YouTube and illegal videos

  • Thread starter Thread starter King_Louis_IX
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

King_Louis_IX

Guest
Hi all,

What do people think: is it wrong for me to watch videos on YouTube which are probably illegally uploaded, like Donald Duck cartoons?

I understand that I am not culpable for the illegal upload, but I may still be culpable for supporting the illegal activity by viewing the video. Plus, viewing it for free on YouTube means that I am enjoying something which I would otherwise have to legally pay to see; thus I am effectively stealing.

Thoughts? God Bless you all!
 
Well, it kind of sounds like you’ve answered all your own questions about whether or not you should be doing this.

Currently, there’s very little legal precedent regarding the viewer of illegal streaming material because the companies that own the content are happy with going after the uploaders. You are very much stealing, even though you may not suffer any consequences for the offense. That said, the companies are well within their legal rights to start pursuing viewers at any given juncture, and the legal costs to the defendant alone would bankrupt the average person. Do you want to be the first one they go after, and are a couple of free songs and videos worth that risk? My answer is no.

The concept of Youtube is a fine one; however, in practice, it’s become a haven for people who want to skirt the law and the tolerance of big businesses just to have a few extra things for free. As such, I personally try to stay off Youtube as much as possible. If I do go there, it tends to be from a direct link from a company, so that I know what I’m watching lives up to both the letter and spirit of the law, and my conscience remains clear.
 
Thank you for the helpful reply! My follow-up question would then be:

Isn’t the viewer able to legitimately assume that a video is legal? For example, under the Fair Use clause, etc., a video that is uploaded without permission (illegally) can legally become public if the owner does not choose to enforce the copyright. Or if it is a small tid-bit of a larger product (small clip from a movie), then it is legal under Fair Use as well. This, of course, does not extend to dozens of clips adding up to the whole movie!

Another good example is music. YouTube is basically inviting users to create “YouTube playlists” on their site, which would essentially mean free music (that can’t be downloaded, however). What they do instead is include ads and links to where the song may be purchased. Unless I am wrong, it is part of an initiative that Google and YouTube are working on regarding music and playlists (Vevo, etc.). Plus, many artists like their music on YouTube, since it is probably excellent publicity.

My point is that YouTube is good about quickly removing videos over which the owner cites copyright (their business depends on it, I should think), so any video that is left standing can be assumed to be legal under Fair Use and other rules, no? Especially if it is the type of video that is all over YouTube, or the type that has been on the site for an extended amount of time?
 
Unless the material was posted on YouTube by the owner or an authorized agent or distributor, I would assume it is illegal. Here’s another idea: see if there is a copyright notice. That wouldn’t automatically make it right, but if there is no copyright notice, I would assume it is illegal. To view or listen to illegally posted material is morally equivalent to stealing. Just because “everyone else” is stealing doesn’t make it right.
 
Is it morally wrong, sinful, illegal or illicit to watch or save to a playlist such as ‘favorites,’ a youtube music video which has links below the video to buy the music if the video was not uploaded by a music company or musician?

What is the difference between watching and listening to a full length song on youtube that was not uploaded by a musician or music company and listening to songs on Spotify?
 
King_Louis_IX said:
Thank you for the helpful reply! My follow-up question would then be:

Isn’t the viewer able to legitimately assume that a video is legal? For example, under the Fair Use clause, etc., a video that is uploaded without permission (illegally) can legally become public if the owner does not choose to enforce the copyright. Or if it is a small tid-bit of a larger product (small clip from a movie), then it is legal under Fair Use as well. This, of course, does not extend to dozens of clips adding up to the whole movie!

Another good example is music. YouTube is basically inviting users to create “YouTube playlists” on their site, which would essentially mean free music (that can’t be downloaded, however). What they do instead is include ads and links to where the song may be purchased. Unless I am wrong, it is part of an initiative that Google and YouTube are working on regarding music and playlists (Vevo, etc.). Plus, many artists like their music on YouTube, since it is probably excellent publicity.

My point is that YouTube is good about quickly removing videos over which the owner cites copyright (their business depends on it, I should think), so any video that is left standing can be assumed to be legal under Fair Use and other rules, no? Especially if it is the type of video that is all over YouTube, or the type that has been on the site for an extended amount of time?
Click to expand...
Youtube has many millions of videos, so to assume that every company has the time or resources to enforce their copyright with just that one site out of the hundreds (thousands?) that have illegal material would be a stretch. Also, you are confusing copyright with trademark. A copyright does not have to be defended to maintain its validity. Additionally, Fair Use is actually a very narrowly defined category that gets bandied about a lot, and in most cases is just a weak attempt to justify theft. Fair Use does allow some parts of a work to be borrowed, but the only way to determine if you’ve crossed the line is to get sued and have a court tell you that you did fine.

As for the links in videos situation, it’s basically a sort of agreement that Google/Youtube has come up with between themselves and the music companies to prevent Youtube from getting sued left and right. These companies get to monetize the illegal works on Youtube, but that in no way diminishes their rights to the songs in any way. In fact, I would guess that the only reason this venture has remained in place is because there is a hefty revenue stream headed to the music companies to offset the losses they incur from these illegal uploads. It’s my understanding that they can (and probably do) still request the removal of content on a regular basis if a song is used to accompany content that would do harm to the image of the company.

So, how does this all add up? Most Youtube music is still illegal, even if the companies are deriving some benefit from the activity. Fair Use is not likely to be a safe defense in a case like this. Find better sources for your music and videos.
What is the difference between watching and listening to a full length song on youtube that was not uploaded by a musician or music company and listening to songs on Spotify?
Click to expand...
This is a simple one. The artist or company has a licensing agreement in place with Spotify prior to any music being played on the service. That makes Spotify perfectly legal. The music is also protected by Digital Rights Management (DRM) so that it cannot be downloaded.

Random Youtube users do not have licenses in place with these companies when they upload to the service, and thus they are breaking the law by giving away someone else’s property. People that listen to said material are highly likely to be complicit in the act.

This is why I say, it’s almost better to just stay off Youtube. There are very good (better, even) services to watch programming and listen to music. Then, you never have to question if you’re doing something wrong. About the only times I’ll go on Youtube is if I follow a direct link to a company’s own page, where I’ll watch their specifically uploaded content. I’ve found that it can be too difficult otherwise to figure out official from illegal when merely searching through content and looking at usernames through Youtube’s own search engine.
 
What about a video that features a slideshow of paintings? Are the images of the paintings copyright and therefore illegal to use in a video?
 
In order to protect our copyrights, we have to take care of illegal reproduction. We send out takedown notices all the time.

YouTube is aware that copyright infringement is occurring, so they have a way to have illegally copied content removed:

youtube.com/yt/copyright/copyright-complaint.html

You can be pretty certain that a video put up by JoE452996 is not legal, as opposed to one put up by EMI Music.

Peace,
Ed
 
Thank you, epiclotus, that was very helpful. It seems pretty clear to me now. One question I would add is: If an owner doesn’t have the time or resources to enforce so many infringements of his video on YouTube, does that factor in to whether it can legally become public? It seems to me no, though morally other issues besides stealing may come into play.
 
epiclotus said:
Youtube has many millions of videos, so to assume that every company has the time or resources to enforce their copyright with just that one site out of the hundreds (thousands?) that have illegal material would be a stretch. Also, you are confusing copyright with trademark. A copyright does not have to be defended to maintain its validity. Additionally, Fair Use is actually a very narrowly defined category that gets bandied about a lot, and in most cases is just a weak attempt to justify theft. Fair Use does allow some parts of a work to be borrowed, but the only way to determine if you’ve crossed the line is to get sued and have a court tell you that you did fine.

