JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum COURT JUDGMENT

They do need permission but 99% of the music on youtube is posted by ordinary people infringing on the artists and uploading their songs without permission. Same with the people who post covers. They didn't pay the artist.

Listening to these songs any time you want is no different than downloading them. Unless you watch the official music video on their official youtube channel The artist is still not getting paid and you are getting free entertainment. Same thing.

Like a lot of people I youtube songs all of the time, but just to see if I want to buy a song or to see if its worth it to purchase the whole album. I won't need to listen to it over and over, that takes up bandwidth. Its much less expensive to pay the 69 cents - 1.29 for the song on iTunes or however much the album is than to keep using up bandwidth.

There are significant differences between YouTube and illegal downloading.

One of the main ones is tracking. YouTube is streaming and is able to be tracked. You can look at a YouTube page and see how many hits it gets. Many of those hits are tracked and organized. It's also impossible to do a direct download from YouTube. As a result, it becomes a resource for the artist similar to radio but with tracking. Being able to track one's hits is very valuable to an artist. It proves popularity to possible investors. It's like a radio chart, but it's open to anyone. It is a great promotional tool. And, it all stays on YouTube. There's no telling how many or how few of your songs are stolen illegally. You might have a huge fan base that you can never tap into. You might have enough clout to get good gigs, good cuts, but you'll never know it.

Another difference is that the owner of a song's rights can have a song pulled from the site. A copyright owner can do a search of their songs on YouTube and demand that they be taken down. You see that less nowdays as many copyright owners look at YouTube as a buffer against untrackable illegal downloads...illegal downloads which can be reformatted and used in almost any commercial or quasi commercial application.

A third difference is that just as you get fries with your hamburger, you get video with your song. Video that can embed web addresses, store information, links, heck, even phone numbers. A YouTube video is often a commercial.

You can do a direct download from Youtube...there are many programs that do this and instructions available online which shows how to do it yourself. I do agree about the benefits of Youtube but like so many sites it also has its negs.

But you are listening to free music whenever you want. Its not like the radio cause you can't choose to listen to any song you want and over and over on the radio.
The artist is not getting paid. Wasn't that the whole problem? Musicians not getting paid? There are people out there who don't download or buy music, they just listen to music on youtube.

A win for internet freedom in Europe, a loss for the entertainment industry

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/ar...acta-for-eu-161317335.html?device=mobile

BRUSSELS - The European Parliament overwhelmingly defeated the international ACTA anti-piracy trade agreement Wednesday after concern that it would limit Internet freedom mobilized broad opposition across Europe.
The vote — 39 in favour, 478 against and 165 abstentions — means that as far as the EU is concerned the treaty is finished, at least for the moment, though other countries may well participate.
Supporters had said ACTA — the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement — was needed to standardize international laws that protect the rights of those who produce music, movies, pharmaceuticals, fashion goods and other products that often fall victim to piracy and intellectual property theft. Opponents feared it would lead to censorship and a loss of privacy on the Internet.
Many other countries — including the U.S., Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea — also have signed the trade agreement, though no one has ratified it yet, and the EU vote won't affect them.

Humm,
There is the Berne Agreement that already allows legal action to be taken by one country in another country that signed the Berne Agreement so not sure what this Anti Piracy agreement would accomplish. The problem is Countries that haven't signed the Berne Agreement and Violations of Copyright, etc, go on.

Most, if not all Europe Countries as well as the U.S. and the United Kingdom have signed the Berne Agreement.

I just picked a song at random on YouTube. As Mike says, they only stream music, and most of us realise that videos are promotional in nature. They did offer a paid download on the bottom right of the screen.

You're right Big Jim, that people can download from YouTube, but by whatever means that they use to make the download, they must know that it's illegal, only because they are skirting the offer from YouTube to buy it. Otherwise they would buy the legal version.

I just googled youtube downloader and guess what..... dozens of sites offer download software or ways of downloading from other similar streaming sites. I was dizzy scanning through the list. Now I am no legal expert but if folk are serious about protecting their original material then it would be relatively simple to sue these companies. What they offer is clearly illegal. At the very least they are inciting people to break the law and on that basis could and should be shut down.
I say go for these big boys FIRST before picking on little old ladies or college kids.
Whilst I know that Youtube downloading is wrong I bet the vast majority of folk think it must be Ok if companies openly offer this service. They see little difference between watching something freely available to anyone and downloading a copy for their own personal use.

They are closing down a lot of tv show / movie streaming websites so what makes streaming youtube any different? its the same thing. Streaming copyright violated shows/music/movies on youtube


People can't justify streaming copyright violations on youtube being okay and ilegally downloading not okay

its the same thing in principle

/facepalm to anyone who disagrees

No downloading done here but people who streamed UFC PPVs could be sued apparently

http://torrentfreak.com/can-you-be-sued-for-simply-watching-an-illegal-video-stream-120317/


UFC announced on Tuesday that parent company Zuffa LLC had successfully taken down a site called Greenfeedz which had illegally streamed a dozen UFC events. While there’s nothing particularly unusual about that, the UFC casually noted that they had also obtained the email addresses, user names and IP addresses of people who allegedly watched unauthorized streams.

So maybe the UFC are just throwing that out there to scare people a little? Apparently not. In an interview with MMA Junkie, UFC chief legal counsel Lawrence Epstein confirmed that the fight organization will be going after individuals who watched events dating back to May 2011, a number said to be potentially “voluminous.”

Who gets sued and who doesn’t is yet to be decided, with Epstein noting that the the UFC needs to “have the requisite proof” that individuals actually watched shows without paying. Nevertheless, the lawyer predicts that the Greenfeedz databases will provide lots of information including “names, emails, telephone numbers and sometimes even addresses to identify those people that are watching illegally.”

But according to First Amendment attorney Marc Randazza, it is not at all clear how the UFC will take action against those who simply watched illicit streams.