How does youtube work, ethically?

  • Thread starter Thread starter patricius79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bookcat said:
\

Not a video.

I meant a description example: content belonging to another that has been put up on youtube without permission but where as of yet there nothing has been submitted to youtube from the owner.

I am not going to give you an actual example for that is part of the very questions of the thread - aside from those channels owned by the copyright owner - how is one to know if something is permitted!

The very fact that though that when a copyright owner realizes that his song Z is up on youtube or this or that is there - and then he can submit a take down action - and then youtube then verifies he is the owner and takes it down - means that content gets put up all the time that is not permitted. For that is part of they way they try to fix such events. But they do not know to fix them until the CR holder lets them know either before or after the fact.
Click to expand...
Whoops, you forgot to include the link.
 
1neophyte said:
Exactly. A description of nonsense.
Click to expand...
Huh?

Please cease this sort of posting.

If your not interested in a serious discussion of theology of the facts of this question -that is fine -but please do not post these sorts of posts.

I see your new here - you will want to refer to the rules of the forum.
 
Bookcat said:
Huh?

Please cease this sort of posting.

If your not interested in a serious discussion of theology of the facts of this question -that is fine -but please do not post these sorts of posts.

I see your new here - you will want to refer to the rules of the forum.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I just joined last week. :rolleyes:

You are not engaging in a discussion of the theology of this matter. You are just clanging the bell of ignorance. The theology cannot be found in YouTube’s policies. You keep saying there is a moral question, which is true, but there is also an answer. We can watch anything we want on YouTube, except for immoral content. I don’t know why you have such difficulty accepting this concept. If you come across something on YouTube that you think might not be authorized, report it. But before you do, make sure you at least have some understanding of what constitutes “authorized,” otherwise you will waste YouTube’s time the way you have wasted mine. (Though I admit that this is mostly my fault for engaging in your silliness).

Life is not as complicated as you seem to think it is.
 
1neophyte said:
Yeah, I just joined last week. :rolleyes:

You are not engaging in a discussion of the theology of this matter. You are just clanging the bell of ignorance. The theology cannot be found in YouTube’s policies. You keep saying there is a moral question, which is true, but there is also an answer. We can watch anything we want on YouTube, except for immoral content. I don’t know why you have such difficulty accepting this concept. If you come across something on YouTube that you think might not be authorized, report it. But before you do, make sure you at least have some understanding of what constitutes “authorized,” otherwise you will waste YouTube’s time the way you have wasted mine. (Though I admit that this is mostly my fault for engaging in your silliness).

Life is not as complicated as you seem to think it is.
Click to expand...
Again you continue. *Please cease.
*
 
Bookcat said:
No your approach.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything else to contribute to the actual discussion, or do you want to simply continue to attack me personally and send me threatening private messages?
 
1neophyte said:
Do you have anything else to contribute to the actual discussion, or do you want to simply continue to attack me personally and send me threatening private messages?
Click to expand...
Excuse me?

I sent you a private fraternal correction - 1. Asking you to correct the wording of your posts towards me and 2. Letting you know that you need to be mindful how you word things for there are rules and I have seen others get removed.

And I have been discussing the actual question. I just asked you to cease your manner of posts.
 
1neophyte said:
So nothing else to contribute then? Good. Hopefully this thread will be closed. It’s a shame it couldn’t have been more edifying.
Click to expand...
On my part I certainly did not intend any offense (and apologize for any so received or perceived) etc but simply to discuss the question.

Let us be as the brothers that we are.
 
Bookcat said:
On my part I certainly did not intend any offense (and apologize for any so perceived) etc but simply to discuss the question. Let us be as the brothers we are.
Click to expand...
I agree. Any YouTube videos you think I should check out? :D:D:D

I recommend Word on Fire and Ascension Presents.
 
1neophyte said:
That depends. If the violation deprives an owner of income that is rightfully theirs, then it is stealing. Of course, this does not apply to watching YouTube videos, despite the confusion of some in this thread.
Click to expand...
How can you steal money that a person never possessed? Neither the IP holder has less money nor the IP user more then prior to the IP user making use of the IP.
 
exnihilo said:
How can you steal money that a person never possessed? Neither the IP holder has less money nor the IP user more then prior to the IP user making use of the IP.
Click to expand...
It’s actually pretty easy. If I know my neighbors are going to be out of town for the summer, and on the day they leave I rent out their house for two months and collect the money without ever telling them what has happened, I have stolen.

If I use someone else’s IP for my own personal monetary gain, I have stolen. If I make someone else’s IP available for free, and undermine their ability to profit from their IP, I have stolen.

Of course, this is not what is happening in the situation being discussed, but you seem to be making an argument that a smart aleck middle schooler would make.
 
exnihilo said:
How can you steal money that a person never possessed? Neither the IP holder has less money nor the IP user more then prior to the IP user making use of the IP.
Click to expand...
The person who owns the copyright has the right to their creation…and profits from it.

If I create a song and record it as a copyrighted thing (terrible as that thought may be to those who know me) - I can sell the use of that song. Another cannot just go take their copy of that song “put it out there” for others. That deprives me of the income from my creation.

Hence copyright laws.

The song is my creation. I do not sell the right to do “whatever with it” if I sell a CD.

Some copyrights even state the song cannot be* loaned* to another…
 
Bookcat said:
The person who owns the copyright has the right to their creation…and profits from it.

If I create a song and record it as a copyrighted thing (terrible as that thought may be to those who know me) - I can sell the use of that song. Another cannot just go take their copy of that song “put it out there” for others. That deprives me of the income from my creation.

Hence copyright laws.

The song is my creation. I do not sell the right to do “whatever with it” if I sell a CD.

Some copyrights even state the song cannot be* loaned* to another…
Click to expand...
Well look at us, on the same side all of a sudden. 😛
 
1neophyte said:
It’s actually pretty easy. If I know my neighbors are going to be out of town for the summer, and on the day they leave I rent out their house for two months and collect the money without ever telling them what has happened, I have stolen.

If I use someone else’s IP for my own personal monetary gain, I have stolen. If I make someone else’s IP available for free, and undermine their ability to profit from their IP, I have stolen.

Of course, this is not what is happening in the situation being discussed, but you seem to be making an argument that a smart aleck middle schooler would make.
Click to expand...
Renting your neighbors house is renting physical property. I’m not making a juvenile argument. I’m making what I think is the right argument. Violating IP is not stealing. It is against the law but not the same as theft. The IP holder has not lost anything that he possessed. He hasn’t been harmed or suffered any real loss.
 
Bookcat said:
The person who owns the copyright has the right to their creation…and profits from it.

If I create a song and record it as a copyrighted thing (terrible as that thought may be to those who know me) - I can sell the use of that song. Another cannot just go take their copy of that song “put it out there” for others. That deprives me of the income from my creation.

Hence copyright laws.

The song is my creation. I do not sell the right to do “whatever with it” if I sell a CD.

Some copyrights even state the song cannot be* loaned* to another…
Click to expand...
You’ve stated the idea behind the law, which I don’t question. I personally do oppose IP. But even if there is IP I disagree with the characterization of violation of it as theft.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top