Every time the English Premier League auctions off its television rights, there are rumours that YouTube will be joining the likes of Sky and BT in the bidding. Not just football football, but American football, and basketball, and cricket, and any other sport you can name with a following — from mass to niche. As the barriers between traditional broadcasting and online video topple, YouTube will emerge as a partner for sports leagues to retain their rights and go direct to fans. By , the memory of a TV ratings system based on a limited sample of viewers will seem comically archaic: By , this will be the main feedback loop for digital entertainment: How will producers and brands guarantee these kinds of watercooler moments?
By paying for them, of course. With lots of zeroes on it. Where will he be in ? PewDiePie — Felix Kjellberg — has already hinted that he thinks he could do a better job at running a multi-channel network MCN than current companies in that area: Some of these developments could be exciting, but others horrifying — or at least distinctly troubling for various reasons.
If something has been broadcast on TV, do i have a right to watch it on YouTube, or am i breaking copyright law? Am i still committing a crime by taping an episode of Waking The Dead and keeping it so i can watch it again? I simply don't know anymore I'm not sure how copyright infringement of the type you describe over web is entirely policable at the moment. And I think that's part of the problem for copyright holders.
Hollywood or the music business may be waging a high profile war against mass file sharing but by the very nature of the web, if I have the time, conviction and ability to load a file up to a web server or host it on my hard drive with all my ports open for anyone to access then mass copyright infringement will continue. In fact as broadband speed increases for everyone and new ways of sharing are created it will get much much worse.
The BBC have web presence is a great resource but it's very frustrating not to be able to view any of your multimedia just because I am not physically located in the UK. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. But had Rebecca looked on YouTube and searched for Syd she would have founds reams of footage - everything from homemade tributes to a stalker movie someone made discreetly following Syd around Cambridge. Nobody can stop these things getting onto the Internet - suing people won't stop it, everyone just thinks "it won't happen to me". Not only has this led to copyright holders demanding ever more increasing fees, but has also meant that when a copyright holder cannot be found, the work is subsequently dropped and never used. Not sure where it leaves the content creators Finally, they should allow individuals to support the BBC in ways above or beyond the license fee or buying BBC stuff.
So how can you stop it? You can take action against individual sites or hosting companies but by then it's far too late. I would suggest a technical solution akin to what Sony is trying to do with Blu Ray. Encode your TV signal to only play on television sets. But then all sorts of people with a lot of money invested in technology would really not like to see that happen. Or perhaps the old copyright system needs to change? Should you really have to pay syd any money whatsoever just for using some video footage of him?
What's right to say is that you cannot have an unlevel playing field and a set of rules than hurts you and benefits Youtube. And Youtube seem to have a "well we can't police every bit of content that goes up on our site" attitude as a defence. Well that's plainly not good enough. One day someone will take offence and sue their pants off. Hey maybe it should be you? Not only does YouTube retain the right to create derivative works, but so do the users, and so too, does YouTube's successor company [ More broadcasters are finding their stuff on YouTube.
One way of looking at it, as long as you've plastered the screen with DOGs, might be as another distribution channel - it's certainly working that way for The Daily Show. And then there's the matter of people posting BBC material containing their own user-generated content I'd rather know why we can't access all of the bbc's previous broadcasts from the net yet i know there is some up there, but nearly enough.
The BBC have web presence is a great resource but it's very frustrating not to be able to view any of your multimedia just because I am not physically located in the UK. What this does in fact highlight is that the skeletal structure of copyright on the web needs looking at from the ground up - and has to consider that this is a 'new' medium, and not simply an extension of an old one.
Sadly, this is never likely to happen, as we're stuck with the framework for technology and legality that has been developed and implemented with little idea as to how the big picture of a new media ecology actually works, and as such we have the 'fingers in the dyke' approach adopted by any number of 'old' media organisations. Kenobi, but do these people want to be encouraging a platform that blatantly infringes their copyright? Do they want adverts for competitiors products shown next to their clips? You Tube and others like them, Napster pre et al, who parasite their living off of the legitimate work of others should be aggressively pursued and shut down at every possible juncture.
Their contempt to evade the law and thus encourage others to think that this type of act is perfectly acceptable in the age of "new media" sends a insidiuos message to the youth culture of today. I'm a massive fan of YouTube, but the fact is that as the law stands at the moment, they must be on very dodgy ground. They're serving the videos up after all. If I put copyright mp3s on my site, I'd expect to feel the full wrath of the BPI, and they'd get taken down along with my site pretty pronto. Yet seemingly I could happily post a video of myself miming to the same song and it'll end up on YouTube.
