Once the lawyers smell the money there will be lots more.

Agreed. It Will be death by 1000 cuts for Youtube. If they try to settle then they will encourage more claimants.... if they try and fight everyone it will be expensive and they may well lose.

Of course that is the inherent risk in running a business that relies primarily on the distribution of stolen intellectual property. :)

accept the last take down request made by viacomm took down 1345 parodies (fair use ) of their content. So if viacomm own takedown request are so flawed, then using that definition in a filter is going to censor parodies based on that copyrighted content.


what if it is used in a parody, what if the song is fully sponsored by advertiser or piracy tax, what if the mick jagger has publically said he doesn't care (see the examples i gave) creating a filter based on what one company who liciences the content for their music station (mtv) without taking into account all of these possiblities is censorship. It represents denying rights people do have with such content.





i suggest you read up on the fair use section
ask yourself a question if an independent study by cbs proves that veiwership is not reduced because of internet distributed tv (piracy and website supported) then there is no economic loss from uploading on youtube .

Supercrew posting their performances from america's best dance crew would build a fan base for themselves without costing viacom a penny in revenue, even though youtube is making money from the advertising surround that video.

the lack of an ecomonic loss would make super crew publishing of their own performance fair use.

The product placement (like the canadian piracy tax) could act as a payment for the distribution and legitimize it as welll making it legal for anyone to post such a video.




re read the beta max case, one of the arguements was that a person could record the show without the commercial (ignoring the commercial) it can't be used as an arguement because it has already been oked.

the size of the circle of friends is irrelevant to the right of timeshifting (and other fair use rights). The question is do i have a right to timeshift content i bought a right to view when i paid my cable bill.

The vcr case said yes i do, and once that happened that content was legally the equivalent to public domain content (because it is outside the scope of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder) as long as i (the uploader not youtube) is not making money from it.







99.5% of the population (according to the census) owns a tv. Each one of those people paid for the right to watch that tv show. which means viewing the video on youtube is the legal equivalent of saying "hey buddy my vcr didn't take america best dance crew, i heard supercrews dance was sick can i borrow your take".

CBS study showing that viewership is not negatively impacted by online distribution blunts the economic cost of showing the video.

Viacom choice not to create an official channel on youtube and upload the video themselves (so they can share the advertising revenue) blunts the economic losses from youtube making money on the advertising.



the problem is the permission or license to use/distribute it.

Fair use grants permission for certain uses
piracy taxes grants permissions for certain uses
performance rights grant permission for certain uses
primary producers may grant permission for certain uses
hell even product placement (like the piracy tax) grants permission for certain uses.

all that youtube has to do to prove that the current law as it is written is good enough
the safe harbour provision / take down request process is the balanced approach to this problem is prove that if they did what viacom wanted one of these people's rights would be hindered or denied.

Right now it cost at least a grand to defend your fair use right to content (for commentary) it is already overly balanced in favor of the copyright holder.

awesome article

I guess most people don't see infring copyright as something wrong and are less likely to report it.

Hate, porn, etc on the other hand is likely to bring out more reporting

Um how can you possibly be that retarded to not know a trailer for a movie is copyright protected?

Well of course not. Or the don't care.

Also I don't get people watching movie trailers on youtube. Why not go to Yahoo or Apple.com and watch it in a much higher quality? That's where the thieving bastards got it from anyways. There isn't going to be any other place you will see a trailer before it's appeared on one of those 2 sites so why not go straight to the source?

Youtube knows if they only depended on home movies.They would of been gone a long time ago.

What's going to be telling is how they are virtually airtight when it comes to not allowing porn. The reason: If porn was allowed youtube would look exactly like Youporn with the first 100 pages being all porn and it would be worthless to a mainstream company like Google. With that level of near perfection when it comes to eliminating porn, it's going to be very hard to argue they are completely hands off when it comes to the content appearing on their site. It is going to be equally as hard to argue they could not of done more to eliminate copyright infringement especially after Viacom gets the viewing data and shows that copyrighted clips were viewed much, much, more than little Timmy's 1st birthday party.

But this is a catch 22 and why they can't advertise the way they want. If they start targeting ads on a per video basis, it shows they know what's on every page, and can't claim ignorance anymore. If you notice on the home page they have box to show "partner videos" only. Those are the only ones they can show ads on the video and be somewhat targeted and they are really trying to push that angle.

I guess that is a big question and that is the problem with a site like Youtube. They have to decide how to figure out what is authorized and legal and what is not.


While there may not be an economic loss to a TV studio because of downloads/piracy there can still be issues because someone else is using your content to make money. Let's look at it from our industry point of view. Say a big site like Twisty's or FTV or any high quality site that shoots their own content has someone join their site and over the course of a month they download all of the content in the member's area. They then put that content up on their own site. They don't don't charge for the site, but they have ads on the site. The site has gigs and gigs of high quality porn so it gets very popular and the owners of the site make some money off the site. While this is happening the site the content came from doesn't see a decreases in signups or rebills so they were not adversely effected by the site. Should they not be able to still sue and protect their content? It may not be hurting them economically, but they should still retain the right to control how and where their content is distributed.



I'll not argue the betamax case because I am not familiar with it but I will argue this. You say a show airing on Youtube has no economic impact on the studio. That may be the case. But it does impact the other people in it. When a TV show or movie or music video is aired there are royalties that are paid to the people that are in them. The writers guild just had a strike to get paid for online content and and actors guilds are negotiating for it to. The same with directors who recently signed a deal. So if I upload my favorite sitcom to youtube and it gets a million views it may not take money out of the pocket of the studio because just as many people may still tune into the show week in and week out, however the show was aired, people watched it and money was earned (by Youtube) and the actors, writers and directors got nothing for it.

which is exactly my point porn will not be youtube achilles heel, detecting porn is easy, detecting unauthorized copyright material is very difficult. No computer system will be able to do it automatically that why the safe harbor provision/take down notice/ take down response system is good enough. A take down request going unanswered results in the content being taken down, but if cede person does have an authorization (and is willing to defend it) then the response allows the content to stay up. It is almost perfectly balanced (it would be perfectly balanced if the cost of a false reporting was covered by the copyright holder).

yes and no, remember that copyright holders have a responsibility to fair use, they have a responsibility to provide all of the fair use rights to their content (if they want an absolute control of their contents distribution) by refusing to fulfill that responsiblity they open up the marketplace to fullfill that need (for a profit) because they have no right to deny that fair use. It like if i dropped a $20 bill on the ground, i have no right to claim you stole it just because you picked it up and kept it.


first off if the revenue stream is staying constant, because viewship and ad rates are stay as high as they were always existing the artist/directors are getting paid as much from the original air as they were in the past.

secondly
youtube flattens the distribution methodology and income distribution with their channel partnership program. which means the writers/artist and producers can all share in the revenue generating capacity of the distribution method. they compete on equal footing for the traffic that is generated from the search terms in youtube.

look at how things work with britain's got talent
https://youtube.com/user/SulemanInfo
Suleman Mirza post his appearance on the show to drive traffic to his channel, he grabs a share of the of the traffic. His use of the content is to promote himself as a dance act for other events. (see all the other live performances).

he has gotten thousands of channel views are a result of that appearance. The fact is every artist could benefit from this type of competition.
The current contract dispute is an attempt to try and force internet distribution into a managed revenue stream to replace lost syndication revenue. Artist fear the lose syndication royalties to the download when you want how you want internet distribution.

What they fail to realize is that this model has a syndication mode envocation. Syndication comes in the form of resolution changes (720p vs 1080i vs next resolution change) or audio changes (mono vs 2.0 vs 5.1 vs next audio format) or aspect ratio change (1:1, 1:1.6, 16:9 etc).
As technology moves forward people would re-download the newer better version for themselves. Widening (openly liciencing) the content is the best way to maximize revenue from this model, not trying to squeeze it into the older model.

Or not know where people are going and what they are watching on your site.

Depends what they are asking the "community" to monitor.

Don't think it's just porn they delete. Try and get something we would consider soft, like a girl topless. Yes they can set programs to spot hardcore as we are used to viewing, YouTubes monitoring goes way beyond that and they cut things that could not be identified as porn by a computer get taken down very fast.

