Yeah, it's REAL difficult to do a You-Tube search with the word's "Monty Python" in them and You-Tube has programs to assist in same. http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_permissions http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_program No. Why should it? If one buys something than presumably they own it and the rights to it. And you have done so without a shred of proof. Indeed I almost exclusively use You-Tube because of their positive actions in regard to content providers.
I'm well aware of YouTube's policies and their efforts to control copyrighted content; however, when one uploads a video, it is posted immediately. That is, YouTube doesn't have a team of experts scouring every single freakin' video that's uploaded for copyrighted content--that task falls upon someone else. Show me your evidence that the copyright holders are compensated in a majority of instances for material that is posted on YouTube.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/technology/03youtube.html And that's over a year old, so when you add in the growth and the ones that ARE done with the owner's permission, 50% seems more than reasonable. More to the point, You-Tube IS interested in the Content Owners getting compensated.
They are referring to videos with ads posted within the video (see image accompanying article you posted)--all videos have ads at the sides of the screen.
So? The point is that You-Tube addresses the needs of Content Creators and has a good program for sharing revenue with them.
And yet, you have not demonstrated that the majority of copyrighted videos which are posted on YouTube provide compensation to copyright holders--and: (From your article.)
And for fuck's sake, stop saying "content creators" when the bulk of the revenue goes NOT to the creators, but to copyright holders.
So? People voluntarily post all sorts of videos without expectation of compensation on You-Tube, so that means diddly squat. The FACT is that You-Tube pays content providers and takes copywrite seriously. •Do not upload content that may be copyrighted where you haven’t obtained the explicity permission to use it in that video. http://www.youtube.com/creators/partner-program-policies.html And so when I link to a You-Tube video I'm using the service of a company who does pay for content.
Sure they do, but they don't routinely police their site to ensure that copyrighted material doesn't slip by. Moreover, YOU MADE THE CLAIM. Oooohhh, it says "do not" do this--bet that stops a lot of people. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If someone happens to catch it, that is.
Nope. In many cases, the person selling is getting a bunch of money up front and the new copywrite holder is making their money over a longer time frame, so the point you are making is meaningless.
Wikipedia is a non-profit organization. How, exactly, do you imagine that they are making money off of this behavior? And since when do you hold the $$$$ motive to be a bad thing? You're in the middle of advocating for a bunch of openly profit-driven lobbyists and the legislature that loves them.
Says who? Yes, and I backed it up too. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/t...ashing-in-on-your-hit-youtube-video.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/technology/03youtube.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...families-100000-as-funny-videos-go-viral.html Also several years ago You-Tube and ASCAP came to a license agreement and You-Tube pays for music as well.
