When this series first started, I immediately hoped it would cover media ethics. You're... sort of going over that, looking forward to it being covered in more detail. Still waiting on "how it's sometimes irresponsible to reveal the truth".
It was a big thing in the past too, even the ancient past (especially for tax purposes). Some of the most highly regarded kings from India to China to Mesopotamia to Europe are often remembered for their tax reforms and censuses, which all heavily involved working out ownership. And many major historical conflicts arose as basically ownership disputes. However, all this wasn't restricted to just the rulers - it happened with the common folk, just not as big in scale. And they did often come up with complex (for their times) solutions to some of the problems - from bitter property splits (which sometimes even created entire new kingdoms) to elaborate community managed property (which is why the infamous 'Tragedy of the Commons' in economics rarely actually occurred). Complexity isn't some modern fashion, but rather a direct reflection of very real difficulties that need balancing out. And modern technology and the abilities it's given us have only increased the number of interests we have to be mindful of.
Thank you for giving the background. The possibility of ownerships' ancient origins escaped me. Sometimes I feel that 'ownership' is a "Tragedy of Commons" for/of the whole planet, in disguise.
I'm a strong believer that fanvids should be legal. Yes, a lot of them use the full song, but I have found so many songs/artists/genres of music that I didn't know about before because of fanvids, and I've since bought lots of these.
Many of them are left up, actually. On purpose. Copyright laws allow owners to sue, but don't make suing automatic. Hence some stay under the radar, and in other cases the owners actually choose not to file a copyright claim - either because they don't mind the use of their media in that vid or because their success is reputation-dependent and so they don't want to risk inflaming the internet against them...or because it's just too cumbersome to bother doing for a small fry vid that doesn't hurt them much. Unfortunately, that last one is much less true now thanks to YT and other media platforms making the process a lot quicker and, crucially, anticipatory i.e. you don't necessarily need a full court order to get it taken down, at least temporarily (a curious case of tech companies actually being OVERcompliant with the law, likely because they're not the ones to suffer the consequences of the actions).
Another really key reason that a lot of them stay up is that RUclips allows the copyright holders to claim ad revenue on infringing content rather than pull it. You can usually tell when this is happening, as a viewer -- there will be a little thing in the description off to the side to note that the video contains content that is copyrighted by, for example, Taylor Swift. Then the Varchie fan video gets treated kind of like a Love Story music video. (Emphasis on "kind of" because it's still a bit more complicated than that, and the YT algorithm will handle the Varchie video differently from the actual Love Story video in a lot of ways. I'm also not entirely sure how the actual ad rates will differ. TaylorSwiftVEVO probably has a very high ad rate because of the popularity and reliability of its content, whereas I would *guess* that the Varchie fanvid's ads will get a lower rate, though that money is still going to Taylor Swift's record label rather than the creator of the fanvid.)
It's ironic, because I'm in college now and have jobs and money. I recently went back through the old music videos I used to watch in high school so that I could buy the songs on them, but half of them were taken down. Now I'm forced to have listened to the music and not pay for it because I can't figure out who I should pay.
Great course, well presented. I feel to be in far greater control of my media consumption, and it's influence. I look forward to carrying on, but I've got this inexplicable, uncontrollable urge to watch "Titanic"...
One thing I find interesting that wasn't mentioned is what happens to your digital footprint when someone dies. The last time I looked into this was years ago, but there were no laws for this sort of thing. Are there any now?
So many people ignore copyright... especially they ignore that stuff like artwork and music and stock photos can be copyrighted... always double check!
A clip compilation might not compete directly with the show, but TV stations sometimes create similar videos which which it would compete. These TV stations do pay licensing fees for the shows. A more clear cut example would be selling character themed t-shirts. They do not directly compete with the copyrighted work, but they do compete with other services that might be willing to pay licensing fees. I'm not saying your example was wrong. You said "may", and a court might say that it was fair use. Like you said, it's not clear cut. Also I'm not saying this is how it should (or shouldn't) be; I just want to help people be aware of the gray areas.
So, let's say that someone want to promote new upcoming artists or bands through putting their music on their youtube channel, would it be under fair use? Just curious.
Fair use is a honey pot, the only way we can adapt to media and the internet without losing our rights is to abolish copyright and put in place something more akin to anti-plagiary laws.
So what about when someone - like a record company - claims ad revenue on what you made? Are the elements you put in, like the clip show, still yours under fair use?
According to my understanding, the character is public domain, but Disney owns their version of Robin Hood. So you couldn't make a Robin Hood animated film with Robin as a fox and Little John as a bear.
