> by YouTube’s own rules, YouTube cannot exist
Bullshit. There are all sorts of videos uploaded to YouTube by their authors.
You tube was originally created to help people share their home videos (we all know the story), and today YouTube has a huge community of video bloggers. Tons of people don't even know other side of YouTube. Video bloggers have thousand of subscribes – almost all top 100 most subscribed channels of all time belongs to video bloggers, with an exception of some channels owned by mainstream media (but again – still legal).
I know that there are many videos uploaded without knowledge of their authors, but that's just one side of YouTube. |
"taking into effect mostly the actual commercial impact redistribution has to the content creator"
"Fair use" already takes that into account. Yes, it is subjective, as you pointed out, but how can it not be?
There are precedents for fair use that media companies have followed for years. For instance, with music, a 30 second sample is considered fair use, as long as that is not half the sone. Or with images, publishing a thumbnail copy on the web is considered fair use.
My argument – the burden for staying within fair use should fall on the borrower. Right now, YouTube put the burden on the creator to police fair use, which I believe is unfair. |
Without going so far as calling "BS," I second Mr. Trammer's sentiment in puzzling over what you mean, specifically, by saying that per the terms of use, YouTube could not exist. That, my friend, seems a bit dissonant. |
> Without going so far as calling "BS," I second Mr.
> Trammer's sentiment in puzzling over what you mean
Evan, who do you mean by "you"? (I was quoting from Jeff Atwood.)
But, while I wouldn't go as far as Jeff, I do think that YouTube has a lot of these videos, so they can't be quite too serious about that rule – as it's a huge part of their success story.
> the burden for staying within fair use
> should fall on the borrower.
Hmm... guilty until proven innocent?
> "taking into effect mostly the actual commercial
> impact redistribution has to the content creator"
>
> "Fair use" already takes that into account. Yes, it is
> subjective, as you pointed out, but how can it not be?
No, I think fair use as it is commonly applied is more about the (today ubiquitous) act of copying itself, then market impact... |
Youtube is a cesspool of garbage and worthless drivel. |
