WTF? Google/Youtube You ARE TRULY STUPID

[Lifted]

It's a company offering a service, and can make whatever the fuck rules it wants so long as it's not running afoul of actual laws (such as a "no black people allowed to upload videos" rule).

That wouldn't be illegal.

 

[Linflas]

It may very well be covered by Fair Use, but last time I checked, Youtube/Google is not a government agency/prosecuting people for copyrighted music. It's a company offering a service, and can make whatever the fuck rules it wants so long as it's not running afoul of actual laws (such as a "no black people allowed to upload videos" rule).

I don't disagree with that but suspect that they go to this length to keep legions of lawyers of their asses due to the screwed up nature of our current IP laws.

 

[Lifted]

Rebroadcasting is not covered under fair use.

 

[OCGuy]

OP fail

 

[destrekor]

That wouldn't be illegal.

If a company denies service based on protected classes, it is illegal.
However, as long as the reasoning behind the denial of service is anything other than protected classes, it is entirely legal. Potentially damaging to public image, but perfectly legal.

I.E. You can deny service to an individual for a stated reason of obesity, I think, but you cannot deny service with a stated reason that the individual is handicapped or black (among quite a few other protected classes).

 

[Patranus]

Wait, so if I take a picture outside and a Nike billboard is in the background, that would be copyright infringement?

How about if I post a picture wearing a Nike t-shirt?
copyright infringement?

Oh look, my brain just stored an image of a Nike logo from a hat. Maybe Nike should sue me for copyright infringement.

 

[Hacp]

Because of your inspirational rant, I went to Silicon Valley and peed on google's lawn. Ran for it when the security guard started to chase me.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Wait, so if I take a picture outside and a Nike billboard is in the background, that would be copyright infringement?

How about if I post a picture wearing a Nike t-shirt?
copyright infringement?

Oh look, my brain just stored an image of a Nike logo from a hat. Maybe Nike should sue me for copyright infringement.

Ever notice when you see things on tv when logos, etc.. are blurred out?

 

[Lifted]

If a company denies service based on protected classes, it is illegal.
However, as long as the reasoning behind the denial of service is anything other than protected classes, it is entirely legal. Potentially damaging to public image, but perfectly legal.

I.E. You can deny service to an individual for a stated reason of obesity, I think, but you cannot deny service with a stated reason that the individual is handicapped or black (among quite a few other protected classes).

Is this correct? There is a Federal Law that prohibits discrimination in providing products and services to protected classes?

I know there are laws regarding employment, housing, etc., but I've never heard of this one. There are plenty of country clubs that only allow WASP's, Jews, etc., to join. It may not be in writing, but it's pretty obvious to anyone with at least one good eye and an IQ over 80.

I think there may be local laws if a company is doing business with government agencies, receiving funding/tax breaks, using/renting public land, but I've never hear of a blanket "every business must serve everyone" law.

 

[destrekor]

Is this correct? There is a Federal Law that prohibits discrimination in providing products and services to protected classes?

I know there are laws regarding employment, housing, etc., but I've never heard of this one. There are plenty of country clubs that only allow WASP's, Jews, etc., to join. It may not be in writing, but it's pretty obvious to anyone with at least one good eye and an IQ over 80.

I think there may be local laws if a company is doing business with government agencies, receiving funding/tax breaks, using/renting public land, but I've never hear of a blanket "every business must serve everyone" law.

I believe only publicly-traded corporations and non-profit organizations are held to that law.
But you may be right, it may only be for employment purposes.
Now I'm not sure... :hmm:

 

[ManyBeers]

Wait, so if I take a picture outside and a Nike billboard is in the background, that would be copyright infringement?

How about if I post a picture wearing a Nike t-shirt?
copyright infringement?

Oh look, my brain just stored an image of a Nike logo from a hat. Maybe Nike should sue me for copyright infringement.

No.

Ok so let's say you take that image of you wearing that Nike t-shirt have a poster
made of it advertising the fact that you give blow-jobs for 5 dollars and then hang those posters all over town. Then Nike would have a claim against you because of the commercial nature of the image. I thnk.

 

[dwell]

 

[Meghan54]

Wait, so if I take a picture outside and a Nike billboard is in the background, that would be copyright infringement?

How about if I post a picture wearing a Nike t-shirt?
copyright infringement?

Oh look, my brain just stored an image of a Nike logo from a hat. Maybe Nike should sue me for copyright infringement.

Could you be more petulant and childish if you tried? Probably not, because that argument was just what I expected......from a 12 year old.

 

[disappoint]

Wait, so if I take a picture outside and a Nike billboard is in the background, that would be copyright infringement?

How about if I post a picture wearing a Nike t-shirt?
copyright infringement?

Oh look, my brain just stored an image of a Nike logo from a hat. Maybe Nike should sue me for copyright infringement.

This is the second post in this thread where you don't seem to get a simple concept. What part of "It is legal to record for personal use but not for rebroadcast" don't you understand?

 

[Patranus]

This is the second post in this thread where you don't seem to get a simple concept. What part of "It is legal to record for personal use but not for rebroadcast" don't you understand?

So if I post an image of myself wearing a nike t-shit on this forum it isn't copyright infringement but I post a video of myself wearing a nike logo on youtube it would be copyright infringement?

So just because it is a series of images make it illegal?

I don't get your argument.

I guess this guy

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nike-Hypermax-N...Men_s_Shoes&hash=item53e5599a2e#ht_1009wt_907
committed copyright infringement in his ebay post.

You don't seem to get the simple concept that music playing off a radio in the background of a video posted on youtube is not copyright infringement.

 

[Lifted]

You don't seem to get the simple concept that music playing off a radio in the background of a video posted on youtube is not copyright infringement.

sure it is.

 

[Patranus]

sure it is.

but having a Nike logo on your t-shirt in a youtube video isn't?

 

[Kommander_Kink]

Ever notice when you see things on tv when logos, etc.. are blurred out?

That's the most retarded thing I have seen on TV all my life, but this is a recent policy, I don't remember all this blurring in the 1990's or in 1980's TV shows. It's stupid to see Myth Busters and all the things that are blurred out in the scenes, one time they blurred out the logo of a powertool that one of them was using.

 

[Patranus]

That's the most retarded thing I have seen on TV all my life, but this is a recent policy, I don't remember all this blurring in the 1990's or in 1980's TV shows. It's stupid to see Myth Busters and all the things that are blurred out in the scenes, one time they blurred out the logo of a powertool that one of them was using.

It has to do with advertising not copyright.

(And I agree it is retarded.)

Oh look, the guy being interviewed on the 9:00PM news has a polo logo on his hat. Guess Polo can now sue the news for copyright infringement.

 

[Born2bwire]

WHATEVER SONG IS BROADCASTED IN THE AIRWAVES BECOMES PUBLIC DOMAIN, READ THE FREAKIN F.C.C. RULES YOU STUPID RETARDS.

Still laughing.

 

[shortylickens]

 

[Lifted]

but having a Nike logo on your t-shirt in a youtube video isn't?

Aside from the fact that Nike sells clothing, and not photos of clothing, it appears you don't understand the difference between trademarks and copyrights.

Wikipedia:

Copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted by the law of a jurisdiction to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work.

A trademark or trade mark or trade-mark is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities.

 

[Ichinisan]

Yarn != Thread

 

[Lifted]

It has to do with advertising not copyright.

(And I agree it is retarded.)

Oh look, the guy being interviewed on the 9:00PM news has a polo logo on his hat. Guess Polo can now sue the news for copyright infringement.

Again, copyright != trademark.

 

[shortylickens]

Yarn != Thread

!= != ≠
:awe: