Mong said:

Sheesh, why don't you first learn what you are talking about before you open your mouth.

If Youtube would be so 100% "illegal" why wasn't it taken down years ago already, genius?

Because it is NOT 100% illegal. It is for a big part because its USERS upload "illegal" content, but for another substantial part it is not illegal in any way. But you go and IGNORE the facts.

Gwd, the sheer ignorance and bullshit of some folks.

-
[Edited 4/17/10 18:22pm]

Tremolina said:

What's bullshit is that ridiculous excuse and it wouldn't stand up with anything else - in any other criminal case, youtube would be an ACCESSORY. They are enablers for content theft.

Nobody said it was 100% illegal, but a large proportion of their content is. And are you so naive as to suggest that just because something is illegal it gets stamped out immediately? That's just not the real world, is it? Crimes and scams go on all the time, even with large corporations. Just because they haven't been closed down doesn't mean that they are still playing by the rules.

You must be on the payroll, with the way you're defending them. The ignorance here is yours - content creators should be fairly compensated and in youtubes case they are not and people are still fighting with them for what is rightfully theirs. Why you are in support of content theft is beyond me (though, its likely because you are a consumer rather than a creator and therefore enjoy getting stuff for free instead of worrying how you're going to make your next project due to the lack of funds).

Tremolina said:

Your knowledge and grasp of this whole situation could be engraved on a pinhead with room to spare.
[Edited 4/17/10 18:48pm]

Mong said:

Whoohh you go man. That's like totally setting me straight.

Tremolina said:

I think it is very important to note that MTV and Radio do not play the same role that Youtube does.
Radio and MTV play music in a rotation that keeps listeners tuned, that heavily promoted the music in top 10 lists, that promoted a slice of music narrow predetermined blocks to boast ratings. It is advertising supported by advertising. Listeners are able to get a taste of new music if they happened to tune in at the right time. If they liked what the heard they went out and purchased the music to listen at their own convenience. It was a win for everyone.
Youtube takes all that away, heck it even stores it for you so you dont have to carry it with you. Click "favorites" and its there just as if you had gone out and purchased it. There is absolutely no incentive to go out and purchase it.
That is the main problem with Youtube. It usually is the endpoint.
[Edited 4/17/10 19:06pm]

Tremolina said:

You have the attitude of a hobbyist musician who's still pissed off that he never gets to play with the big boys.

You are extremely ignorant of the workings of this world. I've informed you of the basis upon which YouTube was founded, but you only seem inclined to come up with pathetic immature retorts. There really is no educating some people.

Mindflux said:

Wow, getting a bit emotional there are we? Sheesh this a debate not a contest in smeering your opponent and talking ignorant bullshit...

Did I call it an "excuse" and did you answer my question? No, I did not and you did not. You just put words into my mouth and immediately make personal attacks. Simply proving the weakness of your stance.

There are WAY more interests here at stake than you are willing to consider 'mindflux'. It's NOT ONLY about copyright owners.

It's also about technological innovation and the fact that, besides millions of infringements BY ITS USERS, Youtube also offers a platform for millions of NON infringing acts, BY ITS USERS.

That is a FACT and that's not an "excuse" genius, but a GOOD REASON why a court won't just shut it down, without first going through the alternative options of DMCA take down notices and filter systems.


I ask you again: if Youtube is such a massive thief of industry content, why haven' they taken it down already? Why haven't they gone to court already?

Answer that first please before you make another personal attack.


Or go and call your entertainment lawyer if you don't believe me

Sheeesh, it's always the same shit with you. You get into a fight with EVERYBODY


--
[Edited 4/17/10 19:32pm]

Mong said:

Unbelievable. FYI "mong" I HAVE worked FOR many (recording) artists and AGAINST the big boys in the entertainment industry (music, film, TV, books, magazines, internet) a lot, as well as FOR them. So I know very well what can and cannot be done, how it works in practice and how it works by the book. Moreover I have studied and worked with copyright laws from many countries and with the world's finest professors, making the chances of me passing a test in US copyright law like 1000% bigger than yours.

