*YouTube* accuses someone of breaking *their* terms/ copyright with that download tool?!
Is that the same YouTube that hosts hundreds of thousands (wild guess) copyright-breaking videos on *their* site?
Unbelievable. |
I dare say this has more to do with YouTube covering itself than any concerns they may have with copyright.
Consider this: YouTube has arranged licenses for providing *streamed* online content from many copyright holders (users as well as commerical entities like MTV etc.). I dare say that the fact the YouTube don't allow downloading of the clips is a *very* important part of these agreements.
So really I think, it's a matter of YouTube agressively ensuring that they don't break *their* own agreements with copyright holders. If they're seen as allowing this sort of thing people like Universal and BMG are going to get unhappy quickly. |
What about those services that allow you to download YouTube Videos?
http://keepvid.com/ for instance... |
Just because TechCrunch is the only site to announce that they've received a C&D, doesn't mean the rest haven't as well.
Even if that *is* the case, it certainly doesn't mean they'll be the last. Perhaps places like KeepVid aren't keen to advertise that their existence is threatened – or maybe TechCrunch is just more visible...? |
I don't think this is anything to do with copyright. It's to do with YouTube's business model.
Their business model is not to have raw videos downloaded and played freely outside of YouTube. |
The TechCrunch "YouTube Video Download Tool" is still up, and works well by the way:
http://www.techcrunch.com/get-youtube-movie/ |
YouTube has to do this to avoid "knowledge" of infringement (which often equates with consent in court)
What's most interesting that TechCrunch did not use their service to create this tool, so I don't think they broke a Terms of Service agreement. |
"Not that I think that that’s bad; I think that copyright laws need to be changed to honor this type of – commercially non-threatening – hobby remixing"
Copyright law already allows for Fair Use and Parody. Also, the individual copyright owner can adopt a more flexible license if they choose to.
I agree with the default copyright law being strong, and putting the onus on the user to seek permission, rather than the creator to police violations. |
What I meant is, for example, when you upload a video you shot yourself, with a 2-minute music piece from Madonna. This is what you often see on YouTube – people take longer music titles and stick em to their videos. Now this isn't fair use, it's too much for that, at least it's not how I think the US laws consider fair use. But I think it also doesn't threaten the sales of Madonna, so it's commercially non-threatening to her (you might argue it increases her sales, because she gets free promotion). If you could only sue on the basis of "commercial threats" ("I'm selling less due to this guy's usage in the YouTube video") then we'd have a very different copyright law.
But yeah, it would be a start to just interpret "fair use" more in favor of the accused, and maybe in ways where it doesn't depend on how much money you have to pay a lawyer! |
Michael Arrington – in the comments:
Steven – I have no intention of fighting YouTube on this. If they want it down, I’ll take it down. **I don’t want to be put on a black list with Google PR.**
Hummm... so Google wins this by intimidation... if they did it to Michael Arrington who is no kid – what can they do to others?
|
Philipp, what you are arguing for exists as Fair Use. The benchmark for using audio is about 30 seconds, but the actual rule states that Fair Use is based on whether or not you damaged the ability of the creator to benefit from their work.
So, your example of music playing in the background of a user generated video may just be Fair Use.
But again, I still think the burden should be on the borrower to make sure they are well within Fair Use. |
