Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Sat 04/05/24 10:23:24 GMT |
Message # 27973.1.1.1.1.1 Subject: Re: copyright law Date: Wed 14/03/07 11:20:02 GMT Name: rono |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
Public german television station (ZDF) has recently decided not to claim it's copyrights on youtube videos. They see it as a form of advertisement when people upload their contents. (Public domain anyway because it was broadcasted alomst cost-free before). I think, this is quite clever at least concerning all cases where contents are postet that you can't buy in a store. Still I think the case is not that clear (for the future, I mean as to change the law) because you never 'own' a copy of the material (you get to see only a sort of an inspection copy) and moreover this copy is of a very minor quality. At the same time a music video for example is a piece of art in itself but at the same time an advertisement spot for the song and the artist. Why don't they see it that way? I found things on youtube that were great and I went straight to the mall to buy them... |
In reply to Message (27973.1.1.1.1) copyright law
By Desert Hawk - Wed 14/03/07 05:27:47 GMT On the Dragon's Lair Project website, we have repeatedly debated the ethics of distributing unauthorized copies of video games no longer made. There are many old games that haven't been sold in many years, some of which the developing companies are no longer in business. The majority of site users, including myself, do not feel that there is anything morally wrong with copying games that are no longer marketed and in all probability never will be again. Hovever, the law is abundantly clear: ANY unauthorized copying of copyrighted material is illegal. Therefore the webmaster there prohibits using the message board to solicit such copying. Regardless of the ethics involved, if a webmaster allows his site to be used for copyright violations, he can be sued or even put in jail. I fully understand his position on the issue. I certainly wouldn't risk being sued or going to jail in order to make available some abandonware video game. I think there should be a change in the copyright law. Any material not actively marketed for so many years should lapse into public domain. Also, the early 80s extension of the duration of copyrights was stupid. In America it used to be that copyrights expired after 28 years. it could be renewed once for an additional years. After 56 years (or 28 if the owner failed to renew it), everythign was public domain. Now copyrights held by individuals are valid for the creator's life plus 50 years, and copyrights held by corporations are valid for 95 years! Ridiculous! Ridiculous or not, we all must obey the law. |
In reply to Message (27973.1.1.1) Re: OT: billion dollar lawsuit against Youtube
By waterspaniel - Tue 13/03/07 23:37:44 GMT Dictionaries are a good example. If you buy a dictionary that says "Webster's", you assume it's the version that Daniel Webster is famous for writing. Wrong. The Webster name is in the public domain and can be put on the cover of any dictionary. The only real Webster's dictionary is Merriam-Webster. Just a simple example of the ins and outs of public domain and copyright. |
In reply to Message (27973.1.1) Re: OT: billion dollar lawsuit against Youtube
By wetnyld - Tue 13/03/07 22:05:04 GMT Unfortunately, as long as they own the copyright, no one else can benefit from it without permission. Also, they have to make their claims to prevent 'dilution'. If people used it without the owner complaining, somewhere along the way it becomes public domain. As in coke and kleenex. They have come into common usage, and copyright owners are too late to stop it. Its a horrible situation, but just think how you would feel if you were a multi-national, multi-billion company and some little guy came a long and found an old clip that you forgot about. You would want a piece of his skin too. |
In reply to Message (27973.1) Re: OT: billion dollar lawsuit against Youtube
By rono - Tue 13/03/07 20:55:44 GMT they are crazy! viacom just deleted a 35 year old televison video recording (of worst quality) of a sly stone gig. you can't even buy it and they removed it because of copyright "violation". I mean someone has to be aggrieved or affeced in any way to call it a violation, or am I wrong?? |
In reply to Message (27973) OT: billion dollar lawsuit against Youtube
By waterspaniel - Tue 13/03/07 20:37:56 GMT Media giant Viacom, which owns, among other things, the cable channels MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon, has filed a one billion dollar lawsuit against Youtube for the unauthorized posting of videos from the channels it owns. It'll be interesting to see what effect, if any, this has on the Youtube site. |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs:
(you can change amount)
|
[ This page took 0.021 seconds to generate ]