Escapist Podcast: 120: YouTube Copyright

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

the hidden eagle:

medv4380:

Remus:
His videos are getting flagged for showing 14 seconds of a game here, 10 seconds of a movie there, sometimes a single screen capture from a music video. Now that music video's creator is making money off Joe's work for a single pic. Is this fair? I think not.

Did Joe pay the going rate of 0.0155 dollars per minute for his use of their material in his video? No, and is that fair to the artist who's work he used? No, and if you bothered to watch Joe's followup video to suggest a fix he suggested that some way of revenue sharing be implemented to actually pay for the licences.

Angry Joe and others like him already had permission from the developers to use their content so what exactly is your argument here?

However he didn't have permission from the music video he took a few bits of footage, and audio from. You might actually bother watching his original rant.

medv4380:

the hidden eagle:

medv4380:

Did Joe pay the going rate of 0.0155 dollars per minute for his use of their material in his video? No, and is that fair to the artist who's work he used? No, and if you bothered to watch Joe's followup video to suggest a fix he suggested that some way of revenue sharing be implemented to actually pay for the licences.

Angry Joe and others like him already had permission from the developers to use their content so what exactly is your argument here?

However he didn't have permission from the music video he took a few bits of footage, and audio from. You might actually bother watching his original rant.

Don't be a smartass,I did watch it and there is no justifiable reason for why 60 videos had to get flagged just because of small bits of music.The onus should be on the person making the claims to prove there was some sort of infringment.

the hidden eagle:

medv4380:

the hidden eagle:
Angry Joe and others like him already had permission from the developers to use their content so what exactly is your argument here?

However he didn't have permission from the music video he took a few bits of footage, and audio from. You might actually bother watching his original rant.

Don't be a smartass,I did watch it and there is no justifiable reason for why 60 videos had to get flagged just because of small bits of music.The onus should be on the person making the claims to prove there was some sort of infringment.

Then you should have been fully aware that having permission from the developers was irrelevant to the context I was addressing, and you were presenting little more than a red haring. Using someone elses work, even in part, requires a licence, or a royalty. Why should YouTube be any different from the rest of the world? Because it's on the internet? Are we defaulting to patent troll logic now? It's different because it's "on a computer".

Joe's network should have done a better job policing videos. They should have went out of their way to pay the royalties, and make sure Joe was aware. That was the point to giving networks immunity to the copyright bot in the first place. That bot is the only thing keeping YouTube from collapsing from endless lawsuits, and an audio match is trivial at this point in time, and nearly flawless in matching material.

medv4380:

the hidden eagle:

medv4380:
However he didn't have permission from the music video he took a few bits of footage, and audio from. You might actually bother watching his original rant.

Don't be a smartass,I did watch it and there is no justifiable reason for why 60 videos had to get flagged just because of small bits of music.The onus should be on the person making the claims to prove there was some sort of infringment.

Then you should have been fully aware that having permission from the developers was irrelevant to the context I was addressing, and you were presenting little more than a red haring. Using someone elses work, even in part, requires a licence, or a royalty. Why should YouTube be any different from the rest of the world? Because it's on the internet? Are we defaulting to patent troll logic now? It's different because it's "on a computer".

Joe's network should have done a better job policing videos. They should have went out of their way to pay the royalties, and make sure Joe was aware. That was the point to giving networks immunity to the copyright bot in the first place. That bot is the only thing keeping YouTube from collapsing from endless lawsuits, and an audio match is trivial at this point in time, and nearly flawless in matching material.

Did you pay royalties for the computer you're using to post here?Did you pay the Escapist royalties for using/watching their content?Enough with this using "someone else's work" nonsense because in this world EVERYBODY is using something someone else made and aren't required to pay jack shit beyond the buying price.

The Youtube Copy Right ID system is broken and in this modern age the copy right laws do nothing but choke out ideas and information.They don't even protect the artists anymore since a corporation can steal their work and there is nothing they can do about it.

The pro-copyright arguments in this thread are astoundingly nonsensical. According to this "you need permission for everything" logic, if you take a picture of a busy street and post it online, you'll now have to share your website profits with the architects of every single building, and the makers of all the cars in the pictures (because yes, those designs are all patented) and of course every single clothes manufacturer that has some product visible in the picture. It is utter bullshit. Copyright protects a product from copying. You are not allowed to provide substantive portions of a product (by copying) to other people without the permission of the copyright holder. Copyright does not give the owner the right to control every single media that comes into contact with his product.
No, holding a videogame box up in front of a camera does not require permission, and does not violate copyright. It is not a functionally identical reproduction of the (copyrighted) box art that could be used the same the way the original product could. (Now if you upload a high-resolution scan of the box art for people to download, that's a different matter)

Copyright law, even though it is outdated, isn't even the problem here. None of this bullshit is following the law, it's just legal bullying. The single most important reason why it happens is not because of anything copyright law actually has to say about what you're allowed to use, it's because there are no consequences whatsoever to making false copyright claims. If some legal troll takes down a video because it has a screen-shot of some game or music clip, it's not because the law gives them the right to do that, it's because the law doesn't stop them, even though they don't have the right.

The entire concept of allowing anything other than "in-person" copyright claims is a terrible idea. Without an actual person certifying that they have viewed the content, found it to be objectionable, and that they have a reasonable legal claim to the material that is being infringed, you end up with WAAAAY too many false or shaky or unnecessary take-down claims. Also, in-person copyright claims ensures that a company only files as many complaints as the value of their products justifies. A company like Adobe will aggressively pursue fake/cracked copies of Photoshop because each copy is worth hundreds of dollars to them. A company like EA would be somewhat constrained though in the amount of resources it will dump into its legal department taking down YouTube videos because they aren't actually losing money on anything but their lawyers, and each individual claim is actually worth nothing to them. They would have to exercise judgment and only focus attention on the most egregious violations.

I see the main problem here being Youtube. Most of the stuff in question would get off scot free under the protection of fair use. Incidentally, most of these examples are not technically illegal, since (a) they're legal under fair use and (b) something isn't illegal anyway until a judge rules that it's illegal.
Youtube's position, however, is that it doesn't even want to risk going to court (hence the removing of their responsibility to the networks). Thus removing all content before it even comes that far is its prerogative and it certainly doesn't have any legal obligation to be a protector of free speech.
But that's where Twitch becomes interesting. After all, it's simple economics that if one institution doesn't fulfill a social need, then another institution will rise up to take its place. So if Youtube won't be the safe harbour for the free speech of the everyman gamer, then Twitch might be a candidate to fulfill that role. That's a good thing not only in terms of this specific topic but also for the diversification of free-speech platforms in general, whereby Youtube loses part of its current monopoly over free speech on the internet.

Will there be anymore new podcasts? Or is the podcast on hiatus?

With Susan gone I feel it is improper to keep calling it a podcat in the icon. Also, I guess without her some kind of dynamic is missing since I've not watched any podcasts except one ever since she left (I didn't watch this one either, I just post this here since it's the last one)

Can you like, comission her to come and make the podcasts fun again?

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here