Guest
Guest
;D
US Copyright = Bullshit
- Thread starter Xaixis
- Start date
ДГъÃтÉГ":38ek8izu said:
Not really, Holly mainly stated: Who cares, and Who cares again (which really was fine with me, if he does not give a hoot on the situation then that's cool). And then after that strongly corrected me about his name, and then told me my topic was pathetic. I mean not caring about the situation at one thing, but then flat out "yelling" at me is two different things.
Please don't Bullshit me Arbiter, cmon, seriously, I'm not here to fight you guys, but serioulsy cut some slack, if you do not care about the situation then thats fine.
God damn, look I'm sorry, I merely wanted to discuss copyright (and the justifications and such -- youtube was JUST an example), no need to fucking attack me on it. (As in attacking me for making the thread, if you were disagreeing or something then thats totally cool)
Guest
Guest
;D
this is pretty much exactly what I was trying to say.
@Xaixis, basically the point I was trying to get across is that you don't really get the choice, and it'd be wise to just respect the choices bands, and labels (because they do OWN the song) make without starting a bitchfest about getting music taken out of your videos.
Nobody is attacking you. Just because somebody has an opinion you do not agree with does not make them an ATTACKER. This isn't a magical pixie land with bunnies and fairies where everyone agrees with what everyone says and pats your back and gives you hugs.
This topic is a tad pointless.
1, The music shouldn't have been in your video in the first place, if it has such little relevance that it isn't a major part of the video. Otherwise, i.e. if it is important to the video, then it is obviously trying to benefit from said music, which is where the rights of the maker come in.
2, There is nothing we can do about it, it is up to Warner or whomever.
3, It is their music. Yes, it is made by artists, but when they signed over their rights it became Warners, and it is Warner who have the rights to do whatever they want with it.
This topic is a tad pointless.
1, The music shouldn't have been in your video in the first place, if it has such little relevance that it isn't a major part of the video. Otherwise, i.e. if it is important to the video, then it is obviously trying to benefit from said music, which is where the rights of the maker come in.
2, There is nothing we can do about it, it is up to Warner or whomever.
3, It is their music. Yes, it is made by artists, but when they signed over their rights it became Warners, and it is Warner who have the rights to do whatever they want with it.
The notion of fair use does deserve a mention since it allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring the permission of the copyright holder(s).
I am not sure whether fair use is applicable in your case, but it is irrelevant in your case. You didn't get a cease-and-desist letter instead your video were edited which is something the copyright holders of the song most likely doesn't have.
I am pretty sure that you have given Youtube the permission to edited your video in the way it was edited.
A discussion of youtube's terms of service would relevant to your situation.
Instead you rant about something irrelevant to the case you provide.
I am not sure whether fair use is applicable in your case, but it is irrelevant in your case. You didn't get a cease-and-desist letter instead your video were edited which is something the copyright holders of the song most likely doesn't have.
I am pretty sure that you have given Youtube the permission to edited your video in the way it was edited.
A discussion of youtube's terms of service would relevant to your situation.
Instead you rant about something irrelevant to the case you provide.
Ug, ok well l apologize for my snapniness, I misinterpreted the way you presented your text that made it appear as if you were trying to attack me of some way, plus the fact of the stress I was under put me in a sour mood..
Anyways, I'm just going to drop this thread then because it seems as if I have bitched to muched instead of put up a reasonable argument.
So I appologize for my snappy-ness what ever, I had a bunch of homework to do and I guess in the back of my mind I was creating some sort bitch mood. If a mod wishes to close this thread then feel free.. i actually might make a video on youtube Arby since that is where the general concern is.
Alright well I appreciate the feedback I got back, I am very easily tempered as you may have assumed so I also tend to take sides very quickly which is why I tend to post things on here so that I can view both sides of the argument. So thanks so much to those who did level me out a bit and I apologize (ok I'm sure you get it now :crazy: ) that I constantly go bitch mode or w/e.
and I need to stop chugging the monsters...
Anyways, I'm just going to drop this thread then because it seems as if I have bitched to muched instead of put up a reasonable argument.
