Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos

page: 6
76
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quickfix

Originally posted by BirdOfillOmen
Sounds like more butthurt coming from the music industry. Thoughts and ideas are not "property". #.


Actually some thoughts and ideas can be considered intellectual property.

en.wikipedia.org...

Though, since it is youtube and a free website, the videos embedded do not create money, so there really shouldn't be a regulatory law on it.

If they wanted to make a big deal out of it, it really doesn't have any standing in court because the senator/corporate U.S. doesn't own google/youtube or the videos being embedded, so it has no authority.


Each Youtube video watched requires a unique visit to the site and Youtube gets $$ for each unique visit in advertising and such, so in a sense those video's are definately generating profit, just not for the ones posting them.




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by rikin4546
Lets look at it this way. Think of YouTube as a coffee shop and in there is a radio left behind by someone blaring out some music. If I happen to listen to it, do i deserve to be called a criminal?. youtube is the coffee shop. The video posted is the song playing in the coffee shop. There for everyone to hear and see, the guy who left the radio there isnt making any money by people listening in, but at the same time there will be people in the coffee shop who would have actually bought the song but now they dont because they can get it for free. More complicated than it seems.

Just a random thought and one of my first posts so please feel free to correct me or my way of thinking.

Rikin. India.


The analogy is almost right, but for the coffee shop to have the radio on they should have a license to play copyright material in a commercial property. That's why you'll find a lot of department stores play muzak that's either been composed for them (thus they are the copyright holders), or material that is now in the public domain.
edit on 3-6-2011 by something wicked because: typo



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


A quote comes to mind. Oddly enough it comes from one of the great if not THE great musicians of all time, John Lennon.

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it."

Well, now days, I guess that quote should be updated. Publishers, spoiled and over produced pop singers and senators think music can be owned by a single person.

Music is a thought, expressed. Can we own a thought? I don't think so. Music is something different to different people. Some can go outside and listen to the wind, and other sounds of nature and hear beautiful music. Who owns that? Everyone.

These laws are getting crazy and I just hope one day, we get some one in government who actually is capable of telling the truth, remaining in touch with people and reality and who is not entirely corrupt.

Again, to quote John Lennon, in regards to the above paragraph " You may say, I'm a dreamer, but I am not the only one. I hope some day, you will join us, and the world will live as one".






Interesting that I can't remember a single time - not one - where John Lennon actually gave his music away for free.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


This is lunacy... i can't see it happening... there are loads of sites on the net to get whatever you want from them.... are they going to ban every single site?

Are they going to stop every single person from uploading a video or song?

I doubt it very much.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Nvm.
edit on 3-6-2011 by mossme89 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Nonsense. An uploader can decide if they want to allow their video to be embeded or not. Embedding a video is just linking to it. The content isn't stored on your server. So you couldn't take someone to court over it. I call shenanigans.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by reD3vil
Without reading the article, I'm going to guess that the person that came up with this bill sides with the republicans?


Worse...its bipartisan

The only time the two meet in agreement is when there is opportunity to squash the collective rights of everyone and supress information.




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Why are senators doing this?
It's none of their business, it's up to people to talk to Youtube, a free video site, to do something.

I believe U.S. copyright laws are enforced at the federal level. I will need to do some research.


the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works.

Hmmm... If you have a single copyright video that gets more than ten hits, within a six month period, the government will throw you into jail?

Wait a minute.

CDs and DVDs FBI Warning Label

"The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000."

I agree with this philosophy. Since we have lived with these rules for DVDs and VHS for years, I have no problem applying them to online copyright materials. We need to protect everyone's pieces of work, so that only the creators and owners can gain from such materials. Artists, song writers, documentary developers, and many-many others did not make their products so everyone else can use them for personal gain. When I use the phrase personal gain, I refer to such rewards as political, online/offline notoriety, money, etc...

No one should be able to get noticed or rewarded while using another person's property.

They should change it to ten years in prison.