Or tell me: Did you really do the same?


-
[Edited 4/17/10 19:25pm]

Mong said:

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but Tremonlina is a lawyer.

TheVoid said:

Should I put that shit in my sig or something? Gawd...

Oh dear, Tremolina...

Technological innovation = cyber twats trampling all over copyright law to suit their own means then flogging the company on.

Because that's what YouTube is an example of. I don't think you appreciate that YouTube would be nothing without its content. So we're looking at a company that established itself on the illegal usage of content.

You're championing YouTube, as maybe you naively feel that they're "sticking it to the man". But they're shafting artists and songwriters far more than labels and publishers ever have. Have you even seen a royalty statement re streaming? It's a joke. Streaming sites are not the way forward.

Surely it's a creative person's moral right to be able to determine how their material is available. You seem fine championing an organisation which encourages people to assume that right.

TheVoid said:

Who represents YouTube, no doubt.

Scary, a lawyer without the basic capacity to reason without descending into condescending vitriol.

Tremolina said:

Oh don't get me wrong. You being a lawyer and wasting all that sexiness is just a stupid circumstance in a world that makes no sense to begin with.

But being that you are a lawyer, I find it strange that folks can just write off what you say with conjecture, opinion, and hot air.


It would be like somebody trying to extoll the virtues of Micorosoft's SMS software distribution via the substandard Active Directory 'aware' methodology verses Novell's superior Zenworks over e-directory offering via lights out distributions---- bitch please, don't even.

.
[Edited 4/17/10 19:41pm]

Mong said:

There's no proof in that.

Let's not resort to conjecture here. Tremonlina has done nothing but present the facts. Resorting to responding in kind with speculation and fanciful 'theories' doesn't help your case.

Look at it from our point of view. He's keeping his cool, though I admit being sort of an ass, but so far he's got the upper hand because he's speaking the truth.



As far as my point of view--I'm no lawyer, but I if we're going to blame youtube for infringements, why not just go the extra level and blame the browser for enabling this? Or the OS for running the software?

At some point, you have to place responsibility on the end user, and enforce things in a granular fashion. Youtube does take videos down.

I can only imagine the shit Prince gives ben (some of which I can confirm), but to shut the org down because of what some people post isn't a solution.

Mong, even in the Napster case, the court first gave Napster a lot of time to sort matters out with a filter system. Only when it appeared obvious that they were not sufficiently able to completely prevent infringements, the court shut it down.

This is a common way for courts to handle such case and this precedent means that EVEN IF they would go to court, chances are such a system will have to be put in place first, before the court will consider to take it down.

So I also just ask you again mong: why haven't the MPAA and RIAA take Youtube down already?

Mong said:

You know wnat the problem is with you and mindflux? you make these things personal, think completely onesided and ignore everything that doesn't suit you.

Further,you fail to realise that I am not performing my job right now, but that I am merely participating in a discussion on an internet forum and sharing some knowledge in my spare time.

Then you come in and immediately attack me, while also spouting very ignorant things about me. As if you know me already, yet you are compltely wrong. Now to be honest, mong, that's is scary.

TheVoid said:

Ok, I get the hint.

Tremolina i think you will agree that Youtube is in for some major changes sooner than later.
Regardless of the outcome of the Viacom case, when you have deep pockets it always creates a huge reason for someone to come gunning for you especially when most of the complaints of youtube are not entirely baseless are definitely not to be taken lightly.

Tremolina said:

Tremolina said:

Actually, you might care to note that I merely reflected the language you started using. You started making it personal (albeit against mong) talking about bullshit, ignorance and so on - I merely came down to your level.

