Post of the Day A man of the cloth...
#16
Yeah well look at the feedback the movie and music conglomerates got when they pursued end users. Remember headlines like "RIAA wants $400,000.00 from destitute solo mother whose disabled wheelchair bound son just loves to listen to Beyonce". (OK I paraphrase).
If I have helped you or increased your knowledge, click the 'thumbs up' button to give thanks :) (People with less than 20 posts won't see the "thumbs up" button.)
Reply
#17
The other key points concerning YouTube:

The add-on (and the service as a whole) are not designed to host pirated material. The fact that a minority of it is such that people have uploaded doesn't justify opening any floodgates for anything else.

Google actively remove such material when it is found or they are alerted to it.
|Banned add-ons (wiki)|Forum rules (wiki)|VPN policy (wiki)|First time user (wiki)|FAQs (wiki) Troubleshooting (wiki)|Add-ons (wiki)|Free content (wiki)|Debug Log (wiki)|

Kodi Blog Posts
Reply
#18
Exactly the key point as far as Youtube is concerned is they have algorithms that attempt to prevent uploading of infringing material, and where it does make it onto the site they have DMCA compliant procedures for the takedown of infringing material.
Reply
#19
Here's kind of a fun fact. YouTube was originally created for the express purpose of hosting content not owned by the user. Specifically, it was developed by some guys who were annoyed they'd missed the famous Super Bowl Wardrobe Malfunction and wanted a place where any user could upload similar videos quickly and easily.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyr...e5f08519ca

While YouTube has kind of grown up and away from hosting the copyrighted content of others, that was a big part of its origins.

edit: And speak of the devil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npF1lkKEM9o
Reply
#20
Youtube has a functioning reporting and takedown system for copyrighted material, which qualifies youtube to be copyright compliant under the "safe haven" rule, despite having tons of copyrighted material. The "real" pirates of course don't have anything like a reporting and takedown system. I think legally that's the difference but this is of course not easy to tell for every user. However, that getting something for free that otherwise is a paid service isn't exactly legal should be trivial to recognize for everyone.
Reply
#21
(2018-01-29, 11:17)jjd-uk Wrote: Exactly the key point as far as Youtube is concerned is they have algorithms that attempt to prevent uploading of infringing material, and where it does make it onto the site they have DMCA compliant procedures for the takedown of infringing material.
 My thoughts exactly.  I tried to upload small 20 second clip from family guy, because facebook wouldn't allow it, and it was denied immediately.
Reply
#22
(2018-01-29, 11:17)jjd-uk Wrote: Exactly the key point as far as Youtube is concerned is they have algorithms that attempt to prevent uploading of infringing material, and where it does make it onto the site they have DMCA compliant procedures for the takedown of infringing material.
 The problem is that the major copyright holders have done everything in their power to maximize their control over their content but its simply not practical (or desirable) to apply the same standard to all copyrighted material. So when we think about copyrighted content, what comes to mind? The Avengers. That's what the evil pirates are "stealing." Big blockbuster movies. But I can go on Youtube right now and watch hundreds of old TV movies, documentaries, films, tv episodes, etc. All of which remain on the site because no one bothers to file a take-down notice and the algorithm is not designed to automatically remove content that isn't likely to be marked as a violation.  It doesn't take long to find examples-- Escape to Grizzly Mountain has nearly 400,000 views. Trial of Billy Jack nearly 150,000. The Way Ahead 160,000. High Flight has 600,000. Conflict of Wings 280,000. We might say, what the hell are those movies? and Who cares if they are uploaded in full to Youtube, their without value, clearly. But if Youtube were a television station, they would have to pay for the rights just to air those movies.

In other words, "pirated" material is really only material that major copyright holders feel are valuable. Is this a good standard to decide what qualifies as a copyright violation? Maybe, but what we know for sure is that its not codified into the law. Current copyrights last 150 years. That means we will all likely be dead by the time that a film from 1950 lapses into the public domain, and that's assuming that copyright isn't extended again before then. This kind of copyright maximalism is what undermines the position of copyright holders more than anything else. If we were to say copyright only lasted 20 years, it would be far easier to determine what qualifies as a violation vs what is simply fair-use cultural sharing. But as it stands you are equally guilty for sharing the some obscure 1950's movie as you are the latest Avengers. Only one is likely to get you in trouble and the other is not.

It's also good to keep in mind that if copyright maximalist had their way, Kodi would probably never exist because they would have banned dvd and cd ripping software long ago. And installed software on computers that would automatically delete any "violating" content.
Reply
#23
We do our part where we can but others also need to do theirs. We aren't going to fight their battles for them if they can't be bothered to...
|Banned add-ons (wiki)|Forum rules (wiki)|VPN policy (wiki)|First time user (wiki)|FAQs (wiki) Troubleshooting (wiki)|Add-ons (wiki)|Free content (wiki)|Debug Log (wiki)|

Kodi Blog Posts
Reply

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
A man of the cloth...0