EFF Lawyer Calls YouTube ContentID Worse Than DMCA 219
Richard Koman writes "Warner Music Group is apparently blocking everything YouTube ContentID comes up with as potential infringement. We knew that, but this piece by Jason Perlow shows that they're also spewing out DMCA takedown notices for some pretty clearly fair-use stuff. In my interview with EFF's Fred von Lohmann he talks about how, as bad as the DMCA process is — and it's pretty firmly against fair-use — YouTube's process gives remixers and digital creators even fewer options to assert their right to speak through the fair use of copyright material. While EFF is negotiating with Google and the studios, he suggests that users boycott YouTube if they won't stand up for fair use."
Alternative? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there an alternative that's as easy to use and allows embedding of the videos on other sites?
Re:Alternative? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They're just send takedown notices anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Am I missing something here? I thought under the DMCA they could file a takedown notice, but the content provider could immediately file a counter-notice if it's legal?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Alternative? (Score:5, Funny)
If you can give a convincing fair use argument (Score:5, Informative)
Patents, Copyright, trademarks and IP (Score:4, Insightful)
Put a Twitter-length explanation of why you believe your use is a fair use under the Copyright Act, and you just might win if you have a decent case.
Whoa. Hold on there, son. Yes, I agree: there is a strong need to change the laws that define patents, copyrights, trademarks and intellectual property. The current set of laws are either based on older laws or have been designed by the wrong people.
But - and I need you to put down the remote and listen to me, child - there needs to be a balance between inventors, writers and the public. DMCA was written too broadly by the entertainment industry. Another hurdle that hurts the common man is the costs involved in getting a patent, copyright or trademark are at times higher than the expected revenue to be derived by having a patent, copyright or trademark.
Fair use also needs to be protected. If a video of a child's music recital is taken down because of copyright laws, then those laws have gone too far. The song "Happy Birthday" apparently is still copyrighted, but the public is allowed to sing the song at special events without paying anything to the copyright holder.
Art and music are vital parts of culture, the artists should have credit and benefit of sales; but, the public has a right to experience art and music without undue burdens that treat the enjoyment as a commodity. Fucking kids!
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Another hurdle that hurts the common man is the costs involved in getting a patent, copyright or trademark are at times higher than the expected revenue to be derived by having a patent, copyright or trademark.
Actually you are wrong, at least as far as copyright. All you have to do to copyright something is write it down. That's it. No expense involved. If you've had it published, it is common to send a copy to the library of congress as proof that you did indeed write it, but it is not necessary.
Re:If you can give a convincing fair use argument (Score:5, Interesting)
Write up your experience with filing your counter-claim. Add an easy to understand explanation of what DMCA is and why it's bad. The key is easy to understand and follow.
Post it to a blog or website. Report back to slashdot and we can distribute it among young YouTubers.
Education + youthful resentment of authority + Gen Y/Gen Z entitlement - Music videos == digital revolt.
{{Non-free use rationale}} (Score:2)
I can't give it a proper write-up because I didn't take enough notes while I did it, and once I've submitted the dispute, I no longer have the UI available to me to take screenshots. But seriously, it's not that hard. If you can write a good fair use rationale for English Wikipedia, you can write one for YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
That's very true. I'm simply being lazy and hoping that someone else will do it.
(Which is exactly what blocks fair use users(?) from filing counter-claims in the first place.)
A twitter length? (Score:2)
1 tweet in libraries of congress (Score:2, Informative)
Re:If you can give a convincing fair use argument (Score:5, Interesting)
unfortunately, you're at the mercy of whatever low-paid operator they have looking at those.
Other posters are correct though, the DMCA is too broad by miles, but Google couldn't run YouTube without the compliance laws. As long as Google continues to take down THEY stay out of court.
I think Google might be planning a coup soon though. Remember things like ContentID are designed for studios to police there own works because Google wasn't doing "enough". Google's making it dead easy to identify copyrighted works, but on the other hand they're setting the content publishers up to take a big fall. They say 37% of the DMCA notices are inappropriate or incorrect... the CONTENT OWNER is expected to know fair use rules too. Once Google can demonstrate a clear pattern that publishers aren't respecting fair uses they can take that mountain of data to court with them... with all those companies names on it and put some feet to the fire to get the laws changed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Vimeo isn't bad.
But it is limiting. Vimeo doesn't allow videos that promote a business, unlike YouTube. Nor does it allow you to post videos licensed from some other author (e.g. under Creative Commons) or videos from the public domain; the uploader has to be the author. This means you can't post, say, video game reviews because you aren't the author of the video game.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Spend $60/yr on a Smugmug medium-level account. They don't give a damn what you host (so long as it's legal, obviously), and as a bonus they don't compress the hell out of it like Youtube and all of the other flash-based sites.
You lose out on the potential viral aspect of Youtube, but honestly there's so much crap on youtube anyways that it's practically irrelevant. And not having the youtube audience commenting is priceless.
Far better to boycotting would be.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean "writing"? what does "righting **AA" or "writing **AA" mean exactly?
What lawyers? I thought they were students. Students probably couldn't summon their university lawyers, and most likely the lawyers would advise the students to take down infringing material. Maybe the whole "righting *
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid I don't understand your master plan.
He accidentally the submit button.
4chan ftw
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And who pray tell will be paying for this?
"put the lawyers against" requires money, and a lot of it. If you are a non-wealthy tier citizen it is not something you can afford and therefore any rights requiring lawyers or legal assistance is something which non-wealthy citizens(aka middle class and lower) are not entitled to, where wealthy citizens are.
This is how the US government works. The wealthy class are taught the language of money and law, and given the ability, clout and means to use it(all three a
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I was under the impression that many of the legal students in places like MIT, Harvard, etc were taking on the *AA. AND doing it for free. Of course, I could be incorrect. I guess that if I did not read the correctly in numerous articles, then we should all apologize to you.
OTH, If YouTube has a relatively open posting approach and I post something there, and another entity tells Youtube to take it down, then it is ME that was slighted, no
Is there a solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Actually (Score:5, Interesting)
You-Tube is losing money, so use their services even more of you don't like them
They give us content at a loss, but make up for it in volume.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation please?
First google result I found said that net revenue had increase 101% in the last year, although YT profits represent only 1-1.5% of googles total ad revenue.
Not a loss by a long shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the articles I saw regarding losses were based on this projection.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation please?
First google result I found said that net revenue had increase 101% in the last year, although YT profits represent only 1-1.5% of googles total ad revenue.
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2009/04/03/given-youtube-losses-should-google-buy-twitter/ [barrons.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
increase of 101% does not mean profit.
I think a cuople of informed /.'ers ahve posted a link already, so I won't bother.
Thanks guys!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah sorry, half asleep and I parsed net revenue as net profit.
You're right, their haemorrhaging cash.
Re:Actually (Score:4, Insightful)
You-Tube is losing money, so use their services even more of you don't like them
They give us content at a loss, but make up for it in volume.
I may having a bit of a slow day. This series of statements doesn't seem logically sound.
Perhaps the intent is to state:
However, this thesis is at odds with the recommendation to "use their services even more if you don't like them".
Re: (Score:2)
I may having a bit of a slow day. This series of statements doesn't seem logically sound.
It's an old joke but I can't remember the source.
Re: (Score:2)
I think his point was the use their services even more to the extent that 2 becomes false, breaking the rest of the chain.
Given that YouTube is pissing money... (Score:3, Interesting)
Donate to EFF! (Score:5, Informative)
...he suggests that users boycott YouTube...
Good idea. I also suggest making a donation to EFF [eff.org].
Re: (Score:2)
the EFF has been slipping more into using scare tactic headlines and statements and away from just listing facts.