I think when Youtube stand up in the witness box to explain how it works a clued up lawyer is going to rip them apart. Hiding behind the DMCA law only works until you start stating in court how your system works.

Identifying a lot of pirated work is not that hard. I wonder how many of these people have given Youtube the right to publish their copyright work. https://youtube.com/results?searc...musi c+videos

They don't want to because they know this is what brings in the money.

Totally air tight on porn and loose on lots of other things. I hope they will have to stand up in a witness box and explain how it all works.

That will be worth posting on Youtube. LOL

look at the list again

most are the official channels of the artist or the record companies.
others are fair use implementations of those music videos (commentary and karaoke)

can't commment on the non english ones since i can read and understand those but at best they would represent zero economic loss (out of market scope distribution) and at best they would be legally distributed under the banner of the official site

I'm curious then. If you look at the all time most viewed movies on Youtube most of them are music videos and they are posted by the record companies/artists. That's cool. So take the #4 video. It is Rihanna's Don't Stop The Music. If you do a search for that song you get a lot of results. These range from people who do commentary or put the actual lyrics on the video to people covering the song or dancing to it. If you make a video where you play her song and record yourself dancing to it or lypsyncing to it is that fair use? Is it fair use if you take her video and just add text onto it showing the lyrics? It seems to me you would need permission to post something like that.

Those aside there are a ton of videos like this one https://youtube.com/watch?v=_zNkwyEkiUY. It is just a repost of the video, yet the ad on above the info box means this person has a google adwords account and they are making money when people watch this video. This one has 2 million views. https://youtube.com/watch?v=c8YP5pJOdhI is the same thing and has 3 million views. Now these can't be fair use right? These are simply people taking the original video, reposting it and making money with it.

ok first look at the stats for that video
the top 3 links generate more than 100k in views

75,094http://keepvid.com/watch/22
24,623http://11423068301.a.hi5modules.com/gadgets/ifr?url=...
16,243http://www.orkut.com/Scrapbook.aspx

when you take into account the multiplcity effect associated with the "what's watched now" bar on the front of youtube that 100k of traffic could easily generate 1- 2 million views.



add the fact is that person is getting view for his/her video as a direct result of finding links and driving traffic to the video.

that work brands Rihanna and translates into a value for her in album sales, ticket sales etc.

Second you assuming that this video is not compensating rihanna (product placement thru her wardrobe etc) many music artist have very good product placement deals for the clothing they wear in their videos (see piracy tax- and the liciencing of unauthorized downloading in canada)

third music videos are not compensated for, they are promotional cost allocation for most musicians. MTV, much music get those videos for free, and can rotate them without paying royalties specifically because it promotes the artist. so letting joe blow make money from ads around the video is no different than letting mtv make money by showing commercials between the videos.

Where did you learn your law on copyright?

Didn't you know? gideongallery is an expert on it. He can tell you 1000 ways to make money off of other people's work. But not ONE way to make money with his own work, that is IF he ever did any. He is the greatest armchair lawyer of all times when it pertains to stealing from others. And he'll even explain to you in great detail how stealing your content and making money off of it...isn't even stealing!

He says he lives in Canada. But he should move here to the U.S. and work for the govt. He would fit in perfectly. Remember when "Weapons Of Mass Destruction" meant nuclear bombs? Or back when a pedo was a guy that had sex with pre-pubescents?

gideongallery is perfect at changing the meanings of words to fit his agenda. And his agenda is the absolute defense of the poor common man. You see gideongallery wants nothing more than a utopia where we evil content producers stop trying to "monopolize" our own hard work and allow gideongallery and the millions of other poor homeless people to make money off of it.

The sooner you understand this, the better. Now everybody please sign over everything you own to gideongallery. He has "fair use" of every damn thing you've ever done. :disgust

Not true. The ad over the info box implies that the rights owner (universal music or whoever it is) has been notified by Google's automated system that their music has been uploaded by another user, and rather than removing the video they have opted to have it monetized, the uploader would of been emailed notifying them of this and given the option to accept or remove the clip. The money from that ad is almost certainly going to the rights owner, and the video has remained there with their permission. Google doesn't allow random users who post other peoples content on youtube to have an ad displayed/make money from the video. I've noticed on such videos Google has also started putting a small link to rights owner under the info box informing that the rights owner has allowed the content to remain up.

Do I sense you're not one of his biggest fans then? :1orglaugh

His ideas are stupid at best. He can't even read English and telling us about copyright law, something people study for years.

GG you are clueless about copyright law. It does not matter if "most" are legal. They all have to be legal. Now go study up on what you're posting about. You're making me look bright. :1orglaugh

piracy is not stealing never was nor will it ever be stealing. If you use the criminality test for theft for copyright infringment everyone is guilty included all the people who fully licienced the content for use.

What i am saying is not only true but the only sane and logical statement. Copyright infringement is a fraud, and fraud is no more legal then theft. The difference is stating it as fraud doesn't false criminalize non criminal actions (like your misrepresentation as theft).

no thanks you may consider US the land of the free, but to many of your politicans are bought and paid for by RIAA, MPAA.

i am not the one who keeps misrepresent a fraud as theft (when you know the criminality test -- posssion without ownership makes everyone guility)

I am not the one making unfounded declarations that i am "stealing" (when you know my statements are truly unbias because i make no money from tube sites, nor lose money from tube sites)

All i want you as a copyright holder to do is respect the fair use defined by the copyright act. I don't think that is unreasonable since it was the trade off you agreed to give the government in exchange for the monopoly the us governement granted you.

At current count i have said explictly declared if that is the case sue them because that would be infringment (or some paraphrasing of that statment) 28 times already.

Your just upset because i don't misrepresent perfectly legal actions as crimes.

at current count i am 90% right so far, when i objected to the "make available" ruling you guys all told me i was wrong yet the judge who made the ruling admitted he may have been wrong


I was the only person who predicted that viacom would agree to getting only sanatised version of the logs they requested (and explained the trap that google set that forced this) while people like paul tried to argue they should have a right to use that information to sue uploaders.

it absolutely makes a difference if most are legal, because you were using it as an example of infringment. You didn't remove all the legal distributions from the list, you could not tell the difference between legal and illegal which means it is impossible for youtube to distiguish been the authorized and unauthorized distribution of copyright material.

Porn is easy to identify (see naughty bits - block content) copyright infringment is not so easy. trusting the copyright holder implictly results in thousands of parody and commentaries to be blocked.

That why the safe harbor provision as written (take down request/ response system) is good because it balances both sides rights against each other.


btw it absolutely make a difference if a majority of the content your representing as infringing is really authorized (see betamax case)

The parallel should be quite clear even to you.

See, I told you so!

Keep fighting for everybodies rights gideongallery! You're just like a modern day robin hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor!

Communism! YAY! Hooray for gideongalley and communism!

And remember as gideongallery said: "since it was the trade off you agreed to give the government in exchange for the monopoly the us governement granted you."

Funny, I don't remember ALLOWING the govt. to "grant" me any goddamn thing in respect to my work. And I don't remember agreeing to any "trade off" either.

But there you go, I'm not the expert on the law that gideongallery is.
"If you use the criminality test for theft for copyright infringment everyone is guilty included all the people who fully licienced the content for use."

So if copyright infringement were theft then I couldn't agree to let anyone ever use my content in any way? And how the hell would that be? Doesn't make any sense to me...but neither has anything you have said so far.

" i objected to the "make available" ruling you guys all told me i was wrong"
Hmmm...again I have no clue what you're talking about. But this wouldn't be the first time you have lumped me in with other people and/or mistakenly thought I said something that someone else said.

I guess you're so busy fighting against the evil porn industry by trying to bankrupt us all that sometimes the little details like who said what can slip your mind.

I understand. You are a superhero fighting for truth and justice.

ok so your don't register your copyright with the us government, your work is not covered by the copyright act.
every time you argue that you have the exclusive right because of the copyright act you agree to accept fair use because fair use is explicitly excluded from your exclusive rights.


no i said it quite clearly even those people you gave permission to use your content would be guilty of copyright infringment therefore copyright infringement != theft.


it is a progressive inductive proof, and you are trying to draw a conclusion in reverse.

your basic arguement is if what has been proven to be false is true (impossible) then ....

first year logic class should teach you that a bogus arguement.


so we are going back to the take the statement out of context so you can misrepresent it as wrong.

