you tube ip This is a topic that many people are looking for. newyorkcityvoices.org is a channel providing useful information about learning, life, digital marketing and online courses …. it will help you have an overview and solid multi-faceted knowledge . Today, newyorkcityvoices.org would like to introduce to you IP Problems, YouTube, and the Future: Crash Course Intellectual Property #7. Following along are instructions in the video below:
“I m stan muller and this is the final nepisode of crash course intellectual property property tackling such a huge subject in only seven nepisodes has meant that we ca go into quite as much detail as we d like but hopefully nwe ve given you a pretty good overview of the basics of intellectual property. We spent nthe last six episodes talking about copyright patent and trademark laws as they currently nexist. But we keep running into a roadblock intellectual property law is slow to change and we re living in a world that s changing pretty rapidly as we ve noted again and again our new digital nworld has raised challenges for both consumers and producers of ip. So today.
We re going nto look at some of the problems that have developed in recent years with intellectual nproperty. We re also going to talk about ip as it applies to everyone s favorite internet nmedia hub youtube. And we re even going to look into the future. I mean we ve got this nliquid filled dye agitator.
Containing a dye with raised indicia on the facets thereof nthis. Thing tells the future right. It is certain theme music. So youtube s kind of a big deal.
It has over na billion users watching hundreds of millions of hours of video and generates billions and nbillions of views at the time. We made this over 300 hours of video are uploaded to youtube s nservers every minute and in its ten year history youtube has become the audiovisual wing in google s attempt to build its archive of everything youtube is truly vast and it ll continue nto grow. It s arguably the most important tool for speech and entertainment on the internet nand. We think.
It s probably the world s greatest and most transformative teaching and learning tool. But as great as youtube is in a lot of ways. It s kind of a mess when over 300 hours of video are uploaded nevery minute 24 hours a day some of it s not going to be that great. While it s kind nof amazing and radically democratic that individual vloggers and makers of cat videos and those nvideos where they just open the toys and look at them get to publish their videos side by nside with huge media companies.
Some creators are concerned that their creative work is ncheapened and becomes just another piece of content that gets lost amidst the junk and npeople aren t just uploading their own content. Very often people use this service to share nmaterial. They didn t create so for pretty much the entirety of youtube s 10 year existence nit s been getting sued in early. 2007 viacom.
Opened the floodgates nserved over 100000 take down notices and sued youtube for 1 billion sports leagues. Nmusic publishers and other copyright owners all filed class action suits based on the nsame theory. Youtube and google should be held liable for the copyright. Infringements ncommitted by youtube users the issue here was whether youtube.
Complied with section n512 of the copyright act. Which was added in 1998 as part of the digital millennium ncopyright act or dmca the dmca sets out safe harbors to protect internet service providers nor isps from unreasonable liability basically certain isps have to block or remove infringing content that it s aware of or for which it receives a valid notice dmca safe harbors protect internet service nproviders that comply with certain conditions when they re engaged in one of four covered nactivities. The first activity is when they re acting as mere conduits like the pipes nof the internet for example. Comcast.
Verizon. Fios or google fiber. The second activity nis caching content like google does the third activity is hosting user generated content. Nlike youtube and the fourth is acting as an information location tool or search engine.
Nlike google. Or bing. The problem is congress came up with these ncategories in 1998..
.
Which is like 80 years ago in internet years. The dmca doesn t fit nneatly with new categories of online services. Including peer to peer sharing torrents and ncloud storage. The dmca is due for an upgrade.
Let s take a closer look at the notice and takedown provision of the dmca in the thought bubble. So isps don t have to actively monitor for ninfringement. But they do have to act. If they know about infringing content isps know there s ninfringing content on their system.
When they receive a takedown notice or when they re nindependently aware of it through either actual knowledge or where it s obvious infringing activity nis going on this is called red flag knowledge copyright owners and isps complain that the nnotice and takedown system isn t working rights holders complain that the system only nworks for large corporate entities individuals and small businesses can t afford to constantly nmonitor for infringement and send thousands of notices also the dmca requires that content nbe taken down only from the specific location or url identified in the notice once infringing ncontent like interstellar posted on youtube is taken down it just gets reposted in a ndifferent location copyright owners call. It the whack. A mole problem isps. Complain nthat the volume of takedown notices is overwhelming google started keeping track of the take down nnotices over the past several.
Years the number has increased from about a 130000. Urls. Per nweek in 2011. To nearly 10 million per week.
