Comments | stanleylieber: (без темы)

stanleylieber

(Untitled)

Jul 20, 2006 21:51

"…by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business… in any ( Read more... )

news, copyright

Comments 32

fishwithissues July 22 2006, 00:33:53 UTC

i agree with you in principle but the thing to remember is that by and large you're not giving youtube a sellable product--the 100 megabyte limit keeps everything at free-movie-on-the-internet quality, i.e. they couldn't make a "best of youtube" dvd without asking you for a higher-res copy. But perhaps i'm thinking too monolithically about how they could screw us.

stanleylieber July 22 2006, 00:38:44 UTC

It's true they're unlikely to harvest useful material, but setting these kinds of contractual prescedents is silly. Consumer technology and bandwidth won't always lag professional quality content. They're already in an absurdist situation by having now claimed ownership of commercial stuff that people upload, even in lame quality. Technically YouTube is challenging the copyright on any material that is placed there, including episodes of TV shows and funny commercials.

fishwithissues July 22 2006, 00:49:51 UTC

yeah i don't know. i do agree with you that it seems a bit of a lofty claim of ownership although I give some credence to the "covering their asses" camp. my gut is just telling me that youtube is benign. maybe you're right that they'll quickly become the new media establishment and we shouldn't stand for this. somebody should write up an alternate contractual wording and make a youtube movie about it.

stanleylieber July 22 2006, 01:04:00 UTC

'maybe you're right that they'll quickly become the new media establishment'That's not what I'm saying at all though. To me, it's irrelevant whether or not YouTube ever actually becomes a threat. I object to the contract on principle. I don't think it's a good idea to go around agreeing to objectionable contracts, whether or not they're likely to actually cause you harm. I think 'humoring the lawyers' is a major contributing to factor to how screwed up business law and business practices are today. People shouldn't just go along with lame contracts on trust alone ( ... )

Thread 5

bluecalico July 22 2006, 01:49:41 UTC

( ... )

stanleylieber July 22 2006, 01:50:16 UTC

As always, ahead of the philisophical curve.