Embedding youtubes could be a felony? WTF?

[Winehole23]

Am I infringing on the profitability of Fame, or enhancing its visibility in my peer group?

You decide.

[Winehole23]

Marketing the product for free, as it were.

[Winehole23]

A message of truth. Its time is overdue.

[fyatuk]

The concern that Mike Masnick had in the original Techdirt piece is that "public performance" is not clearly defined.

Just to point out, the legal definition of "public performance" is this:

To perform or display a work ‘‘publicly’’ means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

Whether that's clear or not, I'll leave for others to judge. Just providing the definition from within the US code.

[ElNono]

Just to point out, the legal definition of "public performance" is this:

Whether that's clear or not, I'll leave for others to judge. Just providing the definition from within the US code.

Thanks.

[Blake]

apparently ASCAP has been trying to get 3rd party embedders to get public performance licenses....

.......Apparently, the ASCAP believes that “giving and obtaining permission” no longer includes embedding videos on Web sites, as the ASCAP currently wants to charge individual Web sites a fee for using these videos — even after they won a $1.6 million lawsuit from YouTube in 2009 over the licensing of music watched on the site. The lawsuit includes a stipulation that YouTube pays the ASCAP $70,000 a month, in addition to the $1.6 million, so viewers can watch music videos uploaded to the site, according to a report by Techdirt.

Now, the ASCAP is setting its sites on those who share these YouTube videos on blogs and other Web sites — even though the embedded clips are used as a link to the original file and the view count still registers with YouTube. The team at YouTube recently sent out this memo on the topic.

“There have been a few questions in the forum regarding ASCAP and we wanted to provide our perspective on the issue. We have become aware of yet another misguided effort on the part of ASCAP to double dip — this time by pressuring third-party websites which embed YouTube videos to pay royalties to ASCAP. We believe there is no legal basis for ASCAP's position because YouTube itself is currently licensed by ASCAP pursuant to its application made under the an rust consent decree that governs ASCAP's operations. The license requested by YouTube covers all US public performances of ASCAP music in YouTube videos from YouTube's servers all the way through to the end user, regardless of whether a third-party website is embedding the YouTube player. We believe that YouTube has already cleared any necessary public performance rights for US playbacks of ASCAP songs, and ASCAP's attempt to collect an additional payment from another party for the very same stream is not credible.
Regards,
YouTube Team"

Hopefully this attack from the ASCAP will be thrown out if it ever reaches a court of law.......

http://www.somanymp3s.com/ascap-yout...bedded-videos/

apparently it's not going so well for ASCAP in that regard

[Blake]

Spewstalk needs to ban the giggling got face from ever being used in here again.

"God I wish I knew how to quit you, giggling got face emoticon"

[ElNono]

That ASCAP claim and the YouTube ruling dates back to 2009.

I don't think YouTube has a similar arrangement with the MPAA or other video content producers though.

[Blake]

That ASCAP claim and the YouTube ruling dates back to 2009.

I don't think YouTube has a similar arrangement with the MPAA or other video content producers though.

right, ASCAP went after 3rd party embedders two years ago to get licenses and two years later they still do not have those licenses.

[ElNono]

right, ASCAP went after 3rd party embedders two years ago to get licenses and two years later they still do not have those licenses.

As explained back then, they seemingly licensed the right as part of the $70,000 a month they receive from YouTube out of their successful litigation.

It actually makes a case that embedding can be construed as a "public performance" requiring a license (since YouTube is paying for it). Now, ASCAP deals mostly with the music industry. Not quite sure what's the equivalent for the movie industry.

[Blake]

It actually makes a case that embedding can be construed as a "public performance" requiring a license (since YouTube is paying for it).

They apparently made a pretty weak case in this instance, but at this time, it's gonna depend on who you ask.

....First, it's important to understand what an embedded YouTube video is -- it's a link. Just a link. Nothing but a link. In fact, here's the entire html code needed to embed EFF's Corruptibles video into a blog:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8-5INcUuoEs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8-5INcUuoEs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Taking a look at the actual code makes one thing obvious: no copy of the YouTube video is being stored on your server (only the HTML code for the embed). The video stays on, and is streamed from, YouTube's servers....

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/07...-and-copyright

It's why in this day and age, "public performance" needs to be more specifically defined than just leaving it to two lousy wide open definitions.

especially if they are going to allow for criminal prosecution of such.