In 2015. Lots of these notices are sent using nautomated systems. Which sometimes leads to erroneously removed content that doesn t and ncan t take into account. The fact that the use might be fair also there is some evidence nthat.
The take down system is being abused as a censorship tool as in the case. Where nsome candidates political advertisements. Have been targeted for removal during the ndays leading up to a campaign or as in the case of video game companies flagging unfavorable nreviews as infringing content thanks thought bubble now to get back to the viacom v. Youtube case nthe issue.
Really centered around whether youtube had knowledge that infringing content nwas being posted to the site and whether it induced users nto post such content in 2012. The second circuit court of appeals nheld that in order for youtube to lose its safe harbor protections. It must have knowledge nor awareness of specific infringing activity. So although youtube was probably generally naware that infringing content was being uploaded.
Because of the sheer volume of video being nposted and the fact they were being sued by a lot of people who were loudly pointing out nthat a lot of this content was infringing viacom couldn t show that youtube knew about nspecific infringing content and ignored. It after yet another appeal viacom and youtube nsettled. The case in march of 2014. One big reason for that settlement may have been youtube s n2012 development of.
The content id system with. Content id youtube allows certain ncopyright owners to upload their content into a database of protected material youtube nscans the uploaded content looking for a match in the database. When there is a match rights nholders can elect to either block or remove the offending material or. Monetize the video nby running ads against it though.
Content id seems to have slowed. All nthe litigation. It s kind of really upset..
.
The youtube user community critics point nout that the automated system can censor fair uses of protected content and sometimes unfairly nflag certain videos others claim that the system doesn t go far enough arguing that nyoutube gamed the dmca in rapidly evolving markets to turn a billion dollar lawsuit into na lucrative business deal and that youtube should be more proactive in ferreting out ninfringing content in any. Case it appears that. Content id nis here to stay into the foreseeable future. And there are probably several settlement nagreements that require its existence anyway for the time being.
Content id will continue nto chip away at some youtubers incomes. Which leads us to the issue of monetizing youtube nvideos. It s not an incredibly easy thing to do the difficulties inherent in generating income on youtube become more complex. When you talk about freebooting.
Which is the unauthorized copying of online content and rehosting. It on another website. Unlike linking sharing or embedding. The nfile where the original creator is credited and paid for any views that take place the nfreebooted file is actually downloaded and reposted on another site.
Where it generates nrevenue. Our friend destin at smarter every day made an excellent video about it that nyou should. Watch freebooting is kind of interesting. The companies nthat are hosting these infringing videos have something of a perverse incentive to slow ndown.
The dmca takedown process. The longer. The video is up of their site. The more views nand revenues.
It generates while they re observing the letter of the law and eventually taking nthe stuff down. It seems a little fishy to me in any case. The compensation structure of nyoutube is often at odds with the incentive structure of copyright. Law authors are granted nexclusive rights for a limited time so they may financially benefit from their creation.
Neither through sale of copies or licensing access to the work. But this limited grant nof exclusive rights becomes less limited all the time as copyright term is extended and nextended further into the future speaking of the future. Let s wrap things nup with a little futurism. We re gonna look at a few problems with current nintellectual property law and we re gonna talk a bit about what the future might look nlike.
We painted a pretty rosy picture of trademark law and at its core. It is a consumer nprotection measure that really does function pretty well we all have to buy things. But ntrademark law makes sure we can more easily locate and buy the things we actually want and need. But owners sometimes overreach and abuse.
The system trademarks are everywhere and for better nor worse. They ve taken on such a level of importance to our day to day lives that it s nimpossible to photoshop out every soda bottle or shirt logo in our videos and by the way nphotoshop is a registered trademark of adobe systems incorporated not a generic term for ndigital photo editing and even if our old friend t. Swizzie. Registers nphrases like from her songs.
It s not that worrisome trademark nregistrations don t give owners the right to dictate how a phrase or mark is used trademarks nbecome problematic. When owners try to use them to restrain speech. Like where a restaurant nthreatens..
.
The author of a bad. Yelp review with trademark infringement. So patents are a little more of a mess. A nlot of recently issued patents are for inventions that are unoriginal vague over broad or nso.
Unclear that bad actors can easily use them to threaten innovation. For example npatents have been issued to basic technologies like sending and receiving of streaming audio nand video over the internet voice over ip systems and real time multiplayer games nto. Me all of these seem like basic building. Blocks for other products these bad patents nseem to serve no function besides generating license fees and curbing innovation.