Well as member of the oldest wave of gen z i can tell u a few of us know whats going on and the illusion is one thats hard to break if u r not actively questioning what u see hear and feel
Define tiny portion of copy right work as that is to vague. Depends per copy right material? Also there are false DMCA claims all the time on you tube.
1) Copyright is not the entirety of "intellectual property" (itself a propaganda term with no basis in law), there's also trademarks and patents. 2) Copyright is not only used by creators, but by mere owners who did no creating. 3) Copyright has nothing to do with credit or attribution. Plagiarism is a different thing from copyright entirely. 4) Don't go telling us what laws are good laws or not. The strict liability of child pornography laws do far more harm than good. Prosecute the people who create it, for sure, because they're actually abusing children, but mere possession of a record of that crime shouldn't be enough to destroy someone's life, for more reasons than just the sexting ones you outline (though that is one of the best example reasons).
Err...no, you don't. Cos that means they've successfully figured you out. Which should really freak you out. Seeing random ads ought to actually be comforting, because it means their algorithms aren't as effective yet. And if you want to know why them figuring you out might be a bad thing, consider, as just one example, what that'd allow political consultants to do in elections. Or, for another example, how anti-vaxxers, climate deniers or techsavvy religious fundamentalists could use that kind of mastery. The day the algorithms know us both inside and out will not be a good day, I promise, for it'll make all past propaganda campaigns seem cute by comparison.
@Apokatastasian ! _"Do you really want them to have you totally figured out is the better question..."_ Not necessarily, but I want them to realise that I will let most ads up to 30s long play right through, but I skip every single ad for Udemy after 5.01 seconds and always give it the thumbs down when I get the option (there are a few others as well, but those are the ones that annoys the flick out of me the most) ... after however many months of doing this and I *still* get shown ads that I have consistently and repeatedly refused ... that is really poor programming and algorithming.
Sexting is a great example of creating laws in isolation. Sex between kids over the age of consent is ok but taking a picture of the moment isn’t? What if the kid was blind and was given cameras for eyes.. when the kid has sex, is it child pornography? Poor kid. Can’t have sex without getting thrown in jail
I believe so, but afaik the count is pretty small (I think probably around that 300 mark where youtube starts actually checking which things are views and which aren't). If the count is so small that it wouldn't be monetised anyway, then you could more easily make a fair use argument on the basis that it wasn't actually affecting the market for the song.
![ARGENTINA vs. BOLIVIA [6-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C3wPtKNbAOA/mqdefault.jpg)
If this were to be demonitized, that would be ironic.
"Don't worry, we're not going to call the cops on you."
*Stops panicking*
Big thumbs up for bringing up a complex and mature subject. I hope you continue to do so.
When this series first started, I immediately hoped it would cover media ethics. You're... sort of going over that, looking forward to it being covered in more detail. Still waiting on "how it's sometimes irresponsible to reveal the truth".
This and the Psychology Crash Course are my favourites
It's profoundly amazing how all this hulabula and complexity of ownership culture is prelavant in our modern civilization.
It was a big thing in the past too, even the ancient past (especially for tax purposes). Some of the most highly regarded kings from India to China to Mesopotamia to Europe are often remembered for their tax reforms and censuses, which all heavily involved working out ownership. And many major historical conflicts arose as basically ownership disputes. However, all this wasn't restricted to just the rulers - it happened with the common folk, just not as big in scale. And they did often come up with complex (for their times) solutions to some of the problems - from bitter property splits (which sometimes even created entire new kingdoms) to elaborate community managed property (which is why the infamous 'Tragedy of the Commons' in economics rarely actually occurred). Complexity isn't some modern fashion, but rather a direct reflection of very real difficulties that need balancing out. And modern technology and the abilities it's given us have only increased the number of interests we have to be mindful of.
Thank you for giving the background. The possibility of ownerships' ancient origins escaped me. Sometimes I feel that 'ownership' is a "Tragedy of Commons" for/of the whole planet, in disguise.
I'm a strong believer that fanvids should be legal. Yes, a lot of them use the full song, but I have found so many songs/artists/genres of music that I didn't know about before because of fanvids, and I've since bought lots of these.
gray line between free promotion and copyright. but I'm leaning toward your sentiment; just struggling to justify it.