Read the context of the statement it was in response to your claim that

i first pointed out that this statement was blantantly false because


and then explained your reasoning for the blantant misrepresentation as

quoting those previous examples of arguements between myself and copyright holders in this community that ultimately resulted in me being proven right (as an example of me not misrepresenting perfectly legal actions as crimes) is perfectly legitimate in that context.

sorry i don't have a tardis, we can skip forward to the future when your bogus claims will be refuted by a judges ruling. i am bound by making references to past successful arguements to prove that i am right.

gideongallery..there is only one person on this forum who thinks you have been right.

That would be you...There are only a few of us left who don't have you on "Ignore" and we do it to laugh at your amateur lawyering.

Now why don't you get off of GFY and go get a job or something?

I didn't realize that. I figured it was like all other videos that had that box and it was revshare for the person that posted the video. Thanks for the info, that does clear it up some.

So then let me rephrase the question. Say someone takes a song, any song, and puts it on a video with them dancing to it. There a million of these types of videos all over Youtube. Should youtube allow these videos. These people clearly do not have permission to use the song in the video, but they do. The person that uploaded the video may not be making any money directly from it, but Youtube is. Is this okay?

Truth is an absolute, it doesn't change depending on how many people believe it or not.

Am i right or am i wrong

did ruling i predicted happen, if it did i am right, if it does not then i am wrong.

when i said the judge made a mistake with the "make available" ruling i was right not because a majority believe me, but because the judge admitted he made a mistake.

The fact that the reasoning for the mistake was exactly what i said it was, means that my arguement was an intelligent rational argument, and not just a lucky guess.


when i predicted what would happen with the viacom subpoena i was right because viacom did exactly what i said they would do. (agreeing to accept sanatized user data even though the judge made no such ruling).


so far i this "armchair lawyer" is 2/2.

i think you still missing the point so i will rephrase your question into the most commercially intrusive version i can find which should be allowed.

first copyright act states

we will use the example of marie digby because within this context is represents the upper limit of what fair use allows you to do.

marie digby covers britney spears Gimme More



she stated quite clearly in the posting that
her channel header is a link to her album for sale on itunes.

now using the rules defined under the act to determine if the use is fair (and therefore automatically authorized by the copyright holder under the act)


1. commercial interest - she is using someone elses song to drive traffic directly to her channel, she is selling her album directly, she is uploading that song herself (no safe harbor) = fail

2. nature of the copyright work: it was a video which was intended to be watched, no explictly granted right to listen to 10 times so you could create your own version = fail

3. the entire song word for word = fail

4. this is the one she passes, because how much of an economic impact does marie digby's version of gimme more effect the sales for those people in the target market (those people who like the stripper pole version of the song).



Zero, zilch, nada = success

that is the pass condition which authorizes her use of the song.



now going on your example, it has less of a market impact then this version of the song, and has no direct commercial gain.

gideongallery, you should go to law school and become a lawyer bro! As soon as you turn 18 you should really have your parents try to send you to law school so you can actually learn all this shit instead of just incessantly babbling about it all the time.

That way you could go to court and defend thieves with your parsing of words. You won't win, but it would still be a good vocation for you once you get out of high school.

and you should go back to never never land where if you can get everyone to believe in what you say it becomes reality

i will stay here in the real world where the truth is the truth no matter how many people agree with you.

Yes gideongallery. I hear and I obey. You are the man. With your websites to nowhere and your vast knowledge of the laws. And you're neverending quest to defend thieves.

Again, I say: You seem to know a million ways to make money off of other people. But not ONE way to do something yourself.

I'll stay here in never never land where people actually work and make money. And you stay in your "real" world where it's all legal to steal other peoples stuff and make money with it. :)

But could you please leave GFY? Nobody here agrees with that crap. So why are you here?

Oh yeah...that's right to spread the agenda! If you keep repeating it over and over then it must be true.