So I appologize for my snappy-ness what ever, I had a bunch of homework to do and I guess in the back of my mind I was creating some sort bitch mood. If a mod wishes to close this thread then feel free.. i actually might make a video on youtube Arby since that is where the general concern is.
Alright well I appreciate the feedback I got back, I am very easily tempered as you may have assumed so I also tend to take sides very quickly which is why I tend to post things on here so that I can view both sides of the argument. So thanks so much to those who did level me out a bit and I apologize (ok I'm sure you get it now :crazy: ) that I constantly go bitch mode or w/e.
and I need to stop chugging the monsters...
Ya, I really didn't mean for it to come off as a rant at all, but as I was typing I started to go off-tangent.
@Wyatt, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, as I said, I was glad that Surmuch, Ven, you, and Zar were discussing what I was talking about, but I interpreted Holly's response as if she was degrading me for even thinking of making the topic.. once again I misinterpreted.
@Wyatt, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, as I said, I was glad that Surmuch, Ven, you, and Zar were discussing what I was talking about, but I interpreted Holly's response as if she was degrading me for even thinking of making the topic.. once again I misinterpreted.
Cryomaniac
Member
Xaixis":2xee0jyk said:
Pretty much, yes. Technically you have to ask permission to hotlink images...
Also, it isn't up to the artist at all, it's up to the record label.
Cryomaniac
Member
Commodore Whynot":373w70v9 said:
The record companies, and others would argue that you are leeching their resources (Money, usually). I'm not really in favour of what youtube are doing with regard to muting videos, but I can see why they are doing it.
rey meustrus
Sponsor
Copyright is just a tool by which record companies are trying to stay alive in the modern age. The internet, and a lot of free-sharing culture that's coming up because of it, has made it difficult to keep data in one place. That's all the music really is: data.
Copyright is meant to protect art. It's meant to stop people from ruining specific businesses, such as book publishers, record companies, and film studios. Say I buy a popular new book at the bookstore. Say then that I photocopy that book. Before the internet, I would have to print that book myself, and I'd have a poor-quality bootleg of the original that I'd have to pay for in order to distribute. With the internet, now I could publish it online for free. All I have to do is pay the minuscule costs of hosting the file, and everyone can get a FREE poor-quality bootleg (or, with some more time investment, a high-quality bootleg). This is the problem the internet has produced. Before the internet, the only ones who could afford to produce bootlegs were other publishers, and corporations are far easier to sue than individuals because they're big and obvious. Now, any individual can publish the book for free, as long as they want, in relative anonymity as long as it's not too popular.
I believe there needs to be a better system to protect art than copyright. Copyright is becoming outmoded and has become bogged down in license agreements where it used to enforce itself by being too hard to infringe upon. The best we can do for now is try to make sure the artists get paid. Personally, I don't care if the record company gets its share. I try to live by the rule I should pay for it if I can, but if I wouldn't be willing to pay for it I feel justified in using it anyway. I can make an example with an album I got once. I got it because somebody suggested it for a specific sound I was looking for, but when I listened to it I didn't hear what I wanted. Haven't listened to it since. Maybe if I come across it later and like it, I'll buy some of their albums, and eventually come back and buy the album I took before.
Copyright is meant to protect art. It's meant to stop people from ruining specific businesses, such as book publishers, record companies, and film studios. Say I buy a popular new book at the bookstore. Say then that I photocopy that book. Before the internet, I would have to print that book myself, and I'd have a poor-quality bootleg of the original that I'd have to pay for in order to distribute. With the internet, now I could publish it online for free. All I have to do is pay the minuscule costs of hosting the file, and everyone can get a FREE poor-quality bootleg (or, with some more time investment, a high-quality bootleg). This is the problem the internet has produced. Before the internet, the only ones who could afford to produce bootlegs were other publishers, and corporations are far easier to sue than individuals because they're big and obvious. Now, any individual can publish the book for free, as long as they want, in relative anonymity as long as it's not too popular.
