The morality of learning Japanese using media

  • Thread starter Thread starter kdwz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
YouTube’s responsibility to follow the take down notice. if its there i can only assume the copyright holder has not filed a complaint.
 
Why assume that? I have seen how unscrupulous people modify TV shows by shrinking them or reversing the images and/or modifying the pitch of the voices so that it escapes detection. I have seen something produced by my company copied on another website without our permission. We have issued take-downs.
 
i assume it because i haven’t seen anyone get in legal troubles watching YouTube videos.
 
Any large corporation is not going to advertise its internal legal issues. It could incur other liability in some cases. I know copyright law. I know copyright attorneys. There are things they advise us to do and tell us what not to do. The law is not simple and I understand why most people don’t understand copyright. If youtube had no ‘safe harbor’ from the DMCA, they would be in court.
 
Soubirous1 said:
i assume it because i haven’t seen anyone get in legal troubles watching YouTube videos
Click to expand...
Are you personally aware of everyone watching YouTube? Unlikely of course. But the person who is most likely to “get in legal troubles” is the one who uploaded it as they are the easiest to catch, and are the ones who violated copyright by distributing it without permission. I can’t say what degree of legal culpability a watcher incurs, but I can say that the uploader definitely is in violation.
 
Excuse me please don’t accuse me of condoning illegal activity. I’m for changing the law so it’s not illegal. Difference. I am not for violating the law willy nilly just because of my opinions.
 
Opinions don’t matter, facts do. Fact, the DMCA saw what was coming and allowed entities like youtube a ‘safe harbor’ from prosecution. As I wrote, mot people don’t understand copyright law or what’s at stake. The company I work for has been involved in protecting our copyrights.
 
And if you consider the arguments put forward by anti copyright activists you will see they don’t rest on opinion but facts.
 
if anyone was getting in trouble we would be informed via media. free Deterrent.
 
Do you really think that “the media” would bother with a random YouTube watcher, or even a couple of dozen of them, getting a cease and desist letter? Now there was a time when a lot of music downloaders got hit with serious bills from music publishers for illegally downloading music and that made the news for the volume and the way out of proportion amounts being claimed. But Joe Watcher? On his own.
 
they did with torrents to the extent pepsi made a commercial about.
 
Who is “they”, what specific torrents, and which one (of the thousands of) Pepsi commercials?
 
Metallica vs a little girl. sued for something like $30000 per song and won. google pepsi, i fought the law.
 
That was part of the music publisher issue I mentioned that was newsworthy not because it was about illegal downloading but because of the outrageous amount of money claimed.
 
Who said using YouTube was against the law? Where did that even come from? What is against the law is stealing other people’s stuff. I personally don’t use YouTube very often because it is a perfect illustration of Sturgeon’s Law.
 
I know those arguments. They are the arguments of anarchists. Anarchy is not a good thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top