Many of them are left up, actually. On purpose. Copyright laws allow owners to sue, but don't make suing automatic. Hence some stay under the radar, and in other cases the owners actually choose not to file a copyright claim - either because they don't mind the use of their media in that vid or because their success is reputation-dependent and so they don't want to risk inflaming the internet against them...or because it's just too cumbersome to bother doing for a small fry vid that doesn't hurt them much. Unfortunately, that last one is much less true now thanks to YT and other media platforms making the process a lot quicker and, crucially, anticipatory i.e. you don't necessarily need a full court order to get it taken down, at least temporarily (a curious case of tech companies actually being OVERcompliant with the law, likely because they're not the ones to suffer the consequences of the actions).
Another really key reason that a lot of them stay up is that RUclips allows the copyright holders to claim ad revenue on infringing content rather than pull it. You can usually tell when this is happening, as a viewer -- there will be a little thing in the description off to the side to note that the video contains content that is copyrighted by, for example, Taylor Swift. Then the Varchie fan video gets treated kind of like a Love Story music video.
(Emphasis on "kind of" because it's still a bit more complicated than that, and the YT algorithm will handle the Varchie video differently from the actual Love Story video in a lot of ways. I'm also not entirely sure how the actual ad rates will differ. TaylorSwiftVEVO probably has a very high ad rate because of the popularity and reliability of its content, whereas I would *guess* that the Varchie fanvid's ads will get a lower rate, though that money is still going to Taylor Swift's record label rather than the creator of the fanvid.)
It's ironic, because I'm in college now and have jobs and money. I recently went back through the old music videos I used to watch in high school so that I could buy the songs on them, but half of them were taken down. Now I'm forced to have listened to the music and not pay for it because I can't figure out who I should pay.
First, you have a relaxing mid-range low voice , second, that Judas Priest record in the background is rad
Great course, well presented. I feel to be in far greater control of my media consumption, and it's influence.
I look forward to carrying on, but I've got this inexplicable, uncontrollable urge to watch "Titanic"...
I'm disappointed that he didn't mention anything about Creative Commons licence. : (
One thing I find interesting that wasn't mentioned is what happens to your digital footprint when someone dies. The last time I looked into this was years ago, but there were no laws for this sort of thing. Are there any now?
Me actually doing my speech homework during quarantine. If my classmates see me, heyy it’s jakeema😘
Don't forget Content ID and mech licenses! In the Taylor Swift example, it's likely the song would be allowed on the video with ads.
So many people ignore copyright... especially they ignore that stuff like artwork and music and stock photos can be copyrighted... always double check!
so daang important! this is such a great series!
We have to be careful with media policy. It can lie us :-0
I wonder if you could expand in more detail about copyright laws and why the terms are so long, as compared to a patent.
A clip compilation might not compete directly with the show, but TV stations sometimes create similar videos which which it would compete. These TV stations do pay licensing fees for the shows.
A more clear cut example would be selling character themed t-shirts. They do not directly compete with the copyrighted work, but they do compete with other services that might be willing to pay licensing fees.
I'm not saying your example was wrong. You said "may", and a court might say that it was fair use. Like you said, it's not clear cut. Also I'm not saying this is how it should (or shouldn't) be; I just want to help people be aware of the gray areas.
Come on subtitle people, real missed opportunity during the [Theme Music].
change it to [Copyrighted Theme Music].
The pic at the background copyrighted? 😂😁😂😁
So, let's say that someone want to promote new upcoming artists or bands through putting their music on their youtube channel, would it be under fair use? Just curious.
Fair use is a honey pot, the only way we can adapt to media and the internet without losing our rights is to abolish copyright and put in place something more akin to anti-plagiary laws.
It’s worth noting that a majority of this information applies to the US
So what about when someone - like a record company - claims ad revenue on what you made? Are the elements you put in, like the clip show, still yours under fair use?
Could you argue characters like Robin Hood don't need to be in the Public Domain to be used because they were never copywriter in the first place?
It doesn't need to be copyrighted for it to fall under copyright
According to my understanding, the character is public domain, but Disney owns their version of Robin Hood. So you couldn't make a Robin Hood animated film with Robin as a fox and Little John as a bear.
Public Domain just means nobody owns it. Art that existed before copyright law and Art whose copyright expired are treated the same.
Ok, I saw Noam Chomsky on the thumbnail..😀😀😚.....!!!!!
What happened to the India science video ?
Well as member of the oldest wave of gen z i can tell u a few of us know whats going on and the illusion is one thats hard to break if u r not actively questioning what u see hear and feel
Israel T i can see through some of that stuff too :) like so many people are so gullible and don't realize how manipulated they are
Easy to understand, thanks much!
