Oh baby baby! The tiny copyright Pirate Boogie! <http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3777322>
Okay it is agreed, no one is paying attention to local cable access, one reason that copyrights are not enforced in that medium. Where it is enforced, it is a bit like the old West, Bounty Hunters, surfing for violations ... gotta produce in order to get paid ... <http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3777651&page=1> "....Twenty eight people, mostly friends and family, had viewed the YouTube video by June, when mom Stephanie Lenz said she received an e-mail from YouTube informing her that her video had been removed from the site at the request of Universal Music Publishing Group, the recording industry's largest label, and warning her that future copyright infringements on her part could force the Web site to cancel her account." Be joyous and celebrate the confusing double standard ... MTV asking for trouble ... RECORD CONCERTS? Come on, that is blatent. <http://yourhere.mtv.com/> "Send us your photos, videos and reviews -- right from the show." <http://tinyurl.com/2g9626> "Verizon Wireless, the leading wireless company with the most reliable wireless voice and data network, announced today that its customers are the first in the nation that can record video with their wireless phones and upload the videos directly to YouTube using an easy to remember number -- YTUBE (98823)" Is it against the law to encourage people to break the law? I think it is. Is it against the law to profit from the people that have broken laws? I think it is. A person that stands on the ground encouraging someone to commit suicide (break the law), is that person breaking the law. I think so. Yup, I think a smart lawyer will prove me right ... but until then ... allow them to set precedent, feed their ravenous greed with video uploads ... "quickly and easily upload their (your) short mobile videos to YouTube over Verizon Wireless' high-speed wireless broadband network by simply sending their message to YTUBE (98823). Videos will post live in just minutes; standard messaging rates apply." (oh yeah, here too, you have to pay to play) encourage others to do the same ... <http://tinyurl.com/298j6t> This is a link to AOL's video portal FAQ. "AT&T is offering more mobile data services such as messaging, music and video to boost sales growth as prices of phone calls drop." Rebel Yell <http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/billy+idol/rebel+yell_20018406.html> How this current mess came about, is the history/evolution of the industry. Most copyright/IP theft was businesses stealing from business (the studios/labels). As technology changed the majors failed to Adapt, Improvise, Overcome. They wanted MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE > > Absolutely. I'm *ALL* for people getting their royalties. If you > make a film, you either have to not use music at all, make the music > yourself, pay someone to score the film for you, have music 'donated' > to your project or pay whomever created the music you want to use. > > The question, however, becomes how BROAD is the CAST? :) What makes a > video on YouTube that has 6 views a "broadcast"? Yes... Technically > it's a BROADcast, because people all over the world COULD view it if > they wanted to... except they don't. Why should a 6-view video on > YouTube be held to a higher standard than a home video that's shown in > a local recreation center or church basement or at someone's house > over the holidays? Because there was the POTENTIAL for hundreds or > thousands or millions of views? > > Related to all this, i know we all would like to use our favourite > > bands on our videos but if they have copyright, or signed it away, > > and we don't have a licence ot use it, we can't. > > ... Because "we" are BROADcasting? Regardless of how un-watched our > videos are or how un-listened-to our podcasts are? The fact that > there's the *potential* for millions of computer-owners to view our > content makes us broadcasters as opposed to home-movie-makers or > hobbyists? > > I guess this is my main question... How these lines become drawn, and > by whom. What makes a video about a cat a "broadcast"? What makes > someone sitting in front of a webcam in a double-wide talking about > heading out to get some smokes from the general store a "show"? Why > should someone doing a "character" video on YouTube that uses a > section of "Peace Sells" be held to the same standards as someone > doing a documentary, television show or feature film? > > Not to derail my own thread :D ... but this was an issue with VCRs. > VCRs allowed people to record shows and watch them whenever they > wanted, or collect them or take them to a friend's house that doesn't > have that channel. They also allowed people to fast-forward through > commercials that advertisers paid to have seen by the masses. > Eventually, they created VCRs that automatically cut out commercials > entirely. Why should someone *not* record shows they want to watch? > The technology's there. They paid for the television and the VCR. > They paid for the cable installation and monthly cable box. On top of > that, why should they *not* use whatever footage they recorded in > their "home movie" presentation that they created to show the family > over the holidays? > > [official compliance stuff:] CRICOS provider code: 00122A > Yes. This has paved the way for people to create libraries of music > that you can purchase specifically for use in your productions. Same > thing with stock footage. If you don't want to travel to NYC to film > in the street, you can buy the footage you want to use, saving > yourself cost of crew, travel, etc and hassle.
