Youtube Censoring Legal?

a reply to: howtonhawky

Read it and you’ll find out.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: howtonhawky

what i am claiming is that i have been witness to the legal points at one time that showed that youtube is allowed to facilitate the stealing of copyrighted material beyond the terms in their user agreement

Can you prove it?

I’m going to guess a big, hairy, no.

lol i have if you actually put forth an effort to understand

i am thinking one needs a certain amount of time to read and absorb

you are not trying

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Can you prove it?

I’m going to guess a big, hairy, no.

YouTube pulled the video with his evidence down.

Probably because of a copyright infringement because he used Bruno Mars or TayTay as backing music.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: howtonhawky

Read it and you’ll find out.

you are now joking

i read it and was asking if i missed something cause it does not address the claim that youtube is above the law doing something lagally that no other person or business can do

a reply to: howtonhawky

i have

You haven’t.

None of what you have posted has been anything other than an ill informed opinion.

So. Evidence?

a reply to: howtonhawky

They’re not above the law. What they’re doing is legal.

I don’t understand what’s so difficult to understand about that.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: howtonhawky

i have

You haven’t.

None of what you have posted has been anything other than an ill informed opinion.

So. Evidence?

stay on point
i read the info you provided on content generator violations and asked if i missed anything you wanted to point out inthe info you posted and now you spin much


be clear

a reply to: howtonhawky

Yes.

The bit about the copyright holders. You know? Like Bruno Mars and TayTay?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: howtonhawky

They’re not above the law. What they’re doing is legal.

I don’t understand what’s so difficult to understand about that.

Are you now claiming that you or i could have a site where we post new movies and videos without getting permission from creators?

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: howtonhawky

They’re not above the law. What they’re doing is legal.

I don’t understand what’s so difficult to understand about that.

Are you now claiming that you or i could have a site where we post new movies and videos without getting permission from creators?

They do have permission.

Where do you think the decision to put ads on a vid or remove it comes from?

That’s right. The copyright holder (or most likely their rep/agent).

a reply to: howtonhawky

I linked to OCILLA earlier in the thread. It specifically deals with the liability, or lack thereof, of sites like YouTube when it comes to copyright claims.

What is says is that online service providers (this can mean anything as broad as ISPs to websites) have no liability when it comes to copyright violations as long as they remove the offending material when they are notified by the copyright holder. This has been the law since 1998 when the DMCA was passed.

YouTube removes videos when they are notified that it includes copyrighted material. They actually go above and beyond because they will remove a video when anyone reports it. Not just the copyright holder.

So why would YouTube need "special status" when they are compliant with OCILLA and the DMCA as a whole? And if they are not compliant why are they not compliant?

I've asked that question a few times now and you haven't answered it. I have provided the exact law that is pertinent to this debate. I would quote the whole thing in this thread if it weren't so long.

So excuse me if I won't take your word for it when I have read the law and you haven't.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: howtonhawky

Yes.

The bit about the copyright holders. You know? Like Bruno Mars and TayTay?

it is beside the point and does not deal with youtubes legality in posting the majority of their content

why would an artist settle for ad revenue in lieu of sales revenue?

you are not even questioning the things you post

a reply to: howtonhawky

why would an artist settle for ad revenue in lieu of sales revenue?

Because the other option is pirating and they get no ad revenue. Just like what happened in the 90s.

At least with YouTube, they’re getting something.

But, if they decide they don’t want their stuff on YouTube, the videos will get taken down. It’s all on the link you didn’t read.

a reply to: howtonhawky

You probably could as long as you're giving the copyright holder their fair share of the profits.

Unfortunately for you the amount of money you would have to pay out would require you to be bringing in huge amounts of money.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: howtonhawky

I linked to OCILLA earlier in the thread. It specifically deals with the liability, or lack thereof, of sites like YouTube when it comes to copyright claims.

What is says is that online service providers (this can mean anything as broad as ISPs to websites) have no liability when it comes to copyright violations as long as they remove the offending material when they are notified by the copyright holder. This has been the law since 1998 when the DMCA was passed.

YouTube removes videos when they are notified that it includes copyrighted material. They actually go above and beyond because they will remove a video when anyone reports it. Not just the copyright holder.

So why would YouTube need "special status" when they are compliant with OCILLA and the DMCA as a whole? And if they are not compliant why are they not compliant?

I've asked that question a few times now and you haven't answered it. I have provided the exact law that is pertinent to this debate. I would quote the whole thing in this thread if it weren't so long.

So excuse me if I won't take your word for it when I have read the law and you haven't.

the majority of their material is copyrightedand that is why they need the clause that no other gets

what you posted is indeed what most sites use and is the difference between ats and youtube

otherwise ats would just host their own material along with every other site.

right now you can open a youtube account and post copyrighted material and it will not be taken down but you can take that same material and post it here on ats and they will be forced to remove it from this site or face legalities because ats is governed by the material you posted and youtube is not.

a reply to: howtonhawky

that is why they need the clause that no other get

Heard of
-Spotify
-Vimeo
-Metacafe
-Screen Junkies
-Dailymotion
-Break
-ITunes

Just to name a few.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Because revenue is revenue. And YouTube views will lead to more revenue from other sources. Of those millions that watched the video on YouTube a decent amount probably bought the album. Or at least the song on iTunes. Those same people probably also bought tickets to the live show. And while they were there they probably bought merch.

That's three extra revenue streams that were helped because they posted the video on YouTube. And then there the revenue they get from YouTube. Which when you're talking about millions of views isn't that negligible. Especially since they get a larger cut than your average content creator.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: howtonhawky

You probably could as long as you're giving the copyright holder their fair share of the profits.

Unfortunately for you the amount of money you would have to pay out would require you to be bringing in huge amounts of money.

exactly

that would be gaining permission and that is exactly what youtube has not done and is not required to do even though every other person and company has too

a reply to: howtonhawky

that would gaining permission and that is exactly what youtube has not done and is not required to do even though every other person and company has too

So says you.

I’m gonna need a bit of evidence to back that up. Got any? Doubt it.

a reply to: howtonhawky

You're right I could open a YouTube account and post copyrighted material. You're also right rust there's a good chance it wouldn't be deleted. At least for a while.

But that's not due to YouTube being special. It's due to them having such a large user base that my brand new channel would be so buried that it would take a while before the copyright holder or anyone else could find it and report it.

With ATS on the other hand not only is the user base much smaller but every post is treated equally. So if you post copyrighted material it becomes much more likely that it will be discovered faster.