No doubt there are plenty of disclaimers, but I can't see how YouTube can get out of their liabilities.
And simply "checking" to see if the video contains copyright material is next to impossible. How does a YouTube editor know if the obscure music you've used on your video is copyrighted or not? That's why you see blurred T-shirts and posters in some music videos. A poster in a bedroom or a picture on the wall may be copyright. Within the letter of the law, even a home video of your child's birthday party, with a full rendition of "Happy Birthday" might actually incur fees payable. YouTube is a difficult problem for most broadcasters.
Come on BBC, you were one of the first broadcasters to suggest online broadcasting when Greg Dyke started to look at it, why not get on board? The making of the Syd Barrett programme seems to illustrate that copyright can get in the way of communication. Online of course communication lets nothing get in its way. Funnily enough I live in Cambridge and remember seeing Syd Barrett myself. Clearly some people have taken pictures of him. I'm sure that in this online age which places communication before copyright there is a high chance that they would gladly and for no fee at all have let you use their 'work'.
However, the BBC is not a collaborative enterprise. Maybe take a leaf out of Wikimedia Commons and build up a similar media resource, ie one to which others can contribute, or better yet, perhaps the BBC could pitch in with theirs: Further in respect of the BBC being a little adrift from the online current I watch a great deal of BBC programming and visit the news website daily. As I don't have a television and a very tall man has been round to check btw I don't pay a licence fee. I wouldn't object to paying it, but I don't feel it's my job to chase after you, rather I feel it's your responsibility to catch up with me.
In a number of ways the BBC has to get where the action is. Back to YouTube, I wonder if it would be worth coming to an arrangement with them naturally bearing in mind that the BBC won't be paying any of the costs of distribution. People are happy to do that independently. In the interests of communication. It's a little gladiatorial, but if your content is that good, it'll stand up well against any competition. YouTube shows that broadcasting has changed.
It's popular because it panders to user's needs and wants. Think about it - combine the search functionality of Google with a media player and you have one of the most powerful tools on the web. YouTube does exactly the same thing - only the BBC has one of the biggest archives in the world. Let YouTube have its fun. As has been mentioned already - shutting down YouTube isn't the answer. The "age" of new media is here, and we're in the emergent stages of it.
If our reaction is simply to shut down something that we frankly don't really understand, then we're no more engaged with technology and a new cultural form than some Governments that might be mentioned. As the telecoms companies are starting to notice with regard to internet phone calls, shouting at new media isn't going to get you very far. This is like taxi drivers complaining that improved public transport systems should be banned as it takes away customers from them.
If a culture is going to be grown-up about technology, it has to work with it, and change. Once pandora's box is open, it's pretty difficult to shut it again. The Safe Harbour provisions if relevant at all - that's by no means clear are only relevant to the US market. If YouTube content is available in markets without such provisions, then copyright holders can sue in those jurisdictions and US law is irrelevant. YouTube carries huge quantities of copyright infringemnts and, in many jusridictions, is wholly liable for that as the "publisher".
France is an excellent example of such a jurisdiction. Whether or not copyright law needs changing is a separate issue. Some people may believe that they have a moral right to share copyright content with others; the laws of most countries say not. And those laws generally have teeth. To Damien - you will be able to view the BBC's archive online outside the UK the day you pay for it via the licence fee. Why should you get free content that people in the UK have paid for? Or to put it another way, why should we as UK licence payers subsidise the rest of the world's viewing just because you like the BBC and the companies in your country aren't up to scratch?
If they were, you would watch via them instead of an overseas company like the BBC. Do we get free online access to overseas broadcasting companies archives? So you should not get free access to ours. Time to invite Stanford's Lawrence Lessig onto Newsnight to discuss the future of copyright in the digital age, perhaps? For those unfamiliar with his work, here's an entertaining presentation which addresses the heart of the issue discussed here in his inimitable style.
By the way, YouTube will shape blogs of the future. It'll catch on throughout all blogs and be a standard I'm sure. In the days before "online" was part of everyday vocabulary, families gathered around a radio and yet the radio cost nothing extra. Friends gathered around a television and yet neither the television nor the license cost a penny extra. As a species, we advance by sharing experiences - propagating knowledge and memory between and across individuals is what made us able to progress technologically, artistically and intellectually.
Nowadays, we want to communicate globally. And instinctively, we want to share experiences globally as well. But this instinct is seemingly in conflict with the law. Sure, people who are selling the work of others are in outright violation of the law and creator's rights and this is a crime that should be acted upon. But where do we draw the line for personal use? Is it illegal to show a video to a friend? To listen to a CD with the window open? Youtube make no attempt to evade the law. They provide tools for content owners to report and remove illegitimate content - and they themselves are neither posting nor selling the material itself.
They are simply serving up what people want to watch or submit. The content businesses have always profited by selling a more convenient or comfortable experience - with great sound, comfortable seats or a hi-def picture. And, nowadays, aggressive distrust of the customer, but I digress.
This is also a story about how Google took down two YouTube videos on my Hate Everything” who produces critical reviews of movies and TV shows, and has . That's the frustrating part, other than the no clear answers. request a manual review, or get any details about what Google had detected their. Four days later Casey Neistat, one of the fastest rising stars over the last two Internet · TV · Film Quitting YouTube, and more specifically the confessional vlog, has . a way for the artist to stage their own death and return refreshed. . All Systems Operational Check out our status page for more details.
And they've profited by people enjoying their product and showing or telling their friends, who in turn become customers. Tools like Youtube are a means of showing and telling in bulk, and nothing more.
To state that this instinct is "insidious" is absurd - what's really insidious the trend of applying old morality and old economy and old logic to new things. Most of the time, it simply won't stick. There's a gigantic wedge of unspent consumer cash just waiting for the first major content producer to get it. I really like YouTube and find it very useful. If I miss a few goals or a dodgy decision in the football, I just log on and find the video which some kind person has up loaded. Companies such as Nike only release certain adverts on the internet on sites such as YouTube e.
It works both ways, they get exposure but can lose money from revenue, but it is definately the way forward. YouTube will either "go the way of napster" or have to commercialise themselves significantly more. Currently they're eating through tens of thousands of dollars of investor's money and not exactly making much money. The difference between someone advertising on YouTube and advertising on TV is that on YouTube you've got competitiors ads shown at the same time, plus no control over the contents presentation nor the comments from your disgruntled former?
If the BBC really make all their output avaliable online, they will have to start either taxing uk ISPs instead of the licence fee or give licence fees some unique ID numbers that can be validated to allow access online. As it is, I don't have a TV nor a licence yet I can access all this content online and not pay for it. I guess some of those thousands who watched newsnight only on youtube might consider to check out Newsnight on BBC So the sour grapes are puerile - we pay, why not youtube? We pay for it, we're entitled to watch it when we want.
In the age of the internet it's shocking that viewers still have to abide to a scedule. You can ask Youtube to take down copyright footage, thats what American Idol did. Lets keep the web free! The RIAA is taking an interest in You Tube and has been sending cease and desist letters to people posting music clips on the site. However, I think a lot of the media industry are watching them with intererst to see if they can come up with a way to monetize their content.
If they start making a profit then the RIAA may go after them. In the short term, it's hardly going to harm BBCs DVD sales, and in the long term, if they wised up and offered high quality versions of their shows on the net for sale, like a quid a show, they'd hoover up a bunch of revenue. The BBC has got so used to it's archaic monopoly on stuff, they don't seem to have realised that TV viewing is going the same way music listening has. It would help if the BBC posted their regular video online in a manner that was easily playable.
I'm a web designer, I'm highly computer literate, I've got a 5mb broadband connection and yet I never watch your news stories online, as much as I'd love to. The problem is the BBC use either Windows media streaming , or Realplayer which requires registration to use to stream your video. Both of these formats are a complete disaster; you get a 'buffering' message for the first few seconds, the video will play for a few seconds and then it'll usually want to buffer agian.
There's no way of shuttling back and forth through the video, or replaying something you've just seen as you'll have to wait for the video to buffer up again. Both YouTube and google video owe almost their entire existance to the player, version 8 having brought ease of use to online video. When a video is playing up, it stays in the memory as long as your browser window is open, meaning you can skip back through the video, skip to the middle, pause and stop at will without waiting to rebuffer again. Windows media player and Realplayer's formats don't allow this kind of interaction, but it is precisely these abilities which make video via the web so worthwhile.
