Embedding youtubes could be a felony? WTF?

[ElNono]

I understand enough to form the opinion that copyright infringement is theft.

I already know you have no clue what copyright law is.

You still have you to make a valid point why I should "stop calling it theft".

The point was already made when the copyright law was enacted and the crime was called 'copyright infringement' instead of 'theft'. Probably the reason why actual prosecutors charge people with 'copyright infringement' instead of 'theft'. That somehow that escapes you it's not my problem nor worth any more of my time.

But you did single me out using my name.
I have it in quotes.
It's on this very page.

I was replying to Manny, who singled you out.
I have it in quotes.
It's on this very page.

I have no problem accepting I was wrong or misinformed.

Okay.

So you are saying I'm not man enough to admit I'm ignorant and don't know that I am wrong.

It's a scenario that's been quite prevalent around here lately, that's why I pointed out it's not uncommon. Like Wild Cobra trying to compare sound waves through a medium and photons in outer space.

Again, nothing personal.

[fyatuk]

It should be, if anything, a misdemeanor, especially if said website is not used for commercial gain.

If you know something is illegally uploaded and embed it, you're basically an accessory to copyright violation, and should be held accountable as such. I would see it demanding more of a monetary penalty than a criminal one. But yeah, felony level jail time would be pretty stupid.

[ElNono]

Not really. The intended purpose of YouTube is to allow distribution of materials that the uploader has the copyright for. The terms of service clearly defines what rights you are granting to YouTube (i.e. royalty free distribution as long as it's posted) and requires you to own the copyright of the material.

As long as it's the copyright holder uploading, playing, linking, embedding, etc, are all perfectly legal under YouTube's terms of service.

This bill is attacking video's uploaded by someone other than the copyright holder. TV episodes, sporting event broadcasts, newsclips, etc, uploaded by random people.

The problem though it's determining that the content is indeed all yours. It can be difficult at times, as I pointed out in the nephew example above. Unless it's clearly spelled out, you could be liable. The difference would be that before YouTube would just bring down the video, but now you could be facing charges. Now, intent obviously matter, and that's why there's a distinction on willful or non-willful infringement, but the penalties are there for either case under copyright law.

Now, as far as this bill specifically, it goes into linking to a video. So, how does this not apply to search engines too?

[Blake]

But if it does occur, too bad for those people, right?

not so much.

Why? What is wrong in your world with the free flow of information?

Depends on what you are doing.

I wouldn't worry at all about embedding a standard youtube clip on a messageboard.

I'd worry though about uploading a movie from a torrent site.

[ElNono]

Would an animated gif be considered video? Is my sig a felony?

[Blake]

I already know you have no clue what copyright law is.

I know enough now to have pwned you in the other thread.

Nothing personal.

The point was already made when the copyright law was enacted and the crime was called 'copyright infringement' instead of 'theft'. Probably the reason why actual prosecutors charge people with 'copyright infringement' instead of 'theft'. That somehow that escapes you it's not my problem nor worth any more of my time.

I very, very clearly explained I was not talking about theft in the legal sense but in the colloquial sense. I actually used the word "colloquial".

You did waste a lot of you time trying to tell me otherwise.

I was replying to Manny, who singled you out.
I have it in quotes.
It's on this very page.

Who you were replying to is irrelevant.
You used my name.
You singled me out.
I have it in quotes.
It's on the previous page.

Okay.

k.

It's a scenario that's been quite prevalent around here lately, that's why I pointed out it's not uncommon. Like Wild Cobra trying to compare sound waves through a medium and photons in outer space.

Again, nothing personal.

You are wrong about me being wrong about my opinion.

even though you singled me out and look butthurt, I don't take your ignorance personal.

[Blake]

.

[Blake]

Would an animated gif be considered video? Is my sig a felony?

Doubtful it's a felony, but is there a copyright on the gif in your sig?

[LnGrrrR]

If you can prove that you are embedding a youtube video in good faith that you aren't infringing on a copyright, you have nothing to worry about.

How would one prove "good faith" in a court of law? Just curious.

If it's not a full watchable broadcast of the event/movie and it's shown to be incidentally in the background, I can't see that you would need such permission, but in the end it would depend on the video.

I'm again surprised at your ignorance in an area that I (and you) assumed you to be an expert in.

I do believe that music companies have tried to go after people who have had music in the bg of their podcasts/youtube submissions/etc etc.

Youtube has found a unique way around that:

http://mashable.com/2009/01/14/youtube-mutes-videos/

http://www.4rticle.com/copyright-inf...be-109926.html

... but not every video is uplinked from Youtube.

[ElNono]

I know enough now to have pwned you in the other thread.

your opinion on what cons utes 'ownage' is as good as your opinion on anything related to copyright infringement: worthless.

I very, very clearly explained I was not talking about theft in the legal sense but in the colloquial sense. I actually used the word "colloquial".

