Pretty crappy when YouTube takes down copyrighted things

[johnjohn320]

I was trying to find Kevin James's Sweat the Small Stuff special he did on comedy central. It used to be all over the web. Then someone printed a DVD of it and you can't view it online anywhere anymore. Funny thing is, you can't even buy the damn DVD if you want to. It's not in stock anywhere, no longer being printed. You'd have to ebay or some such thing if you want to buy someone else's used copy, that's your only option.

If only copyright laws made sense...

 

[Colt45]

flash video sucks anyways. find a torrent

 

[BooGiMaN]

yeah its not like they would get sued or anything.....

 

[effowe]

Get Netflix

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: BooGiMaN
yeah its not like they would get sued or anything.....

That's exactly my point. Who loses money when a product is made available for free that isn't otherwise available for purchase anyway?

 

[RandomFool]

Nobody is really losing money but it's their stuff so they can do what they want with it.

 

[sygyzy]

Would you propose that any media (books, music, movies) that I cannot find for purchase at a major outlet/venue/retailer, should be made free to me?

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Would you propose that any media (books, music, movies) that I cannot find for purchase at a major outlet/venue/retailer, should be made free to me?

Let me put it this way: A cd that you really want goes out of print. The recording is no longer being printed and is not sold at any store. I have that recording and burn you a copy. Should we be sued for copyright infringement for thousands of dollars or more, possibly get carted off to jail?

I Xerox pages from out-of-print books all the time at the library. They have machines in the friggin building for precisely that purpose. Problem? No one can possibly make money off of it, no one's getting cheated.

Common sense, people.

 

[DaveSimmons]

You'd have to ebay or some such thing if you want to buy someone else's used copy, that's your only option.

So? I've bought out of print games, CDs and books before, it didn't kill me.

Amazon used sellers are quite reliable.

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

You'd have to ebay or some such thing if you want to buy someone else's used copy, that's your only option.

So? I've bought out of print games, CDs and books before, it didn't kill me.

So have I. I do quite often in fact. The point is, if you're buying it used from someone, the original people who own the copyright (i.e. the people who would sue YouTube) are not making any money from that transaction.

 

[Capt Caveman]

The point is that YouTube doesn't want to get sued. Simple

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
The point is that YouTube doesn't want to get sued. Simple

I know. Have you read any of the thread?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

You'd have to ebay or some such thing if you want to buy someone else's used copy, that's your only option.

So? I've bought out of print games, CDs and books before, it didn't kill me.

Amazon used sellers are quite reliable.

I highly recommend Amazon used sellers (with good feedback). The buyer's end of the transaction is all handled through Amazon, thus there is no need for feedback for the buyer, thus there is no feedback retaliation to worry about, thus you can give the sellers honest feedback. I had one seller scam me - had a decent amount of positive feedback, then right after I bought my item he stopped shipping and the negatives started pouring in. Amazon.com refunded my money no problem.

Shipping is also dictated by Amazon.com based on item type, so all prices are comparable to each other. I buy most of my books through Amazon used sellers. You can get publisher's remainders (brand new books usually with a black mark across the edges of the pages) for great prices.

 

[flexy]

taking off youtube stuff is the most retarded thing, also in terms of PR/marketing.

those marketing-people shoot themselves in the foot, i had a debate with a PR guy from the old 90s group Sash! over that because i had a vid up on youtube.

The YT quality is so cr*ppy..it has nothing to do with 1:1 digital copies. Those people get free promotion on YT - and instead they complain and go after kids because of "copyright infringement".

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

You'd have to ebay or some such thing if you want to buy someone else's used copy, that's your only option.

So? I've bought out of print games, CDs and books before, it didn't kill me.

So have I. I do quite often in fact. The point is, if you're buying it used from someone, the original people who own the copyright (i.e. the people who would sue YouTube) are not making any money from that transaction.

What if the content on Youtube that is either unreleased or discontinued is made available at a later date? There is a perfectly good reason that people should be allowed to do what they want with their property.

