The move to make embedding YouTubes a felony

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Saturday, June 4. 2011

The move to make embedding YouTubes a felony

Story here.

You can't make this stuff up. What's this country coming to? The government doesn't have enough to do? If something is copyrighted, should it be embeddable on YouTube in the first place? No.

Crazy thing is, lots of people use YouTube for self-promotion. If you are a would-be performer or show or whatever, and copyright your stuff, do not make it embeddable. Simple. Can't have it both ways. Can't tell me not to post a photo of your billboard along the road.

YouTube is good fun, a vast resource, and one of the best time-wasters ever invented. If George Shearing's estate, or the Feds, come after Maggie's for embedding his YouTube vid, I have good defenses planned already. Make my day!

Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 13:52 | Comments (13) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

The solution is to abolish intellectual property in the first place. It does nothing to increase inventiveness and produces huge amounts of corporate rent-seeking, which is what we see here.

Which is why politicians like it. Rent can be sold.

Everything you learned about patents and copyright is wrong.

See a podcast by Michele Boldrin here
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/boldrin_on_inte.html

#1 rhhardin (Link) on 2011-06-04 15:04 (Reply)

if intellectual property rights are abandoned, creative production will cease.
Life performances might continue for some artists, but only in a strictly local setting as there will not be enough revenue to make larger tours feasible (which are now mainly used as promotionals for new albums).

Authors will no longer write books, as they simply won't have the time to do so, some excluded whose publications are secondary to other work (like religious writers who see their work as means to spread their faith, not to generate income).

Production of software (including the software that drives this website) will halt as those who previously earned a living creating and maintaining it will no longer be able to do so.
The same with nearly all product development work, as whatever you come up with can be copied and sold for a lot less by some Chinese company within days or weeks, meaning the cost of development will never be recovered.

#1.1 J.T. Wenting on 2011-06-06 05:50 (Reply)

But that's not true, as the podcast illustrates.

What's true is that musicians will make a lot less money. More like what Frank Sinatra earned, less like what Lady Gaga earns.

It's the narrative that society benefits because it encourages innovation and creativity, but it's not true.

What it encourages is corporate rent-seeking.

Which means roughly money that they're not economically entitled to, gotten via the power of the state.

#1.1.1 rhhardin (Link) on 2011-06-06 19:33 (Reply)

Its like everything else in the entertainment industry - they want it all and they want it now.

And the government is totally committed to making that happen.

It is exactly like that guy who had some kind of unique gene structure - he cooperated with the company studying his genes for potential medicines and procedures. One day he found out that he didn't own his own genes - the company patented and copyrighted him, his guts and the genes. He didn't even own himself.

#2 Tom Francis on 2011-06-04 19:00 (Reply)

A copyright or patent held by a non-creator could be open to challenge in court. The authority of Congress in this manner is quite clearly enumerated, and specifies that it has the power to reserve IP to the creators, and not on other grounds.

I strongly doubt that the company holding the copyright is the creator of the fellow's genes.

#2.1 John on 2011-06-05 02:12 (Reply)

Found it - and others. I couldn't remember the exact specifics so it took me a while - John Moore from Seattle who had a very rare type of lukemia.

http://www.greens.org/s-r/19/19-06.html

http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/WhoOwnsYourGenes.html

From the first article: "In 1984, Moore sued, claiming that everyone has a right to their own body parts, and that he should be awarded a share of the profits. However, in 1990, the California Supreme Court denied that people have such rights to their bodies."

By extension, and I'm not a lawyer so I don't have the search chops to find it, the court basically found that you don't own you - which was extended in a different case in MA - Worcester company called Advanced Cell Technology I think.

It's not a logical stretch that if you don't own your genes, or have proprietary rights to them, that you do not own you.

#2.1.1 Tom Francis on 2011-06-05 08:38 (Reply)

Hmmm.... If 'you don't own you", could the patent holder charge you a fee for reproducing (having kids) and using their genetic property?

#2.1.1.1 feeblemind on 2011-06-05 10:18 (Reply)

re 'Its like everything else in the entertainment industry - they want it all and they want it now."

That's for damn sure.

I found Disney's trademarking of the SEAL Team 6 Logo immediately after the Bin Laden raid to be a particularly loathsome act.

#2.2 feeblemind on 2011-06-05 10:23 (Reply)

So, I clicked the link and found it went to an Alex Jones site. It may be true that some senate bill or another could be interpreted to criminalize embedding copyrighted youtube videos, but you can't learn anything about the truth of the matter by looking at an Alex Jones site. Nothing about anything can be learned from an Alex Jones site -- nothing. Perhaps "you" can't make this stuff up, but Alex Jones sure can.

#3 hedberg on 2011-06-05 00:10 (Reply)

That is somewhat reassuring - thanks

#3.1 Bird Dog on 2011-06-05 05:43 (Reply)

I don't think it is a BIG secret that the Obama Administration wants to control the message - a lesson they learned when their message started to fail. It is a message that Obama himself is pushing.

Just because it is Alex Jones (and I'm not an Alex Jones fan by any means) doesn't mean he's wrong.

#3.1.1 Tom Francis on 2011-06-05 08:46 (Reply)

No, just because it's Alex Jones doesn't mean it's wrong. As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but don't go to a stopped clock to find out what time it is.

#3.1.1.1 hedberg on 2011-06-06 10:14 (Reply)

Here's a non-InfoWars link. I think this amendment was poorly written with an eye toward fuzzy interpretation by a judge when suit is brought against sites of a particular tenor.

Needing a legal mind to weigh in here, because I'm reading it with some pretty nasty colored spectacles.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110601/01515014500/senators-want-to-put-people-jail-embedding-youtube-videos.shtml

#4 Rosalind.J on 2011-06-05 14:21 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, June 4. 2011

The move to make embedding YouTubes a felony