Learn Japanese with JapanesePod101.com

View topic - YouTube vs copyright

YouTube vs copyright

NO SPAM ALLOWED! Discuss stuff not related to Japan or Japanese. The rules are the same in this forum as in the other forums.

RE: YouTube vs copyright

Postby Armon » Sat 10.21.2006 1:11 pm

zengargoyle wrote:
muahahaha, depends on what country you are from... in some places it perfectly legal depending upon how and why you do so. some countries have levied taxes on recordable media (to be distributed among the copyright holders) thereby allowing such non-commercial sharing. other countries are not members of the major "we'll support your laws" groups. in SomeCountry on SomeContinent it may be perfectly legal to copy/share anything you wish... so who's rules are to be followed? aside from the political madness in North Korea banning anything from the outside.. is it illegal to copy/share outside media?


Normally you follow the laws of the country you are living in. In the US, it's illegal to takes someone else's property and give it away.

many countries are quite happy to ignore patents and reproduce medicines "illegally"... good or bad? say the cure for Cancer comes along and is patented in the US and the patent holder wishes to charge insane amounts of money... would countries ignoring the legal issues and producing the medicine anyways and keeping millions upon millions of people from dying be in the wrong?


The "is okay to rob from someone to save someone" question is another issue because I don't see how robbing someone's music videos is going to save somebody.

that argument does not stand. is buying the video from a person who's tired of watching it illegal? the property owner "lost a sale" because you didn't pay them for the video... if to legally purchase the right to view the video would cost millions of dollars.. so very few people in the whole world could afford to 'legally' view the video, is any viewing of the video a 'lost sale'?


While it would not be a lost sale, it still does not make it legal. If the person does not want to sale the video to anybody but the super wealthy, I can't see why they should not have that right.

if some guru in Tibet came up with the answer to life, the universe and everything, and wrote it down, and that writing down put the answer under the copyright law of that country, and that country decided that nobody ever should hear the answer, should it be illegal to translate and spread that answer around the world?


It would only be illegal to translate and spread that answer if the guru did not want people to do so because most copyright laws allow the maker to decide how to give out the permission.

yeah, pretty much "ditto". there are things that can't be had for any price legally that should be available somehow to everybody who wishes to know that thing. it's the old "letter of law" vs "spirit of law". if the next great piece of literature comes from a person/country that wishes to keep it a secret, or charge an arm and a leg for the priveledge to experience the thing... screw 'em.


I think the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law" are both saying "it's illegal to take someone else's property because you do not want to pay for it".

...and it may be illegal to kill a madman who is killing people left and right (unless he points the gun at you personally)... nevertheless, there's usually a corner case where the illegal thing is the right thing.


You mean killing people before they have a fair trial?
Last edited by Armon on Sat 10.21.2006 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ljvg.blogspot.com -- Learn Japanese for Video Games -- The first website dedicated to teaching Japanese for playing video games.
Armon
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 08.27.2006 11:54 am

RE: YouTube vs copyright

Postby coco » Sun 10.22.2006 1:22 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5UGzr72k_s
Sometimes a spyware advertisement written in Japanese shows up upon the page. Please be careful.

Yes, JASRAC is most aggressive.
(^^;
coco
 
Posts: 3061
Joined: Mon 05.30.2005 12:43 am
Location: 東京都
Native language: 日本語(Japanese)

RE: YouTube vs copyright

Postby kyashi » Sun 10.22.2006 1:32 am

waaa!!!*crys * i gotta tell everyone at school this!!!
User avatar
kyashi
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed 01.11.2006 7:43 pm

RE: YouTube vs copyright

Postby zengargoyle » Sun 10.22.2006 2:18 am

coco wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5UGzr72k_s
Sometimes a spyware advertisement written in Japanese shows up upon the page. Please be careful.

Yes, JASRAC is most aggressive.
(^^;


:)

i hope all artists can learn to avoid JASRAC/RIAA/etc. and use the internet to spread their creations and gain fans.

if you get spyware advertisement pop-up then you probably have spyware on your computer. never have i seen pop-up advertisement from YouTube... maybe it's a Windows IE thing... you should not see pop-up from YouTube.
User avatar
zengargoyle
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sun 05.29.2005 10:16 pm

RE: YouTube vs copyright

Postby aKuMu » Sun 10.22.2006 5:02 am

It *may* be free advertising. Some people *may* buy CDS/whatever after they hear stuff from youtube. But thats a minority. People on most Forums i read dont even have 1 Original Copy of their "favorite Artist" But a zillion mp3s. (im so poor i dont have money i cant order from Japan blabla)
Dont know whats the whining all about.
Of courese does the Industry want to make Money. They dont live from Air alone. And if WHOLE series and thousands of videos and what not are shown for free and maybe 1% is buying something from them, i think the industry does not depend on these minitory.
Last edited by aKuMu on Sun 10.22.2006 5:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
aKuMu
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Sun 12.04.2005 8:19 pm
Native language: German

