Comments on: Punishing Corporate Copyright Abusers http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/ Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:40:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Copycense http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/comment-page-1/#comment-1916 Copycense Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:06:46 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/#comment-1916 [...] for Citizen Media. Punishing Corporate Copyright Abusers. Aug. 30, 2007. That Viacom would issue a DMCA takedown notice to a YouTube subscriber whose own [...] [...] for Citizen Media. Punishing Corporate Copyright Abusers. Aug. 30, 2007. That Viacom would issue a DMCA takedown notice to a YouTube subscriber whose own [...]

]]> By: Center for Citizen Media: Blog » Blog Archive » YouTube Reverses Course on User’s Video: Reposts It http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/comment-page-1/#comment-1915 Center for Citizen Media: Blog » Blog Archive » YouTube Reverses Course on User’s Video: Reposts It Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:19:36 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/#comment-1915 [...] Knight, who’s been unfairly treated by media giant Viacom, now says: YouTube has restored my [...] [...] Knight, who’s been unfairly treated by media giant Viacom, now says: YouTube has restored my [...]

]]> By: Marco Raaphorst » Blog Archive » Gekkigheid bij YouTube http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/comment-page-1/#comment-1914 Marco Raaphorst » Blog Archive » Gekkigheid bij YouTube Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:09:42 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/#comment-1914 [...] Viacom ‘infringed’ zelf omdat iemand een VH1 show op YouTube ‘infringed’ hee.... En die advocaten en juristen maar lachen… [...] [...] Viacom ‘infringed’ zelf omdat iemand een VH1 show op YouTube ‘infringed’ hee…. En die advocaten en juristen maar lachen… [...]

]]> By: Rich Pearson http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/comment-page-1/#comment-1913 Rich Pearson Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:36:04 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/#comment-1913 Dan - agreed. Abusive and clearly not a healthy one. Dan – agreed. Abusive and clearly not a healthy one.

]]> By: Jon Garfunkel http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/comment-page-1/#comment-1912 Jon Garfunkel Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:11:14 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/#comment-1912 Dan, good point. It hasn't been made enough. YouTube has been showered with torrents of press over the last couple of years. Has anyone ever asked them why they don't give users the option to choose their own licensed? Well, as long as Viacom is cutting down re-postings of their cop , they should circumcise the postings of one YouTube user "JewsWorldPower" who has posted an entire segment from the <i>Colbert Report</i> to accompany his antisemitic ramblings in the description. (leaving me to ask-- <a href="http://civilities.net/YouTube-Hosted-Bigotry" rel="nofollow">how many users does it take to flag content as offensive before YouTube acts?</a> Dan, good point. It hasn’t been made enough. YouTube has been showered with torrents of press over the last couple of years. Has anyone ever asked them why they don’t give users the option to choose their own licensed?

Well, as long as Viacom is cutting down re-postings of their cop , they should circumcise the postings of one YouTube user “JewsWorldPower” who has posted an entire segment from the Colbert Report to accompany his antisemitic ramblings in the description. (leaving me to ask– how many users does it take to flag content as offensive before YouTube acts?

]]> By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/comment-page-1/#comment-1911 Dan Gillmor Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:59:41 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/#comment-1911 Rich, no "as if" about it -- that's exactly what they're doing, and it's an abusive practice. Rich, no “as if” about it — that’s exactly what they’re doing, and it’s an abusive practice.

]]> By: Rich Pearson http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/comment-page-1/#comment-1907 Rich Pearson Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:05:45 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/#comment-1907 Dan, I'd posit that a lot of the "goofs" in the copyright wars could be solved by a more objective look at the Fair Use Definition. It's as if companies are applying a "takedown first, analyze later" approach. Dan,

I’d posit that a lot of the “goofs” in the copyright wars could be solved by a more objective look at the Fair Use Definition. It’s as if companies are applying a “takedown first, analyze later” approach.

