It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Time for a YouTube intervention

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Time for a YouTube intervention


www.msnbc.msn.com

In review, last week a judge ordered YouTube to hand over records of every video you and everyone else ever watched on the video-sharing site, plus when you watched it and how many times. This is the latest in Viacom’s copyright battle with Google (of which YouTube is a subsidiary). Viacom wants to prove that the majority of us aren’t watching dramatic gopher remixes for kicks, but instead stealing peeks at blurry clips of Viacom properties such as “The Daily Show” and “Colbert,” helping YouTub
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Reading this makes me think of what happened with the music down loads. Most of us have watched videos and movies on line. Now I don't know if we are going to get a letter in the mail some day saying that watching videos on line is against the law. I hope that does not happen.
Any thoughts?

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
That is most likely the case. From my point of view it seems that A) if they(1) feel as if you should pay money for their content and are getting it for free they will sue/fine for way more than they'd be entitled and B) if they(2) can put anyone and everyone into the system they will. Reminds me of something called "The war on the middle class". YouTube should push back and remind them that no one was suppose to be in a policing position on the internet. Originally it was intended as Free Information Exchange.

Now true, if they are losing profits they are entitled to a say in the matter. But instead of forcing them to share information that NO ONE should be collecting instead force the removal of certain content.

(1) They being the media producers
(2) They being the judicial system.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Again, it probably won't matter for the majority of us that watch youtube clips. This is an unprosecutable crime. If someone has hosted copyrighted videos on YouTube it's probably a good idea to take them down now.

However the people that have watched the videos are probably not going to be prosecuted. It would be laughable at the amount of people that would be going to court over copyright infringement. That in itself would clog our court systems so badly that real criminals would never get to court and die in jail awaiting trial.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Is what you guys are telling me, Is watching stuff on U-tube an actual crime?

I really did not know this. Is it also a crime to put material here on ats from U-tube?

Or to put it in your real player?

If so then why would U-tube allow us to do this? I really don't know if it's wrong so someone please tell me yes or no.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Again, it probably won't matter for the majority of us that watch youtube clips. This is an unprosecutable crime. If someone has hosted copyrighted videos on YouTube it's probably a good idea to take them down now.




Whatukno
I would like to think that your statement is correct. I just also think we must take into consideration the music industry. They did successfully file thousands of law suites and claimed a lot of money. I really do hope you are right. Because if not the powers that be will be saying we are breaking the law by clicking on a link.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
Is what you guys are telling me, Is watching stuff on U-tube an actual crime?


Shar
that I do not really know. See the above post for the comparison I made. I really hope it will not be a crime. I fear the internet will become close to worthless for the average person that likes to sit at home and surf the net to watch videos.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
This is the same legal strategy that initiated the RIAA's entry into the world of music. They want income. They do nothing but for profit. VIACOM wants to 'own' the intangible - the end of this road is me having to pay royalties to remember one of 'their' movies. If they could enforce it, they would move to do so.

At what point are commerce and art unjoined? Is the entire point of 'artistic' expression PROFIT? Can no one actually experience the art without PAYING A THIRD PARTY FOR IT?

Perhaps I'm being too rhetorical?



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join