US Copyright = Bullshit

[rey meustrus]

Sure, YouTube may have made it a part of their EULA, but that doesn't make it right. First, nobody reads the EULA. It is the software equivalent of mortgage agreements, about which I've heard the quip that reading one in its entirety causes multiple hernias. Second, I believe (there is no established legal precedent for video-sharing websites) that a clip of music in a home-made video constitutes fair use, as the purpose of fair use is to allow people with no commercial objectives to use material in a way not detrimental to the author of the work. Short clips of low-quality music will not hurt the author; they may even help them if somebody hears the music and decides they want to hear the whole song.

Thirdly, I'm tired of internet companies caving in to established corporate lawyers. What ever happened to the free spirit of the internet? The internet, in my opinion, should be open to whatever its users want it to be. iTunes has impressed me with the (relatively) recent switch to DRM-free music, because that shows that Apply respects its customers more than it does a bunch of over-paid lawyers for big record companies. I would like to see more internet applications support this kind of freedom.

 

[Guest]

;D

 

[Zeriab]

The alternative to muting the video would be to remove it entirely.
Youtube is not going to risk anything. It doesn't really matter whether fair use apply or not.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

Sure, YouTube may have made it a part of their EULA, but that doesn't make it right.

Actually, yes it does By putting it in their EULA, they are letting you know, right out in the open, that they will protect themselves from any damages you may cause. I mean, I don't see how you could be pissed at YouTube for this one, because if they don't take down stuff like that, they stand to lose billions. (Isn't there something like $2.5 billion of pending lawsuits right now?)

First, nobody reads the EULA.

I read EULAs

Second, I believe (there is no established legal precedent for video-sharing websites) that a clip of music in a home-made video constitutes fair use

Actually, you may be right on that. According to the US Copyright office, commercial vs nonprofit, the amount of the work used, and the affect on the market all have to do with fair use. The pending lawsuits on Youtube will probably set the precedent.

Thirdly, I'm tired of internet companies caving in to established corporate lawyers. What ever happened to the free spirit of the internet? The internet, in my opinion, should be open to whatever its users want it to be. iTunes has impressed me with the (relatively) recent switch to DRM-free music, because that shows that Apply respects its customers more than it does a bunch of over-paid lawyers for big record companies. I would like to see more internet applications support this kind of freedom.

Woah, woah, woah, hold on there. While I agree with you that the companies should care about the people over the lawyers, that is only one part of the issue. I'll tell you what, if I don't have 100% control over things I create, I'm not making anything anymore. The idea is absolutely absurd that everyone but me should have control over something I create. There's a huge difference between the free spirit of the internet, and distributing copyrighted work without the permission of the author. You really wouldn't be pissed if you had something you wanted to do with something you created, but then you couldn't because as soon as you release it anyone can do whatever they want with it?

 

[Ellie]

By the very definition, free-rights means authors have the right to add limits to how their work can be used, because they are free to do so.

If you personally want people to be able to do what they like with your work, then good for you. That does not mean you can decide that all people must do the same.

To be honest I side with Youtube 100% on this one. I go back to something I said before (possibly in this very thread):

By definition of fair use, the clip you are using is a very small part of your final piece, i.e. doesn't play any major role. People watch your video for the video, not for the music (otherwise you are gaining advantage from the music being there i.e. not fair use). IF this is the case then why even have the music there in the first place! If it's not a substantial part of the overall video then why even feature it?

First, nobody reads the EULA.

I read EULAs.

 

[rey meustrus]

Are you saying you read the EULA, for everything, in it's entirety? That's extremely unusual.

 

[Kingdom Ablaze]

i want to say somthing, but nether side quote me please. i agree with both sides, what i want to say is:
1)record companies make it impossible to get permission, i have tried and i got no reply for months, not even a "no". and yes i emailed the right place, also wrote a letter and called a million times.