As for the links in videos situation, it’s basically a sort of agreement that Google/Youtube has come up with between themselves and the music companies to prevent Youtube from getting sued left and right. These companies get to monetize the illegal works on Youtube, but that in no way diminishes their rights to the songs in any way. In fact, I would guess that the only reason this venture has remained in place is because there is a hefty revenue stream headed to the music companies to offset the losses they incur from these illegal uploads. It’s my understanding that they can (and probably do) still request the removal of content on a regular basis if a song is used to accompany content that would do harm to the image of the company.

So, how does this all add up? Most Youtube music is still illegal, even if the companies are deriving some benefit from the activity. Fair Use is not likely to be a safe defense in a case like this. Find better sources for your music and videos.

This is a simple one. The artist or company has a licensing agreement in place with Spotify prior to any music being played on the service. That makes Spotify perfectly legal. The music is also protected by Digital Rights Management (DRM) so that it cannot be downloaded.

Random Youtube users do not have licenses in place with these companies when they upload to the service, and thus they are breaking the law by giving away someone else’s property. People that listen to said material are highly likely to be complicit in the act.

This is why I say, it’s almost better to just stay off Youtube. There are very good (better, even) services to watch programming and listen to music. Then, you never have to question if you’re doing something wrong. About the only times I’ll go on Youtube is if I follow a direct link to a company’s own page, where I’ll watch their specifically uploaded content. I’ve found that it can be too difficult otherwise to figure out official from illegal when merely searching through content and looking at usernames through Youtube’s own search engine.
Click to expand...
A lot of music videos on youtube that are not uploaded by a music company have links below the video that name the song and links where to purchase the music. Why would YouTube put in place that technology for videos if it is illegal to upload music?
 
Is it illegal, sinful or immoral if I ‘favorite’ a music video on youtube, and listen to a song on youtube if I plan to buy the song at a later date?

Is it illegal, sinful or immoral to download a reality tv show weekly for the duration that it is on if the tv show is not available to buy as it is not sold anywhere?
 
King_Louis_IX said:
Thank you, epiclotus, that was very helpful. It seems pretty clear to me now. One question I would add is: If an owner doesn’t have the time or resources to enforce so many infringements of his video on YouTube, does that factor in to whether it can legally become public? It seems to me no, though morally other issues besides stealing may come into play.
Click to expand...
The only ways that copyrights enter the public domain is if the owner openly gives up their rights to the content (which you would have to ask each copyright holder on a case by case basis, plus have documentation to back that up if they ever tried to change their mind) or the content is older than 75 years past the death of the person who created it (or 120 years past when a company created it).
_Abyssinia said:
A lot of music videos on youtube that are not uploaded by a music company have links below the video that name the song and links where to purchase the music. Why would YouTube put in place that technology for videos if it is illegal to upload music?
Click to expand...
That technology was put into place so as an incentive to keep illegal content on Youtube. In essence, it works like this:

Copyright holders, rather than spending money and resources searching Youtube for violations, get to make a little bit of money off the infringers. It’s also free promotion and advertisement, not to mention keeps the good will of the company higher in the public eye when they do not take down video after video (or worse, sue the uploaders). None of these actions, however, diminish the fact that the illegal uploads are still that: illegal. Monetizing an illegal activity is in no way an endorsement of said practice. That’s where you seem to be getting confused. Just because these companies (with the help of Youtube) have figured out a way to get some financial gain from the illegal activities doesn’t make them any less illegal.

