Why YouTube Needs the Rights to Your Video 139
erlichson writes "There has been a lot of controversy over the YouTube terms of service. Why are consumers surprised? Fundamentally, YouTube's business model requires that they get the rights to redistribute your content. This note analyzes an alternative publishing model available to consumers that doesn't require granting a license to your content, but the trade-off is that you won't get the same level of distribution."
Why are consumers surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just post a story here about ads and banner blockers and you will see.
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uploading a music video certainly goes to far. Small clips from a movie might come under fair use. But when people post what amount to home movies - Yes, they most certainly do have every right to upload that to YouTube.
Free lunches exist - And in fact, when not in a climate of scarcity, people (and even many "dumb" animals) will gladly share that of which they have a huge surplus. Well, "bits" exist in as close to a limitless supply as anything we've ever experienced, and plenty of people will gladly share their bits, even with trolls like you.
And as for banner ads... Please, tell me who gets the free lunch from whom in that situation - The parasites that think they own my eyeballs just because they put up a web-page, or the people who choose not to read the Chick pamphlets that come with that "free" lemonade?
Or, put another way, does exploiting the human feeling of gratitude count as more or less sociopathic than suppressing that same feeling? Personally, I'd say the former commits a deliberately "evil" action, while the latter results as a learned response from dealing with assholes falling into the first category. YMMV.
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
Technically, leftovers are still things you've essentially WORKED for. So even though one might benefit from it without working for it, doesn't mean someone else didn't put that amount of work in it to achieve it. Isn't that the real philosophy of the No Such Thing As A Free Lunch?
Essentially, it's like energy in a closed system: no matter what you do, nobody gains anything extra, it's always the same amount. You gain x here, but you'll lose x there.
In a
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
You worked to get the money for the House, The Grill, the charcoal/propane, the lighter fluid, the matches, the food to cook on it, the beverages to drink (a surpluss of them since it's more then you will eat or drink).
Yet everyone you invited over can't have any of it? since it would be stealing (by your own admission) since they did nothing to earn it.
So would that be considered a Free lunch or Stealing?
Same goes for anything else, you wor
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically, you can buy a friend a beer without ever getting anything back, goodbye party or whatever. Does that mean the beer is free? For him it is, but realistically, it costed you to give him that beer. So it's not a free lunch.
In your case, you lost something which he gained. So which part of that would be the "free lunch"? It's not, you paid for it, he got it.
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:2)
1. General: Everything costs money and somebody always pays.
2. Specific: Even if your lunch is free, you will have to pay for it in another way.
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:2)
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yet everyone you invited over can't have any of it? since it would be stealing (by your own admission) since they did nothing to earn it."
this is bullshit. For starters, those are finite things. Once they are gone..you need to get more. It's not the same thing with digital goods.
"Same goe
TANSTAAFL is absolutely true (Score:5, Insightful)
Cost to Me - 0
Time I spent - 1 hour
So the cost was 1 hour of my time that I used to pay for lunch.
Cost to the CEO - 15ish * #employees, obviously worth it to him for an hour of our time.
So yes, I believe in TANSTAAFL - a firm believer... There is a cost to EVERYTHING, you just have to figure out what it is, and if you are willing to pay it.
Re:I am so sick of MONEY defining everything. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I am so sick of MONEY defining everything. (Score:2)
Your mom called. She said to drop out of elementary school, get a job and buy your own food, you lazy brat.
Re:I am so sick of MONEY defining everything. (Score:2)
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:2)
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:2)
When did I dictate that they can't have ads?
I just said that they can't count on me actually viewing those ads. You can give me as many religious tracts as you want, but good luck forcing me to read them.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Good question - Did you read something entirely different and reply to the wrong post?
Rant about 'consumers' (Score:5, Insightful)
There used to be some better words - 'people', 'citizens', 'females under 25', etc.
All that this indiscriminate use of the word 'consumers' does is reinforce the notion that your sole purpose in life is to consume.
Stop it with the 'consumers' bullshit. Be people again. Give some respect to all these other individuals in the world by calling them 'people' too.
Re:Rant about 'consumers' (Score:2)
Re:Rant about 'consumers' (Score:1)
Re:Rant about 'consumers' (Score:2)
Oh sure, and next you're going to tell us that you want to be a person and not a human resource.
[/sarcasm]
Re:Rant about 'consumers' (Score:2, Insightful)
This sounds familiar.... US History is coming back to me.
"How can somebody own land?" -- Native Americans when Europeans came to the Americas.