2)record companys own the artist(mostly) so the artist dont really get a choice most the time.

p.s. please dont qoute or respond to me i just wanted a exspress my thoughts.
p.s.s. i read eula, but only to see if they want to screw me

 

[Zeriab]

The bad feeling against the companies conducting muting of videos is interesting. Not from a copyright point of view, but from a business point of view.
That is also where I suggest targeting the companies. Not on legal matters, but on business matters.
If they loose noticeable amount of money which can be easily correlated as side-effects of their you-tube activities then they will be much more likely to do something about it. Especially if investors try to push against such activities.
What I am saying is to boy-cut the record company muting the video as well as saying you are boy-cutting them and why.
If enough begin to follow your example then the record companies will listen.

i want to say somthing, but nether side quote me please. i agree with both sides, what i want to say is:
1)record companies make it impossible to get permission, i have tried and i got no reply for months, not even a "no". and yes i emailed the right place, also wrote a letter and called a million times.

2)record companys own the artist(mostly) so the artist dont really get a choice most the time.

p.s. please dont qoute or respond to me i just wanted a exspress my thoughts.
p.s.s. i read eula, but only to see if they want to screw me

RMXP.ORG » The Other Hand » General Discussion » US Copyright = Bullshit

:x

 

[Kingdom Ablaze]

lol zerab, i just meant i dont want to get into the arguement thats all

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

Are you saying you read the EULA, for everything, in it's entirety? That's extremely unusual.

Whenever I am going to do something beyond what is obviously alright, yeah. Like, I don't read the license on like a game, because all I am going to do is play it on one computer just like I know the license asks. If I am going to use a piece of software to create something, I read the EULA. Whenever I join a website where I will be posting my work, I read the EULA.

 

[Ellie]

2)record companys own the artist(mostly) so the artist dont really get a choice most the time.

They have every possible choice.

Do you want to sign up with a record company? Yes/No
Do you want to sign up with this particular company based on our license? Yes/No

While a general consumer might not read an EULA, a music artist should do or frankly they are stupid as there is a lot of money and shit concerned.

Are you saying you read the EULA, for everything, in it's entirety? That's extremely unusual.

I'm so bad that I read the Acrobat Reader license every time I open it on the school computers (they crapped up the install so you have to accept it every time you open it) :|

 

[Kingdom Ablaze]

say what u want allmost every contract is a slave, but again i dont want to join the arguement

 

[Ellie]

You just did by posting in here supporting one of the arguments :cute:

It may be "a slave" but it's something you agree to, you are given a clear cut choice whether or not to join up.

 

[second_crimson]

I just wanted to throw my two cents in here, keeping in mind I have next to know idea about copyright law. (I vaguely remember the 30 secs. or 10% rule)

But putting something on YouTube could[/b] be considered for profit in a round about way. You're not making any money off of the content, but YouTube is, because by hosting videos they attract people. If your AMV featuring a ten second clip of "Gimme More" becomes popular, more people are coming to YouTube, improving YouTube's ad revenue. So YouTube may be getting rid of this stuff so they don't get charged with making money off of the content.

*shrugs* Like I said, I don't know much about this stuff, but that's just what I was thinking...

 

[pandemikk]

lol zerab, i just meant i dont want to get into the arguement thats all

Then why are you in this thread? If you can't handle the heat than get out of the frying pan.

 

[Kingdom Ablaze]

wow, i will honnestly never give my opinion again on a subject that i dont 100% care about, forget it if i have an idea that i want to point out but have no desire to argue the point.

 

[pandemikk]

Bye faggot. Leave. Take your sensitivity somewhere else.

 

[Jason]

Bye faggot. Leave. Take your sensitivity somewhere else.

Wow are you asking to be banned or something ? this is the third irrelevant post I've seen by you within the last hour... how about calming the fuck down and not bringing your shitty attitude onto these forums...

 

[Ellie]

Ok everyone calm down.

- If you come into a discussion thread be willing to discuss
- Be willing to take criticism, you don't have to accept it but don't just flag it down with "I don't want criticism"
- All the same, if someone does something you don't like, calling them faggots isn't the way to do it

Legitimate discussion from now on please~

 

[pandemikk]

Bye faggot. Leave. Take your sensitivity somewhere else.

Wow are you asking to be banned or something ? this is the third irrelevant post I've seen by you within the last hour... how about calming the fuck down and not bringing your shitty attitude onto these forums...

Well, it may be the second but certainly not the third.

Drop it. ~Wyatt