In fact, currently working through courts right now is a case called Viacom vs. Youtube. In essence, Youtube is being sued by one of the biggest content holders in the US, challenging their Safe Harbor standing because so much of Youtube is designed around promoting illegal activities. Unlike the basicness of a search engine, which collects and displays data objectively (somewhat), Viacom is arguing that Youtube is encouraging its users to do illegal activities. The court hasn’t issued a ruling either way, yet, and it may end up going all the way to the Supreme Court over the next few years. All of that said, it doesn’t negate the actions of the individual, which are still illegal. Companies can, at any time, start suing individual Youtubers if they so desired. It’s only the bad PR and costs of litigating so many cases that are really the only things preventing that from happening en masse.
 
epiclotus said:
The only ways that copyrights enter the public domain is if the owner openly gives up their rights to the content (which you would have to ask each copyright holder on a case by case basis, plus have documentation to back that up if they ever tried to change their mind) or the content is older than 75 years past the death of the person who created it (or 120 years past when a company created it).
Click to expand...
Right. And from a moral standpoint, not a legal one, I wonder if there is a further complication. A law remains standing, of course, even if it is not enforced. We are not asked to blindly obey laws, but to obey those laws that are justly imposed on us. So, if a law is not enforced, does it necessarily remain justly imposed?

2 examples:

-We’ve all seen a cop go speeding on the highway. The law enforcer is not obeying the law, nor enforcing it if you are driving slower than he is (but over the speed limit); you must nevertheless obey the speed limit. Why? Because the law is justly imposed, irrelevant of the particular cop’s behavior. The law is meant for each driver, not just you or the cop. Thus, it would continue to be morally wrong to break the law.

-A man owns a piece of property with a ‘No Trespassing’ sign at the gate. The two kids next door come and play on it every day after school without asking the man. They notice that he sees them but also that he does not make any attempt to enforce his privacy. The kids are certainly breaking the law, regardless of the man’s actions, but morally, they are doing nothing wrong (at least, not after they see the man is not enforcing his privacy; the initial trespassing is wrong), since he is not enforcing the law. Why? Because the man is the owner of the property, for which the law was intended as protection in the first place. Once he starts allowing the kids to play, even if it is not by explicit permission, they should not have qualms about using the property for playing. The protective law is no longer relevant in this case.

I feel like the issue of videos and enforcement of copyright falls under the second scenario. What do people think?

Regardless, there remains a problem still. Without a doubt, many illegal videos on YouTube are simply impossible for a wronged owner to go through one by one and report. It does not seem right, therefore, to assume that an illegal video is given the green light by an owner, since according to my opinion above, the law loses its protective relevance only if the owner willingly fails to enforce it. If he is unwilling, then the moral position is decidedly negative.
 
epiclotus said:
The only ways that copyrights enter the public domain is if the owner openly gives up their rights to the content (which you would have to ask each copyright holder on a case by case basis, plus have documentation to back that up if they ever tried to change their mind) or the content is older than 75 years past the death of the person who created it (or 120 years past when a company created it).

That technology was put into place so as an incentive to keep illegal content on Youtube. In essence, it works like this:

Copyright holders, rather than spending money and resources searching Youtube for violations, get to make a little bit of money off the infringers. It’s also free promotion and advertisement, not to mention keeps the good will of the company higher in the public eye when they do not take down video after video (or worse, sue the uploaders). None of these actions, however, diminish the fact that the illegal uploads are still that: illegal. Monetizing an illegal activity is in no way an endorsement of said practice. That’s where you seem to be getting confused. Just because these companies (with the help of Youtube) have figured out a way to get some financial gain from the illegal activities doesn’t make them any less illegal.

In fact, currently working through courts right now is a case called Viacom vs. Youtube. In essence, Youtube is being sued by one of the biggest content holders in the US, challenging their Safe Harbor standing because so much of Youtube is designed around promoting illegal activities. Unlike the basicness of a search engine, which collects and displays data objectively (somewhat), Viacom is arguing that Youtube is encouraging its users to do illegal activities. The court hasn’t issued a ruling either way, yet, and it may end up going all the way to the Supreme Court over the next few years. All of that said, it doesn’t negate the actions of the individual, which are still illegal. Companies can, at any time, start suing individual Youtubers if they so desired. It’s only the bad PR and costs of litigating so many cases that are really the only things preventing that from happening en masse.
Click to expand...
Are short clips of a tv show legal? Would that count as fair use?
 
