The Big Picture: Copywrong

[Cpt. Slow]

No one want's to be King George, not even King George.

But King George the Third was a ball of fun. (Yes, if Bob would be more specific about which King George he meant people wouldn't copy and just start phrasing the name King George)

Anyway, maybe it's time to leave YouTube and go somewhere else. YT is not a bank so the 'too big to fail' doesn't apply here. Vimeo is (or so I heard) an excellent alternative for the people who want to share their reviews.

So let YouTube fall, until it becomes Bieber / One Direction / Nicki Minaj-tube and all that will remain is a nice footnote in history about the first true video sharing website that was centred around the user. And how they jumped out of the window because large companies couldn't cope with change in Zeitgeist.

Oh and if the argument regarding 'YouTube is owned by Google, and they have Scrooge McDuck warehouses filled to the brim with money so they will never fall over' will passer by; if nobody will upload any non company videos again to the site, eventually it will wither and be sold because even Google isn't that stupid to keep a non profitable site at arms length.

 

[harryhenry]

No one want's to be King George, not even King George.

Vimeo is (or so I heard) an excellent alternative for the people who want to share their reviews.

Ok, i wanna correct something: Vimeo is not designed for reviews. Vimeo is designed more for inderpendent filmmakers making inderpendent original professional-quality films, not reviews. in fact, the rules state that you can't upload video game footage. Blip is a better site to mention when it comes to other youtube-like sites that are less copyright sensitive, as that site is desgined more for reviews, nut i'll let this slide as your points came from what you've heard.

P.S. in your post, you seemed to be pretty optimistic about youtube finally declining. however, you didn't seem to explain very well as to how it could fall.

 

[maximara]

I'm wondering why no one has mentioned that YouTube is a private company, and that content ID is not the same as a DMCA take down notice. YouTube and its partners can do whatever they want in this area, it is not a matter of law. YouTube also doesn't allow porn on their service, and if they want to use content ID to remove videos so their parnteners(like CBS and VEVO, not pewdiepie) continue to host popular content there, and generate add revenue then it is their business, just like the no porn policy.

Several things here.

1) Youtube cannot do ANYTHING it wants. There are still rules and laws it has to obey.

The "YouTube Issued Copyright Claims Against Miracle of Sound" fiasco is prime example of boneheaded activity that could get them in a LOT of trouble. Claiming that someone doesn't own the rights to totally original content they made that they have given permission for others to use is just sloppy and could get into the land of various legal issues that neither YouTube or the various companies really want a spotlight on.

2) There is porn on Youtube...softcore but it is there.

 

[Nimcha]

Meh, I'm not too bothered. If people really start hating Youtube that much, an alternative will pop up and people will migrate. Myspace is always a nice example of that.

 

[Conrad Hegarty]

maybe spiderman was not the best example... yes there would b hundreds of bad spiderman movies but odds are at least 1 would be good. as it is i have to wait and hope that the amazing spiderman 4 in 2018 bombs (and thats not including all the films they will announce before then, considering 1 terrible movie was enough for sony to announce 5 more) plus however long it takes for sony to reboot or for the rights to default back to marvel and then another few years of production on that. while i of course agree that people should have their IP protected, as i understand it copyright was introduced not only to protect the financial interests of the creators but ALSO to ensure that culturally relevant material at some point enters the public domain. And im sorry but any pretence of protecting the creator being the true purpose of copyright law went out of the window as soon as copyright started to be extended to such a ridicules extent as life of the author plus 120 years. I get that buying and selling profit is the right of every red blooded capitalist, but in the case of sony and fox ect. holding these properties hostage actively inhibits the enjoyment of the people paying for it? ie. us. come on we all want to see spidey in the avengers. and for the record yes marvel and dc are far from noble, as copyright law in those cases never protected the creator, only the publishers who paid the actual authors. I understand the real world dilemma inherent in broadening the definitions of fair use but we really have to be careful when it comes to the idea of buying and selling any right? also "apologies to misguided idealists" aside from being a somewhat unprofessional remark also refers to the numerous professional artists and musicians who also feel that they are not receiving a fair cut of what they created.