RonPaul2008dotcom account closed by YouTube

[azxd]

Which was more creative? This?

Sorry, not gonna watch either video ... Mainly because your argument is a diversion away from the aspect of how some try to justify theft.

 

[AngelClark]

Write about it for the Examiner

http://exm.nr/IEWu5Q - if you care to share, I guess we shouldn't be surprised, but ugh

 

[TheGrinch]

The perfect socialist excuse ... Everything should be free, because someone might learn something.

Talk about a great way to stifle creativity.

A socialist excuse?

To spead information without profit?

Not to mention you're confusing idealism with reality.... My view does not change that the Fair Use Doctrine exists, and IMO, rightfully so. If you're not making money off of someone else's work and not inhibiting them from making money off of it, then I'm not sure why that's a problem or "socialist"?

 

[jmdrake]

Sorry, not gonna watch either video ... Mainly because your argument is a diversion away from the aspect of how some try to justify theft.

That's an intellectually dishonest and cowardly response. You were the one that raised the issue of creativity. I posted two videos raising the question of which was more creative, the news video or the remixed. For that matter who "created" the original content? The news company that recorded it, or the person who they were recording? Ah...you didn't think about that did you? If I go to a concert and video tape what's being the event and put it out for others to see I'm somehow "stealing" their creativity. But if the news media records someone, with or without their consent, it's "news". Back to the thread, and away from your diversion, who really owns Ron Paul's speeches? Ron Paul or CNN/Fox etc? Why should the news media be able to record and rebroadcast without permission the creative content of someone else (their speeches) but when a supporter of the person who actually originated the content re-uploads it for the express purpose of helping the creator fulfill the purpose of the contents creation, that's somehow "stealing"?

 

[azxd]

A socialist excuse?

To spead information without profit?

Not to mention you're confusing idealism with reality.... My view does not change that the Fair Use Doctrine exists, and IMO, rightfully so. If you're not making money off of someone else's work and not inhibiting them from making money off of it, then I'm not sure why that's a problem or "socialist"?

Who are you to say you are not inhibiting anothers ability ?

 

[jmdrake]

Possessing an idea is actually very simple ... Do not share it until you have legal safeguards in place.
During the process, you have people sign disclosure statements that safeguard what you are about to explain.

Research patent laws ... They are much more easy to understand than copyright laws, yet both work under the same principle.
Protection of an individuals or companies works for a period of time.

To not do this, is to freely give the idea away.

Research patent law? I took patent law! Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with you that they haven't read the same information you have. But enough of your diversionary tactics. Did CNN/Fox/MSNBC sign non-disclosure agreements with Ron Paul to protect his content? Or did that just use it as part of the "public domain"? If it's in the "public domain", then how can they claim copyright on it? And if you don't know what "public domain" is, research it. Oh, and what non-disclosure agreements did CNN/Fox/MSNBC etc have TV owners sign before they received their broadcast content?

 

[TheGrinch]

Who are you to say you are not inhibiting anothers ability ?

Again, it's not about me. Go read the fair use doctrine. BTW, it is in place for far more important reasons than protecting youtube uploaders.

But to your point, if you can show that it's ihibiting their ability to profit from that content, then yes, that's why shows and music are removed frequently, but:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

 

[azxd]

That's an intellectually dishonest and cowardly response. You were the one that raised the issue of creativity. I posted two videos raising the question of which was more creative, the news video or the remixed. For that matter who "created" the original content? The news company that recorded it, or the person who they were recording? Ah...you didn't think about that did you? If I go to a concert and video tape what's being the event and put it out for others to see I'm somehow "stealing" their creativity. But if the news media records someone, with or without their consent, it's "news". Back to the thread, and away from your diversion, who really owns Ron Paul's speeches? Ron Paul or CNN/Fox etc? Why should the news media be able to record and rebroadcast without permission the creative content of someone else (their speeches) but when a supporter of the person who actually originated the content re-uploads it for the express purpose of helping the creator fulfill the purpose of the contents creation, that's somehow "stealing"?

Intellectually dishonest and cowardly ... YES, of course.

If you are prohibited from filming, and you do, you are stealing (althought technically it might be called something else) ... YES ?