_Abyssinia said:
Are short clips of a tv show legal? Would that count as fair use?
Click to expand...
Unlike a physical book or magazine, proving content ownership on youtube is the job of the viewer. BillEE654098 is most certainly not the copyright holder. And by the way, there is a very easy way to remedy the question of who owns what on youtube. It’s an old Disney cartoon? Contact Disney’s Legal Department. Short clips of a TV show? If it’s recent, just contact the company named at the end of the show. They all have legal departments.

This is fair use:

copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Peace,
Ed
 
Ed is right on. It is most certainly the moral responsibility of the viewer to make sure the content watched is legal.

I’m not speaking at _Abyssinia specifically, but there is a gross misunderstanding in our society about what constitutes Fair Use. Let’s consider the “short clips” question in detail:
  1. Are you the content owner of the clip in question?
    • Yes? You may upload what you, in any length (service permitting) to Youtube.
    • No? You may not upload any of it to Youtube. There is no such thing as Fair Use on Youtube.
  2. How did you get the clip in question?
    • Did you record it from TV? Television content is specifically regulated to only allow for time-shifting a program, not space-shifting or format shifting.
    • Did you cut it from a DVD? Then you’ve broken additional laws by either circumventing the encryption on the DVD or making illegal copies (which is illegal in much the similar way uploading to Youtube is illegal).
See, the press is provided with clips by the movie studios for purposes of reporting news, and that news is rarely distributed via Youtube (and if it is, the news agency will already have specific legal/licensing agreements in place with the content owners about that). In order for Fair Use to be applicable, it has to fall under some very specific categories. In addition to Ed’s link, more can read more about it here:

teachingcopyright.org

Clips by themselves are just stealing. Unless one is doing something creative with it (and willing to back that up in court if pressed on the issue), one should avoid uploading clips that don’t belong to you. Similarly, watching illegal clips is… also illegal.

While I personally think the copyright system in the US is very oppressive to the individual (there need to be Personal Use laws in place), they are still the laws. As such, we are called to obey these laws, as they are not calling us to do anything immoral. Therefore, it would be wrong to violate them.

I know a lot of this feels very “letter of the law” regarding morality, but I would argue that the grave ignorance our society has of the law is both a shame and not a valid reason to be lax in obedience. I have to wonder if the people that scoff at the law have similar attitudes toward the commands of God. As I understand it, we are called to follow both the letter and the spirit of the law.
 
epiclotus said:
Ed is right on. It is most certainly the moral responsibility of the viewer to make sure the content watched is legal.

I’m not speaking at _Abyssinia specifically, but there is a gross misunderstanding in our society about what constitutes Fair Use. Let’s consider the “short clips” question in detail:
  1. Are you the content owner of the clip in question?
    • Yes? You may upload what you, in any length (service permitting) to Youtube.
    • No? You may not upload any of it to Youtube. There is no such thing as Fair Use on Youtube.
  2. How did you get the clip in question?
    • Did you record it from TV? Television content is specifically regulated to only allow for time-shifting a program, not space-shifting or format shifting.
    • Did you cut it from a DVD? Then you’ve broken additional laws by either circumventing the encryption on the DVD or making illegal copies (which is illegal in much the similar way uploading to Youtube is illegal).
See, the press is provided with clips by the movie studios for purposes of reporting news, and that news is rarely distributed via Youtube (and if it is, the news agency will already have specific legal/licensing agreements in place with the content owners about that). In order for Fair Use to be applicable, it has to fall under some very specific categories. In addition to Ed’s link, more can read more about it here:

teachingcopyright.org

Clips by themselves are just stealing. Unless one is doing something creative with it (and willing to back that up in court if pressed on the issue), one should avoid uploading clips that don’t belong to you. Similarly, watching illegal clips is… also illegal.