So I will NOT be donating this year.
Yes I have donated in the past.
Tell you what (Score:4, Insightful)
Think hak5, collegehumor, derrik comedy, truenuff.
Yeah, honestly, fuck warner. If they don't want to share, they don't get to be part of the future.
Who will provide background music? (Score:2)
We don't NEED warner's music/movies.
Clarification: Time Warner spun off Warner Music Group a few years ago. Now they share nothing but the Warner name and the WB logo, and possibly a favorable license to use WMG music in TW films.
With the web, we've developed to a point where independently run shows are more entertaining than big business crap.
But who will provide the background music for these independent shows?
Yeah, honestly, fuck warner. If they don't want to share, they don't get to be part of the future.
Think of that on the day you go one year into the future. Your family will probably sing you a song copyrighted to Warner/Chappell [wikipedia.org], a division of WMG.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't NEED warner's music/movies.
True enough. It's entertainment, we don't need any of it, much less theirs.
With the web, we've developed to a point where independently run shows are more entertaining than big business crap.
The hell we have. I have yet to see ONE, just one, independently produced show that was anywhere near as good as a professional show (unless we deliberately cherry-pick our indie shows to be good and our pro shows to suck). We're nowhere near the point you claim.
Anti-Boycott hurts them more (Score:2)
As seen Apr. 9, 2009, 6:30 AM on http://www.businessinsider.com/is-youtube-doomed-2009-4 [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but I cant link because they are gone.
Seriously, A boycott would work, they question is "When has anyone gotten an actual boycott on a major internet player."
I do know that Google has change policy when there was a major outcry. So has MS.
What a bunch of sour grapes! (Score:5, Funny)
They don't like YouTube, they don't like Obama [slashdot.org]... does the EFF like anything?
Seriously, write a press-release about how much you love little puppies or something. Your grumpiness is making me depressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they seem to be running out of new Ammo, so are just gunning on the big names, usually using scare verbage in their posts.
Seriously, they ahve taken a huge dive in the last 10 months.
Re: (Score:2)
But, but! That would break with the internet hate machine school of journalism!
If the EFF didn't hate, we wouldn't care! Honest!
They Must Be Running Low on Funds (Score:2, Interesting)
The EFF always slips into high melodrama mode when they need to raise funds. Slashdot has served as one of their principal PR platforms perennially. It's pathetic and smarmy, but it's nothing new.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Everything is worse... (Score:2, Funny)
So the EFF says that YouTube ContentID is worse than DMCA, and that Obama's wiretapping defense is worse than Bush's...
EFF: Tomorrow's Proclamations Will Be Worse Than Today's.
Jack Valenti, the immortal Lich King of *AA, (Score:2)
More Take Downs (Score:2)
Doesn't every YouTube video that is entirely quiet violate copyrights on 4'33" [wikipedia.org]? If so, then the copyright holder of that 'song' could dispute many videos, and potentially open the path to new revenue by getting all those copyright pirates to buy a license for the use of silence.
Workaround (Score:2, Informative)
I know there are a great many video editing tools out there, but here is how to do it in Sony Vegas.
Under Penalty of Perjury... (Score:5, Interesting)
"I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
IANAL, but it seems obvious to me that misrepresenting something that is clearly fair use as something that isn't means that the notification was NOT accurate. Therefore, the law firm representing the copyright holder (and possibly the copyright holder themselves) should have charges of perjury filed against them. I haven't seen the EFF file any countersuits like this yet, though...
Re: (Score:2)
Who can prosecute them for it? I've never, ever, heard of that statement being invoked against anyone. (I did hear an explanation as to why it's essentially meaningless unless you are representing yourself...but I don't remember it anymore.)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you are incorrect. The problem is, Fair Use is a defense. If you are sued for use of copyrighted material, you can go to court and claim that what you were doing is Fair Use and you should not be penalized for it. They are not claiming what is there is not Fair Use, they are simply claiming that the video is using copyrighted material, which is correct. It is up to you to then prove that your use was Fair Use and okay.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they were claiming the use of copyrighted material infringed upon the copyright laws, not simply that the copyrighted material was present. Wouldn't consideration of fair use fall under the determination of whether or not copyright infringement was committed?