]]> By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/comment-page-1/#comment-1908 Dan Gillmor Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:54:35 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/#comment-1908 Danny, the highlighted language appears to me to give YouTube users only the right to redistribute etc. on the Web, not on TV. But you point out a significant point about YouTube: its outrageous terms of service. Chris, I'd urge you to remove your video from YouTube and put it on Revver or Blip.TV or one of the sites that lets you set the copyright terms -- and suggest that you post it under a Creative Commons non-commercial license. I suspect that would (legally, anyway) protect you for sure from Viacom's cut-and-paste routine. I'm not a lawyer, however, so I can't say for sure. YouTube's failure to give people the option to post under a CC license is one of the service's least attractive features. Danny, the highlighted language appears to me to give YouTube users only the right to redistribute etc. on the Web, not on TV.

But you point out a significant point about YouTube: its outrageous terms of service.

Chris, I’d urge you to remove your video from YouTube and put it on Revver or Blip.TV or one of the sites that lets you set the copyright terms — and suggest that you post it under a Creative Commons non-commercial license. I suspect that would (legally, anyway) protect you for sure from Viacom’s cut-and-paste routine. I’m not a lawyer, however, so I can’t say for sure.

YouTube’s failure to give people the option to post under a CC license is one of the service’s least attractive features.

]]> By: Chris Knight http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/comment-page-1/#comment-1910 Chris Knight Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:34:19 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/#comment-1910 "Does Knight’s use of Star Wars imagery in his video have any trademark implications?" Being the guy who made the commercial, I'll answer that :-) I was VERY careful not to use elements taken directly from the Star Wars movies. Using cheap props like $2 toys from Wal-Mart (the Death Star and TIE Fighter) is okay. So is making your own lightsaber effects. The sounds for the lightsaber were made using an electric razor and a metal bowl (and a lot of massaging in Adobe Audition). The music was found and used through Creative Commons (I'm definitely not a musician). Just to be safe I ran the ad by a bunch of people who's job it is to make sure that things like this are safe to broadcast, and they all said that it was. A few months ago George Lucas's educational website Edutopia.org put up a link to the YouTube video as a recommended educational link. That's not necessarily an endorsement of the ad... but I thought it was nice all the same :-) “Does Knight’s use of Star Wars imagery in his video have any trademark implications?”

Being the guy who made the commercial, I’ll answer that :-)

I was VERY careful not to use elements taken directly from the Star Wars movies. Using cheap props like $2 toys from Wal-Mart (the Death Star and TIE Fighter) is okay. So is making your own lightsaber effects. The sounds for the lightsaber were made using an electric razor and a metal bowl (and a lot of massaging in Adobe Audition). The music was found and used through Creative Commons (I’m definitely not a musician). Just to be safe I ran the ad by a bunch of people who’s job it is to make sure that things like this are safe to broadcast, and they all said that it was.

A few months ago George Lucas’s educational website Edutopia.org put up a link to the YouTube video as a recommended educational link. That’s not necessarily an endorsement of the ad… but I thought it was nice all the same :-)

]]> By: Danny Glover http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/comment-page-1/#comment-1909 Danny Glover Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:55:36 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/30/punishing-corporate-copyright-abusers/#comment-1909 Mr. Knight appears to have a good case that "fair use" protects his right to post the segment featuring his own work. But Viacom also appears to have been within its rights to use his video without seeking his direct permission. He granted that permission indirectly by posting the video to YouTube. That's the whole point of video-<i>sharing</i> sites. A commenter at Knight's blog helpfully pointed to the YouTube terms of service, which include this: "However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. <b>You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions</b> as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service." Mr. Knight appears to have a good case that “fair use” protects his right to post the segment featuring his own work. But Viacom also appears to have been within its rights to use his video without seeking his direct permission. He granted that permission indirectly by posting the video to YouTube. That’s the whole point of video-sharing sites.

A commenter at Knight’s blog helpfully pointed to the YouTube terms of service, which include this:

“However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube’s (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service.”

]]>