Fuck - if you're a lawyer, I certainly wouldn't be looking to retain your services! You don't present a cogent argument, or even write that well. Are we supposed to bow down and cower in the knowledge of your profession? You know, there's shitheads in every job and lawyers don't exactly have the greatest reputations either - so, its probably best that you leave that out of your sig, eh?

I did answer your question (inability to grasp what's been said already) and, whilst there are other interests as you say (in an attempt to sidestep no less), my concern is copyright infringement and for good reason. So, excuse me if I get passionate about a subject I have a vested interest in. My stance isn't weak - if it was, then youtube wouldn't be complying and taking down copyrighted material. If you're supposed to be some sort of expert in copyright law, then there is no way you can deny that youtube are allowing (and, possibly, promoting) illegal activity on their site. Mind you, that's just going to keep you in work, so no wonder you relish it.

I get in to "fights" (or rather debates) with some people yes - do they allow exaggeration of facts in court too these days?

violetblues said:

You definetely have a point that Youtube differs from MTV in that it gives users more choices and independence, but there has hardly ever been a music video market, other than MTV, to begin with. Since MTV is still big and paying out, it's not like the record industry is actually losing out loads of money on music video sales.

I have much more sympathy for the movie studios because their interests are much more at stake. They don't have any MTV and they don't have the promotional effect on record sales or concert tickets that Youtube offers the music industry. In my opinion, if they can make it plausible that they are losing out substantially on theater and DVD sales and Youtube, they have the strongest case for a swift injunction.

--
[Edited 4/17/10 20:05pm]

Videos on MTV are just basically an extension of Radio, designed for the same purpose of selling records not the videos themselves.

Back to Prince and his stance, as the copyright holder he has specific legal responsibilities to mitigate his own loss. at the very least it entails reporting copyright infringement so that it can be stopped. But it also requires that he as the copyright holder not actively participate in the alleged infringement. If not then Prince may lose the right to prosecute infringement, and in extreme cases, maybe even lose the right to enforce that copyright altogether.The reason for this is obvious. If the copyright holder isn't concerned to reduce infringement, nobody else should be either. If the copyright holder isn't doing everything in his power to reduce infringement, why should anyone else do anything at all? It's basic equity.
But most importantly if he doesn't want his material on there, he rights to remove them.

.
[Edited 4/17/10 20:15pm]

Tremolina said:

Did you not stop to think that perhaps it IS personal? Its not my problem - the problem is people stealing and reproducing content that they have no right to. I lose money every day because of this - hence, its very personal.

So, yeah, when someone comes on here ostensibly supporting actions that are killing a lot of musicians, sure its personal.

Mindflux said:

So where is your answer then? I don't see it anywhere. Or is it in constantly saying that youtube is a thief?

What mong said was ignorant and was bullshit. And what's between mong and me has got nothing to do with you.

Furhter, what you just did was personally attack me again, after admitting that I never attacked you in the first place. Typical really.

Also, I really don't care that you wouldn't work with me, because that would never happen any way.

Plus, I don't care either what your opinion of me is, nor that you spend half of your posts writing about it, showing that you really have very little to say other than that Youtube is a thief and I am thier lawyer that you would never want to work with.

I do understand the passion behind your arguments. Believe me, I have been there too. On your side. But, that was then and these days I also see the other sides to these controversial issues.

Like the way a court views a case when it is a PROPER court: FROM ALL SIDES, not just from one, like you do.

Not that I really expect you to understand it, because I know from experience that is a hard thing to do when you are on your side. But it would be nice if you could now at least stop the personal attacks and answer the question already:

Why haven't they shut Youtube down already?

Mindflux said:

Show me where I "support" people uploading copyright protect content.

You can't.

As for you losing out. Are you a big name in the industry? Is your stuff played a lot on Youtube?

violetblues said:

Exactly. And in that respect Youtube can have a similar function.

Please NOTE (yes also you Mindlfux) that I am NOT saying this should be FREE. Like radio and MTV, copyright owners should be paid.