Re: (Score:2)
Consideration of Fair Use only happens after the fact. They are simply saying "They have used our material without our permission", which is true. It is then up to the person to prove to the judge that while they were using the material without permission, it is okay because it falls under fair use. Only a judge can determine if something is truly fair use.
YANAL (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Under Penalty of Perjury... (Score:4, Informative)
The penalties mentioned only apply if you're not actually the copyright holder. They do not apply if your DMCA claim is utter bullshit. In short, you can make false claims utter impunity.
They were very careful to write the law that way so that it would have minimal repercussions for copyright holders when abused, and maximum impact even when abused. For that reason it's about the most heinous and abusive law ever passed in the U.S. as far as favoring corporations over the people.
FYI: The DMCA a major focus www.chillingeffects.org [chillingeffects.org].
Pain in the Ass (Score:2)
Seems like every other video I go to watch is without audio due to 'complaints' and 'infringement'
While this is a good thing for those gameplay videos that involve rap being played at 2x the volume of the game's sounds, it is a BAD THING for things like anime music videos, or parody videos, etc.
Things that should be fair-use are being taken down for 'infringement'.
Perhaps someone could get away with a slander/libel case against whoever called it infringement when it was fair use?
Scale of the takedowns (Score:5, Interesting)
Right now there are over 22,000 search results, the highest I've seen it was 300,000+ search results, meaning overall YouTube appear to have silenced over well over 1/3 million videos (and probably then removed most of them).
Informational Video with Troy McClure (Score:5, Informative)
The New York Times reports that many YouTube users have found themselves in the same position as high school sophomore Juliet Weybret, who posted a video of herself playing piano and singing "Winter Wonderland."
Troy McClure: Oh, how darling! That is one swinging rendition, Juliet! ... but my grandma and mom play this song for the whole family every Christmas ...
Troy McClure: But today I'm going to teach you the magic of copyrights! Do you know that you're violating the law?
*Juliet shakes her head*
Troy McClure: GOOD! That just might hold up as a defense in court if you look a little more sweeter and innocent. But your fate is up to the RIAA to decide!
Troy McClure: You see, Juliet, copyright law is designed to be much too complex for any normal citizen to understand for a reason: so that you, the average citizen, will always lose. Now where did you learn that song from?
Juliet Wybret: My grandma.
Troy McClure: Jackpot! The RIAA loves to interact with the elderly that can't understand technology. I'm certain she paid a handsome sum to play that song for you though otherwise the two of you are thieves. You're not a thief, are you Juliet?
Juliet Wybret: I don't think so.
Troy McClure: Of course not! You see there is a simple law that states for works created after 1978 copyright lasts 70 years after the last surviving author's death (in the case of joint) and works between 1964 and 1977 are the same except were under the old model which had terms of 28 years starting in 1923 but they had to be renewed in order to enjoy the benefit of the full 95 year term after the last surviving author's death. Easy to remember, right? So you see, Winter Wonderland was composed by Felix Bernard who died in 1944 and the lyrics were written by Richard B. Smith who died in 1935. The good news is that you can publicly say the lyrics after 2030 and play the music on piano after 2039! So you're almost there!
Juliet Wybret: Bu
Troy McClure: Easy there, Juliet! The RIAA's got enough ammo against you as it is. Remember, the Senators and Congresspeople who represent you and your interests want it this way so be an American Patriot and embrace the law! They were only thinking of a fair system for you and the artists when they made these laws. See you next time!
ran across some of this earlier today (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Earlier today I had an urge to listen to Devo's Jocko Homo from their self-produced movie. Found two copies, only to have the sound removed because a record label was claiming copywrite on the music. Hello, the music is within a movie which is copywrited by Devo Productions, how can you claim to control what is within their own movie?!?
