http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Fair Use
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (
title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
- The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961
Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Not that I'm trying to screw the companies as they and the performers are getting paid far and above what would be normal for any other business. I doubt the quality of anything on you-tube would be considered studio quality so nobody is going to reproduce it and be able to make money at it.
I'm still curious about music recorded from a broadcast, most TV corps use watermarks during their broadcasting. Anybody watching video is paying for that service, does that service include having the right to record what you watch so you can view it at a later date or do viewing rights end as soon as the video is over?
For those who do just the music can you not record music from media that you pay a subscription to, in this case adding in satellite radio as a source.
Now if you have a warehouse full of DVD's in boxes matching the original material then that is a pirating case, freely distributing would be advertising for free and the ones watching youtube are most likely there because they do not have the funds to purchase the newer material. How many would go and rent a music DVD and after the week never listen to it again and for that they should only have to pay $0.50. If you want to extend that have a code that would allow a back-up to be made from the master-disk and that code is registered so you can get a copy if you happen to lose your purchased copy (can't be any harder than canceling a lost debit card, try getting one of those reactivated) The best distribution spot would be the local library as that is defined as a public institution rather than a Blockbuster for music and missing material could be tagged to your drivers so stealing would be impossible.
If I knowingly say, "One of these days I'm going to have to have a long talk with that boy." is copy-write infringement just because that phrase is registered to 'Jed Clampet from the TV series 'The Beverly Hillbillies' (1965) and it may not have been the first time that was ever used. That would make the creators of 1984 shudder.
Be interesting to see if a lower limit can be set, publish at 240 lines and there is no delay as the quality is downgraded to phone quality.
In theory what could happen if the OWS crowd adopted the same tactic as the one below. Project video onto the walls of the building they are protesting, complete with sound at the site where the projection lands on.
Could you broadcast something as long a the 'Money Masters' in it's entirety (with their permission) and could you use current news items if used in context and such but as a short clip that would fit the fair use?
Shame, I wouldn't have bought half of the crappy music I own if I didn't hear it on Youtube first. This also explains why my friend in Germany has such a hard time viewing videos.
You could always set up a spare one (or somewhere) and let him remotely control that computer from his place via a program like TightVPN
I haven't found a workaround for content that is in the US and won't be transmitted to Canada, usually there is another copy somewhere in the search engine results if not just pic a different vid.
I usually watch documentaries and after they are about 5ys old I doubt many people care who watches it and there is no demand for it in the black market, if there ever was in the first place.
Looks like a lot of people will be looping legal downloads rather than illegal music. 12hrs of Admiralty Law followed by 5 languages in 30 days or less if you leave out the cuss words. How long before the boycott ruins the current industry? That would require just clicking on videos other than music and listen to music via another media. Youtube and others would see the public can police themselves, a little too well as music just too a 90% cut in revenues or people would just pass them by for the free stuff that actually supplied them with some usable tools in their daily life.
That's why the music companies are running scared. With modern technology and social media, music publishing can easily be a cottage industry. The decline in the cost of quality recording equipment makes it affordable for any band to have their own studio. For a couple tens of thousand you can emulate a studio that would have cost hundreds of thousands just a decade ago.