If you record, and rebroadcast, by any method, without permission of the creator, you are stealing ... YES ?

Do you have the permission of interested parties to record their actions ?
If so, set up your camera in the House and Senate, and record what you wish.
If not ... The choices you make, might bring with them undesirable consequences.

Is it the intention of any broadcast media outlet to promote a particular candidate, or is it their intention to draw in a viewership, who might support their sponsors ?

USing different words,
Any major news agency could file a complaint with youtube, and have huge chunks of content removed, if they desire to do so.

 

[azxd]

Research patent law? I took patent law! Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with you that they haven't read the same information you have. But enough of your diversionary tactics. Did CNN/Fox/MSNBC sign non-disclosure agreements with Ron Paul to protect his content? Or did that just use it as part of the "public domain"? If it's in the "public domain", then how can they claim copyright on it? And if you don't know what "public domain" is, research it. Oh, and what non-disclosure agreements did CNN/Fox/MSNBC etc have TV owners sign before they received their broadcast content?

You're the claimed expert ... You tell me what kind of agreements they have with their affiliates and the viewing audience.
Also, explain how the scrambled digital signals play into this ... Thanks !!

 

[TheGrinch]

USing different words,
Any major news agency could file a complaint with youtube, and have huge chunks of content removed, if they desire to do so.

And that is the right of a business to remove content upon request, I won't argue with you on that point... But I think you're way off base about what is copywright infringement and what's not, highlighted by my post above, in addition to your proclamatino that using a clip from a news broadcast or speech for the purpose of criticism (not profit) somehow stifles creativity. It doesn't and is protected BY LAW.

 

[azxd]

Again, it's not about me. Go read the fair use doctrine. BTW, it is in place for far more important reasons than protecting youtube uploaders.

But to your point, if you can show that it's ihibiting their ability to profit from that content, then yes, that's why shows and music are removed frequently, but:

And this is probably why most agencies continuously display their trademark logos ... One negative comment, and they can claim their content is diminishing viewership and sponsorship.

 

[azxd]

And that is the right of a business to remove content upon request, I won't argue with you on that point... But I think you're way off base about what is copywright infringement and what's not, highlighted by my post above, in addition to your proclamatino that using a clip from a news broadcast or speech for the purpose of criticism (not profit) somehow stifles creativity. It doesn't and is protected BY LAW.

Trademark logos ... The perfect circumvention

As for stifling creativity ... If theft continues, creativity will be stifled, and only those who wish to give away their creativity will exist.

 

[TheGrinch]

And this is probably why most agencies continuously display their trademark logos ... One negative comment, and they can claim their content is diminishing viewership and sponsorship.

I don't think so man... Criticism is protected. They could really only make that claim if they were rebroadcasting or selling DVDs of content that someone had on youtube. If the person who copied it is not profitting from it however, my understanding is that criticism (even if detrimental to the company) is still protected.

Actually, you see this all the time in documentaries (use for criticism/education), and it is how they get away with it, even for profit in many cases.

 

[NoOneButPaul]

I just hope all of the videos were saved... anyone who posts has to be smart enough to keep them around in a harddrive.

 

[Tudo]

I purchased a url that I have my web people snagging all of those videos as well as music videos that I enjoy. So far we've grabbed about 1500 video's and I expect to grab more than 10,000 when it's over. My hosting account will never disappear.

 

[CJPrinter]

I purchased a url that I have my web people snagging all of those videos as well as music videos that I enjoy. So far we've grabbed about 1500 video's and I expect to grab more than 10,000 when it's over. My hosting account will never disappear.

But will it get upwards of two billion views per day?

 

[Mahkato]

Hey, pro-copyright & pro-patent people, read this book: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

 

[Tudo]

But will it get upwards of two billion views per day?

Alas, no but I'll still be able to access it whenever I want without any interference from youtube, the government or anyone. Unless I issue a password it won't even appear on the net. But it's there.

 

[qh4dotcom]

It's only "ridiculous" to the crowd that thinks someone else's time, work and money belongs to them too, with no compensation.

Then you should be against public domain content....stuff that was once copyrighted and the copyright protection expired.

 

[Lishy]

I'm sure the channel will be back, right?