EFF Lawyer Calls YouTube ContentID Worse Than DMCA 219
Richard Koman writes "Warner Music Group is apparently blocking everything YouTube ContentID comes up with as potential infringement. We knew that, but this piece by Jason Perlow shows that they're also spewing out DMCA takedown notices for some pretty clearly fair-use stuff. In my interview with EFF's Fred von Lohmann he talks about how, as bad as the DMCA process is — and it's pretty firmly against fair-use — YouTube's process gives remixers and digital creators even fewer options to assert their right to speak through the fair use of copyright material. While EFF is negotiating with Google and the studios, he suggests that users boycott YouTube if they won't stand up for fair use."
Re:Alternative? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there a solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Far better to boycotting would be.... (Score:1, Insightful)
What would a college's lawyers sue the **AA over? The takedown notice is being sent to Google, not the college or even the college student.
Google is under no obligation to provide anyone with a means to publish videos online regardless of whether they fit the Fair Use criteria.
Re:Alternative? (Score:1, Insightful)
Vimeo isn't bad.
Re:Crazy Thought! (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents, Copyright, trademarks and IP (Score:4, Insightful)
Put a Twitter-length explanation of why you believe your use is a fair use under the Copyright Act, and you just might win if you have a decent case.
Whoa. Hold on there, son. Yes, I agree: there is a strong need to change the laws that define patents, copyrights, trademarks and intellectual property. The current set of laws are either based on older laws or have been designed by the wrong people.
But - and I need you to put down the remote and listen to me, child - there needs to be a balance between inventors, writers and the public. DMCA was written too broadly by the entertainment industry. Another hurdle that hurts the common man is the costs involved in getting a patent, copyright or trademark are at times higher than the expected revenue to be derived by having a patent, copyright or trademark.
Fair use also needs to be protected. If a video of a child's music recital is taken down because of copyright laws, then those laws have gone too far. The song "Happy Birthday" apparently is still copyrighted, but the public is allowed to sing the song at special events without paying anything to the copyright holder.
Art and music are vital parts of culture, the artists should have credit and benefit of sales; but, the public has a right to experience art and music without undue burdens that treat the enjoyment as a commodity. Fucking kids!
=Smidge=
Tell you what (Score:4, Insightful)
Think hak5, collegehumor, derrik comedy, truenuff.
Yeah, honestly, fuck warner. If they don't want to share, they don't get to be part of the future.
Re:Tell you what (Score:1, Insightful)
Considering that list I'd say we do in fact need them.
Re:Actually (Score:3, Insightful)
increase of 101% does not mean profit.
I think a cuople of informed /.'ers ahve posted a link already, so I won't bother.
Thanks guys!
I mostly agree. (Score:2, Insightful)
The worst examples are on youtube. Sticking a bunch of clips from a tv show together and replacing the audio with some annoying song is technically, but barely, creative, and it's certainly not worth anything. Any iTard can do it.
Re:Accidental plagiarism (Score:5, Insightful)
Ding Ding Ding! I had a situation at work where people used Happy Birthday as a melody for an iPhone music app. They were shocked to find out that it is copyrighted. The problem is that there is so much content out there that you can argue with just enough credibility to get into court that creative work A infringes on random creative work B. Despite all efforts by creators of A to be original. Not sure where I heard it, but this was one advice to future creatives types that stuck with me: "If you want to make a movie, do it in an empty white room with your two closest friends. Everything else opens you up for copyright claims."
The point is that culture thrives on copying, modifying and playing with existing content. The harder corps will try to come down on small infringement, the less people will like the overall idea of copyright itself. One possible outcome is that WarnerBros gets everyone to turn into mindless consumers. Another possible outcome is that people get so pissed off that they manage to convince their congress critters to change copyright law in their favor. And I'm not sure the former is more likely than the latter.
Re:Actually (Score:4, Insightful)
You-Tube is losing money, so use their services even more of you don't like them
They give us content at a loss, but make up for it in volume.
I may having a bit of a slow day. This series of statements doesn't seem logically sound.
Perhaps the intent is to state:
However, this thesis is at odds with the recommendation to "use their services even more if you don't like them".
Re:Crazy Thought! (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever go watch a Shakespear play? There's often some darned good performances going on; real artists. None of them wrote the material.
Re:Patents, Copyright, trademarks and IP (Score:2, Insightful)
Boycott the big music companies and ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... buy music that comes with clear permission [magnatune.com] to use the music you buy on places like YouTube [youtube.com].
Disclaimer: My only association with Magnatune [magnatune.com] is being a happy customer.
Re:It's pretty sad (Score:5, Insightful)
I would go so far as to say that it is the corporate sense of entitlement that is the problem here. They are allowed to exist for the benefit of the citizens, but the sense of entitlement has gotten so bad that the idea that they owe anything to the people who make their existence possible is incomprehensible to them.
YouTube's very existence that is not a right.