 

[BoberFett]

Ideas are not property, despite what corrupt politicians and billionaire media moguls tell you.

 

[1prophet]

If it wasn't for sites like Youtube there are many things I never would have seen and later bought since the quality on Youtube isn't that great.

An example of a proffesional marketing group using Youtube to its fullest is RCA records.

Avril Lavigne - Girlfriend #2 most watched video of all time

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Ideas are not property, despite what corrupt politicians and billionaire media moguls tell you.

That's absurd, if you're talking about music or computer programs. An idea is not the same thing as either of those

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: BooGiMaN
yeah its not like they would get sued or anything.....

That's exactly my point. Who loses money when a product is made available for free that isn't otherwise available for purchase anyway?

Comedy Central still shows Sweat the Small Stuff now and then. Comedy Central also made the video.

If you watch it on YouTube, you won't watch it on Comedy Central. Comedy Central makes money from advertising, approximately proportional to the number of people that watch their channel.

So yes, it potentially does them financial harm if you watch the video on YouTube instead of their network.

Conversely of course, watching a few clips online might make you want to catch the whole thing on Comedy Central later on...

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Ideas are not property, despite what corrupt politicians and billionaire media moguls tell you.

You can't copyright an idea. But you can copyright a particular expression of that idea.

IP law in the US is anything but perfect. But if your desire is to see it all trashed, I think you will find that lots of people (the vast majority of them neither politicians of any sort nor billionaires) would strongly disagree with you. There are aspects of the system that are very good, and aspects that are very bad.

FWIW I'm a big fan of liberal licensing and being kind to people that want to redistribute your stuff, but content owners do have the right (not just the legal right, but the right) to make that decision for themselves. Comedy Central has chosen to keep their content largely in-house, making some of it available online through their Motherload service (which in turn also runs ads).

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

You'd have to ebay or some such thing if you want to buy someone else's used copy, that's your only option.

So? I've bought out of print games, CDs and books before, it didn't kill me.

So have I. I do quite often in fact. The point is, if you're buying it used from someone, the original people who own the copyright (i.e. the people who would sue YouTube) are not making any money from that transaction.

What if the content on Youtube that is either unreleased or discontinued is made available at a later date? There is a perfectly good reason that people should be allowed to do what they want with their property.

If it's made available for purchase at any point in time, THEN you take it down. Not that complicated.

 

[pontifex]

If it's made available for purchase at any point in time, THEN you take it down. Not that complicated.

but now everyone already has it for free. why would i pay for it now?

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: pontifex

If it's made available for purchase at any point in time, THEN you take it down. Not that complicated.

but now everyone already has it for free. why would i pay for it now?

You can't save streaming videos (without an illegal program, which is another story). So, if someone takes it down, you don't have it anymore.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: pontifex

If it's made available for purchase at any point in time, THEN you take it down. Not that complicated.

but now everyone already has it for free. why would i pay for it now?

You can't save streaming videos (without an illegal program, which is another story). So, if someone takes it down, you don't have it anymore.

If you've already watched it for free, you are probably less likely to pay for it at a later point - it doesn't matter if you plan on owning it or not.

The sense of entitlement on this message board is startling, to say the least.

 

[FoBoT]

don't be a pirate

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: pontifex

If it's made available for purchase at any point in time, THEN you take it down. Not that complicated.

but now everyone already has it for free. why would i pay for it now?

You can't save streaming videos (without an illegal program, which is another story). So, if someone takes it down, you don't have it anymore.

If you've already watched it for free, you are probably less likely to pay for it at a later point - it doesn't matter if you plan on owning it or not.

The sense of entitlement on this message board is startling, to say the least.

Entitlement? Look, I got over not being able to watch Kevin James again (yes, again, I already saw it once before and was looking for it again, so much for your point) pretty quickly. I'm trying to point out a flaw of logic. Just pure, simple logic.