When did reviews/parodies qualify as copyright violation.

[Antiyonder]

We all know the rules concerning online video site not being allowed to have copyrighted material on the grounds that studios and networks can lose money if their property is being loaded for free. Of course, that doesn't stop people from loading them or us from watching them.

Yet, I've heard that copyrighted footage is legal if being used for short commentaries or parody purposes. Now for some reason Youtube has seen fit to remove reviews on the grounds that they are against the rules. Are they doing so because of paranoia or have the rules concerning parody/commentary changed?

[Tay the Cat]

We all know the rules concerning online video site not being allowed to have copyrighted material on the grounds that studios and networks can lose money if their property is being loaded for free. Of course, that doesn't stop people from loading them or us from watching them.

Yet, I've heard that copyrighted footage is legal if being used for short commentaries or parody purposes. Now for some reason Youtube has seen fit to remove reviews on the grounds that they are against the rules. Are they doing so because of paranoia or have the rules concerning parody/commentary changed?

It qualifies as fair use as far as I know, but the studios are greedy and if they tell Youtube to remove a video, Youtube has to comply.

[Roman Legion]

It's been headed that way for a while now. "Fair use" itself has taken a beating in the name of curbing piracy, and parody's place among fair use was already wavering. Using someone else's material in your own comedic work isn't necessarily considered parody. This makes a "parody" defense much weaker. What you think is parody and what the courts think is parody may be surprisingly different.

Furthermore, if you're just some lowly nobody, like most of the world, don't expect fair treatment over "intellectual property" matters. Online notoriety doesn't count; you're only somebody if you have serious financial backing. I don't believe it should have to be this way.

--Romey

[Uncle_Lina]

I knew a reviewer on youtube who put the tags "Family Guy" in their description, they had no clips from the show and only mentioned it briefly, their account was deleted after that.

[ThePeterNetwork]

I hope they don't extend this stupid rule to home videos at theme parks, or I would be writing YouTube a rather nasty letter with words that will offend a whole flock of penguins.

[s3kShUn86]

Its not copyright violation, but corporations in action. Parody is an ancient right that courts have always recognized, less so for reviews but still. Youtube is a corporation, not a civics organization like the ACLU or EFF. Whilst the law is one their side, money is on the media companies side, and fighting a long protracted legal battle with a dubious outcome is not the best way to earn money. Especially consider that the media companies are heavy advertisers on youtube, and to some extent do rely on youtube to promote their wares. Youtube as a private entity has the right to remove videos regardless of their legality, as is often said the right to free speech is not the right to an audience.

[Peter Paltridge]

These days I fear having A video on your YouTube account, no matter what the subject, is grounds for the account's permanent banning. All I use mine for is commenting on other videos 'cause I don't think I can do anything else with it.

[J'onn J'onzz]

Ugh, Timbox's account got deleted recently for the same reason. YouTube really stretches it when it comes to intellectual property.

[The Nameless]

The only reason that YouTube is deleting everything is due to paranoia.

There's other (better) video sites, like Dailymotion, LiveVideo, Veoh, imeem, etc.

[Pomegranate]

The only reason that YouTube is deleting everything is due to paranoia.

That could be another possible reason why so many videos get deleted from Youtube.


There's other (better) video sites, like Dailymotion, LiveVideo, Veoh, imeem, etc.

Yeah, but they probably don't contain a considerable amount of decent videos as Youtube does.

[peacebyanymeans]

Well if I was facing a $1,000,000,000 lawsuit, I'd be a bit paranoid too.

[Jtaylor1]

It gets worse.

U.S. House of Representatives just passed HR 4279 PRO-IP Act.

Civil Asset Forfeiture and PRO-IP means say goodbye to your house.

It's the new "War On Drugs".

Here's the link to the bill: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_4279.html (http://http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_4279.html)

The Senate is getting ready to vote on their version of the bill.

[DarthGonzo]

Ugh, Timbox's account got deleted recently for the same reason. YouTube really stretches it when it comes to intellectual property.

Yikes. Banned from Toon Zone and having his Youtube account deleted all in the same week. I actually feel bad for the kid now. I do have to wonder why his account was deleted though. Probably the Jurassic Park stuff.

[The Nameless]

Yikes. Banned from Toon Zone and having his Youtube account deleted all in the same week. I actually feel bad for the kid now. I do have to wonder why his account was deleted though. Probably the Jurassic Park stuff.

All I can say is that NBC Uni are a bunch of greedy, uptight hacks! :mad:

[Brandon Pierce]

But see here's the thing. What if you post a cartoon that is not acessible anywhere, is still under copyright, the owners have NO plans to ever put it on DVD, but still want it removed from YouTube?

What does that tell you about the companies? Has anyone ever had the guts to explain to them that if they want their copyrights protected so bad, they need to DO something with it?

If I owned a video website my rule would be, "If it's not on DVD, it's fair game."

Personally I think the whole banning members for videos cuts into free speech. Or does that even exist anymore?

[Jave]

But see here's the thing. What if you post a cartoon that is not acessible anywhere, is still under copyright, the owners have NO plans to ever put it on DVD, but still want it removed from YouTube?

What does that tell you about the companies? Has anyone ever had the guts to explain to them that if they want their copyrights protected so bad, they need to DO something with it?

If I owned a video website my rule would be, "If it's not on DVD, it's fair game."

Personally I think the whole banning members for videos cuts into free speech. Or does that even exist anymore?That's like saying: "Well, this video game is not for sale anymore. And since you're not playing it, I'll just go into your house and take it with me."