This nis really the case with software patents. Where inventions can be as abstract as a single nclick to purchase a book or the idea of sorting your facebook friends into groups patent trolls are non practicing entities nthat take advantage of these vague patents by filing vague legal complaints even if nyou ve closely read the patent and you know your stuff. It s kind of hard to figure out nhow you ve infringed the thing. There is patent troll legislation currently pending in the nhouse that would require companies bringing lawsuits to use greater detail in their documents nand.
There s actually a good chance that this patent troll legislation is going to pass nnext year okay so we spend a lot of time on copyright nin this series. Because we encounter it so often in our day to day lives. It s simply ninescapable and judging from the comments you posted a lot of you really hate it law nprofessor jane ginsburg has an idea of how copyright lost it and got a bad name she nattributes it to consumer greed. More protective legislation that extends the term of ncopyright and interferes with the development of consumer friendly copying technologies nconsumers want to share content and get stuff for free and they feel that any law or enforcement nmechanism that gets in the way of what they can do with their own equipment in their own nhomes is illegitimate.
And it s a threat to the public interest copyright. Owners argue nthat. There are now so many creators that strong exclusive rights are the best way to promote nthe public interest. So one thing i ve noticed in the comments nis that you guys think copyright term is way too long well there s evidence to back this nbelief up fewer than 11 of copyrights registered between 1883 and 1964 were renewed at the nend of their 28 year term.
Even though renewing didn t cost very much so back. When stuff ncould move to the public domain. Copyright owners let 89 of their works lapse. Because nthe works.
No longer had any economic value or the authors. Just didn t care anymore in nour current system. The copyright term is automatically life plus 70 years. With no renewal.
Nrequirement. But a similar percentage of today s copyright protected works will likely be neglected nand forgotten about within a few decades or even a few years of their creation the nonly difference is that they re still protected by copyright. This creates a huge body of nwork that s under protection. But where the author or owner.
Often can t be found to grant npermission for use there are called works get permission and therefore face the risk nthat. They ll be sued. If the owner does eventually step forward the copyright office is advocating nfor legislation that will limit liability for good faith. Users of orphan works.
Who ve nat. Least made some attempt to find the owner. This legislation also might create a framework nfor..
.
The private sector to develop rights clearance mechanisms. That will make it easier for creators nto use copyrighted work. It s possible that congress may consider introducing legislation nalong. These lines in the coming years.
But you know how congress is there are also some really interesting private ninitiatives that have tried to address the super long copyright term organizations like ncreative commons and copyleft have attempted to let creators choose how their work can nbe used by others and these movements have gained some traction. It s hard not to just nargue that the term should be shorter. But that s really hard to do changing us law nrequires. The revision and maybe renegotiation of all these international treaties that further nentrench the life plus 70 term and the us is signing more of these treaties.
All the time nso. Unfortunately. The life plus 70 term is here to stay. So i may have given the impression here that nintellectual property law is a stinking cesspool of greed and confusion.
But i m going to argue nthat. There is some value here the basic notions that individual authors should be rewarded for ntheir creative efforts that inventors should profit from their inventions and that manufacturers nof goods should be able to market their products. Without fear that knockoffs will appear on nsupermarket shelves. These are all good ideas.
Maybe you think they re not but i believe nthat we as a society can t neglect. Our creators and innovators. We also can t allow outdated nlaws to prevent technological innovation and progress. The trick as always is striking na balance.
A combination of strong exclusive rights for authors and inventors and equally nstrong. Exceptions and limitations that allow for creators to build on work that came before nis this possible well. There you have it as usual on crash ncourse. There are no answers only more questions next week.
We re going to start looking at nquestions around the world economy with crash course. Economics. Thanks for watching crash course intellectual property is filmed nat. The chad and stacey emigholz studio in indianapolis.
Indiana. It s made by all of nthese nice workers for hire if you d like to keep crash course freely available for neveryone forever. You can support the series at patreon. A crowdfunding platform that allows nyou to support the content you love speaking of patreon.
We d like to thank all of our nsupporters in general and specifically thank our headmaster of learning thomas frank nand. Our vice principals kathy and tim philip and linnea boyev you can get awesome material nawards for your support. But i know that s not why you re in this thing you re in it nfor the greatest reward of all which is helping. ” .
.
Thank you for watching all the articles on the topic IP Problems, YouTube, and the Future: Crash Course Intellectual Property #7. All shares of newyorkcityvoices.org are very good. We hope you are satisfied with the article. For any questions, please leave a comment below. Hopefully you guys support our website even more.
description:
tags:
