Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   Piracy discussions (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/piracy-discussions/)
-   -   [Slightly OT] Google Guilty Of Piracy (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/piracy-discussions/449684-slightly-ot-google-guilty-piracy.html)

author 18th December 2009 04:20 PM

[Slightly OT] Google Guilty Of Piracy
 
Google must pay 300,000 euros in damages after stealing copyrighted books:

BBC News - Fine for Google over French books

YouTube's next...

rack gear 19th December 2009 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by author (Post 4900133)
Google must pay 300,000 euros in damages after stealing copyrighted books:

BBC News - Fine for Google over French books

YouTube's next...

'bout time... all this wild west disregard for copyright is going to finally get sorted out...

and for anyone who doesn't believe that content filtering works - show me the porn on youtube and flicker...

author 19th December 2009 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios (Post 4901609)
'bout time...

Indeed. They are in effect the new Pirate Bay now, testing & pushing the limits all the time -- in courts and elsewhere.

The days of 'doing no evil' are obviously long gone.

I think Google may become THE problem of the next decade.

XHipHop 20th December 2009 12:56 AM

the french book issue is ********. do more research.

lagavulin16 20th December 2009 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios (Post 4901609)
'bout time... all this wild west disregard for copyright is going to finally get sorted out...

and for anyone who doesn't believe that content filtering works - show me the porn on youtube and flicker...

Apples and oranges. Either something is porn, or it isn't. It's easy to remove porn.

Youtube would have to ban all music and video to have the same effect on copyright.

Macky 20th December 2009 02:34 AM

Microsoft steals code...... also in the news.
 
BBC News - Microsoft admits code theft for Chinese blog Juku

author 20th December 2009 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagavulin16 (Post 4904684)
Apples and oranges. Either something is porn, or it isn't. It's easy to remove porn.

Youtube would have to ban all music and video to have the same effect on copyright.

shiee

lagavulin16 21st December 2009 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by author (Post 4905363)
shiee

Yet another pointless response, high on attitude and low on any relevant content.

I'll help you. Think about it: It's very easy to decide if something is porn or not. It is very hard to determine if a song is being used as fair use or if it infringes on copyright. Same goes for video. Outside of someone reporting it, how are they supposed to know what video someone created themselves and what was recorded from the emmy's?

Like I said, think about it.

rack gear 21st December 2009 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagavulin16 (Post 4904684)
Apples and oranges. Either something is porn, or it isn't.

I beleive that's actually been debated, ie, community standards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagavulin16 (Post 4904684)
It's easy to remove porn.

i don't know about that - what makes that so easy... it's content filtering.

you don't think they actually have human beings watching every clip that's uploaded do you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagavulin16 (Post 4904684)
Youtube would have to ban all music and video to have the same effect on copyright.

disagree. if it works well enough to stop porn, it works well enough to stop the majority of copyright infringement.

the same technology that hurts, also helps - it cuts both ways.

you're not seeing a ton of SNL clips on youtube anymore... and if you see them they're gone fast... why? content filtering... digital fingerprinting and content ID matching...

this isn't a technological issue, it's a political one - once there's political will, it's over.

lagavulin16 22nd December 2009 06:36 AM

So if I upload a video of my 3 year old dancing to "Let's Go Crazy" by Prince for 2 minutes, is it a violation of copyright? Or fair use?

rack gear 23rd December 2009 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagavulin16 (Post 4911357)
So if I upload a video of my 3 year old dancing to "Let's Go Crazy" by Prince for 2 minutes, is it a violation of copyright? Or fair use?

violation of copyright.

...and as that is a WMG copyright master, I think it's highly unlikely you can even upload it - try it - put two minutes of "Let's Go Crazy" by Prince on a home video and try uploading it to YouTube - I'd lay odds it get's rejected before going live.

A friend put together a pre-viz sequence for a stunt/effects shot on an upcoming film - put a piece of WMG music to it (more/less randomly) - video got rejected and could not go live on YouTube due to copyright infringement on the audio...

author 23rd December 2009 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios (Post 4914971)
violation of copyright.

Yup, otherwise we would soon see thousands of kids dance to all kinds of hits -- and most would be out of sync for some weird reason. heh

rack gear 23rd December 2009 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XHipHop (Post 4904484)
the french book issue is ********. do more research.

link please

lagavulin16 25th December 2009 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios (Post 4914971)
violation of copyright.

...and as that is a WMG copyright master, I think it's highly unlikely you can even upload it - try it - put two minutes of "Let's Go Crazy" by Prince on a home video and try uploading it to YouTube - I'd lay odds it get's rejected before going live.

A friend put together a pre-viz sequence for a stunt/effects shot on an upcoming film - put a piece of WMG music to it (more/less randomly) - video got rejected and could not go live on YouTube due to copyright infringement on the audio...

Perhaps I'm not as informed as you are, so I'd appreciate a bit of education if you're willing to provide it.

If I'm having a barbecue with my family in my backyard, I'm legally allowed to play Prince. It makes the food taste better.

Last I heard, I'm allowed to have a video camera going, so when I'm old and retired I can fondly look back on how I used to play Prince at family barbecues.

If my two year old starts dancing for the camera, perfectly to the music, and it's the cutest and most brilliant thing I've ever seen, are you saying I'm not allowed to share it with anyone unless I wipe out the audio?

At what point does fair use end and copyright violation begin?

rack gear 25th December 2009 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagavulin16 (Post 4921820)
Perhaps I'm not as informed as you are, so I'd appreciate a bit of education if you're willing to provide it.

If I'm having a barbecue with my family in my backyard, I'm legally allowed to play Prince. It makes the food taste better.

Last I heard, I'm allowed to have a video camera going, so when I'm old and retired I can fondly look back on how I used to play Prince at family barbecues.

If my two year old starts dancing for the camera, perfectly to the music, and it's the cutest and most brilliant thing I've ever seen, are you saying I'm not allowed to share it with anyone unless I wipe out the audio?

At what point does fair use end and copyright violation begin?

ok - as you axed for it:

this might help as a starter:
Intellectual Property Law: Why Should I Care?

for the point of this conversation, when it goes onto youtube as you have become a producer/broadcaster without a license - it's possible you may or may not be covered under fair use...

it would be more reasonable that your INTENTION is fair use if the resulting video is only accessible via a password given to family for private viewing (as opposed to the whole world) and/or on a personally hosted website such as www.thelagavulinfamily.com as opposed to YouTube who are profiting on the content through ad based sales - without compensating the copyright owners/holders.

the FBI is not going to storm your living room while playing home movies - unless they have reason to believe it's kiddie porn or some other very extreme content.

for your example above - if the music is playing in the background, and you edit a BBQ home video say under 3 minutes total - with several snippets of pop songs playing in the background for short periods - it's possible it could ok - it certainly is interpretive - there are guidelines.

if however, you shot footage of your child dancing and edited that to the prince song, it in it's entirety, I think that would almost certainly not be covered - especially if publicly viewable on youtube or other "mass media" outlets...

more on guidelines and disputes:
Recut, Reframe, Recycle -- Publications -- Center for Social Media at American University

we live in strange time... ultimately... the Copyright Holders should have the ability to determine how their works are being used - especially if someone other than the copyright holder is PROFITING from the work... like say, YouTube/Google (See Fair Use Below).

one recent example - in the case below the copyright holders chose to allow the use, however the copyright holders themselves monetized the content via a revenue sharing scheme with youtube:


the first step towards filtering what is and what is not allowed is covered by the dispute processed and "safe habor" of the DMCA which allows copyright holders to have content removed until it's legality is resolved.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as a copyright holder, I can have any of my IP removed from youtube, at will, and I exercise that right daily... I can track, monetize or block my IP globally on a case by case basis which extends to the properties I manage in audio (masters), video and music publishing... and can even extend into trademark and other types of copyrights.

Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lagavulin16 26th December 2009 01:52 AM

Here is the video that brought up my question:

YouTube - "Let's Go Crazy" #1

And here is the youtube entry about the case:

Let's Go Crazy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It sounds like what is and isn't "fair use" is still very open to debate. While I am not hoping to see a loophole here where you can upload a full version of any song provided a 2 year old is trying to dance to it, I think we need to get a better understanding of what is and isn't allowed and hold both sides accountable.

Mickey Mouse should have been put in the public domain by now - is it fair that they keep changing the rules?

rack gear 26th December 2009 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagavulin16 (Post 4922341)
Here is the video that brought up my question:

YouTube - "Let's Go Crazy" #1

And here is the youtube entry about the case:

Let's Go Crazy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It sounds like what is and isn't "fair use" is still very open to debate. While I am not hoping to see a loophole here where you can upload a full version of any song provided a 2 year old is trying to dance to it, I think we need to get a better understanding of what is and isn't allowed and hold both sides accountable.

Mickey Mouse should have been put in the public domain by now - is it fair that they keep changing the rules?

thanks for that.

it's interesting that the publisher (universal), not the master rights holder (warner) had the video pulled. it's also interesting that the video is 29 seconds long, in which the music - is of poor audible quality, and you can hear people talking over it.

the line on this NOT being fair use is if YouTube profits from this video and Universal/Warner do not... that's really the issue as far as I'm concerned - who's making the money from whose property?

Once money starts changing hands - it's no longer fair use - that's what I would argue...this video clip has no embedded advertising, no annotations selling or referring to a product and no advertising present on the viewing page... sooooo...

these types of uses are going to become increasingly looked at as to where the lines are... I'm no fan of the EFF who are just as blindly delusional, extreme, arrogant and self righteous as the RIAA and the record labels - yin/yang I suppose...

as for mickey mouse - good question, I see both sides. if you inherited a business your family built, would you want the government to give it away?

rack gear 26th December 2009 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky (Post 4904697)

one could argue this is not the first thing microsoft has stolen...

Revmen 31st December 2009 08:03 PM

Good for a couple of individuals but bad for most of the french readers.

author 3rd January 2010 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revmen (Post 4940175)
Good for a couple of individuals but bad for most of the french readers.

Repeat after me:

If I don't pay the singer, he ain't gonna sing nomore.

lagavulin16 4th January 2010 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by author (Post 4947500)
Repeat after me:

If I don't pay the singer, he ain't gonna sing nomore.

Wrong.

Neenja 17th January 2010 10:30 PM

They are doing exactly what Blockbuster and the library are doing. They buy content and let you read/view it. I've always found it funny that I can buy a DVD and let people rent it from me, but if I let them use the content for free I am breaking the law.

ckreon 17th January 2010 10:49 PM

Just because you can build a fence around something does not make it yours.