Sorry folks. I am an graphic designer, and I need to protect my property. If sending a few hundred people into prison works, I have no problem with such a law being put into place. I encourage the government to do what they must. I have never-ever owned an illegal copy of a movie, art piece, music album, etc...

Stealing is stealing.

If you people want something badly, go to the nearest store and put up some cash.
edit on 6/3/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


that suggests that every embedded youtube video on ATS that shows or contains some piece, either whole or in part, of someone else's copyrighted material, is potentially subject to five years in prison. there should be a big warning on ATS, that you can't post videos wherein any part is copyrighted. there has to be a fair usage law for videos as well. excerpts for educational purposes, have historically, been okay. there's also karaoke and people using music they love for their weddings, etc. there's a video of a girl showing off her conga drum skills. she's doing a form of karaoke, using a song by michael jackson as the background music, to which she plays her congas (with her hands). she's not claiming she wrote the music, only showcasing her skill with congas.

i think the music and movie industry is suffering due to the economy and they think the internet is the problem. it isn't. the problem is the economy.

i mean what about the "numa numa guy"?
the "pachelbel rant"?
the "history of dance"?
and the thousands of versions of the "napoleon dynamite" dance, complete with music?
high school stage productions?
all going to jail for 5 years?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


There are movies & music that are no longer available, extremely rare, or out of print. It's ok to download those and you're not going to get in trouble. The same may apply if the item is not available in your country. Your black & white way of seeing it is wrong and selfish.
edit on 3-6-2011 by soaringhawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
They just keep coming up with more and more reasons to put people in jail. I dont think they will be happy until each and everyone of us in the prison system in one form or another (jailed, probation etc.)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by soaringhawk
reply to post by Section31
 

There are movies & music that are no longer available, extremely rare, or out of print. It's ok to download those and you're not going to get in trouble. The same may apply if the item is not available in your country. Your black & white way of seeing it is wrong and selfish.

*shrugs*

I am a capitalist.

*shrugs*

I do not owe $35,000 in college expenses, so that my work can be stolen by hobbyists. I am in the design business to make serious wealth. If this seams unfair or selfish to everyone, I really do not care if my motivations offend people.

Also, log out of your ATS account, click on a thread, and you will see a copyright disclosure statement (under each post). If you people have a problem with copyright protection, you should complain to the site owners here at ATS. Skeptic Overlord put it into place, so that everyone's ideas are protected.

I am not the only one who is worried about copyright protection.
edit on 6/3/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


we have this same # happening in NZ. it goes into effect in september and wikileaks show that our govt. was coaxed by US media companies to pass this bill. NZ ministers don't even understand how the internet works yet voted for this bill. it's disgraceful. we are the guinea pigs. today NZ , tomorrow the world. and because its' not policeable in it's current form I bet soon they will push for individual internet sign on numbers for everyone. Sounds Orwellian to me.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by unicomsol

Originally posted by reD3vil
Without reading the article, I'm going to guess that the person that came up with this bill sides with the republicans?


Worse...its bipartisan

The only time the two meet in agreement is when there is opportunity to squash the collective rights of everyone and supress information.



Not really, why do you say that? Looking through the threads on ATS I'll often come across something like the following (paraphrased) "Yeah, there was a piece on this on the Ancient Aliens series currently showing on National Geographic, here's the vid"

Now, unless Nat Geo had agreed that programme was in the public domain, that is offering up for free what isn't for the poster to offer - it's copyright theft. There are numerous such examples on ATS I'm sorry to say. If a clip is in the public domain, it wouldn't be affected by any such law because it doesn't break it.

This isn't a change in law, it's more enforcement of what already exists, and which means people may stand a chance of getting paid for any reruns, DVDs etc that the particular film/song was. If you call that unjust, please message me your bank account and I'll happily help myself to part of your wages every month.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Section31
 

I think the music and movie industry is suffering due to the economy and they think the internet is the problem. it isn't. the problem is the economy.


Have you ever heard of 'peer to peer' networks? Online pirating and its affects on the music, movies, television, and art industries has been documented. As a result of people downloading and viewing various forms of media, all the industries are suffering from the lack of copyright law enforcement.


Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Section31
 

i mean what about the "numa numa guy"?
the "pachelbel rant"?
the "history of dance"?
and the thousands of versions of the "napoleon dynamite" dance, complete with music?
high school stage productions?
all going to jail for 5 years?

Home videos are different from full blown music videos, movie clips used for propaganda, pieces of music used for documentaries, images used for activism, etc... I think people are translating this law into something extreme.

People think they are 'entitled' to free stuff, and in doing so they don't care if capitalism fails. What will people do if music, movie, and television studios decide to pull the plug, for their industries are no longer lucrative? Where are you going to get new and fresh media? You cannot force people to work for free.

No more games.
No more music,
No more movies.
No more tv-shows.
No more computer applications.
Etc...

Why? Everyone thinks its okay to steal it all; thus, industries and artists will bail if there are no profits to be made.
edit on 6/3/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


no, most of the people in the USA either work for some branch of the government or are on welfare or surviving off the pay checks of the people who work for some branch of the government (entire families in which only one person has a job, and by entire families i mean adults as well as teenagers and young adults). that is why the entertainment industry is suffering.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Section31
 

no, most of the people in the USA either work for some branch of the government or are on welfare or surviving off the pay checks of the people who work for some branch of the government (entire families in which only one person has a job, and by entire families i mean adults as well as teenagers and young adults). that is why the entertainment industry is suffering.

If this is the best response you have, you must have missed what was going on before the current depression. We went over this stuff a hundred times in my junior and senior years in college (2007/2008). You folks have no clue on how badly the entertainment and software industries have been hammered by the lack of online copyright enforcement. Its a very-very serious problem. Many of the offenders are from foreign countries. Its a BIG BIG issue that needs to be addressed.
edit on 6/3/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


go back 30 years. you've just purchased an album by your favorite music group. you bring it home and everyone in the house gets to hear it, including any friends of yours.

you buy a video tape/dvd of your favorite movie, bring it home, and anybody in your house, including friends, can see it and hear it. they didn't buy their own copy. they are watching/listening to yours.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Section31
 

no, most of the people in the USA either work for some branch of the government or are on welfare or surviving off the pay checks of the people who work for some branch of the government (entire families in which only one person has a job, and by entire families i mean adults as well as teenagers and young adults). that is why the entertainment industry is suffering.

If this is the best response you have, you must have missed what was going on before the current depression. We went over this stuff a hundred times in my junior and senior in college (2007/2008). You folks have no clue on how badly the entertainment and software industries have been hammered by the lack of online copyright enforcement. Its a very-very serious problem. Many of the offenders are from foreign countries. Its a BIG BIG issue that needs to be addressed.
edit on 6/3/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)


Section31, although it may not be too popular with some people, you make absolutely the right point. But the issue is, if as Undo says there is mass unemployment and people cannot afford to pay to hear new music, watch new documentaries, who's fault is that? If no one is willing to pay for a product, the product will disappear - that is a business model. If different sectors of the media see they are making no profit from a particular product then they will stop making it.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Section31
 


go back 30 years. you've just purchased an album by your favorite music group. you bring it home and everyone in the house gets to hear it, including any friends of yours.

you buy a video tape/dvd of your favorite movie, bring it home, and anybody in your house, including friends, can see it and hear it. they didn't buy their own copy. they are watching/listening to yours.



And.........? You'll find that most copyright laws relating to this do not have an issue with people listening/watching media in a non commercial environment. It's if you said 'hey, I enjoyed that, can I make a copy?' that it has always been classed as piracy, if it is a copyrighted product. Check back, 30 years ago in the UK there was a big campaign about this - it was called something along the lines of 'home taping is killing music'. This is by no means a new issue.





top topics
 
76
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum