Embedding YouTube Videos May Soon Be a Felony

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Techdirt reports that Senate bill 978 – a bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes – may be used to prosecute people for embedding YouTube videos.
According to Mark Masnick, if a website embeds a YouTube video that is determined to have infringed on copyright and more than 10 people view it on that website, the owner or others associated with the website could face up to five years in prison.

Embedding YouTube Videos May Soon Be a Felony Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
 

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
I hate Mickey Mouse a little more each time I see the word Copyright.
After 5 years everything should be public domain.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Sucks to live in the US then..... as there's plenty in the US who view YouTube videos and other types of online video as there are in every other country, yet this will now target them.

Or is it also expected that other countries start extraditing their citizens to the US for breaking US laws while outside of their country?

.....In addition to outlawing video streaming, new legislation “would impose a strong, top-down enforcement regime, with new cooperation requirements upon (ISPs), including perfunctionary disclosure of customer information. The proposal [the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement] also bans ‘anti-circumvention measures which may affect online anonymity systems and would likely outlaw multi-region CD/DVD players. The proposal also specifies a plan to encourage developing nations to accept the legal regime,” imposing consequences for opting out,” a Wikileaks document disclosed in May of 2008.

I mentioned it before and I'll say it again... We can have Pirate Radio Stations among regular radio stations..... why hasn't anybody started looking into "Pirate ISP's" or personal IS Devices to get out of the clinches of ISP's and others charging you access to the internet, which as far as I know, nobody owns?
 
Last edited:

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,910
11,192
113
Low Earth Orbit
It's illegal for a kids party clown to sing along to happy birthday at a kid's party because they are paid entertainers and would have to pay a usage fee.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
It's illegal for a kids party clown to sing along to happy birthday at a kid's party because they are paid entertainers and would have to pay a usage fee.

What, Seriously?

Surly you gest?

That's completely mental.... who has the rights to "O'Christmas Tree?"

If your answer is Jesus, then I could probably accept that. But if someone says Disney, or Oprah.... I'll frg'n lOoooooossseee it!

*Image edited of Fry from Futurama pulling his hair out and screaming*
BBb''waaaaaaaaaaA!!!

Added:

Wait.... O....M.....G......... Oh My God! Oh My God! *flails hands in the air at shoulder height*

Soon they could do the same thing with images as well as video clips.

*gasp*

Fry from Futurama is Copyrighted!!!

I gotta get rid of it before 5 people see it!

*phew*

that was close...... Cheese! It's the Fedz!

*disappears into the shadows*
 
Last edited:

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
It's illegal for a kids party clown to sing along to happy birthday at a kid's party because they are paid entertainers and would have to pay a usage fee.

Generally the fee for an event like a birthday is incorporated into the fee charged for the performance. So any and all music is included in the $36.60 you pay to SOCAN for the licence. That includes Happy Birthday, no matter how it is played. Often if it's a performance in a entertainment location like a bar for example, it is usual for the establishment to provide the license.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,910
11,192
113
Low Earth Orbit
What, Seriously?

Surly you gest?

That's completely mental.... who has the rights to "O'Christmas Tree?"

If your answer is Jesus, then I could probably accept that. But if someone says Disney, or Oprah.... I'll frg'n lOoooooossseee it!

*Image edited of Fry from Futurama pulling his hair out and screaming*
BBb''waaaaaaaaaaA!!!

Added:

Wait.... O....M.....G......... Oh My God! Oh My God! *flails hands in the air at shoulder height*

Soon they could do the same thing with images as well as video clips.

*gasp*

Fry from Futurama is Copyrighted!!!

I gotta get rid of it before 5 people see it!

*phew*

that was close...... Cheese! It's the Fedz!

*disappears into the shadows*
Yup. You gotta pay DISNEY and possibly a tithe to Satan

Generally the fee for an event like a birthday is incorporated into the fee charged for the performance. So any and all music is included in the $36.60 you pay to SOCAN for the licence. That includes Happy Birthday, no matter how it is played. Often if it's a performance in a entertainment location like a bar for example, it is usual for the establishment to provide the license.

Everyone knows the words to "Happy Birthday to You." What few people know is that the song is owned by a private company, and that it is copyrighted.

Use it for any commercial purpose, and you are supposed to pay up, says George Washington University School of Law professor Robert Brauneis.

"If you want to sing it at your home at a birthday party you don't have to pay anything, because that is a private performance," he said. "But if you want to use it in a television show, a movie, or a television commercial, you'll pay anywhere from $5,000 to $30,000 for those rights."

Turns out this humble little ditty is a cash juggernaut, generating approximately $2 million in royalties every year, Brauneis said.
After a series of purchases and acquisitions, the song is now owned by Warner Music Group, through its publishing arm, Warner/Chappell. It collects royalties for everything from happy birthday ring-tones to e-cards that play "Happy Birthday to You."

The Girl Scouts once were warned they would have to pay a fee if campers sang it. Even restaurants are supposed to pay, which is why some chains have their waiters sing alternative birthday songs that require no rights payments.
I wonder how much if the Girls Scouts want to sing Lady Gaga songs around the campfire?
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,284
480
83
59
Alberta
You know this thinking goes back to the utter stupidity of the Music industry and their resistance of file sharing. Posting video on Youtube, whether it is a segment of House, ACDC getting their rock on, or a trailer of JJ Abrahams Super 8. These mental midgets just don't get that this is the best form of free advertising you can get.

That said. Here's some Youtube videos you folks can embed. I promise not sue nor does the composer who let me use his work for free advertising.

YouTube - ‪Equinox Promo 1‬‏

YouTube - ‪The Skinwalker of Chocktee.wmv‬‏

I did this to prove my point, not for shameless self-promotion for my novel set for release this summer. Cough Cough.

Hey here's another example


 
Last edited:

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
It's true what R.CDN.Soldier said about free advertisement. It's not like the clips on YouTube & other web sites are anywhere near DVD or Blueray quality and since most people don't have a clue as to how you can rip/download the videos straight off the sites in order to store them on your system, their concern over this situation is a bit stupid.

How much more exposure would one have for their work if they just continued to try and market/sell themselves & their product just around their local community or in certain areas of their country, compared to being posted on the internet for anybody with an internet access can view your work?

For the amount of people who might copy your work onto their systems and give you nothing in return, that's generally countered greatly by the amount of people you would actually reach around the world who would be actually interested in your work and willing to order the full-quality, physical form of your work, ala a delivered DVD/BlueRay, or direct download of the full quality file.

All this is, is another example of people getting too damn greedy and expecting to hold an entire monopoly over the market. They don't see the bigger picture of how the internet is actually helping them gain more fame, more attention & more money..... they can only focus on the small group of people world-wide who they're not getting money from and trying to find a way to get that money...... and will end up shooting themselves in the foot by further attempting to restrict the medium so that it'll work just like the 1970's..... limited and isolated to certain areas and certain people they can afford to market to, rather then letting it just unfold and do it's thing.

Just think..... if Justin Bieber didn't use YouTube and tried to copyright & control everything he put out.... we wouldn't have his sorry arse annoying us today at the extent it is.

That'd probably be a good thing in my view..... but it also shows the point I am trying to make about just how powerful the internet is as a mass-advertisment medium.

If you try to restrict the system anymore then it currently is, then don't expect people to be making the millions they are today from it.

I'd have no problem losing a bit of profit from people snagging my work off the net..... it's a minor expense compared to the level of exposure my work would get to an audience that would normally never see or hear of myself or my work.

Added:

They couldn't control people stealing/pirating movies & music when Cassettes, VHS, CD's & DVD's came out.... they still can't control those things today..... what makes them think they'll even make a dent on the internet?

For every action they try to make, there will be dozens of counter-actions created to make those original actions meaningless.

Take Adobe for example. When their programs first came out there wasn't much security preventing their files from being copied and used by others who didn't pay for it. Then Security Key's came along to confine the copy to the one user who had the proper serial numbers....... then along came key generators..... so they added an additional activation registry system after the serial key is entered...... then activation generators, cracks and de-activators for the activator came along..... then came continued online updates & checkers to your adobe products as they loaded on your system to continue to determine if you have a legit copy, which would lock you out if it wasn't..... then came cracks and procedures to make your computer disconnect Adobe programs from their online updates & checks to allow you to avoid this process and keep using the illegal copy.

Other companies have included "Dongle Keys" that won't let the program run on your system unless you have a dongle key plugged into your computer designed specifically for that program..... and people created programs or files to mask themselves as a legit dongle key, by-passing this security feature.

And I'm sure they and other companies like them will come up with new security features and procedures to try and prevent illegal copying of their programs & files...... but as always, someone will come along and figure out how to counter it.

When the Adobe Activation things came along, many people thought that was the end of pirating and the hackers/crackers were finally beaten.

This redundant process is about as effective as the War on Drugs.
 
Last edited: