91–100 of 188 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wonder if your claim fell under fair use and it harmed your channel if you could sue for tortious interference? There's some theme park in New Hampshire threatening to go after drone operators even though they don't own the private airspace, however, if it's a business day and full of crowds that a general no no anyways to fly over people. Be funny if that guy sued CBS in some small town court, I doubt they'd even sh…
Youtube in general is not liable for copyright infringement on content posted by users. People love to talk about standing up to legal bullies, but lawyers are expensive. Copyright law is extremely friendly to plaintiffs and generous in terms of damages: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html CBS would totally show up in a small town if they knew that they had a good chance of winning. Their lawyers are alrea…
That's true of trademark, but why do you think that is true of copyright?
- Joe had a negative review of the show, and made several valid points about its lackluster writing and dialogue.
- CBS' streaming service, "All Access" is getting hammered by critics on reddit and blogs. Even after gobbling up Nickelodeon kids programming its still underperforming. A week after Picard aired, CBS released the first episode on Youtube free of charge in order to drum up business.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2017/09/25/cbs-badly...
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/10/16862278/cbs-all-access-s...
(and tangentially: both are right; the "Picard" show is depressingly bad and derivative. I've only watched the first ep, but it had more gratuitous (and cheap looking) martial arts action than several seasons of TNG.)
I can't wait for them to completely destroy every franchise so they are forced to be creative and come up with something new.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it's not fair use if you're making money off of it.
> it's not fair use if you're making money off of it. Nope. Completely untrue. Commercial use weighs against the fair use argument, but it doesn't prevent fair-use. See 2 Live Crew's parody of Pretty Woman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_... . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65GQ70Rf_8Y
Fair Use is not a law, it's a legal defense that you may use during copyright litigation. It does not prevent the litigation from going forward.
And it's generally considered very, very hard to prove Fair Use if the defendant is making money directly off of whatever was made with the borrowed material. So, whereas a teacher who makes copies whole-clothe of newspaper articles doesn't make money directly off of sharing articles with students, a YouTuber putting up videos for ad revenue is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can file a counter claim through Youtube: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en Generally this should be done under advice of an attorney, because these counter notices set a ticking clock of ten business days during which the copyright holder must either sue the Youtuber for copyright infringement or the complaint will be cancelled. Not all Youtube claims related to copyright are counter claima…
A quick note - the 10 day period is for a manual claim, if you get a Content ID claim, it can be up to 30 days for the appeal to move to the DMCA process. Why the two are different is beyond me.
I am seriously surprised how long it is taking for YouTubers to realize the YouTube platform is failing them and in some cases it is pitted against them. When you get down to brass tacks they only care about their advertisers. CBS is a big advertiser and partner for YouTube so they and those like them will always win. Social and legal norms be damned I do get encouraged when I see some creators going their own way li…
There's a few creators who managed to get Patreon as a second source of funding, but there's just no getting away from the fact that Google signed up advertisers who actually pay for a lot of YouTubes hosting, infrastructure and payout costs.
If creators move away from the platform they'll need to handle those deals by themselves from a weaker negotiating position. It's significantly easier to get money from all three: Patreon donations, their own in-video advertisements AND youtube advertiser payouts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if this will be the undoing of YT. If large content creators start inserting segments saying, "I can't show the clip here, but if you go to my vimeo channel , you can see the full review." That will offer people a segue off of YT.
I really don't think Google even wants YouTube. I think they'd be more than happy to buy the personal data of customers from a competitor. I think their problem is that no one wants to compete because it costs unreal amounts of money to store the amount of data that YouTube does, let alone the legal fees they must swallow each year. At this point, I imagine that they simply take the anti-consumer choice whenever a di…
Does Google care when their products fail? No, they just move on to the next data vacuum one of their developers designed or that they acquired.