incrediBILL - 2:14 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

Competely different than shoplifting. You only get small segments, usually of poor qaulity in a few hundred pixles wide. Compared to the quality of the real product, delivered by satellite or cable. What would you rather watch?

OK, how about just shoplifting one banana from the bunch, thats just a small segment, they'd hardly notice.

Same as the old days when we used to tape music from fm radio and make copies, a poor reproduction.

Just because you do it doesn't mean we all did it.

I bought records and tapes and CDs and have a huge pile of the stuff sitting in my house.

I bet nobody has suffered financial loss because of youtube. Shoplifting on the other hand, comes right off the bottom line.

I see, copyright infringment is harmless, NONSENSE.

Technically, they are stealing as they make money without paying royalties on copyrighted property. Those same video clips would be sending profits back to the owners had they been properly obtained with a LICENSING FEE so your argument is weak.

Youtube is using copyrighted work that doesn't belong to them, running advertisements to make money off that same product that DOESN'T BELONG TO THEM, they are violating and diminishing the owners rights to his property.

You can argue all you want but I make my living off of copyrighted works as a programmer, webmaster and even as a photographer and you are WRONG when you say the author doesn't suffer from copying and I vigorously defend my copyrights when infringed.

I see Youtube as nothing more than the same bottom feeding scum trying to hide behind technicalities that haven't helped their predecessors like Napster and Kazaa.