How does youtube work, ethically?

[Bookcat]

What do you mean how could one do that? I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Review all materials regarding copyright!

Billions of stuff out there.

(such is NOT what they do…see the rest of the post for what they do do).

 

[BobTheCat]

No not completely.

Seems it is* not “*checked” in general (how could one do that?)- unless there is a *“take down notice” (owner realizes -hey they stole my stuff and uploaded it" or a “content ID match” *(when the owner have already submitted a match - and told youtube what to do if someone uploads it).

It is always checked. When I upload videos with copy-righted music, I immediately can see that the video cannot be monetized because it contains copy-righted content. Now, I have the option to dispute if the claim is erroneous (E.G. I payed a licencing fee to use the song, the song is actually CC or public domain, etc)
The community can also report videos

 

[Bookcat]

It is always checked. When I upload videos with copy-righted music, I immediately can see that the video cannot be monetized because it contains copy-righted content. Now, I have the option to dispute if the claim is erroneous (E.G. I payed a licencing fee to use the song, the song is actually CC or public domain, etc)

If one thinks it is checked for* any* copyright violation. No that is not true. How could one do that? Billions of copyrighted things.

No that would not be correct. Not according to youtube.

Is it checked at all?

Yes.

From what I learned from their site it is checked in two ways:

For a “take down notice” (owner realizes -hey they stole my stuff and uploaded it"

and for a “content ID match” (when the owner have already submitted a match - and told youtube what to do if someone uploads it).

If the owner has not submitted either - it cannot be checked.

 

[edwest2]

Without making it even more complicated, youtube is protected by a law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It has what is called a “Safe Harbor” provision. So, if Joe_8796 posts a TV program that he recorded using a video camera for example, to youtube, youtube may miss it. The copyright holder would then file a Takedown Request/Notice with the online service provider (OSP).

“In addition to the two general requirements listed above, all four safe harbors impose additional requirements for immunity. The safe harbor for storage of infringing material under § 512(c) is the most commonly encountered because it immunizes OSPs such as YouTube that might inadvertently host infringing material uploaded by users.”

Personally, I think youtube should post an OK to View/Listen notice in the description under each video and song that is OK to view or listen to. Odds are t_J-K34ty is not a legal outlet for a video or song. IF youtube does have an automated screening process that catches all the illegals, I hope someone lets me know as well.

In the meantime, youtube still has its copyright infringement information up:

youtube.com/yt/copyright/

Ed

 

[BobTheCat]

If one thinks it is checked for* any* copyright violation. No that is not true. How could one do that? Billions of copyrighted things.

No that would not be correct. Not according to youtube.

Is it checked at all?

Yes.

From what I learned from their site it is checked in two ways:

For a “take down notice” (owner realizes -hey they stole my stuff and uploaded it"

and for a “content ID match” (when the owner have already submitted a match - and told youtube what to do if someone uploads it).

If the owner has not submitted either - it cannot be checked.

Oh, I understand what you mean now. I thought you were saying that the content ID system does not automatically check the videos. Your comment makes a lot more sense now

 

[1neophyte]

If the owner has not submitted either - it cannot be checked.

Then the content owner has granted permission by omission. Anyway, what you’re trying to convey has nothing to do with the original question or the topic of discussion.

 

[Bookcat]

Then the content owner has granted permission by omission. Anyway, what you’re trying to convey has nothing to do with the original question or the topic of discussion.

Hum…

So one can take (steal) from another …so long as he is not watching carefully?

or you can use someones car (use without permission) - since he did watch over it carefully enough?

It very much has to do with the OP question …and my follow up question to others posts.

 

[1neophyte]

Hum…

So one can take (steal) from another …so long as he is not watching carefully?

or you can use someones car (use without permission) - since he did watch over it carefully enough?

It very much has to do with the OP question …and my follow up question to others posts.

How much original content do you have on YouTube?

 

[Bookcat]

How much original content do you have on YouTube?

Has nothing to do with anything.

What I noted remains.

The question is a* moral theology* question not just a “youtube posting experience” one.

I will note though that I went to youtube to look for the information. It is all there.

(Typo corrected )

 

[Bookcat]

Then the content owner has granted permission by omission.