Companies remove this stuff from the Internet because they OWN these things and even if they're not on DVD there's still the issue that they're losing possible revenue that they could get by releasing them officially. No, not every series is out there on DVD, but there's always the possibility that it will be released, and companies have to protect their own property in the case they ever decide to make a profit out of it.

And "free speech"... yeah, the never-ending excuse... Free Speech doesn't override copyright violation.

[The Nameless]

Free Speech doesn't override copyright violation.

What if someone's uploading something like commercials that are nearly/over 10 years old? I think that stuff should be left alone. It's not like McDonald's is going to release a DVD of all their old commercials or something. They shouldn't touch anything that would otherwise never be seen again. Greedy hacks.

[Pomegranate]

It gets worse.

U.S. House of Representatives just passed HR 4279 PRO-IP Act.

Civil Asset Forfeiture and PRO-IP means say goodbye to your house.

It's the new "War On Drugs".

Here's the link to the bill: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_4279.html (http://http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_4279.html)

The Senate is getting ready to vote on their version of the bill.

So, this gives government to seize your computer if suspected of intellectual property rights violation? Damn, it seems as if our government cares more about the well-being of huge multi-national corporations rather than that of civilians such as us.:(

[The Nameless]

So, this gives government to seize your computer if suspected of intellectual property rights violation? Damn, it seems as if our government cares more about the well-being of huge multi-national corporations rather than that of civilians such as us.:(

The world is becoming more like Nineteen Eighty-Four, with the conglomerates acting as Big Brother/The Party. Makes me sad. All the faceless, soulless conglomerates care about is greenbacks and all the government cares about is helping the corporations obtain greenbacks.

[Antiyonder]

That's like saying: "Well, this video game is not for sale anymore. And since you're not playing it, I'll just go into your house and take it with me."

No, because even if someone downloads a copy of say Startropics, Nintendo would still have a copy of the game in their vaults (or whichever company created the game).

A better analogy is that someone was to xerox 100 copies of the X-Men novelization that you or someone else own.


Companies remove this stuff from the Internet because they OWN these things and even if they're not on DVD there's still the issue that they're losing possible revenue that they could get by releasing them officially. No, not every series is out there on DVD, but there's always the possibility that it will be released, and companies have to protect their own property in the case they ever decide to make a profit out of it.

Then they need to make it legally available, and not necessarily through DVD release, but online site like In2tv or Hulu.com. How else are we suppose to view the content legally? I mean if someone is going to the trouble to bootleg something, it should be an indicator on how much demand there is on said show.

Even then, it doesn't explain why mere clips are forbidden. I mean, I seriously doubt that a DVD Release of Spongebob Squarepants would fail to sell because someone put 15 minutes of a random episode online. If anything it would count a free advertisement for Nick and actually help them sell DVDs.

[Jave]

A better analogy is that someone was to xerox 100 copies of the X-Men novelization that you or someone else own.And by law, that would still be stealing.


Then they need to make it legally available, and not necessarily through DVD release, but online site like In2tv or Hulu.com. How else are we suppose to view the content legally?Sometimes, you just can't. I know, life sucks.


I mean if someone is going to the trouble to bootleg something, it should be an indicator on how much demand there is on said show.No it's not. Random person on the Internet does not equal market demand.

[Antiyonder]

And by law, that would still be stealing.

Sometimes, you just can't. I know, life sucks.

No it's not. Random person on the Internet does not equal market demand.

Fair enoungh, but it still doesn't explain why a 5 minute clip would be a threat to the copyright holders.

[Roman Legion]

For the record, I think copyrights are a good thing. Y'know, just in case people get the wrong idea.


Companies remove this stuff from the Internet because they OWN these things and even if they're not on DVD there's still the issue that they're losing possible revenue that they could get by releasing them officially.In a lot of cases, they only own these things because they've thrown enough money around to get the law on their side. It also seems perverse to believe that a company should have the right to make a profit off something just because they've made a profit off it in the past.


And "free speech"... yeah, the never-ending excuse... Free Speech doesn't override copyright violation.Claiming copyright violation shouldn't override free speech. If you keep putting it down as an excuse, you shouldn't be surprised when your supposed rights aren't worth anything anymore.


That's like saying: "Well, this video game is not for sale anymore. And since you're not playing it, I'll just go into your house and take it with me."The physical comparison doesn't work. If it did, I should be able to make a video game, sell it to you, then march into your house whenever I want to take it back and sell it to someone else. My copyright, my game.


And by law, that would still be stealing.By law... err... wait, it's not even covered by the same laws as physical theft. It's only stealing in a colloquial sense. Murder is stealing someone's life, but that's not at all the same by law either, no matter how many times some impassioned lawyer might make the comparison. Certainly, it may still be against the law, but certainly, not all illegal activity is theft.

--Romey

[Brandon Pierce]

A company can see just how many views a video gets. That should give them idea how much demand something has.

[s3kShUn86]

And "free speech"... yeah, the never-ending excuse... Free Speech doesn't override copyright violation.
Maybe not, but Fair Use certainly does, and that is certainly what was argued in the OP, the use for reviews and parodies.

Meh. The public seems to be winning, what do I care. DRM is slowly being removed from music. MPAA hasn't gone the path of the RIAA, which itself seems to be toning down. People are adapting to the new system. Even after the meteor crashed, Dinosaurs didn't die out right away. Seems like an apt analogy.