Comments on: YouTube great example that Wild, Wild, Web still alive

By: Make You Go Hmm: » Like Skype, YouTube not worth more than a billion

Make You Go Hmm: » Like Skype, YouTube not worth more than a billion — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:29:52 +0000

[…] I’m an early adopter Skype fan and still didn’t think eBay was wise to pay billions for them. I wasn’t an early adopter for the popular video tube site YouTube and when I first wrote about them here back in Februrary, I still hadn’t even registered. I have mixed emotions about the site to this day. They are sort of like eating chocolate. You know you probably should stay away, but damn it tastes so good. […]

By: LOL'n'Roll

LOL'n'Roll — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:47:40 +0000

I need daily entertainment and a way to host it, that part’s the youtube business.

By: Make You Go Hmm: » Pill-popping Pac Man junkie anti-drug video

Make You Go Hmm: » Pill-popping Pac Man junkie anti-drug video — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:46:20 +0000

[…] Maybe I was a little too harsh on YouTube. Videogame Theater featuring my favorite 80s arcade game PacMan: PacMan The Insatiable Hunger made me laugh out loud. At the end there is a Donkey Kong and Frogger teaser that was enough to get me to finally register. […]

By: TDavid

TDavid — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:47:44 +0000

Many degrees of theft, pwb, of which even you admit “until recently” that things of changed. I never said there should be criminal penalties here, so not sure where you are trying to go with that.

I don’t need to read up on DMCA. Intellectual property theft is still theft and of course that’s a civil penalty. No, it’s not the same thing as swiping somebody’s physical property like a TV, but the RIAA wouldn’t be getting $3,000+ judgements for DMCA violations if there wasn’t economic damage, nor would the BSA be getting civil judgements for businesses using extra copies of software without buying the licenses. We can debate the finer points here, or call it what it is: infringment = theft = $$ economic damage $$

By: pwb

pwb — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:39:15 +0000

No, it is not. It’s actually quite different.

Non-physical items are handled different from physical items. When referring to digital content, it’s normally a matter of “copyright infringment”, not “stolen property”. There’s a big difference. Until more recently, copyright infringment was purely a civil issue, not a criminal issue. Fair use is applied to content but not to property. There is the obvious difference that a stolen TV is depriving its owner of value. It’s arguable that the opposite is true in the YouTube case.

Again, I encourage you to read up on fair use to understand why this is very different from Napster/Kazaa.

By: TDavid

TDavid — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:56:17 +0000

pwb - of course I’m contemplated it, but that’s like saying: officer, most of the items in our house aren’t stolen. It’s not how much or how many, stolen property is stolen property.

By: pwb

pwb — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:29:50 +0000

Have you even contemplated that the vast majority of YouTube’s content falls under fair use? You might want to read up a bit: http://www.umuc.edu/library/copy.html It’s fairly wasy to argue that most of the supposed copyright content falls under at least three of the four fair use guidelines.

Opt-out is an appropriate way to proceed considering that this is, at worse, a gray area, and that copyright owners likely see the benefit or do not care.

This is nothing like Napster and Kazaa.

By: Computerworld Blogs

Computerworld Blogs — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:37:04 +0000

You Tube a video Napster? (and the biggest Windows error)

In today’s IT Blogwatch, we look at You Tube a video Napster? Not to mention the biggest Windows error…

By: chartreuse (BETA) » Blog Archive » Napster Reloaded: Solving The YouTube/NBC Problem

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:29:54 +0000

[…] A lot of people are writing a lot of things about YouTube and NBC. Here’s the only one that matters: What seems to have escaped the network’s mind is the fact that the video already aired on the program, and therefore has made as much revenue as any episode of the show normally does, not to mention the fact that the attention the video got could drive thousands more people to watch future shows. As usual, the network seems prepared to sacrifice all that free marketing for a little short-term profit. And that’s why it’s called “old” media. (emphasis mine) […]