I get the difference. I think with McCarthy it doesn't matter whether he hosted the material himself or not. The difference is whether he's a direct infringer or an accomplice. Either way he gets tried like the direct infringer.
And my point is that, as McCarthy's arrest demonstrates, linking can already be criminal.
Did you ever see McCarthy's channelsurfing site before it was pulled down? That was a streaming site. Links and embeds of the latest movies, pay-per-views, etc.
Channelsurfing was a site where McCarthy had a bunch of links and embedded videos that he updated daily. The stuff he linked to and embedded was new release movies, pay-per-view, stuff like that. That's a full-blown streaming site.
YouTube is a streaming site, sure, but not the type of streaming site that McCarthy was running.
All laws can be abused. So what? Regular YouTube users are not going to be arrested as felons. You're headline and article are beyond naive--they're reckless and ridiculous. You sound crazy at this point.
The law isn't targeting people who post a video on YouTube in good faith. It's targeting streaming sites. Do you really think the feds are going to kick in doors and make arrests of average YouTube users? Please.
Nobody's going to jail for simply posting a YouTube video. I don't believe that for one second. The channelsurfing guy ran a full-blown streaming site. Big difference between that and posting a video on YouTube. There can already be liability for posting infringing content on YouTube. Do you see lots of people being sued for it? Nope. The idea that the feds are going to use this law to bust the average YouTube user is laughable.
Ah, you misunderstand. You're right that the demand for content is increasing dramatically, but NOT in the form that the legacy parts of the industry are delivering it.
Just as the demand for transportation increased dramatically, but not for buggy whip makers, the demand for entertainment is increasing, but not for those who try to sell it in inconvenient formats.
The analogy stands.
I'm still struggling to see how the analogy works. What is the "form that the legacy parts of the industry" is not delivering? I listen to lots of music on demand. I also download mp3s and buy CDs. I listen to music on satellite radio and regular radio, and I listen to podcasts. I get my music in lots of forms from the "legacy parts of the industry." What form exactly are they not providing?
Right. And that's why "MSNBC feels the need to make it about copyright." The image was copyrighted the moment she took it. When she uploaded it to Twitpic, she licensed it according to the Terms you quoted. Of course it's about copyright. What else would it be about when discussing the right to copy such an image?
Just as the buggy whip manufacturers were making an obsolete product, so too are the labels (not the "music" industry, but the "recording" industry). They're trying to sell recordings. People don't want to buy recordings any more.
Huh? I just bought a CD yesterday at Whole Foods. On my way there I was listening to XM Radio in my car. Later in the day I listened to some tunes on Mog, and then I put on some mp3s I bought on iTunes. They're selling it and I'm buying it. They're not just selling recordings (which I'm buying), they're selling access to these recordings (which I'm also buying). They aren't selling buggy whips or anything analogous to a buggy whip.
Of course, just as people still wanted *transportation* (what the buggy whip makers were enabling) so too do they want musical entertainment. They're just seeing it from alternative sources.
But the buggy whip manufacturers were selling buggy whips, not transportation. And nobody wanted the buggy whips anymore. The labels are selling recordings and access to recordings. I have all the recordings and access to recordings I want, and all at a very reasonable price. People want what the labels are selling. They're not like the buggy whip manufacturers at all.
The analogy is pretty straightforward. Sorta surprised you don't see it.
I honestly don't get the buggy whip analogy at all. The buggy whip manufacturers were building something that nobody wanted--buggy whips. How is that analogous to the music industry who is still creating something that everyone wants--music? Can someone explain it to me? Thanks.
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And my point is that, as McCarthy's arrest demonstrates, linking can already be criminal.
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Re: Re:
YouTube is a streaming site, sure, but not the type of streaming site that McCarthy was running.
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re:
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re:
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Good grief, people. Really?
On the post: Why PROTECT IP Breaks The Internet
Re: Re:
Just as the demand for transportation increased dramatically, but not for buggy whip makers, the demand for entertainment is increasing, but not for those who try to sell it in inconvenient formats.
The analogy stands.
I'm still struggling to see how the analogy works. What is the "form that the legacy parts of the industry" is not delivering? I listen to lots of music on demand. I also download mp3s and buy CDs. I listen to music on satellite radio and regular radio, and I listen to podcasts. I get my music in lots of forms from the "legacy parts of the industry." What form exactly are they not providing?
On the post: Why PROTECT IP Breaks The Internet
Re:
Exactly. Well said.
On the post: Streaming Music To Phones Is Officially The Oldest Trick In The Book
Re: Well
On the post: Streaming Music To Phones Is Officially The Oldest Trick In The Book
On the post: So Much Fuss Over A Photo That The Photographer Has No Problem With People Copying
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ima Fish's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re:
Huh? I just bought a CD yesterday at Whole Foods. On my way there I was listening to XM Radio in my car. Later in the day I listened to some tunes on Mog, and then I put on some mp3s I bought on iTunes. They're selling it and I'm buying it. They're not just selling recordings (which I'm buying), they're selling access to these recordings (which I'm also buying). They aren't selling buggy whips or anything analogous to a buggy whip.
Of course, just as people still wanted *transportation* (what the buggy whip makers were enabling) so too do they want musical entertainment. They're just seeing it from alternative sources.
But the buggy whip manufacturers were selling buggy whips, not transportation. And nobody wanted the buggy whips anymore. The labels are selling recordings and access to recordings. I have all the recordings and access to recordings I want, and all at a very reasonable price. People want what the labels are selling. They're not like the buggy whip manufacturers at all.
The analogy is pretty straightforward. Sorta surprised you don't see it.
I was thinking the same thing.
On the post: The Maximalist Future: Be Sure To Pay Off Your Lawsuits Before Heading For The School Bus
On the post: Ima Fish's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
On the post: Colorado Judge Puts All Righthaven Cases On Hold
Re: Re: Re: Wonder Where FudBuster Is In All This...
On the post: Ron Wyden: Puts Hold On PROTECT IP, Temporarily Withdraws Amendment On The PATRIOT Act
On the post: Judge: Hangover 2 Can Still Be Released; But Tattoo Artist May Prevail In The End
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>