I repeat:

So one can take (steal) from another …so long as he is not watching carefully?

or you can use someones car (use without permission) - since he did watch over it carefully enough?

 

[1neophyte]

What I noted is remains.

I have no idea what to make of that. I’m sorry you’re so confused. Nevertheless, any theology that would question the morality of viewing anything on YouTube (except, as someone else noted, any immoral content) is a fictional theology.

 

[1neophyte]

I repeat:

So one can take (steal) from another …so long as he is not watching carefully?

or you can use someones car (use without permission) - since he did watch over it carefully enough?

Viewing something on YouTube is not stealing. I have quite a bit of original content on YouTube, none of it monetized or formally copyrighted, and the idea that someone would go to any effort to verify its “legitimacy” before watching is very disturbing.

As I said before, if the OP is really concerned about the issue, the solution is to buy the music in question. It is much kinder to the artist than all of this ignorant blathering.

 

[Bookcat]

Viewing something on YouTube is not stealing. I have quite a bit of original content on YouTube, none of it monetized or formally copyrighted, and the idea that someone would go to any effort to verify its “legitimacy” before watching is very disturbing.

Personally finding something “disturbing” does mean that it is in fact not a real question and concern -it does mean that there are not real moral questions involved in a matter.

But such really is in reference not to what one has created oneself (by you)- but that which is owned by others…musicians etc. That someone just posts up there without permission etc.

 

[1neophyte]

Personally finding something “disturbing” does mean that it is in fact not a real question and concern -it does mean that there are not real moral questions involved in a matter.

There is nothing wrong with moral questions, but simple questions have answers. The answer to the OP’s question is that it is morally licit to enjoy Barlowgirl’s music on YouTube.

 

[1neophyte]

Personally finding something “disturbing” does mean that it is in fact not a real question and concern -it does mean that there are not real moral questions involved in a matter.

There is no reason to be hostile.

 

[BobTheCat]

Viewing something on YouTube is not stealing. I have quite a bit of original content on YouTube, none of it monetized or formally copyrighted, and the idea that someone would go to any effort to verify its “legitimacy” before watching is very disturbing.

I will add that if it’s clear the uploader does not have the rights you shouldn’t watch the video. I’m also a content creator, and I would not mind if people decided they needed to check to make sure I’m the actual owner of the content. I’ve ran into more than a few accounts making money from uploading videos that aren’t theirs; I only knew though because I either was subscribed to the actual creator or they obviously were stealing (in one case they had uploaded over 10 videos in the course of 1 hour, and a quick search revealed the original creator)

 

[1neophyte]

I will add that if it’s clear the uploader does not have the rights you shouldn’t watch the video. I’m also a content creator, and I would not mind if people decided they needed to check to make sure I’m the actual owner of the content. I’ve ran into more than a few accounts making money from uploading videos that aren’t theirs; I only knew though because I either was subscribed to the actual creator or they obviously were stealing (in one case they had uploaded over 10 videos in the course of 1 hour, and a quick search revealed the original creator)

In these cases, how long did the offending videos remain on YouTube?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

There are great programmes out there now that detect copywright,
plagerism, etc.
Every University employs one to search student assignments and match them with already published work, when the student is submitting their work online at University.
The report comes back to the student in a couple of minutes.

Youtube and other similar programmes will be employing similar programmes. Remember the issue with that now defunct music sharing programme?

youtube.com/yt/copyright/

youtube.com/yt/copyright/fair-use.html
Melodonist, I was given old Catholic movies on a USB. I asked my priest about it. He said most of the old ones were not subject to copywrite. And go ahead and watch them . He was quite passionate about ownership of old Catholic works

 

[BobTheCat]

There are great programmes out there now that detect copywright,
plagerism, etc.
Every University employs one to search student assignments and match them with already published work, when the student is submitting their work online at University.
The report comes back to the student in a couple of minutes.

Youtube and other similar programmes will be employing similar programmes. Remember the issue with that now defunct music sharing programme?

YouTube can’t use programs like the ones used at universities, since YouTube hosts videos. It’s a lot more difficult to search every video on the web to compare audio and video than it is to do the same thing for text-based submissions…

 

[Bookcat]

There is no reason to be hostile.

Huh?

Where am I being hostile?

Not sure what your referring to there.???

I was not…and certainly meant none.