[ElNono]

They apparently made a pretty weak case in this instance, but at this time, it's gonna depend on who you ask.

It's why in this day and age, "public performance" needs to be more specifically defined than just leaving it to two lousy wide open definitions.

especially if they are going to allow for criminal prosecution of such.

Absolutely agree. And I do believe that embed = link, as the EFF mentioned.
Now, clarifying anything just isn't in the big media best interests though. Any and every loophole available that can be used as leverage to extract one more payment is a plus. And with the government seemingly in bed with them, I just can't see anybody opposing them.

[fyatuk]

It's why in this day and age, "public performance" needs to be more specifically defined than just leaving it to two lousy wide open definitions.

especially if they are going to allow for criminal prosecution of such.

Breaking a command down to it's source code to classify it as a simpler thing is wrong. In the end, everything breaks down to 1's and 0's anyway. Yes, anyone who knows anything about how the web works knows that embedding is a specialty type of linking. But there's a fundamental difference in execution between generic linking and embedding.

Generic linking redirects you to a site.

Embedding shows you the content from another site.

Embedding a video clearly falls under clause 2 of the public performance definition, as long as the site that embeds the video is publically accessible.

The question is whether more generic linking also does. You can make an argument for that based on the wording of clause 2, since linking could be construed as "otherwise communicating," if you want to take a vary liberal interpretation. There are several ways to argue that on either side.

[Blake]

Breaking a command down to it's source code to classify it as a simpler thing is wrong. In the end, everything breaks down to 1's and 0's anyway. Yes, anyone who knows anything about how the web works knows that embedding is a specialty type of linking. But there's a fundamental difference in execution between generic linking and embedding.

Generic linking redirects you to a site.

Embedding shows you the content from another site.

Embedding a video clearly falls under clause 2 of the public performance definition, as long as the site that embeds the video is publically accessible.

The question is whether more generic linking also does. You can make an argument for that based on the wording of clause 2, since linking could be construed as "otherwise communicating," if you want to take a vary liberal interpretation. There are several ways to argue that on either side.

Yeah, I can see how embedding can fall under clause 2.

I can also see how embedding can be seen as just slightly more of a public performance in that manner than generic linking to the clip. The difference in the amount of effort that a viewer can see the clip is just one extra mouse click.

It's why "public performance" needs to be more clearly defined under different types.

[fyatuk]

Yeah, I can see how embedding can fall under clause 2.

I can also see how embedding can be seen as just slightly more of a public performance in that manner than generic linking to the clip. The difference in the amount of effort that a viewer can see the clip is just one extra mouse click.

It's why "public performance" needs to be more clearly defined under different types.

I can definitely agree with that. Legal definitions are often extremely vague and allow way too much leeway.

Reading through the definitions sections of the US code is a study in speaking vaguely.

[LnGrrrR]

Whether that's clear or not, I'll leave for others to judge. Just providing the definition from within the US code.

I wuld argue that part 2 is a little fuzzy.

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

If this is the definition provided, could anything on a website/the Internet be considered a "private" performance? (Obviously not counting stuff saved on a server or some private storage.)

[LnGrrrR]

It's why in this day and age, "public performance" needs to be more specifically defined than just leaving it to two lousy wide open definitions.

especially if they are going to allow for criminal prosecution of such.

Agreed, but good luck defining that down.

[LnGrrrR]

I can also see how embedding can be seen as just slightly more of a public performance in that manner than generic linking to the clip. The difference in the amount of effort that a viewer can see the clip is just one extra mouse click.

Embedding can also allow one to view videos they might not be able to. (Say, for instance, a website was blocked by a local proxy; one could embed the video in a site that was allowed.)

[Blake]

Agreed, but good luck defining that down.

at this rate it might be 2021 before they implement definitions that make sense for 2011.

[Blake]

Embedding can also allow one to view videos they might not be able to. (Say, for instance, a website was blocked by a local proxy; one could embed the video in a site that was allowed.)

sure.

for the purposes of the thread, in that case, by blocking the original website, the administrators of the local proxy helped strengthen their chances of being found not guilty if felony charges were ever brought on them.

[ElNono]

A new spin on this:

Copyright Crackdown Threatens Youtube Lip-Syncing

[greyforest]

A new spin on this:

Copyright Crackdown Threatens Youtube Lip-Syncing

the article conveniently doesn't mention it's a proposed felony