I believe there needs to be a better system to protect art than copyright. Copyright is becoming outmoded and has become bogged down in license agreements where it used to enforce itself by being too hard to infringe upon. The best we can do for now is try to make sure the artists get paid. Personally, I don't care if the record company gets its share. I try to live by the rule I should pay for it if I can, but if I wouldn't be willing to pay for it I feel justified in using it anyway. I can make an example with an album I got once. I got it because somebody suggested it for a specific sound I was looking for, but when I listened to it I didn't hear what I wanted. Haven't listened to it since. Maybe if I come across it later and like it, I'll buy some of their albums, and eventually come back and buy the album I took before.
Well I think anyone who comes into a thread with a "Who cares" is simply spamming, and last time I checked, spamming is against the rules. It's also very rude.
Pertaining to the discussion. I can see why the short clip of music is in your video, you put it there for a reason, you had no idea you would get muted for it, neither should your video be muted for it. If they were to mute their property I would see their point, but the fact that they mute YOUR work because it involved a bit of THEIR work is absurd. It's like someone purposely destroying your fence because you accidentally kicked theirs.
I love how discussion can't be made without intolerance and an immediate rush to attack the OP. Such a shame to see some of it from Staff.
Pertaining to the discussion. I can see why the short clip of music is in your video, you put it there for a reason, you had no idea you would get muted for it, neither should your video be muted for it. If they were to mute their property I would see their point, but the fact that they mute YOUR work because it involved a bit of THEIR work is absurd. It's like someone purposely destroying your fence because you accidentally kicked theirs.
I love how discussion can't be made without intolerance and an immediate rush to attack the OP. Such a shame to see some of it from Staff.
Guest
Guest
;D
It's absurd that they mute YOUR whole video for the small bits of their works.
It's a fucking discussion. his rant about youtube was well thought-out and provoked discussion. And those that post nothing to provoke further discussion but instead makes unneeded comments are just being assholes. Who cares if you don't care, don't post then. I, for one, find this topic intriguing so I post. If you don't have nothing to contribute, GUESS THE FUCK WHAT YOU CAN DO?! Don't post.
It's a fucking discussion. his rant about youtube was well thought-out and provoked discussion. And those that post nothing to provoke further discussion but instead makes unneeded comments are just being assholes. Who cares if you don't care, don't post then. I, for one, find this topic intriguing so I post. If you don't have nothing to contribute, GUESS THE FUCK WHAT YOU CAN DO?! Don't post.
Arbiter basically just ended the discussion :P
The Youtube terms of service say that they have control over the content. See, the problem is, if you post 2 seconds of someone else's work, Youtube can be held liable. To protect themselves, they mute your video. They are not gonna just mute 2 seconds of it, because that would require them to open up your video file in a video editing program and edit it that way. Imagine if they did that for hundreds of thousands of videos a week (totally made up number, by the way). Instead, they simply block sound for the whole video.
Now, thinking that you have a right to use those 3 seconds is ridiculous. You didn't create it, it's not yours, you don't get to use it. What you will get, is a slightly lighter sentence if they decide to prosecute rather than just mute your video ^^
The Youtube terms of service say that they have control over the content. See, the problem is, if you post 2 seconds of someone else's work, Youtube can be held liable. To protect themselves, they mute your video. They are not gonna just mute 2 seconds of it, because that would require them to open up your video file in a video editing program and edit it that way. Imagine if they did that for hundreds of thousands of videos a week (totally made up number, by the way). Instead, they simply block sound for the whole video.
Now, thinking that you have a right to use those 3 seconds is ridiculous. You didn't create it, it's not yours, you don't get to use it. What you will get, is a slightly lighter sentence if they decide to prosecute rather than just mute your video ^^
There have been court cases before which claim that a portion of a piece of music (i.e. a noteworthy chord or easily distinguishable melody) can be considered a part of the entire copyrighted work and therefore cannot be used without permission.
parodies, however, are allowed, and you can distribute them as you like, as long as the source material is changed enough.
parodies, however, are allowed, and you can distribute them as you like, as long as the source material is changed enough.