| 8:24 pm on Mar 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Although I can agree with their right to protect their content the MPAA and RIAA have to rethink their business model and come up with a better solution than suing people. Even if they win a few minor lawsuits against the users that have uploaded the material or a lawsuit against YouTube they will never stop copyright infringement, they can't sue millions. Others will just be driven to some other distribution method, it's been a losing battle and will continue to be a losing battle.
Add to that not only are they losing money to the people that are infringing on their products but more importantly to their legitimate paying customers with their asinine restrictions and protective measures they place on the content. Neither of which works anyway.
| 9:05 pm on Mar 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
... not to mention the very bad public image the RIAA now has.
| 9:09 pm on Mar 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think the record industry would receive far more sympathy if it was giving priority to protecting works by small up and coming acts who genuinely need the income from legal sales.
When they start suing people for uploading Madonna songs it just looks like the rich protecting the rich.
Of course all copyright infringement is equally illegal, but in political terms people feel more for the little guy than the big guy.
On the DRM issue, I think they should completely replace DRM with a system which labels music files with the name and address of the person who bought it. By making music sharing less anonymous, it should discourage the large scale blatant piracy that causes the genuine harm without affecting the harmless sharing of music by small circles of family and friends.
| 9:48 pm on Mar 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>> Even if they win a few minor lawsuits against the users that have uploaded the material or a lawsuit against YouTube they will never stop copyright infringement, they can't sue millions
No, but they can scare enough to stop doing it. I was, at one point, using the old Napster. I stopped. Now I use iTunes and all the music I like cost me less than $250 since I buy songs only.
>> ... not to mention the very bad public image the RIAA now has.
so RIAA has nothing to lose...the image is bad already. Plus, RIAA takes the blame, not the music companies. Not all put two and two together. When a lawsuit is announced is not "Warner Music sues disabled teenager," but "RIAA sues disabled teenager."
Being popular and broke is not the way to do things either though, so in a sense I don't blame them.
| 9:49 pm on Mar 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
This free and neutral internet stuff is becoming annoying. Let the people do what they will and my company is just a listing service, a neutral bystander and observer, we have no responsibility about what goes on the website. The long standing argument of craig to distance themselves from blatant illegal activities such as prostitution, drugs, and discriminitory housing in ads.
Prohibiting illegal activity (including copyright) is not morally enforcing your views on society. But playing Robin Hood against the rich or enabling illegal activity is...
It is expected that you take positive action to block it on your website service in accordance with law. If you don't like it you change the laws not passively allow it to fester in front of millions of people.
| 10:26 pm on Mar 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|On the DRM issue, I think they should completely replace DRM with a system which labels music files with the name and address of the person who bought it. |
The trouble with that is there is currently no content protection system that has actually worked up to an including the recently released Blu-Ray and HD-DVD's which because it was tied to the hardware was supposed to be unbreakable, it remains to be seen if this loophole that was found will remain open but at this point in time the content on these discs can be copied.
What they need to do is open up their libraries and offer high quality content at a reasonable price for download without any restrictions. To compete with illegal downloads they have to offer the same thing. This goes back to the MP3 debacle, instead of embracing the technology they are fighting it. Some of the illegal content such as some of the videos on YouTube and file sharing networks are not available anywhere either on demand or from a retail outlet.
Getting back to Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Consider the billions of dollars that consumers will have to invest to upgrade their hardware simply to meet the requirements of HDCP to play a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc on their computer. Probably 99% of the people reading this will not be able to play either a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc on their computer they are currently using because of HDCP which as I mentioned above doesn't work anyway. That billions of dollars could be spent on content.
If Joe-Six-Pack who is the largest purchaser of content has a choice between spending 3 weeks pay to upgrade his system or to simply download a unrestricted file that he can do what he wants with I don't think that choice is gong to be hard for him to make.
I'm certainly not advocating piracy but the current methods for content distribution simply do not meet the needs, wants and expectations of the consumer.
Sorry if I've gone slightly off-topic but I think this is all related.
| 12:08 am on Mar 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"No, but they can scare enough to stop doing it. I was, at one point, using the old Napster. I stopped. Now I use iTunes and all the music I like cost me less than $250 since I buy songs only"
i have a friend in the teen years, she was sued recently for a large amount of money from those record companies because she downloaded songs from a source where thousands others do the same thing, but in my opinion the record companies are to lame or helpless to go against the real evil duer so what they do instead is go after some innocent teens or others who dont know or cant afford to fight back so they make the easier victim.
| 12:39 am on Mar 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Youtube when owned by a couple of very inventive enterpreneers presented no problem. Now there owned by google the lawsuits pile in. You know what everyone's looking for the next online supermoney maker. Forget that, get a law degree and apply for a job at google I have lost count of the law suits this organisation is suffering under. I heard 100 million was set aside to offset lawsuits on youtube, that will just about cover the lawyers fee's. I don't like the way this is panning out. I think youtube is a media explosion that should be seen as a way to market products worldwide instead its beeing used to decimate freedom of expression because some record company exec is worried some kid uploaded a video of skateboarding to a nirvanna record playing in background.
| 12:59 am on Mar 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
In answer to original question. If users of youtube download are deemed illegal then they might face prosecution judging by P2P networks of the past. Therefore the owners would be presumably be exempt and no lawsuit could be taken against the owner of youtube. If a lawsuit is taken against the owners of youtube it would admit a responsibility of the provider and all previous prosecution on downloads against users would need to be refunded with compensation. In my opinion....
| 1:39 am on Mar 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The new tools google are providing must be working somehow, I've love to see/read more on how they work.
I've had two PRIVATE videos of mine dcma'ed over the past 10 days.
Not by RIAA but still, it has to be those new tools and they are allowing them to search all videos, regardless if public.
| 9:20 am on Mar 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
--The trouble with that is there is currently no content protection system that has actually worked--
You're missing the point of what I wrote.
I said there SHOULDN'T be any DRM or content protection system, just something which puts a person's name somewhere in the file.
Blu-ray and HD DVD have DRM, but they don't say who bought the video. I think it should be the other way round with downloads, it should say who bought the video but have no DRM at all.
People would be able to share the legal file straight away, use it on any device anywhere. No need to crack it or download it from a dubious site. People who copy files for distribution to their own devices wouldn't care if their name was in there.
However, because their name would be on it they would be more reluctant to share it in an illegal way.
Of course someone could crack this and replace the name and address with Mickey Mouse or whatever, but they'd have to go to the bother of doing that, and they'd have to distribute it through dodgy illegal sites. Most people prefer to get legitimate files from legal sites if they're not DRMed.
| 11:41 am on Mar 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Come on guys. Hollyweird NEEDS the money.. After all Brittney can't even afford a pair of panties.
Seriously though, someone else mentioned that the industry needs to take a look at it's business model. They are trying to take a model that existed from the early 1900's and apply it to today's world.
I also suspect that some of it is about the music industry trying to maintain control over the musicians.. Under the classic system, the recording industry really decides who gets to be a star. Under the internet, there is a chance for smaller groups to self market and bypass the recording execs. The ability of the recording industry execs to purchase coke, sports cars and mistresses depends heavily on the current system. They don't want a democratic form of star making. They want their Plutocracy.
I'm doing some videos on Youtube that are designed to drive traffic to my sites. I'm careful to use the tools that lay down a soundtrack that is royalty free. I can see some issues with works like that if they have a commercial undertone. That's why I don't use copyrighted materials.
On the other hand, what is the industry really losing with the example of the kid skateboarding to Nirvana? Unless Nirvana is in the keywords you won't find the video except by accident. I was wondering how some of the videos are able to be posted. Seach for grateful dead or dire straits and you can listen to their music. I would think that would be a slight DCMA problem.
It even gets more complicated. Someone is posting slideshows of Canada set to Gordon Lightfoot's music. It appears from what I've seen, that the poster is doing this with permission. I may be wrong on that but I think I'm correct.
| 11:49 am on Mar 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I forgot to mention that Youtube is designed to make downloading difficult.
What happens when you go to view a video about birdwatching that happens to have "Born to be wild" as the soundtrack? Two weeks later you get a "you are being sued" letter from Dewey Cheetum and Howe. You didn't actually download it. It might even have been on a playlist and played while you were out of the room.
I think the problem is that we have FAR too many lawyers in this country. The market saturation is making them look for new sources of revenue. When you have a hammer (law degree), every problem looks like a nail (potential lawsuit).
| 3:49 pm on Mar 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'd hate to be googles registered agent.
| 6:53 pm on Mar 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|You're missing the point of what I wrote. |
I said there SHOULDN'T be any DRM or content protection system, just something which puts a person's name somewhere in the file.
I know what you meant but to me that would be just another form of DRM and personally I would find it intrusive on my right to privacy. I really don't see how that could work anyway, files can be stolen and duplicated by someone else who has no concern for you. Not only are you going to be labled a pirate but the whole world is going to know what your choice in <ahem> personal material may be. :)
| 3:06 pm on Mar 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
shouldn't this be posted in the copyright forum? Not webmaster GENERAL.
Like I say, stuff gets more and more unorganized every day...can't find anything anymore.
| 4:29 pm on Mar 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If you want to walk a mile in anothers shoes, how about if someone starts a site called YouWeb and allows it's users to copy any web site out there and repost it into the confines of YouWeb.
Now lets say it's your content site that's been reposted and guess what your ads are gone and replaced by ads that are paying money to YouWeb. I think you'd have a problem with it.
| 9:57 pm on Mar 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|When they start suing people for uploading Madonna songs it just looks like the rich protecting the rich. |
I understand your point in a way but it's the "up and coming" American Idol type artists selling all the albums and older artists like Madonna who risk all of their content being given away for free because there is so much of it out there.
I agree that the RIAA needs to back off of suing people who have not stolen large amounts of content. They are just making jerks of themselves suing a grandma and her daughter who stole a few songs versus a shop in China that has stolen thousands to millions worth of content. I am not sure the best way for them to protect their content without some lawsuits though. If you have content out there you have to protect it - whether you are Viacom, the Rolling Stones, or a webmaster.
| 7:08 am on Mar 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I don't know if you know, but at least in Mexico it has happened twice that an artist is being sued for their own record company!
Yes, because the slipped a copy of new material through their websites :(
One of those was Gloria Trevi and the other was a folk band.
| 6:48 pm on Mar 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
hmm.... how do they act on international users?