Yes, I firmly believe that information shouldn't be owned, but that doesn't mean it can't be. Ownership is merely an agreement between people and/or society. So long as the majority of society agrees that information has intr
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:1)
Oh really? Like what? Illegal in what jurisdiction, anyway?
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:2)
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
Technically, I used to get free lunches all the time, but I had to waste time listening to bad powerpoint presentations of sales people who I had no intention of buying anything from.
But seriously, nothing is free except air and the light from the sun, but cost is minimized to an extent it might as well be free. When your cost to produce comodities reaches near zero (bandwidth, hardware, and electricity) then your product or ad space could be sold for extremely low prices and you still make enourmous profit (depending)
However, we haven't reached that point (yet) mostly because it still costs an arm and a leg to host full streaming HD quality video and unless you are Comcast, Google, or Verizon you really don't have the resources needed to give it away for free forever like YouTube.
However, what happens in 20 years when bandwidth exceeds full motion HD video and you can download a 1000 TB in just a few seconds and you can host your own super webserver from your laptop? I mean full imersion can only go up to the point where we can't tell the difference between reality and our downloadable entertainment?
At that point in our lives (if we are still around) everything will literally become free at least with Intellectual Property (in a sense) because we've saturated the known universe with material that no one is going to bother paying for either through piracy or home made junk or reality TV etc. I dunno... Its just a guess.
However, in 20 years we might have robotics making things you buy at the store for free as well... But as they mentioned in the technological singularity article a few stories back... Well... It might be a moot point.
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:2)
I mean full imersion can only go up to the point where we can't tell the difference between reality and our downloadable entertainment?
That'll never happen - what's the point of the itnernet if it doesn't mean downloading videos of freaky sex I won't be having?
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:2)
Nothing... We will have run out of extractable oil by then. The developed countries will be lucky to have enough food, much less maintain high-speed internet to the public.
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:2)
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, they are providers, just the opposite.
You might call them customers, but they don't act primarily consuming any YouTube product, they are the ones that provide the most important part of the bussiness.
Of course, what they require is fair enough to me. If they are going to host your content for free, they need first a license for that content, and as a legal shield, they ask for the right to edit your content, in case
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:2)
We're just going to have to wait a couple of generations and see if the gene pool ups it's standards, aren't we?
I mean, you were born for free. Did your parents give you the bill for raising you? You live in a free country. Where's your payment to the revolutionaries who fought and died so you could have it? Don't tell me your tax dollars are there to compensate patriots for their deaths - I think that if that was all they were fighting for, they would have said "Forget it!" Somebody, somewhere (I hope!
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:2)
I wonder (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I wonder (Score:2)
For your consideration:
Please note: 10 years ago, *I* would have modded this suggestion "-5, What are you smoking?"
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a big problem-- Youtube may claim a license/ownership in their TOS. But if they try to sell the videos for profit, they will in all likelihood open themselves up to lawsuits from any subjects in the video who did not grant permission for their likeness to be used. You simply cannot film a person who is not a public figure (e.g. politician, celebrity) and distribute it without an agreement. Or to be precise, you CAN (it's not illegal) but you will be sued (especially if you make a profit) and you will most likely lose.
Say a high school kid films another guy lighting farts on fire at a party and throws it up on Youtube. Did the fart-lighter sign a personal release? How about the crowd of people in the background, especially if their voices can be heard? Did the owner of the house sign a location release? I'm not even going to get into the problems that will arise if a copyrighted song is playing in the background. If any of these parties think Youtube is making a profit from this video they could sue. I'm not even sure they're wrong, I certainly wouldn't want a video of myself circulating on the internet without my permission-- and I would certainly do what I could to put a stop to it if someone else was making a profit.
I should also add, by the way, that a minor cannot sign a release. So even if the fart-lighter says you could post the video, his parents might feel otherwise-- and, yes, they could sue.
This is a problem that's going to bite Youtube in the ass sooner or later-- say when the parents of the next Star Wars Kid sues Youtube for being a party in the distribution of the video. Since Youtube is licensing the video rather than washing their hands and saying they don't have anything to do with their content, they will certainly be named in any lawsuit. And if they're making a profit from this video they will certainly be liable for damages.
And no, I'm not a lawyer. But I have been an assistant producer at a production house that makes reality shows and documentaries and I've seen the great lengths they need to go to to secure releases-- and dealt with the legal department extensively over the inevitable problems. Producers actually have to take out insurance policies to protect themselves against oversights.
