On 04-Jan-09 18:06, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> it is time for youtube to do the same. Until they do, we have to treat 
>> anything there as illegal uploads.
> 
> Actually, thinking on it, there are an awful lot of places that use 
> youtube to serve their own content to the public, like
> http://www.rhfleet.org/site/imax/animalopolis.cfm does. 

I know, if the website of my research center finally will be publicly 
available, the videos will be hosted by youtube. That was not my idea.

> So it's really far from clear how much of the commercial content 
> is actually illegal. 

Indeed

> It wouldn't surprise me to learn many of the rock 
> videos are actually uploaded by the artists to be linked from their own 
> sites.

It might be, but then it appears that quite a lot of people were in very 
famous bands and in a lot of them. ;)
Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QpRCK1IbiE is uploaded by the 
artist herself whereas e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV3WkBZrcp0 
comes from the same DVD but is almost certainly illegally uploaded by 
someone else. (I feel totally relaxed viewing these as I have the DVD ;) 
) How would anyone not knowing about quinlanroad know which one is the 
legal one (unless there is a note in the video), especially if artists 
do not use their own name but the name of the street they once lived in 
as a tag? And does that matter?

> (That's an amusing video there, too.)

That also illustrates the IP difficulties. It consists of footage and a 
soundtrack. The montage is clearly IP by this site, but did they have 
permission to use the footage and the vocals? How do I know? Again, does 
that matter?

Post a reply to this message