Thanks!It was quite interesting
I love your Bakelite radio.
Way to go J smooth
Technology has always outpaced legislation though, didn't record companies try to ban recordable audio cassettes a few decades ago?
what software did they use to edit??????
Once AT&t got regulated. The media called it deregulation
What if you do a cover of the song and the instrument is a flute and piano?
Shoutout to H3's lawsuit win!
Good video thank you
Excelent!!
Very Informative 💕
You explain how copyright infringement works better than RUclips
Define tiny portion of copy right work as that is to vague. Depends per copy right material?
Also there are false DMCA claims all the time on you tube.
Release the next episode of Crash Course History of Science
Dad: *Why is the FBI here?*
Everything I needed to know
1) Copyright is not the entirety of "intellectual property" (itself a propaganda term with no basis in law), there's also trademarks and patents. 2) Copyright is not only used by creators, but by mere owners who did no creating. 3) Copyright has nothing to do with credit or attribution. Plagiarism is a different thing from copyright entirely. 4) Don't go telling us what laws are good laws or not. The strict liability of child pornography laws do far more harm than good. Prosecute the people who create it, for sure, because they're actually abusing children, but mere possession of a record of that crime shouldn't be enough to destroy someone's life, for more reasons than just the sexting ones you outline (though that is one of the best example reasons).
The points that no one ever pays attention to :[
cool video! WOW
I love how so much of the media I consume is majorly from a millennial stand point so they keep calling GenZ they while I'm like no not they me.
The history of science one disappeared! :(
All this information and i still see adds for stuff i hate ... y do they suck at this
Israel T Yeah, they aren't as effective as people like to think.
Do you really want them to have you totally figured out is the better question...
Apokatastasian ! If u have to see ads dont u want to see effective ones???
Err...no, you don't. Cos that means they've successfully figured you out. Which should really freak you out. Seeing random ads ought to actually be comforting, because it means their algorithms aren't as effective yet. And if you want to know why them figuring you out might be a bad thing, consider, as just one example, what that'd allow political consultants to do in elections. Or, for another example, how anti-vaxxers, climate deniers or techsavvy religious fundamentalists could use that kind of mastery. The day the algorithms know us both inside and out will not be a good day, I promise, for it'll make all past propaganda campaigns seem cute by comparison.
@Apokatastasian ! _"Do you really want them to have you totally figured out is the better question..."_
Not necessarily, but I want them to realise that I will let most ads up to 30s long play right through, but I skip every single ad for Udemy after 5.01 seconds and always give it the thumbs down when I get the option (there are a few others as well, but those are the ones that annoys the flick out of me the most) ... after however many months of doing this and I *still* get shown ads that I have consistently and repeatedly refused ... that is really poor programming and algorithming.
Do I see HP #1 on the desk?
Yup!
The History of Science in India video is not visible.
I just watched it - check again
Yeah. I saw they reuploaded it.
These days even some seconds of a song can make a video demonetize
This video has been blocked for containing copyrighted matieral.
independence and vigilance are strong,deny the narsisists and phycopaths the right to rule your atoms and electro nerros.
Sexting is a great example of creating laws in isolation. Sex between kids over the age of consent is ok but taking a picture of the moment isn’t? What if the kid was blind and was given cameras for eyes.. when the kid has sex, is it child pornography? Poor kid. Can’t have sex without getting thrown in jail
Noice
Profit ruins art
ALRIGHT WHO WAS THE DISLIKER??
Mark Zuckerberg
Dictators like Putin)
Sans Skeleton Trump
Great video!
by the way anyone can use my music in their videos as long as they give me credit
just sayin ;)
Notification squad!!!
DUB DUB DUB,FBI OPEN UP!!!!
It is pronounced,
J I F
On my other account, I uploaded Taylor Swift videos with the whole songs (shake it off and starlight) but they didn’t get taken down... yet 😅
Taylor the usual strategy by record companies now is to just take ad revenue from those videos instead of taking them down
Steelflex33 don’t videos have to achieve a certain amount of views before they get monetised?
I believe so, but afaik the count is pretty small (I think probably around that 300 mark where youtube starts actually checking which things are views and which aren't). If the count is so small that it wouldn't be monetised anyway, then you could more easily make a fair use argument on the basis that it wasn't actually affecting the market for the song.
Don't read the comments just go back to your work you were doing
r/forexposure
0:07 eww normie memes!
Is it okay to have loli hentai despite yourself below 18?
first
FIRST
There is no such thing as "intellectual property," only government granted monopolies that are unjust an should be abolished.