Re:I wonder (Score:2)
I don't think youtube will turn and directly sell videos, either singularly or as a collection for the reasons you mention. And especially because many of the people in these videos are minors. However, while I didn't go over every square inch of the TOS (or even one square inch actually... I'm just that lazy and it's time for bed), there may be implied or explicit language that states the uploader of the video has obtained proper documentation for the subjects in said video. This way, if any discrepencies
Renaming (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Renaming (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Renaming (Score:1)
You see, in the internet, things like, say, videos, get to people's homes by pipes. Or tubes, for that matter.
Re:Renaming (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Renaming (Score:2)
Re:Renaming (Score:1)
Really ? I heard it was YOUSHAFT.com
There was even a commercial that had the Two-Headed Monster from Sesame Street with the letter U, & a picture of a shaft.
Re:Renaming (Score:2)
Re:Renaming (Score:2)
Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow! (Score:1)
Re:Wow! (Score:1)
Re:Wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's simple (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's simple (Score:1)
Why?
If you want it so only you can redistribute it then very few people will likley see it.
Do you think that there might be something between these two extremes that might function, like, oooooooh, say, a limited license?
KFG
OT: deviantArt (Score:4, Informative)
And its not like dA have total ownership of the pieces I've put up, IIRC they have a limited license to cover themselves legally, and I can still put up the pictures on another site if I choose. One day when I decide to upgrade my membership there so I can sell prints, dA will still only have a limited license and I could still sell prints at local markets/fairs.
Maybe I'm going about this wrong, as I'm not 100% sure of what is the right way to do this, so if anyone from the
Re:OT: deviantArt (Score:2, Interesting)
I disagree (Score:2)
Why can't crapspace et al have strict rules that are favorable to user ala what big studios have? Both big studios and users are putting up content that distributors make money off of. Myspace has an even better deal then movie theaters. They get the content for Free, make money off of it, and then tell the users to go F themselves if they want any
Re:I disagree (Score:1)
Re:It's simple (Score:1)
Slashvertisement? (Score:2, Insightful)
s/analyses/advertises/
Re:Slashvertisement? (Score:2)
s/£->$[analyses]/advertises/
would this stop OS content distribution? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if creative commons licensed videos would be a problem for YouTube with these new terms?
If they restricted redistribution of content that was emanating from their site or assigned themselves any extra rights regarding editing or ownnership or restricted further distribution I think that it might.
They would probably just say that you can't put up any content with a license which would be violated by their doing what they wanted with it.
-What's the speed of Dark?
Re:would this stop OS content distribution? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:would this stop OS content distribution? (Score:2)
Yes, but unless your work was first generation (all original to you) then you may not have the rights to give them this seperate license. Say for instance you released a Creative Commons BY-SA licensed video containing CC BY-SA licensed music in the sound track.
So it may not be possible and so
same with journals (Score:5, Interesting)
The answer is competition - post your video on a website with better terms of service and publish in journals that don't have 'embargo' policies on sharing your own work.
I don't want to equate the problems of ownership of cheezy webcam thong videos with the problem of ownership of academic research publications, but the main problem as I see it is that I'd rather sit around watching the aforementioned videos than read the dozens of journal articles I'm supposed to be reading instead. Christ I'm never going to graduate. F***! now I'm blathering on slashdot. Must turn off internet...
Re:same with journals (Score:2)
For journalists it's slightly different. Some of the places I write for require copyright assignment, some don't. Here, if they do require copyright assignment then you lose all rights to the content. If they don't, then you can do what you like with it; I contributed a tutorial I had
Re:same with journals (Score:3, Insightful)
My brother-in-law (a professor who must publish or perish) puts it succinctly - "I can publish in 'free' journals that few read a
Youtube "makes money"?? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought Youtube was going through cash like a late 90's .com, and haven't come close to making any money off of anyone's content yet. Maybe that's why these guys decided to compete with them, wrote their little blog post and got it on here: because they didn't realize that Youtube wasn't profitable? Or they're just figuring that they'll do it right where Youtube has missed the boat as far as making money...
Or maybe my brain isn't what it used to be and I'm completely wrong about this, and Youtube has been insanely profitable.
Re:Youtube "makes money"?? (Score:2)
The license is retractable (Score:5, Informative)
Bars perminent media? (Score:2)
Minors (Score:5, Interesting)
Minors cannot enter into contracts. Seems like a rather stunning flaw in thier business model.