Devo owns the rights to the movie and music, and can do whatever they want with that material and the associated rights (that someone is willing to pick up). They obviously sold, leased or otherwise signed away the rights to audio reproduction of the soundtrack and/or songs therein. They probably still own it but are sharing the reproduction rights with the record company because it is more likely to be able to make them money than if they simply retained the rights. I suspect this is because their record p
Private companies != government (Score:2)
The U.S. government cannot deny you the right to carry a firearm to work, but the company you work for may.
The U.S. government cannot prevent you from filling your yard with yard gnomes, but your housing association may.
The U.S. government cannot force you to stop drag racing, but the company that hosts your life insurance policy may.
The U.S. government cannot prevent you from sharing particular content online, but the site that you use for hosting the content may.
In each example, you are entering an agr
Re: (Score:2)
... because that company is in danger of being sued for copyright infringement, which is a cause of action created by Federal statute and enforced by Federal courts (whose officers are paid with Federal tax dollars). So, the federal government is enforcing a censorship law. I don't see how you've argued around that basic fact.
I agree with you that Youtube is under no obligat
Synchronization is not fair use (Score:3)
Synchronization of music from source A with video from source B is not "fair use". Especially when big chunks of a song, or even the entire song, are copied.
There's free royalty-free music [incompetech.com] available. There's vast amounts of cheap techno. Out of copyright classical. Garage bands. Or, in many cases, you can call up a minor label and buy a license. I've done that.
Quit whining.
A video of mine got taken down (Score:4, Informative)
...which clearly had no copyright infringement besides mentioning an auto system cleaning product. I made the video myself. No answer was given to me, only that I had a hit against my account and if I got 3, it would be deleted. There's obviously no way to battle their decision. It sucks.
Jason Perlow article (Score:2)
Jason Perlow wrote quite a rant without about fair use without understanding how it works. Simply lowering the sound quality of copyrighted recordings doesn't give him the right to redistribute those songs in their entirety. Using a short clip of one or two songs might have been okay.
I agree that what he did was reasonable from a common sense perspective, and that it was silly and pointless of Warner to issue a takedown request for the video in question. Unfortunately, common sense has NOTHING to do with co
Boycott the big music companies and ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... buy music that comes with clear permission [magnatune.com] to use the music you buy on places like YouTube [youtube.com].
Disclaimer: My only association with Magnatune [magnatune.com] is being a happy customer.
Accidental plagiarism (Score:5, Interesting)
Learn to play an instrument, write something
And get sued for accidental plagiarism. George Harrison got sued and lost (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music). Michael Bolton got sued and lost (Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton).
Re:Accidental plagiarism (Score:5, Insightful)
Ding Ding Ding! I had a situation at work where people used Happy Birthday as a melody for an iPhone music app. They were shocked to find out that it is copyrighted. The problem is that there is so much content out there that you can argue with just enough credibility to get into court that creative work A infringes on random creative work B. Despite all efforts by creators of A to be original. Not sure where I heard it, but this was one advice to future creatives types that stuck with me: "If you want to make a movie, do it in an empty white room with your two closest friends. Everything else opens you up for copyright claims."
The point is that culture thrives on copying, modifying and playing with existing content. The harder corps will try to come down on small infringement, the less people will like the overall idea of copyright itself. One possible outcome is that WarnerBros gets everyone to turn into mindless consumers. Another possible outcome is that people get so pissed off that they manage to convince their congress critters to change copyright law in their favor. And I'm not sure the former is more likely than the latter.
Re:Accidental plagiarism (Score:5, Funny)
"If you want to make a movie, do it in an empty white room with your two closest friends. Everything else opens you up for copyright claims."