Well, I did a little research and I think you might just be wrong with this. Sure the fair use stipulations you mentioned are listed on the federal government's copyright website. but nowhere on it does it say that you have to meet any specific number of those terms. So you might meet one of the terms, but not the other three (like the case you point out here) and still be in violation. Here is a quote from the site itself. "The distinction between ?fair use? and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: ?quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.? So it seems to me that fair use is primarily there for someone to use a small piece of the work for a certain purpose not to reproduce the whole work.

Look at it like this. Say I make a movie. I write it, direct and produce it. In the movie I use a Rolling Stones song. I use the whole song and I don't have permission from them to do so. I then put the movie in theaters or on DVD to make money. Like the above video I fail the first three tests. I used the whole song, I used it for monetary gain and it was something I made that I want other people to watch. However, you can argue that I am not doing financial harm to the Rolling Stones. My movie won't hurt their record sales. It won't reduce the number of concert tickets or merchandise they sell so then, by your thinking, it is fair use because I am not hurting them.

Wrong. I can guarantee you two things. First if they found out I was using the song without paying them or getting their permission before the movie was distributed I would get a C&D letter from them. If I didn't remove it they would sue me and they would win. Why? Simple. They license their music to movies, TV, commercials and other things and they make a ton of money doing so. My just using it could damage them regarding how much the can charge in the future. And I if I just use it, others would as well. If the argument is that it is a cover of the song and not the actual song, then I could cover a Stone's song and put it in my movie. I'll sing it myself. The problem is, they still own the rights to that song, not me. You can cover a song if it is made available for that by the owners, but then you have to pay them royalties. I am assuming this girl is not giving Britney any of the money she may be making from record sales.

Furthermore on the site there is this question: " Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?"

The answer is :"Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights." Now to me this is pretty clear. Copyright is there to protect the owner of the product and allow them to control how it is reproduced or distributed. There is no mention of financial damages. Simply that the owner of the copyright should be allowed to control how their work is reproduced and distributed. If this is correct then it means that just because it doesn't damage someone doesn't mean it is protected by fair use.

The way you describe it makes it sound as if anyone can post or share anything and as long as it doesn't do any financial damage to copyright holder it falls under fair use, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems a copyright holder also has the right to say how and where their product is used. Simply uploading a video to Youtube that the copyright owner did not give you permission to post is a violation of copyright. There is no financial gain on your part. They may not suffer financial damages, but in the end the own the copyright and can say how and where the product is distributed/reproduced and if they don't want you posting it, you are in violation. Prince just did a major crackdown on Youtube and other video sites banning people from posting his videos because he wants to maintain how they are put out there.

If you simply went by the logic in your post anyone could put anything they wanted on a site and as long as the owner of the copyright couldn't prove they were being financially damaged it is considered fair use. It doesn't seem that that is the case at all.

kane, why are you wasting your time with that idiot?

wtf are you talking about? that warning that comes up, does so after USERS have flagged the content

I'm pretty much done with this thread. I just had to make one most post. . . I'm drawn to the idiocy of it all for some reason :)

kane thanks for finding that...gideongallery is convinced he can just steal any thing he wants. And opulence...that part of my reply was in conjunction with another person saying that if you put up anything that had sexually suggestive content it was instantly flagged. Not flagged the next day or something. So my comment is that IF they have a way to filter that would pretty much sum it up. Of course if there are just so many people on youtube that they instantly see, complain, and then get a vid flagged within minutes...then I would be wrong. No big deal.

ok this is the 12th time i have pointed this out, look at the list again, do you see timeshifting (reproducing the whole work for later viewing) listed anywhere in that list no yet timeshifting was a fair use as defined by the betamax case. So drawing the conclusion that fair use can only be limited to reproducing a small piece of the work can not be declared as an absolute.
my god i can't believe we are going thru this again
did you not see me explictly say
"i think you still missing the point so i will rephrase your question into the most commercially intrusive version i can find which should be allowed."

my example defines the line between what is infringing and non infringing use of copyrighted material. if you step over that line of course you are violating copyright law, that what the definition of "most commercially intrusive version means"

The funny part is you clearly define the extra step you took in your next statement
Your liciencing arguement comes into play because each song has three copyrights
1. for the lyrics
2. for the music *(score)
3. for the performance.

music industry has standard percentage (defacto liciening rates) for using such lyrics in such a performance. your example (as you so clearly pointed out) violates that liciencing agreement explictly.