Re:Minors (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Minors (Score:2, Interesting)
a)False
b)Not all teenagers are minors
KFG
Re:Minors (Score:2)
While it is true that minors can enter into contracts, those who accept such contracts are generally fools. It is very easy to break such contracts. Thus the requirement of an adult guardian to sign for virtually everything a minor contracts for.
Re:Minors (Score:1)
a)True
b)A rather different issue
Nor a simple one, although I will posit that it seems likely a court would rule that a minor did not have legal understanding of the ramifications of the MyTube license when he posted his music video to it.
Not sure at all that this would have any serious ramifications on MyTube's business model.
KFG
Re:Minors (Score:1)
False. The sets intersect.
I may be a moron, but I'm a moron who has studied the legal rights of teenagers . . . and set theory.
KFG
Re:Minors (Score:2)
Re:Minors (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Minors (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Minors (Score:1)
No, they can buy it. They are just not bound to the terms of the license. The terms of sale do not include accepting the license, only the terms of USE. Since returning the product for license refusal is also an article under said license, the minor is also not bound by that. I've never heard of this actually being testing in court; that would be an interesting case (Honestly, your Honour, my 14 year old cousin installs all my software!). This is why MMOGs are beginning to require that the account own
Re:Minors (Score:2)
Re:Minors (Score:1)
Wrong. Minors can enter into contracts, but they also have the right to nullify any contract as long as they are still under the legal age. So for anyone who is making a contract with a minor, it is worse than worthless, because while the minor can get out of it at any time, that same luxury is not given to whoever signed the contract with a minor. Of course, if two minors sign a contract with each other, then e
Re:Minors (Score:2)
Minors can make contracts. What minors do not have is an unconditional escape claue: Lecture Notes - Contracts - Capacity [profj.us] A minor cannot, for example, pick and chose which part of a contract he wants to renounce. It is all or nothing.
Re:Minors (Score:2)
My first reaction was: "Woah! YouTube actually has a business model?!"
Phanfare (Score:4, Funny)
Wow! What an incredibly innovative publishing model! Wait, I'd better make sure I have this right:
AMAZING! It's almost like a paid photobucket account, or say, a normal hosting service, but look [phanfare.com]! It's got flash, a free trial, a mix of over and undersized fonts, and lots of glaring colours, so it's obviously Web 2.0 and therefore a new idea entirely!
Controversy? Still? (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess it's just their competitors that wrote that article that want to keep the "controversial" label going, and apparently it's working.
Re:Controversy? Still? (Score:2)
YouTube gets a license to re-distribute your content (and its always yours) while you have it uploaded. If you don't like it, yank it off and magically, they no longer have any rights to your video. I think this is a very fair policy that works very well for youtube's distribution model.
Revver (Score:5, Interesting)
[Disclaimer: I am one of the founders of Revver]
Re:Revver (Score:2)
(under a Creative Commons no-derivs license) with unobtrusive advertising attached
So how does that work then?
Obligatory... (Score:1)
Re:Obligatory... (Score:2)
Actually, all your tubes belong to Ted Stevens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes [wikipedia.org]
pirate uploading (Score:2, Interesting)
About the right of ownership (Score:2)
The important thing is this. Do you have a right to force them to remove all of your content off their site upon your own request?
I submitted this story on 7/20 and it got rejected (Score:1)
troll (Score:1)
reader comment:
I hate to be put in the position of trying to defend an onerous license... but the excerpt you posted on BoingBoing is a little misleading. It continues, "...The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website."
That last little bit is pretty important. It means that if you remove the work from the YouTube site, they have to stop using your work. So there is some protection for users who have uploaded origi
You Tube Mistake (Score:1)
Think about putting a bunch of time into making a vid
Re:You Tube Mistake (Score:2)
They can't sell it to someone else - they can only let someone else use it. If you actually read the terms (or TFA for that matter), you'd see that the user retains ownership AND YouTube loses all rights when you take it down. So they could, for example, let a car company use your video in an ad and get paid for it. But:
1) the car company wouldn't own the video, you still would
2) if you take it off
MOOT POINT (Score:2)
In the end, if you want anonymity, just give your uploded video a stupid filename like ##%35yo0safa, so nobody will be able to find it unless they are looking for
Publishing is the same in science (Score:1)
Re:Publishing is the same in science (Score:2)
From the little I know, also when publishing an article on a generic magazine or review, rights are transfered to the publisher as default, un
What's the big deal? (Score:2)
Re:why consumer? (Score:1)
http://www.hbs.edu/ [hbs.edu]
Why the rubes^H^H^H^H^H general populace themselves use it is beyond me.
KFG
Re:why consumer? (Score:1)