Well, we just happened to be talking law, not English.

You did waste a lot of you time trying to tell me otherwise.

I did. My fault.

Who you were replying to is irrelevant.

Might be irrelevant to you, not to me. Otherwise I wouldn't have replied to Manny's post.

You are wrong about me being wrong about my opinion.

even though you singled me out and look butthurt, I don't take your ignorance personal.

I wasn't even replying to you or your post, even though I had the chance to. That's how butthurt I was

I was replying to Manny. You don't have to agree with the opinion I have of you when it comes to legalese.

[LnGrrrR]

Not really. The intended purpose of YouTube is to allow distribution of materials that the uploader has the copyright for.

That may have been the original purpose of Youtube, but I'd say Youtube's current purpose has far exceeded its humble origins.

This bill is attacking video's uploaded by someone other than the copyright holder. TV episodes, sporting event broadcasts, newsclips, etc, uploaded by random people.

Which is done by how many thousands of users daily? I don't really think we need to invest a ton of resources fighting a low-level crime that occurs so often.

[ElNono]

Doubtful it's a felony, but is there a copyright on the gif in your sig?

You're the expert. Is there?

[LnGrrrR]

You're the expert. Is there?

I'm pretty sure there's a copyright on that somewhere.

Speaking of which, for now on, consider all my posts copyrighted as well as trademarked.

I will vigorously defend these trademarks and copyrights, and make sure that anyone who quotes me does so only with my permission.

If you would like to quote one of my posts, please send me a PM with a polite request, marking the post, where and how many times you'd like to reproduce it, and for what reasons.

Thanks in advance!

[Stringer_Bell]

Without reading what any of your pork eating heathens think about this issue, I just wanted to say...

The war on copyright infringement is completely useless and a last ditch effort by the elite to squeeze a few thousand dollars out of people by fining them for 1) they hardly know about and 2) that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. No one is CREATING new anyway, they just want to find ways to own and tax it. Totally useless and not helpful to this helpless country if something like this passes.

Tbqfh

[ElNono]

If you can prove that you are embedding a youtube video in good faith that you aren't infringing on a copyright, you have nothing to worry about.

Wrong. non-willfull copyright infringement is still a punishable offense. See:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...h/952304p.html

The state of mind of the infringer is relevant, if at all, only to the award of damages. Although it is not entirely clear from the way the argument is structured in C.H.L.R.'s brief, we will assume that the contention is that there is a genuine issue of material fact (or that C.H.L.R. was not on notice that it should offer evidence to show one) on the question whether the infringements were unknowing, that is, "innocent," rather than knowing or "willful." "Innocent" and "willful" are terms of art in copyright law. If proved, innocence or willfulness may have a bearing on the amount of statutory damages awarded but cannot affect liability.

If it's not a full watchable broadcast of the event/movie and it's shown to be incidentally in the background, I can't see that you would need such permission, but in the end it would depend on the video.

I'm again surprised at your ignorance in an area that I (and you) assumed you to be an expert in.

I know the answer to the question(s). I wanted the colloquial opinion of the expert.

[fyatuk]

The problem though it's determining that the content is indeed all yours. It can be difficult at times, as I pointed out in the nephew example above. Unless it's clearly spelled out, you could be liable. The difference would be that before YouTube would just bring down the video, but now you could be facing charges. Now, intent obviously matter, and that's why there's a distinction on willful or non-willful infringement, but the penalties are there for either case under copyright law.

If you are trying to make money, then yes it is, most likely. If it's not the focal point of the video and you are not trying to make money, then it almost definitely falls under "fair use" ( le 17, section 107) via test 1 (non-commercial use) and 3 (portion of the whole). Fair Use is a gamble to rely on, of course, but it'd almost assuredly be granted to any video where the image capture would be deemed incidental.

Now, as far as this bill specifically, it goes into linking to a video. So, how does this not apply to search engines too?

The bill does not specifically mention linking, which usually isn't classified as "distribution" and certainly can't be construed as "public performance." So linking certainly wouldn't fall in the new jail-time scenario painted by this bill. The legality or unlegality of linking wouldn't really change. In fact, this bill is just repeating a clause already on the books for music and applying it to public performances of other media.

As for search engines, even so they would be immune. Since they are run via automated routines, there can be no "willfullness" and hence no crime under le 17, section 506.

That may have been the original purpose of Youtube, but I'd say Youtube's current purpose has far exceeded its humble origins.

Which is done by how many thousands of users daily? I don't really think we need to invest a ton of resources fighting a low-level crime that occurs so often.

Quite true. I'm just saying that YouTube is still used for it's intended purpose by thousands of people. It becomes a significantly smaller enterprise, but it doesn't cease to exist as ElNono said.

[fyatuk]

<cut for copyright joke>

Just to point out, your posts are already technically copyrighted.

And a post is not eligible for TM.

