENJOY OUR DICK IN YOUR ASS." It doesn't matter if it's "fair use," they'll remove it with the slightest complaint from a corporation. Wow, fuck you youtube and your lying videos. In this video, they explicitly showed someone parodying a song by showing dancing to it, and saying that it's AGAINST copyright law. It was shown to be PROTECTED COMPLETELY by this: [url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/20/MNU412FKRL.DTL[/url][/QUOTE] God, the end of the article is creepy. "We are confident we will prevail." Who talks like that?