RE: YouTube vs copyright

Postby zengargoyle » Sun 10.22.2006 6:55 am

aKuMu wrote:
It *may* be free advertising. Some people *may* buy CDS/whatever after they hear stuff from youtube. But thats a minority. People on most Forums i read dont even have 1 Original Copy of their "favorite Artist" But a zillion mp3s. (im so poor i dont have money i cant order from Japan blabla)


i would argue that the minority is the majority. *none* of those people who do buy their favorite artist would have done so without hearing the artist first. and in the US, the opportunities for hearing an artist from a foreign country are rather limited, you hear it from a friend, or from something on TV, or you watch them on YouTube, and that's about it. period. there are no radio stations playing their favorite artist, their favorite artist doesn't tour in the US, there is no way at all for them to learn of their favorite artist except through the grey/black market.... hey! there's this great hungarian band, i would let you listen to a few songs of theirs, but it's illegal to do so.. you'll just have to trust me and spend $50 and hours of time tracking down their CD on the internet and dealing with currency exchange busineses (at a loss of course) to get your dollars converted into forints and wait 3 weeks while just maybe you get your CD shipped around the world from Hungary before you can get a better idea of whether or not you like them as much as i do.... it may be worth it if you've actually heard some of their music and know that you do like their style, but are you going to make the effort if you've never heard any of their music?

Dont know whats the whining all about.
Of courese does the Industry want to make Money. They dont live from Air alone. And if WHOLE series and thousands of videos and what not are shown for free and maybe 1% is buying something from them, i think the industry does not depend on these minitory.


the industry is like the milkmen of the days long gone by. the industry is the distribution/promotion industry from the days before the internet and the digital revolution. truth is, they are no longer needed. their niche in the economy is no longer present. distribution is as close to free as is possible, a few cents or less per gigabyte is the sum total of distribution costs. and the promotion is also no longer needed, if it was needed then there wouldn't be the whole problem with 'illegal sharing'. the promotion aspect is now by word of mouth, random sampling, and just 'hey that sounds like a cool name for a song' and is no more expensive than the distribution costs (that is no cost at all pretty much). maybe .01% of all artists can profit a bit from the help of the Industry, but the rest are much better off without the bloodsucking leeches.
User avatar
zengargoyle
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sun 05.29.2005 10:16 pm

RE: YouTube vs copyright

Postby Armon » Sun 10.22.2006 11:22 am

zengargoyle wrote:
the industry is like the milkmen of the days long gone by. the industry is the distribution/promotion industry from the days before the internet and the digital revolution. truth is, they are no longer needed. their niche in the economy is no longer present. distribution is as close to free as is possible, a few cents or less per gigabyte is the sum total of distribution costs. and the promotion is also no longer needed, if it was needed then there wouldn't be the whole problem with 'illegal sharing'. the promotion aspect is now by word of mouth, random sampling, and just 'hey that sounds like a cool name for a song' and is no more expensive than the distribution costs (that is no cost at all pretty much). maybe .01% of all artists can profit a bit from the help of the Industry, but the rest are much better off without the bloodsucking leeches.


The price most companies charge people is not just to cover the cost of making the CDs and the promotion but to also cover the price of doing the initial recording, and if the companies stoped doing promotions there would also be very few music videos because most music video are for promotional purposes and cost money to make.
ljvg.blogspot.com -- Learn Japanese for Video Games -- The first website dedicated to teaching Japanese for playing video games.
Armon
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 08.27.2006 11:54 am

RE: YouTube vs copyright

Postby zengargoyle » Sun 10.22.2006 5:10 pm

Armon wrote:
The price most companies charge people is not just to cover the cost of making the CDs and the promotion but to also cover the price of doing the initial recording, and if the companies stoped doing promotions there would also be very few music videos because most music video are for promotional purposes and cost money to make.


ever heard "there's no such thing as bad publicity"? that's the major point in the whole YouTube discussion. the more people who see your promotional material the better. the Industry is doing everything it can to *stop* you from skipping the advertisements on your digital video recorder. for the promotional aspect, things like YouTube are the win, free eyeballs. for the entertainment value YouTube is a draw. the tiny, grainy, poor quality videos on YouTube are no match for the DVDs that they can entice people to buy.
User avatar
zengargoyle
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sun 05.29.2005 10:16 pm

RE: YouTube vs copyright

Postby zengargoyle » Mon 10.23.2006 12:43 am

double posting for effect and sorta completely different information concerning topic at hand.

http://slashdot.org/articles/06/10/22/215238.shtml
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_wishlist

this turned up today... imagine that you have $100 Million dollars to spend acquiring copyright rights to important knowledge, those new acquisitions to be placed into the Public Domain on Wikipedia. what would you wish to acquire for the benefit of all mankind in the here and now?
Last edited by zengargoyle on Mon 10.23.2006 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
zengargoyle
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sun 05.29.2005 10:16 pm

RE: YouTube vs copyright

Postby Armon » Mon 10.23.2006 12:59 am

zengargoyle wrote:
ever heard "there's no such thing as bad publicity"? that's the major point in the whole YouTube discussion. the more people who see your promotional material the better. the Industry is doing everything it can to *stop* you from skipping the advertisements on your digital video recorder. for the promotional aspect, things like YouTube are the win, free eyeballs.


