News1 min ago
Youtube Nazis
What decides when a Youtube clip can be left alone and what can be taken down? I'm not talking about defamation, racism or swearing, but copyright.
Doesn't copyright have a time limit? In the UK, I believe it is 50 years. Yet what is the justification of removing a tune from 1948 and one from 1952? Is it just random badness? They never give an explanation
Doesn't copyright have a time limit? In the UK, I believe it is 50 years. Yet what is the justification of removing a tune from 1948 and one from 1952? Is it just random badness? They never give an explanation
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Lynn_M. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Certainly doesn't seem offensive to me. May be there is some copyright problem.Many people ,including myself,do not understand the complexities of the Copyright Act.
I thought it might be something like the Horst Wessel which I could understand being difficult to find on youtube although available everywhere.
I thought it might be something like the Horst Wessel which I could understand being difficult to find on youtube although available everywhere.
'The 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states the duration of copyright as;
For literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works
70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies.
If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created, although if it is made available to the public during that time, (by publication, authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc.), then the duration will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available.'
Maybe it wasn't "Nazis" but someone doing their job properly.
For literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works
70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies.
If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created, although if it is made available to the public during that time, (by publication, authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc.), then the duration will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available.'
Maybe it wasn't "Nazis" but someone doing their job properly.
https:/
Not the Queens Hall Light orchestra but am sure just as good.
Not the Queens Hall Light orchestra but am sure just as good.
>>>The song Happy Birthday to you" only came out of copyright in the last month
Not acually true. The court's decision was that the alleged copyright holders, who had been charging for the song's use, had never purhased the copyright to the actual song itself but only to the arrangement of it.
Lynn:
Youtube was originally set up purely as a site for people to put their home videos on. However it quickly got used by people posting videos of TV and movie content, together with sound recordings. Unsurprisingly, the copyright holders started demanding copyright fees from Youtube, which would (if agreeements had not been reached) would now be costing Google (which owns Youtube) many millions of dollars every day.
Youtube/Google eventually reached deals with many broadcasters (such as the BBC), movie companies, recording artists and record companies, permitting the use of certain content in return for the paymnt of fees from Youtube. (So, for example, the BBC makes quite a lot of money from clips of BBC programs being available on Youtube).
However not all copyright holders have entered into such agreements with Youtube. In particular, several leading recording artists have sworn that they'll never allow their music to be heard on Youtube. So Google have NO CHOICE but to remove any such content, as they'd otherwise be stung by multi-million dollar legal actions.
If you remember that it costs the BBC well over a hundred pounds in broadcast rights for every single track that's played on their national radio stations, you should be able to see how the bills could easily mount up for Google if they had to pay copyright fees. The 'punitive damages' that they would also have to pay for ignoring a recording artist's right to say whether they can host that artist's material on Youtube would be vastly greater.
Not acually true. The court's decision was that the alleged copyright holders, who had been charging for the song's use, had never purhased the copyright to the actual song itself but only to the arrangement of it.
Lynn:
Youtube was originally set up purely as a site for people to put their home videos on. However it quickly got used by people posting videos of TV and movie content, together with sound recordings. Unsurprisingly, the copyright holders started demanding copyright fees from Youtube, which would (if agreeements had not been reached) would now be costing Google (which owns Youtube) many millions of dollars every day.
Youtube/Google eventually reached deals with many broadcasters (such as the BBC), movie companies, recording artists and record companies, permitting the use of certain content in return for the paymnt of fees from Youtube. (So, for example, the BBC makes quite a lot of money from clips of BBC programs being available on Youtube).
However not all copyright holders have entered into such agreements with Youtube. In particular, several leading recording artists have sworn that they'll never allow their music to be heard on Youtube. So Google have NO CHOICE but to remove any such content, as they'd otherwise be stung by multi-million dollar legal actions.
If you remember that it costs the BBC well over a hundred pounds in broadcast rights for every single track that's played on their national radio stations, you should be able to see how the bills could easily mount up for Google if they had to pay copyright fees. The 'punitive damages' that they would also have to pay for ignoring a recording artist's right to say whether they can host that artist's material on Youtube would be vastly greater.
Within the past hour, Janice Long (on Radio 2) has mentioned that Shane MacGowan earns over £380,000 every year from this song being played.
Are you suggesting, Lynn, that he should allow people to hear it without payment on Youtube? You can guarantee that his record company, or whoever else manages the rights for him, ensures that Google pay him whenever this video is viewed but it will be a relatively small amount compared to what Google would have to pay out if they left copyright music on their website where there was no prior agreement to make rights payments:
Are you suggesting, Lynn, that he should allow people to hear it without payment on Youtube? You can guarantee that his record company, or whoever else manages the rights for him, ensures that Google pay him whenever this video is viewed but it will be a relatively small amount compared to what Google would have to pay out if they left copyright music on their website where there was no prior agreement to make rights payments:
Coronation Scot
To Be Worthy of You (not Youtube)
http://
To Be Worthy of You (not Youtube)
http://
Shane McGowan may well want his £380,000 per year (for that godawful record), but my point is, Alma Cogan's been dead since 1967, and everyone involved in the recording of Coronation Scot must be long gone, too. Both recordings must be well out of copyright, with more than 50 years gone by.
Nice find, Noe-Schitt. I need to find new ways of using the Youtube search engine
Nice find, Noe-Schitt. I need to find new ways of using the Youtube search engine
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Starmer And The Southpost Triple...
News5 mins ago
Film, Media & TV7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