[Blake]

How would one prove "good faith" in a court of law? Just curious.

Based on youtube policies and the knowledge that they actively remove copyrighted material.

[ElNono]

If you are trying to make money, then yes it is, most likely. If it's not the focal point of the video and you are not trying to make money, then it almost definitely falls under "fair use" ( le 17, section 107) via test 1 (non-commercial use) and 3 (portion of the whole). Fair Use is a gamble to rely on, of course, but it'd almost assuredly be granted to any video where the image capture would be deemed incidental.

I'm in agreement that 107.3 is the likely tier breaker to make it fall under the Fair Use limitation. 107.1 could bear some weight, but ultimately it's not a deciding factor.

The bill does not specifically mention linking, which usually isn't classified as "distribution" and certainly can't be construed as "public performance." So linking certainly wouldn't fall in the new jail-time scenario painted by this bill. The legality or unlegality of linking wouldn't really change. In fact, this bill is just repeating a clause already on the books for music and applying it to public performances of other media.

17.506.3 already provides for criminal video distribution. This bill is actually changing le 18, and the adding stiffer penalties for "public performance" (which is a really loose term).

EDIT: After reading the bill again, it also broadens the scope of 17.506.3 to include the figure of unauthorized public performance.

Embedding is no different than linking. An embedded video is actually a link to a video that the browser renders in place.

As for search engines, even so they would be immune. Since they are run via automated routines, there can be no "willfullness" and hence no crime under le 17, section 506.

That's really up to interpretation, and that's what I don't like about open-ended definitions like that. If we start by the fact that every work is inherently copyrighted, unless the search engine has an actual rights waiver on the specific videos it embeds, you can construe that they were willingly linking to copyrighted videos.

[Blake]

your opinion on what cons utes 'ownage' is as good as your opinion on anything related to copyright infringement: worthless.

seeing someone get butthurt over my opinion has value to me.

Well, we just happened to be talking law, not English.

and that clarification was made in the other thread.

I did. My fault.

truly.

way to man up to yourself.

Might be irrelevant to you, not to me. Otherwise I wouldn't have replied to Manny's post.

It's irrelevant to the fact you singled me out.

You used one single name in the post. Mine.

It's still there in quotes.

I wasn't even replying to you or your post, even though I had the chance to. That's how butthurt I was

I was replying to Manny. You don't have to agree with the opinion I have of you when it comes to legalese.

if you misspoke, just man up and admit it to avoid further pwnage.

otherwise, you very very clearly singled me out.

[ElNono]

You still don't know what you're talking about.

lol good faith

[Blake]

Wrong. non-willfull copyright infringement is still a punishable offense. See:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...h/952304p.html

The state of mind of the infringer is relevant, if at all, only to the award of damages. Although it is not entirely clear from the way the argument is structured in C.H.L.R.'s brief, we will assume that the contention is that there is a genuine issue of material fact (or that C.H.L.R. was not on notice that it should offer evidence to show one) on the question whether the infringements were unknowing, that is, "innocent," rather than knowing or "willful." "Innocent" and "willful" are terms of art in copyright law. If proved, innocence or willfulness may have a bearing on the amount of statutory damages awarded but cannot affect liability.

Since we are talking about criminal charges in this thread, that's what I was referring to, but I will elaborate.

"You should have nothing to worry about from a criminal standpoint."

It is absolutely a defense to the prosecution to say that you acted in good faith that you had no idea you were infringing on copyrighted material.

I agree that civil suits are a different matter.

I know the answer to the question(s). I wanted the colloquial opinion of the expert.

I gave you plenty of colloquial opinions from experts in law and politics.

If you failed to even read through them, that's on you.

But if you really want them again, I will be glad to copy and paste from the other thread.

[LnGrrrR]

If you are trying to make money, then yes it is, most likely. If it's not the focal point of the video and you are not trying to make money, then it almost definitely falls under "fair use" ( le 17, section 107) via test 1 (non-commercial use) and 3 (portion of the whole). Fair Use is a gamble to rely on, of course, but it'd almost assuredly be granted to any video where the image capture would be deemed incidental.

It hasn't worked for music, it seems. The music is either muted or the user has ads placed there by youtube to give money to the copyright holder.

Quite true. I'm just saying that YouTube is still used for it's intended purpose by thousands of people. It becomes a significantly smaller enterprise, but it doesn't cease to exist as ElNono said.

Youtube as society has come to know it would cease to exist. It would become a fringe website. That's what ElNoNo is getting at.

[LnGrrrR]

Just to point out, your posts are already technically copyrighted.

And a post is not eligible for TM.

It defeats the purpose of the joke to explain it.

[LnGrrrR]

Based on youtube policies and the knowledge that they actively remove copyrighted material.

I don't think "I didn't know it was wrong because I thought Youtube was doing my job of screening the copyright for me" would hold up in court.