I personally can not see why the companies do not want to see the music videos, since most, as far as I know, most music videos are for promotion, but if they do not want people to see the videos on YouTube I can't see a reason why they should not be allowed to.

for the entertainment value YouTube is a draw. the tiny, grainy, poor quality videos on YouTube are no match for the DVDs that they can entice people to buy.


While movies and TV series on YouTube might of a low quality, they are still free and it is very hard to complete against free products and there is no saying people will buy the DVD, rather or not they like it, if they see it on YouTube. So I can see why the movie and TV companies do not want any of the TV series or movies on YouTube.
ljvg.blogspot.com -- Learn Japanese for Video Games -- The first website dedicated to teaching Japanese for playing video games.
Armon
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 08.27.2006 11:54 am

RE: YouTube vs copyright

Postby zengargoyle » Mon 10.23.2006 3:36 am

Armon wrote:
I personally can not see why the companies do not want to see the music videos, since most, as far as I know, most music videos are for promotion, but if they do not want people to see the videos on YouTube I can't see a reason why they should not be allowed to.


true, no argument there. the difficulty lies with which side you come from... either "that which is not permitted is forbidden" or "that which is not forbidden is permitted".... is it ok to put up something which is later taken down by the 'owner', or is it illegal to put up anything that isn't expressly permitted by the owner. ?? does anybody who wants to share something have to invest much time in determining whether the sharing of the information is legal, or can they share without worrying about the details with the knowledge that if they were incorrect in their assumptions that things will be corrected later..

While movies and TV series on YouTube might of a low quality, they are still free and it is very hard to complete against free products and there is no saying people will buy the DVD, rather or not they like it, if they see it on YouTube. So I can see why the movie and TV companies do not want any of the TV series or movies on YouTube.


sorry, it's trivialy easy to compete with free. they have been doing it for years.... songs on the radio are free, videos seen on TV are free. yet they still have been competing and making money. a change of the medium of the free thing doesn't mean that they can no longer compete. sure, it's their right to ask for things to be removed, but it doesn't change the fact that they are shooting themselves in the foot.
User avatar
zengargoyle
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sun 05.29.2005 10:16 pm

RE: YouTube vs copyright

Postby Armon » Tue 10.24.2006 10:53 pm

zengargoyle wrote:
true, no argument there. the difficulty lies with which side you come from... either "that which is not permitted is forbidden" or "that which is not forbidden is permitted".... is it ok to put up something which is later taken down by the 'owner', or is it illegal to put up anything that isn't expressly permitted by the owner. ?? does anybody who wants to share something have to invest much time in determining whether the sharing of the information is legal, or can they share without worrying about the details with the knowledge that if they were incorrect in their assumptions that things will be corrected later..


I belive you need to have express permission for it to be legal to use a copyrighted material. Whether or not it's moral to put the information up if you don't think the copyright holder will care, I do not know.

sorry, it's trivialy easy to compete with free. they have been doing it for years.... songs on the radio are free, videos seen on TV are free. yet they still have been competing and making money. a change of the medium of the free thing doesn't mean that they can no longer compete. sure, it's their right to ask for things to be removed, but it doesn't change the fact that they are shooting themselves in the foot.


The difference in completing with YouTube or the radio is you can not control which song a radio station plays so if you want to listen to a certain song you either have to wait for the station to play it or buy the album, with YouTube you can listen to the song anytime you are near your computer.

I belive movie companies sell the rights to play a movie to the TV stations, and they also wait until the sell of the box office and the sell of the DVDs slow before selling the license.

I also belive that companies have been shooting themselves in the feet for not trying to beat the file sharing market in anyway but the courts.
ljvg.blogspot.com -- Learn Japanese for Video Games -- The first website dedicated to teaching Japanese for playing video games.
Armon
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 08.27.2006 11:54 am

RE: YouTube vs copyright

Postby Fukumori » Wed 10.25.2006 12:50 am

Pretty much scanned the whole thread...and I still think we'd all be better off if these illegal distribution laws were more enforced...I just feel as though I'd rather not be given the chance to break such laws, and be able to live without the guilt, and such...

Does this issue actually remind anyone a little of illegal immigration? Both bring to mind the philosophy of prevention over punishment.

But I DEFINITELY agree that those Asian artists we adore need a LOT more global coverage if we're gonna get rid of the internet footage!!!

Like 高野寛... <3
User avatar
Fukumori
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue 10.17.2006 7:08 pm

Previous

Return to General off topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dobsonpt and 1 guest