I absolutely believe in copyright laws, and that any artist should have the legal right to pursue lawsuit against anyone who violates their intellectual property.
At the same time:
At the same time:
IP, Copyright, and YouTube
- Thread starter sonnyboo
- Start date
Someone offering a story suggestion is in no way shape or form related to a patent.
The thing is, if someone uploads my work to Youtube, they're creating competition for my OWN videos with my music in them (I upload weekly and I have over a thousand subscribers) which draws views away from my videos which are monetized. Therefore, uploading my work without my consent is damaging.
It was precisely this that spurred this post from me. An actor in several of my short films uploaded 17 of my movies on their YouTube page and not only were they deleted, the killed her entire account because they have a 3 strikes and you're out policy with copyright violations.
I am not happy they yanked all their legit videos too.
I used the phrase "non-commercial" instead. A use may not be intended for profit, but could still be commercial. For example, I recently was hired to create a video for a hospital that was to be entered into a national contest (it won, BTW). They wanted to theme it on the old A-Team TV show. I refused to use the theme song until they obtained written permission (which they did).
Even though the video was not for profit, it still was a commercial use, which I don't think should be allowed under Fair Use.
Again, "Non-Profit" encompasses a wide range of organizations. Westboro Baptist Church is non-profit. How would you feel about them using your material without permission?
Fair points in both cases. I still feel that I'd be happy for a cause I believe in to use my music. I guess it comes down to the ability to choose where your music's used more than anything (excluding money of course). I have issues with religion in general so if said religious organisation where to use one of my pieces I'd be thoroughly pissed. Haha
I think that is the entire point....As owner of the copyright of music or a movie, YOU have the rights to choose when and where it will play.
Based on the chart above, somehow, if the owner of the copyright is rich or a giant corporation, then I guess it's okay to steal it, according to some people. I don't understand.
Legal issues are usually black and white. Moral issues are usually not.
To cite a couple of extreme examples, let's say you are starving to death. There is a very wealthy family living next door to you, and they have so much food that much of it goes rotten, but they won't share it with you. If you have no other alternatives for feeding yourself, is it wrong to steal?
On the extreme opposite, let's say the tables are turned. You have tons of food, your neighbor is starving, but their food looks good to you. Would you be wrong to steal from them?
Now, downloading illegally, for example, is obviously not even slightly comparable to either of these extreme examples. In one example, you're perfectly justified to steal, in the other you're not.
Somewhere between these two examples, you have to draw a line, determining when it's okay to steal and when it's not. Different people will draw different lines.
Am I really a bad person because I once used "The Eye of the Tiger" in a student video, one which I had absolutely no intention of profiteering off of? Technically, I was stealing. And I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Where do you draw your line?
To cite a couple of extreme examples, let's say you are starving to death. There is a very wealthy family living next door to you, and they have so much food that much of it goes rotten, but they won't share it with you. If you have no other alternatives for feeding yourself, is it wrong to steal?
On the extreme opposite, let's say the tables are turned. You have tons of food, your neighbor is starving, but their food looks good to you. Would you be wrong to steal from them?
Now, downloading illegally, for example, is obviously not even slightly comparable to either of these extreme examples. In one example, you're perfectly justified to steal, in the other you're not.
Somewhere between these two examples, you have to draw a line, determining when it's okay to steal and when it's not. Different people will draw different lines.
Am I really a bad person because I once used "The Eye of the Tiger" in a student video, one which I had absolutely no intention of profiteering off of? Technically, I was stealing. And I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Where do you draw your line?
The line is already drawn! In most countries using "The Eye of the Tiger" in a student video is not a violation of the copyright laws because it is being used educationally within a registered education institution and would be covered by the "Fair Use" exemption. However, if you then post that video to youtube it is no longer being used for educational purposes within an educational institution as hundreds of millions of people potentially have access to it. It is no longer a "student video" but just a video (albeit made by a student) and is therefore not exempted from copyright law.
G
I think you missed the point. The original question is one of ethics. I'm pretty sure Sonnyboo knows that copyright laws still exist; he was asking people how they feel about it, ethically. And in my one specific, real-life example, though I did break the law by posting my student video on youtube, ethically, I'm fine with it. Nobody was hurt, nobody lost any potential sales or profit, so F-it!
Really, my main point was that when it comes to morals and ethics, there's always gonna be a whole bunch of grey area.
Last edited: