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.

 

Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos

page: 8
76
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Section31
 

Anyway, the point is, if it's a violation, i want it removed. i don't want to spend 5 years in prison and/or pay 250,000 dollars for having a theoretical mind and using available data on the internet to prove my points.

Always do your research before posting. Regardless about where you got your content, "Stargate's" owners (MGM Studios) are still protected by law. Did the third-party also get permission?

*shrugs*

If this new copyright law does go into affect, there will be a grace period where the company YouTube will be order to remove content. Once the initial grace period is over, the law will be enforced to its fullest extent.

Note: Everyone has some great questions, so bear with me as I go back through the last page. I personally do not want to see people get into trouble, for they just so happen to not read a copyright owner's terms of service.
edit on 6/3/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Here is another example:

Link: MSNBC.com's Terms & Conditions

Restrictions on use
This site is owned and operated by MSNBC Interactive News LLC (“MSNBC.com”) and contains material which is derived in whole or in part from material supplied by MSNBC, NBC, The Associated Press, Reuters and other sources. The material on this site is protected by international copyright and trademark laws. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, or distribute in any way any material from this site including code and software without express permission from MSNBC or as permitted in Reprint Requests . You may download material from this site for your personal, non-commercial use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices.

Specific restrictions on use of Associated Press material
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio, and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors, or omissions therefrom, or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the above.

Other words, when you are using their content on 'Above Top Secret', you are allow to quote pieces of their articles. Imagery, 'video', and full articles can not be manipulated, nor can they be reposted without permission.

edit on 6/3/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tnhiker
The whining artist need to shut up and realize when people embed their videos somewhere, they are getting free publicity.


Free publicity..... and no money. Are you employed? If so, one day a week could your employer invite people around to watch you work and you don't get paid for that day? Could you please say what the difference would be in that?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


yeah but you're talking about people who have paid to watch the film at the theater, who have bought related products, who have inadvertently drummed up more interest and business for them, being put in jail because they linked or embedded an excerpt from the movie. imagine someone really liked a painting belonging to Section31. and they made a thread about "what's your favorite artwork?" and they posted one of Section31's artworks, and commented on why they liked it, and so on. That's free publicity, even if they didn't pay him to post it in their thread. people go to great lengths to get their artworks in public venues, to stir up interest in the subject. big difference. in his scenario, the person took his painting, scratched out his name, and put his own name there just by posting it in his thread
edit on 3-6-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Someone had this great question about the internet being public domain. Even though I cannot find the author to quote, I thought I would address his or her concern.

Is the internet public domain for free and fair use?
Woof. Its a loaded question. Even though the imagery, videos, and articles are open and free for the public to view, (or to use on your 'own' personal computer), the reality is that those materials 'are not' free to distribute, manipulate, and reproduce. Unless the copyright owner gives you permission, the reality is that the content is still protected by law.

Although we are allowed to visit a wide variety of websites for free, they are still owned by a private company or individual. "Above Top Secret" is the property of its owners; thus, they have behavioral codes of conduct to use their services. Its the same thing for every site with a disclaimer.

Get it?

Other words, you are free to view someone's content, but you cannot violate the terms of their service.

If I were to take "Above Top Secret's" logo, change its color, and use it as a logo for my site, I can still be prosecuted for violating copyright law. Its the same thing with their videos, images, and articles.

edit on 6/3/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
The best part about all of this. I haven't read a word about it anywhere but ATS. Looks like Padme was wrong, our liberties won't die with thunderous applause. It dies in the quiet with noone looking or caring. I'm sure people will start caring once they go to jail for posting football highlights on facebook though. It shall be too late by then though.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


man there is alot of wiggle room in there. i can prove the word "star gate" (well 2 words, actually), is from ancient sumerian, and not the property of the movie studio who made the film but i can't afford to hire a lawyer to defend me should they decide to get me for copyright infringement. they can afford to, although i dare say that's not the best way to treat your viewers



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Section31
 

man there is alot of wiggle room in there. i can prove the word "star gate" (well 2 words, actually), is from ancient sumerian, and not the property of the movie studio who made the film but i can't afford to hire a lawyer to defend me should they decide to get me for copyright infringement. they can afford to, although i dare say that's not the best way to treat your viewers

Ah!!!

Yes, there is an interesting side note. Certain words, shapes, colors, and concepts cannot be protected by copyright laws. During the start of the new millennium, Coke-a-Cola (Aquafina) and Poland Springs Water were trying to copyright the word water. If anyone were to wear a shirt that says water (or say it publicly), they could have been sued by one of those corporations. Thank god a judge used common sense.

Also, if you change the word and concept, you can also avoid copyright issues with another company. Example: "Stargate" (the movie) versus "The Stargate" (the car). When this type of thing happens, designers call it 'copyleft'. Look up Mickey Mouse versus Steamboat Willey.

SyFy Channel is well know for stealing concepts, but twisting them into something they can promote. "The Terminator" becomes "The Terminators". I do not know how international copyright law applies. China's black market uses a similar tactic. After they buy copies of Microsoft Windows, black market dealers in China burn them onto another cd. Before the cd goes out to the store, they slap on a different logo and packaging.

edit on 6/3/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by something wicked
 


yeah but you're talking about people who have paid to watch the film at the theater, who have bought related products, who have inadvertently drummed up more interest and business for them, being put in jail because they linked or embedded an excerpt from the movie. imagine someone really liked a painting belonging to Section31. and they made a thread about "what's your favorite artwork?" and they posted one of Section31's artworks, and commented on why they liked it, and so on. That's free publicity, even if they didn't pay him to post it in their thread. people go to great lengths to get their artworks in public venues, to stir up interest in the subject. big difference. in his scenario, the person took his painting, scratched out his name, and put his own name there just by posting it in his thread
edit on 3-6-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)


Hi there, I'm not sure it's the same. Most pieces of work allow an extract to be used for review (check with copright holders first) which is in effect what a trailer is on a film. A work of art such as a painting may allow that to be displayed online, they may not, but no one would be under an illusion that by viewing it they in any sense 'own' it. Think how many people stand in line to see the Mona Lisa at the Louvre when they could see it online by typing two words into google. Everyone knows who the artist is.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


there's a thread here at ats that i participated in, about a particular artist. it went on for some 70 pages, if i recall, and was an argument as to the artistic value of things like RED SQUARE and other extremely simplistic works, that seem more like a way to launder money than anything else lol anyway, many paintings by artists were there. this is what the youtube thing is. no one is claiming they wrote the songs or made the original movies or tv shows, when they embed the videos. for the same reason people debate the identity of the author of shakespeare's works, and quote it extensively, take it apart, rearrange it, in an attempt to find secret codes in it, theoretical and conspiracy threads, attempt the same thing. no one is claiming they wrote shakespeare or stargate or painted section31's art. it did however, inspire this monstrosity that i painted, entitled, the romance of lemon and lime

that's my artwork. it's a joke piece inspired by a sprite commercial and, related to "White on Red", painted by another ATS'er, who was waxing eloquent and inspired by Coca-Cola and slapped a white streak of paint on an all red background and demanded 10 million dollars



edit on 3-6-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


Did I say I'm against Capitalism? No. Did I say I'm against copyright? No. I am against greed, against seeing everything black & white because everything isn't that way. With freedom comes responsibility. You can say what you want, but so can I and so can everyone else.
edit on 3-6-2011 by soaringhawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

Color field theory.


Link: Duchamp: The Fountain
Yep, the man turned a urinal upside down, and then proceeded to call it an art piece. Although the design was done by someone else, turning the urinal 180 degrees was a rebellious attempt get people to notice 'all pieces of artwork'. He was not claiming the piece, but he was making a artistic statement. Irony, someone created a clone for display at a museum, and two performing artists walked over and urinated on the piece. While they were being questioned, someone asked them why they wanted to defile the piece.


Response, "The urinal is there – it's an invitation. As Duchamp said himself, it's the artist's choice. He chooses what is art. We just added to it." ~ Yuan Chai and Jian Jun Xi; 2000




You may not get around copyright laws, but you can defiantly make an impression.
edit on 6/3/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
it was only a matter of time before the greed-breed set thier sites on youtube. these people think anything and everything is thier avenue to revenue. and if youtube doesn't want to step to the plate and set them straight, the hell with them too.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Ya know, This bothers me. Not because of the possible copyright infringement but because everyone in this thread all say the same thing. Yes, there are people for and against but, IMO, its nothing but a "cop out". There are so many people on here that do not read a thread or click on links to the information provided. They expect it all to be on the page of the thread so they don't have to move their wrist that half inch to click a link. I mean seriously, you have to click play right? What is the difference if you place a link to the video rather than embed? Its laziness!! Leave the video on YouTube© and let them worry about copyright infringement. How difficult is that? So many people just say link please, If you do not know how to use a search engine you should not be on the net anyway. Stop being lazy and click the links or do your own search. If you want to watch the video then go where it is. Why make this more difficult than it is?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 


Embedding a video is only providing a link to it. You are not hosting the video. The same could be said for Google Search since you can search for a video and there will be a youtube video playable. Or video search on Bing. You hover over the video and it plays. It's not about laziness. If this thing is real, it's stupid and that's all there is to it. The people that come up with this are incompetent people with nothing better to do with their time than make new crap up. We have enough laws in this country already.
edit on 3-6-2011 by soaringhawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by soaringhawk
 


I agree it is stupid and we have plenty of illegal laws but it still remains YouTube©s problem if it is linked to instead of embedded, and it is laziness if you don't click the link because it is not embedded. People expect a poster to embed, because they want it in their face rather than clicking a link.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 


I personally rather watch them on youtube than embedded but still if people want to do either, that's their business
I doubt this is true because it's so ridiculous.
edit on 3-6-2011 by soaringhawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by soaringhawk
 


Agreed



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I wonder how many senators or for that matter the Presidents kids will be thrown in Prison with the rest of us?...Oh wait we all know that wont happen since their kids don't have to go to war either. These self righteous hypocritical B*stards! I really use to love my country no matter what, but it is getting harder and harder every day.
edit on 6/3/2011 by CaptGizmo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I know this thread hasn't been active lately, but i was just thinking, why should we be punished for Senator's incompetence? I mean, being a tech guy, old people (Senators) are not usually tech savvy. I'd be surprised if they even knew how YouTube works, that you could disable embedding.

I even talked to a computer guy who works with Senators. He said if he had a choice between working with High School Seniors or US Senators, he'd choose the High School Seniors hands down. When i asked him why, he said because kids nowadays grew up with computers and learn how to use one before riding a bike, while the older Senators struggle to even send an email.



new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join