But then copyright owners should also cooperate with it and make that happen.





Yes, he definetely has the right to have his material removed but Youtube DOES that when he sends them such requests. They don't hesitate either.

The problem is that this system of take down notices doesn't prevent infringements. And a filter probably wouldn't either. At least not completely.

So either it goes down OR they make a deal.

BTW Prince is NOT obliged to vigorously protect his copyrights wherever he can. Such a thing is in no way a requirement for the owner of copyright. (besides if it were true what you say, you could argue that prince lost some of the rights to his bootlegs because he never takes any meaninghul action against that)

Tremolina said:

Ok, let's calm this down. And may I apologise for any personal attacks.

I did get heated about the "but its the end users" excuse, reason, fact, whatever you want to call it. To me, that is a convenient side-step for youtube. Here in the UK, if you allow an illiegal activity to happen on your property (knowingly, of course) then you are just as guilty as the perpetrators and can be prosecuted and convicted as such. In my view, youtube are allowing the continued posting of illegal content and, hence, they are both culpbable and responsible. Therefore, when I saw you quoting it (and the way you quoted it implied that you believe that to be quite fair), I did get angry about it. But, you have to understand, as a small, independent artist who is trying to make a living out of music, this issue is a hot potato. Its my bread and butter mate so, in essence, people are literally stealing food off my table!

I felt I'd answered your question with this; "Nobody said it was 100% illegal, but a large proportion of their content is. And are you so naive as to suggest that just because something is illegal it gets stamped out immediately? That's just not the real world, is it? Crimes and scams go on all the time, even with large corporations. Just because they haven't been closed down doesn't mean that they are still playing by the rules."

Looking back on that now, perhaps its not a complete answer. My point being, just because youtube (or any other corporation) are engaging in illegal activity, that doesn't mean they are automatically going to get shut down. Far from it. Most companies seem to get fined and slapped on the wrist, but trading is allowed to continue. Possibly in the interests of the economy, who knows? This has already been going on for years with youtube - there appears to be some changes in the right direction (royalties are now being claimed for by the likes of the Performing Rights Society, but even that was only agreed a few months ago.....some 5 years after youtube first started!), but I think there is a long way to go and many people will continue to suffer in the meantime.

So, hopefully that's some way to understanding how and why I feel the way I do about this issue. I'm sorry if I jumped on you, but you seemed to be supporting the very thing that damages my income and then started getting sarcastic and swearing at people so, I'm afriad, I did bite. But, its not really anything personal against you, its more the situation that we're talking about, so my attacks on you were a little mis-guided. I hope, therefore, that we can move on from this positively.

violetblues said:

Yes, I agree. Like I said when I started posted on this thread. They will be forced to either shut it down or make a deal. Can't be much longer before either one of these things happens.

Tremolina said:

Not a big name, no. Is my stuff played on youtube? Yes. However, that's not the main source of losing income.....that would be illegal downloads of my albums. As an example, my not so thorough research (due to lack of funds!) showed that we could see around 25 illegal downloads for every legitimate purchase of the last album. As the research wasn't entirely thorough, its likely it could be worse than that. It doesn't take a maths expert to realise that is a lot of money being lost.

All part of the same thing though - site hosting content that isn't theirs and making it available to people for free, without compensating them. No matter how big or small you are, it hurts financially (and, of course, hurts the smaller guys more).
[Edited 4/17/10 20:38pm]

Mindflux said:

I see your point and understand the feeling, yet it also appears that quite a few smaller or independent artists, and also a growing number of major artists, disagree with the idea of losing out.

I think it's a tough issue to decide. When you look at it from the perspective of "each copy made, but not paid, is money lost" then it is clear that you are losing out. However, it is not a given that each unpaid download would have been bought in stores, or whether that user would have even come across your music, without that filesharing service.

Can I ask you another question, do you offer your music for sale on your own website or through some other platform?