While I personally think the copyright system in the US is very oppressive to the individual (there need to be Personal Use laws in place), they are still the laws. As such, we are called to obey these laws, as they are not calling us to do anything immoral. Therefore, it would be wrong to violate them.

I know a lot of this feels very “letter of the law” regarding morality, but I would argue that the grave ignorance our society has of the law is both a shame and not a valid reason to be lax in obedience. I have to wonder if the people that scoff at the law have similar attitudes toward the commands of God. As I understand it, we are called to follow both the letter and the spirit of the law.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a few examples that illustrate how the copyright system in the US is very oppressive to the individual?

Best,
Ed
 
epiclotus said:
While I personally think the copyright system in the US is very oppressive to the individual (there need to be Personal Use laws in place), they are still the laws. As such, we are called to obey these laws, as they are not calling us to do anything immoral. Therefore, it would be wrong to violate them.

I know a lot of this feels very “letter of the law” regarding morality, but I would argue that the grave ignorance our society has of the law is both a shame and not a valid reason to be lax in obedience. I have to wonder if the people that scoff at the law have similar attitudes toward the commands of God. As I understand it, we are called to follow both the letter and the spirit of the law.
Click to expand...
I agree with just about everything you’ve said, but I’m not sure if I entirely agree with that last bit. I think it is important to follow the letter and the spirit of the law, but at the same time not to get overly scrupulous about it, if we can help it. This is especially true about oppressive laws, though I don’t know if I’d say the current copyright laws are at that point. I think they need to be changed/updated to accommodate for the realities of the technological world we live in today, but until that happens we should respect the law as it stands. But like I said in my previous post, there can certainly be an element of personal judgement involved which is not necessarily strictly synonymous with the law. I wonder whether this leaves a window open for some legitimate watching of illegally uploaded videos, as explained in my previous post.

Basically, if a law is oppressive we are not necessarily called to obey it. But I suppose that depends on how an individual chooses to define “oppressive.”
 
edwest2 said:
Can you provide a few examples that illustrate how the copyright system in the US is very oppressive to the individual?
Click to expand...
Perhaps a hurried choice of words wasn’t the best. Oppressive might be the wrong term to use.

What I mean is that I think we should follow the laws because they are the laws, and there is nothing immoral in the way the laws work. That said, while I do agree with the principle of copyright and trademark, I do not agree with the way it has been written into law, nor how the enforcement and violations of it are handled. I honestly couldn’t tell you what would be a reasonable alternative, but copyright lasting 70 years past the death of a creator or 120 years for a company is just mind-blowing to me. The entire concept of the public domain has been almost completely obliterated, and I think our society is the poorer for it. The way our society functions has been fundamentally changed with the advent of the internet, and continues to evolve in such a rapid way, that public works are almost entirely useless to the “modern” citizen because they are the stuff of academia by the time they are validly serviceable by the populace.

On top of that, there is a clear lack of Personal Use laws in place. Rather than Congress defining what constitutes personal use in a general way, we have to wait for the Librarian of Congress to make a ruling every three years (an eternity in this technological age) on what constitutes valid Personal Use in specific instances. Either that, or we have to wait on the rulings of court cases, which tend to be so narrowly focused as to not give any sense of direction regarding future issues. The whole system is a mess for the average citizen to navigate, and that’s really antithetical to the whole concept of lawmaking in the first place. How can a citizen know what to follow if he can barely understand the text of a law in the first place, let alone how it applies to his/her own life. It’s pretty ludicrous.
 
I am going to be more careful regarding what I watch on youtube from now on. I am currently trying to match all the music that I have saved on youtube playlists that I do not think are uploaded by by a music company or musician to spotify and will delete that music from youtube playlists.

I respect that content owners want to make money from a product. Could there be any way for musicians, television and movie organizations to find a balance between making money from their product and allowing more freedom for people who do not own the content to be within the law to upload content and thus watch content that they do not own or pay for?

I read online that that you can’t give copies of music you buy to friends or family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top