In some jurisdictions, the link is enough of an infringement. Copyright is not a chilling effect, it’s something that permits artists and creators to—when they choose to—exploit their work to whatever gain they see fit.
Also, we’ve politely asked Chill not to do that anymore. If you’ve got a problem with that, we can go sleddin’ and you can tell me why you think my farts are 10-ply.
I fully agree with you here, Your definition is about where I draw the line too. Glad to see you are helping to police the forum. We certainly do not want to see it shut down over this sort of thing.
@TheGuyWhoLovesChill being shut down is a real issue if any copy-write owner takes offence to what is on this site. I agree with @neuro here. Nobody wants to stop you from an active role in the community but please stop posting copyrighted material.
It’s a nice shirt. I do share the sentiment but I’m not sure the phrase “grow up” is correct (ever notice utterances like “oh, grow up” and “real mature! /s” are made disproportionately by preteens…just something to ponder). If the meaning is refusing to conform to societal norms then I wholeheartedly agree!
I’m not liking how knowledge by consensus, and that being motivated mostly by fear, has been becoming our societal norm for quite some time now (despite warnings from Huxley, but hey,who has time to read books now…gah :() That may actually be the core issue (?).
Our society now demands adamant opinions immediately and many do not have the time to think about positions before adopting them. For example, did anyone consider that google uses a technology called content ID to vet the videos they host on youtube (and in some cases even pay the appropriate royalties if necessary) or that this site is protected by safe harbour laws (known as frameworks internationally) should any of us forum users actually do anything wrong?
Nobody is doing anything wrong from an ethical or legal perspective by sharing content from youtube here. Any content. In fact, personally, as a Canadian I’ve benefited greatly from people sharing their UK and European cultures on these forums. That’s not wrong and that should be encouraged. Especially derivative works; Some of the best pieces are just that. For example I wish someone would make a death metal cover (I’m talentless and can’t :() of The Rainbow Connection because that’s exactly what plays in my mind whenever I see a thread like this one.
Thank you for insulting my intelligence for insinuating that I generally don’t think about what I post before posting.
This is highly dependent on what content providers have provided fingerprints to YouTube, and how those fingerprints translate to varying versions of content. To specifically address the Mark Knopfler concert posted, his record label(s) may have provided fingerprints for the studio recorded versions of the songs performed, but the concert production company and/or the TV network may not have done so (or been able to).
DMCA Safe Harbor legislation protects website operators from prosecution over copyright infringement, yes, but the protections aren’t automatic. The site must be registered with the USPTO, have a DMCA Designated Agent assigned (usually a copyright attorney, at your own expense), and have a DMCA notice on the site advising copyright holders how to contact the site to request a takedown. To my knowledge, these things have not occurred for this site.
I know it’s nice to dream about how the world could be, and should be, but some of us need to deal with the realities of the world as it exists right now, so at the very least out of courtesy for that, can we please refrain from the continued linking to and posting of egregiously infringing material to a) protect the integrity of the forum, and b) protect the owners of the forum from unnecessary risk and hassle?
I’m not saying this shit because I’m an arsehole or a fucking idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, I’m saying this shit because I actually like the people who run and inhabit this forum. Consider that please before you start assuming I’m some fucking tyrant (I’m not) abusing power (I have none) and trying to destroy people’s fun.
I understand that, as do I. At worst, the law views them as service provider intermediaries. Nowhere does the language refer to “infringer” as anything other than the original uploader. Meh, I’m not your mom though so if you truly give a shit you can do your own research. I suggest starting with Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter and eBay v.MercExchange. Or, y’know, just use common sense and ask yourself why there’s a share/embed button under youtube videos.
Let’s focus on what you’re saying here in these forms though. Am I right in construing your statements in the thread to @TheGuyWhoLovesChill as a constructive cease and desist? Further, that what constitutes infringement here is to be determined by a bunch of non lawyer/paralegals on a tech forum? I’m not going to ask on whose authority because as an independent site (not government, not registered not for profit, health related, etc. etc.) the owner(s) of the forum are within full rights to make and enforce almost any rules they wish.
Yet I would appreciate it greatly if you were to clarify just what you are proposing for the future of the Bad Voltage forums? I’d like you to state it publicly please.
Please do note I stepped in on the conversation stating that I thought chilling effects were the true problem…because this is exactly how they work
YouTube was created so people could share their own videos, content that they themselves have created. Why is there a share button on every article on the New York Times site? So that people can create wholesale copies of copyrighted material?
Yes? I have asked politely, in fear for this community’s safety. Moderators have asked politely. A presenter has asked politely. At some point, repeatedly doing what multiple people have asked not to be done goes from being a community-minded content sharer to a committed wilful negligence actor.
That’s neither here nor there; what’s relevant is what can be actionable under the DMCA, and this site is not DMCA-compliant (and I’ll wager a shitload of others aren’t either). Safe Harbor applies to links to infringing content under 17 U.S.C. § 512(d), but the protections only apply once the actions I described previously are undertaken: agent registration, policy publication, etc.
The so-called “red flag test” also applies: in this scenario, as soon as someone operating or moderating this site becomes aware that infringing material is being hosted or linked to, 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(a)(iii) applies, and the material (or link to material) must be “expeditiously” removed or disabled, so as to remove “service provider” liability.
