how is youtube getting away with copyright violation?

Message

mattbiernat · #1 Post by **mattbiernat** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:13 am

how do they do it? i see a lot of videos on you tube that shouldn't be there. I'm surprised they are not getting their a$$es sued like napster had theirs.

aaa · #2 Post by **aaa** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:48 am

They have been sued. And they do take down videos, but there are still some that they miss.

Trekk69 · #3 Post by **Trekk69** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:20 am

People will keep reposting them after they've been removed, or people will post with a skewed name (a letter substitution or so) to try to keep it available online

mattbiernat · #4 Post by **mattbiernat** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:36 am

aaa wrote:They have been sued. And they do take down videos, but there are still some that they miss.

im not quite sure that they do take down videos. to test this you can simply search for metallica and you will get a LOT of their music videos. im surprised metallica is not upset, they've seemed to be very much so with napster.

aaa · #5 Post by **aaa** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:45 am

Sometime they're ok with it, for promotional reasons I guess. Youtube was sued over TV shows iirc, not music videos.

pianowizard · #6 Post by **pianowizard** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:53 am

mattbiernat wrote:im not quite sure that they do take down videos.

Oh yeah, they certainly do. I like the Sci-Fi series Stargate Atlantis but I don't have cable so I rely on several people who've been uploading episodes of this show the day after they're broadcast. I always try to download these episodes within two days, because whenever I wait too long, they're gone and YouTube would post a sign saying "This video has been removed due to copyrights violations".

mattbiernat · #7 Post by **mattbiernat** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:19 am

aaa wrote:Sometime they're ok with it, for promotional reasons I guess. Youtube was sued over TV shows iirc, not music videos.

so what about those music videos for which you have to pay $3.99 (or something like that) at iTunes music store but they are free to download at youtube?

pianowizard · #8 Post by **pianowizard** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:01 am

mattbiernat wrote:so what about those music videos for which you have to pay $3.99 (or something like that) at iTunes music store but they are free to download at youtube?

The quality is usually much lower on YouTube.

k2jsv · #9 Post by **k2jsv** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:39 am

Fair use Law?

qviri · #10 Post by **qviri** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:25 am

pianowizard wrote:
mattbiernat wrote:so what about those music videos for which you have to pay $3.99 (or something like that) at iTunes music store but they are free to download at youtube?
The quality is usually much lower on YouTube.

Quoted for truth - unless you know how, the audio stream in a video uploaded to youtube is converted to 65 kbit/s mono.

pianowizard · #11 Post by **pianowizard** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:53 am

qviri wrote:the audio stream in a video uploaded to youtube is converted to 65 kbit/s mono.

Video quality is compromised even worse. I've purchased several episodes of Stargate SG-1 through iTunes and they're almost DVD quality, whereas the YouTube videos of the same episodes look pretty crappy.

leoblob · #12 Post by **leoblob** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:17 pm

I've seen plenty of videos removed. I've also seen plenty of accounts closed.

I think it depends on the copyright owner. Some artists don't have a problem with their videos up there. As pointed out, the quality is low on youtube (320 x 240) at 64K mono. But also, some artists are realizing that these videos and performances are like free advertising and they also help build a fan base.

There's one artist who has a new "album" coming out in February, and youtube is flooded with videos of her performing some of these songs. There's a BUNCH of people who are very excited about her new CD and you can bet that they'll be buying it as soon as it becomes available... they already have a feel for what's going to be on there (due to the youtube videos). I also expect there will be a DVD containing her performances on youtube plus others. It's a pretty easy sell to the fans, since they're already seen a few of them on youtube, and they can get much higher quality on the DVD. The model of how music is sold is changing pretty quickly, and some of the artists (and their recording companies) are trying to go with the flow.

Conversely, one night the owners to the rights of like 95% of the Rolling Stones tunes went thru youtube and had pretty much all Rolling Stones content removed. That's a LOT of videos.

Anything that has to do with the writer's strike and written material that appeared on TV often seems to result in someone's account being closed completely.

#13 Post by **KristianJ** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:40 am

pianowizard wrote: Oh yeah, they certainly do. I like the Sci-Fi series Stargate Atlantis but I don't have cable so I rely on several people who've been uploading episodes of this show the day after they're broadcast. I always try to download these episodes within two days, because whenever I wait too long, they're gone and YouTube would post a sign saying "This video has been removed due to copyrights violations".

I similarly rely on people who upload episodes of Top Gear a day or 2 after they broadcast in the UK. They try and make the titles slightly obscure so as to be less easy to find and thus have taken down due to copyright. Even though BBC (and other TV channels) have an account to which they upload some of the segments of their shows, it's better having the complete shows ready to view (I hardly download them). The quality is indeed just tolerable, but when you're in a country that is behind the times when it comes to the broadcast of TV shows, it helps whet the appetite considerably.

I'd probably buy TV episodes if the Australian iTunes store made them available. Otherwise, places like Youtube are my best bet.

how is youtube getting away with copyright violation?

how is youtube getting away with copyright violation?

Who is online