No look at the example i gave marie digby is NOT selling the performance she is giving it away, the purchase price of that performance is zero dollars. if you take the standard percentage and multiply it by zero dollars what do you get. zero dollars.

in other words marie digby is fully complying with the defacto licience for the lyrics.

Since i already stated this was example "most commercially intrusive" fair use of copyright material that difference crosses the line i spelled out.


The fact is that difference is not a minor one, it like cross the line running a mile turning around and say see what i am doing way over here is illegal ( well duh).


the point you are missing is that fair use as defined by section 107 of the act is outside the scope of the exclusive rights granted by the copyright act (copyright) so none of the declarations apply to fair use.


hopefully putting the statment in size 7 font make it clear that you are misrepresenting my position
but just to be safe i will quote myself again

i will rephrase your question into the most commercially intrusive version i can find which should be allowed.

you are running a mile past the line i define, saying that because what we both agree is illegal is illegal that line really doesn't exist.

i hope you understand the logical flaw in that postulate.

Well, I'm done with this thread. My final comment will be this:

Record your 10 favorite TV shows every week. Remove the commercials then upload them to a website you run. Don't put any advertising on it, just give it away for free. Promote the site so it gets popular. Then when you get the C&D letters from the TV Studios tell them you are using their product under the fair use policy for copyright and that their ratings haven't gone down so you are not damaging them. When you are end up in court (and you will) repeat this defense and bring up rulings from Betamax which was a case from 1984 long before the internet. P2P and broadband household connections ever existed and of which the main modern ruling featuring Grokster and Morpheus stated that the makers of that software can't be sued because some of their users used it to break the law. It didn't give them free reign to copy and share what you want, it just said the software makers are not to blame. If you own a DVD duplicator and you use it to mass produce and sell pirated DVDs you are in fault, not the maker of the hardware you used. When the judge or jury finds against you and you are ordered to pay heavily to the companies whose programs you were posting realize that maybe scouring the fine print on copyright laws for loopholes isn't the best idea in the world.

To me the fair use law is pretty obvious. It seems to be meant to allow people to use clips or portions of a work to critique, educate, parody, explain or clarify something. It doesn't mean you have the right to distribute someone else's programing without their permission just because you aren't causing them obvious damages.

I'm heading to bed. Clearly we will have to agree to disagree. You feel you are right and people can use the fine print in the laws to do with content as the please and I think otherwise. In the end I think the Youtube case will be pretty landmark and will define this argument once and for all. If the ruling is in Viacoms favor it will cripple Youtube and force it to either shut down or completely revamp. A ruling against Youtube would also effect many other lesser known video sites. A ruling four Youtube will pretty much verify that the internet really is like the wild west and you can do pretty much whatever you want with whatever you want whenever you want with no worries.

Until they state in court how they can easily filter a porn movie and not a pirated News item, music video or other other mediums. The moment they the "safe harbor" defense they open it up to the plaintiffs lawyer to ask them in detail, in front of a jury, how they filter one content 100% and if they did not would turn them into a porn site and another type of content, that brings in their traffic they need to survive, they are clueless and totally unable to filter.

Yes I agree with you about the safe harbor, the problem is they clearly only try to really filter what they want to. Once they start filtering they are in control of the content to some degree. Then it's down to a lawyer to expose them and a jury to decide.

As for not being able to distinguish between "authorized and unauthorized distribution of copyright material" here you show your true lack of common sense.

You are clearly clueless about copyright laws and have no idea what a lawyer will make you look like in a court of law. I have dealt with both. Trust me Youtube will have a lot of explaining to do. If they lose this one the lawyers will see why it was lost and go after them again. Like the anti smoking lawyers did. They will learn where the case was weak and strengthen it and return to court and try again.

And try again, because when you're suing companies as rich as Google it's worth it to keep going back.