I’m proposing that people please stop fucking about and abide by what the community is asking.
And at some point, @TheGuyWhoLovesChill, you’re either going to have to stand up and apologise for what you did, or just straight up tell me to fuck off.
Firstly, our conversation here on the thread has nothing to do with @TheGuyWhoLovesChill other than I don’t like it when I see someone shamed for something I do not believe them in the wrong for. I don’t know the guy at all, we’re not PMing or on IRC or anything. This is not coordinated. So if you’ve a problem with anything I’m saying, you’ve a problem with me exclusively. Tee hee, I’ll warn you it’s quite a line of people who’ve got a problem with me you’re going to have to get in though The ‘good’ (depending how you look at it) news is, it’s almost never reciprocal
They’re there so that people can link to, share, the content. When you embed a youtube video, you are not making a wholesale copy of the video on your server and serving it yourself, you are merely linking to it. Further, a decade in, do you not think they’ve noticed people are uploading videos that they personally did not make? For example this video has been on youtube since 2009:
Does it make sense that youtube has simply not noticed it? That Children’s Workshop, known for fiercely protecting the Sesame Street brand, just doesn’t care? Or would it make more sense that the childrens workshop foundation is actually receiving royalties each time that video is viewed either on youtube or as embedded on a forum, blog, etc.? I hope you’ll agree that the latter makes the most sense because that is what is happening with content ID
Our technologies are expansive and we are being urged to keep up with that expansion. There are many facets of that statement but sometimes it’s a good thing, like in this case; Hoarding behaviour is being proven as no longer the only viable way to make money
Ok, that is confirmed then. That happened.
Well, I’m not sure how one can both be willful and negligent, but I assume you mean you’ve interpreted passive resistance to your demands as hostility. I honestly don’t think the intent was hostile; We’re all friends here In fact, it is my hope that the situation not being as black and white as simply pointing a finger at anyone who shares a youtube video and screaming “Pirate! You’ll bring doom upon us all!!!” becomes clear though my participation in this thread (i.e. most people don’t even know google pays royalties though youtube, etc.)
Yes, yes it very much is. In any legal related matter. I’m just going to have to ask you to take my word on that.
Do I think that level of protection is necessary? Do I interpret what’s being done on this forum as actionable at all? Personally, no. Again though, neither of us are lawyers. However, it’s 80 bucks to register if one of the forum owners wishes to register themselves and Bytemark, owner of the servers, is already.(I used to run (read:repeatedly break) a pump.io instance and used be a Bytemark customer myself). ‘Problem’ already solved
We’re still in disagreement over whether an infringement is taking place by the posting of youtube videos here.
I was actually asking for a reason. I don’t care that much myself, but it seems that you’ve quite an interest in IP and how this community handles it. Let’s talk about that. Let’s all talk about it and I envision eventually we’ll come to an agreement on points that can become questions for some sort of poll that that the community can take. The community. I expect this community hasn’t a policy for dealing with IP yet as we are still able to post youtube videos, you’re allowed still to use your avitar featuring the likeness of Kevin Smith (Righteous!, BTW), etc. etc. Like I said before, this is a privately owned forum and the owners are free to make and enforce any rules they wish. Let’s not waste the time of some very busy people until we know what exact actions we as a community wish to request they take though. That was my reason for asking you to clarify what you’re proposing, and I’m asking you again please?
You’re welcome, but I’m also doing this for the community as a whole and of course my own benefit
Truly…mostly my own benefit and beliefs if I’m to be honest. Also, hey!, I need prayers too! I need all the prayers I can get!!! Please pray for my safety at work tonight, that the homeless people I encounter find peace and solutions, and most of all that nobody dies on my shift.
Thanks and bless
I don’t have a problem with you, and only a mild problem with what you’re saying. I don’t have the energy at nearly 2am to go through everything you’ve said, other than to say I don’t think you’re really addressing the DMCA takedown and followup concerns I have. Linking to infringing material is very much something that the DMCA covers, which I why I mentioned the specific legislation.
Over 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, so yeah, that makes sense.
Content ID only works if the fingerprints exists for a content match to occur.
One can be wilfully negligent.
Which means nothing since the Discourse instance is hosted on an OVH server in Canada.
Excuse me for a moment while I a) avail myself of fair use doctrine, and b) make a point:
Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
I would like it if people didn’t embed, link to or host entire movies and concerts and albums here, because since there are no DMCA safeguards in place, someone can just come along and zap the fuck out of the server. I mean it’s unlikely due to the size of the community, but why chance it? And is it really this community’s ethos to deny copyright holders their rights to exploit their material, as I’ve tried to make clear? I’m pretty sure movie studios don’t get royalties from YouTube when someone watches a DVD rip there.
Anyway. Sleep calls. I’ve made my position as clear as I think I can make it.
Took you four days to do that, and the main point really, really wasn’t about copyright infringement per se, but you continuing to do something a few people asked you not to, like really politely, and your attitude every time towards me has been quite rotten. You seem to think I’m doing this out of some personal vendetta, as you’ve alluded to previously. I’m not. I am desperately not trying to be some unauthorised policeman waving a stick about and hitting anyone I please; I’m trying to help protect this community from anything that can harm it.
The reason the conversation was still going was … well, because the conversation was still going.
Again, please don’t think that I am trying to knock you down, because I am not.