Sounds like a THX1138 ripoff to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to make sure your actors were enclosed in that white room from birth till now, with no television and no human contact, because they might be unwittingly contaminated with copyrighted cultural knowledge otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a relatively well-known fact that you had to inquire about.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you want to make a movie, do it in an empty white room with your two closest friends. Everything else opens you up for copyright claims."
I have a patent on that. Patent 588233, boring movie done with two closest friends in an empty white room.
Please send me my share or we'll meet in court. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Per the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org], that song's copyright status is extremely dubious, and they could have simply used Good Morning To You, which is most certainly in the Public Domain and merely has a quarter note where Happy Birthday has two eighth-notes. That is, so long as they don't use the lyrics.
Re: (Score:2)
Michael Bolton got sued and lost
I'm confused: are you objecting or complaining that copyright infringement isn't a capital offence?
Read the statistics (Score:2)
Farmer Tim: In singling out Mr. Bolton, are you aiming for a (Score:5, Funny), trying to make a reference to Office Space or perhaps to some obscure film that I haven't seen?
Consider this: Based on the properties of the western musical scale, there's a significant chance that any song you write will infringe another song's hook. I seem to remember this analysis [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I mostly agree. (Score:2, Insightful)
The worst examples are on youtube. Sticking a bunch of clips from a tv show together and replacing the audio with some annoying song is technically, but barely, creative, and it's certainly not worth anything. Any iTard can do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I should have been more specific. While they are exceptions, they clearly aren't the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever go watch a Shakespear play? There's often some darned good performances going on; real artists. None of them wrote the material.
Re:Crazy Thought! (Score:4, Interesting)
This started with the cult of the Baroque composer. Check this. [bepress.com] (warning: PDF)
Johann Sebastian Bach was often criticized in later (post-18th-Century) critical literature for "borrowing" from other composers. If he or his son Johann Christian were starting out today, they'd be mixers, not composers.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But it is creative. Or I should say, it can be creative. [thru-you.com] That song did not exist until Kutiman made it. Not one of the videos he used were that song, they were their own songs (and in some cases just sounds), but not the one he created.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop hatin'! (It is verifiably bad for your health to harbor strong emotions based on nothing but some desir
Automating the DJ job. (Score:2)
Being a DJ is far more than playing music for people
The "celebrity DJ" thing is overrated. I've heard way too many DJs, and the average level of performance is slightly above an iPod Shuffle.
It would be a fun project to build a fully automated club DJ system. Use webcams to monitor the dance floor, and a LK tracker (there's a free one in OpenCV) to track moving people. Once you have people movement vectors, count the dancers (ignoring stationary people). Also, take the beat from the audio and correl
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Crazy Thought! (Score:5, Funny)
Let's play "spot the person with no significant artistic talent". Can I go first?
Re: (Score:2)
"There is no inalienable right to use copyrighted material"
There sure is. The right of property. I assume that you are talking about US law, given the article to which you are commenting.
The Bill of Rights prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
A CD, book or DVD is simply property and you can use it however you want.
Of course, you are talking about Copyright, which, in this case refers to the right to make a copy of the property i
Re: (Score:2)
... the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Almost all minor sampling should fall under criticism/comment or least should be exempted in some other way. Of course many people (including the courts) disagree with me. Oh well. Just because we have asinine laws, doesn't make them morally right. Searh for "remix culture" [google.com] if you want to understand the other side's arguments.
P.S. We certainly have a right t
Re:Under what clause of "Fair Use" does this fall? (Score:2)
I don't think you should get flamed for this. I agree with you that this particular case in the article (soundtrack for a slideshow) is a poor example of fair use at best.
There are four considerations for fair use in US copyright law:
Re:It's pretty sad (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's pretty sad (Score:5, Insightful)
I would go so far as to say that it is the corporate sense of entitlement that is the problem here. They are allowed to exist for the benefit of the citizens, but the sense of entitlement has gotten so bad that the idea that they owe anything to the people who make their existence possible is incomprehensible to them.
YouTube's very existence that is not a right.