I think that the BBCs content should be public domain. The reason I think this is because the viewers pay for it with there TV Licence. Perhaps if the TV License was dropped and didn't exist, I'll find it reasonable that I can't watch programs on my computer. YouTube is a fantastic resource for ametuers of the sort who want to show off there videos they have made.
I believe that if it is persued because of rediculous copyright laws it would no longer be allowed to continue providing its useful service to people who simply make videos for the fun of it or to get there name out without digging deep. And once again the monopolisation of the broadcasting industry to continue on again. We have seen this with music, have we not?
This is a problem not limited to broadcast television. The record industry have been wrestling with this issue for years.
The difficulty is that, computationally, the act of viewing, or listening to, a stream of data, is indistinguishable from the act of copying it. With exponentially increasing bandwidth and hard drive sizes, our access to data, and by implication our ability to copy it, has never been greater. Enforcing copyright is unlikely to become any easier over the next few decades. YouTube is just the tip of a far larger iceburg.
Ah, the wonderful old red herring of people outside the UK shouldn't see BBC television because they didn't pay the license fee. Here's an experiement for you - pay the license fee then live outside the UK, and guess what, you won't be allowed to see BBC television either. I pay my license fee, and i'm going to the States for a week shortly, if i wanted to pass the time watching something i've paid for, when i'm not in the UK, i can't.
As regards YouTube, if they willingly take down any videos that shouldn't be up there, for copyright reasons or whatever, then i don't think anything should be done. They are no more breaching copyright than Google is by caching data from paid for sites. It is the users who are breaching copyright, not YouTube. I used to take copyrights seriously until I found them printed in Bibles. Now the right to copy is just a click away. Anything, just click and it is yours. I'm surprised that Daniel doesn't already know this but if he emails his colleagues at BBC Brand Protection on antipiracy bbc.
By following a few basic rules its not difficult to create professional looking video by yourself. Start by using a tripod, taking the camera off "auto focus" and other automatic rubbish and get a decent microphone. And if you do want to produce broadcast quality video, the docu-soap camera of choice the Sony PD can be picked up second hand from just over a grand. Don't let the polo necked wearing TV people convince you its difficult. If they let you realise how easy it is, they'd all be out of a job! There is, apparently, a growing demand for copyright reform. The trouble is that what is being asked for seems to be a loosening of copyright.
This ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of artists, musicians, photographers and writers don't make a living from their work. They need every peeny they can get and are entitled to benefit from their intellectual property, however unpopular that fact may be with the right-clicking majority.
Lessig is a professor at a top-notch US university and can probably afford to waive some of his intellectual property rights, but most of us can't. This whole problem is clearly a long way from resolution, and I've got an awful feeling that it won't end happily for the small copyright-holder. The licence payer, that's who. What other broadcaster in the world provides as much quality output as the BBC does without resorting to sponsorship or product placement?
Hours of entertainment across all genres, without once attempting to sell you a product. The programmes ARE the product, and what a product they are. The BBC is the envy of the global television audience. People across the world are entertained, informed and educated in a totally unbiased way. A Trusted voice in a world of lies and half truth. Something we as licence payers should be universally proud of.
Viewers around the world would love to be able to watch the BBC than their own home-grown stations, but due to various licencing restrictions and copyrights unfortunatly cannot.
That is why videos appear on services like YouTube. The BBC is making in-roads, with the introduction of the iMP, but apparently, it will be for UK users only, on the same principle as their World cup coverage. Is this what the audience want though? Imagine a time, in the not too distant future where you can be on a train in China, on the beach in Australia or a hotel in the deserts of Arizona and download tonights episode of Eastenders onto your laptop, handheld device or internet enabled cellphone to watch at your leisure.
Well, there are some folk out there who will tell you that if we push the right buttons, we can do it now! And lets face it, with youtubes site traffic, its no small amount.
And with the grainy bandwidth that it currently offers, do major companies really feel all that threatened with the dawn of High Definition quickly ushering in a new level of television and broadcast? Of course youtube cant provide the bandwidth nessicary for such content I dont promote copyright infringment, but surley to try to clamp down on sites like youtube is a massive waste of time and resources.
Liz and others - I am a BBC license payer. I have paid and do pay for BBC content to be produced. This is rather infuriating. Is there no way of making a "log in to view" facility available where a login can be tied to a license number? The BBC is currently somewhat akin to a bank that offers telephone banking and then makes the number a UK local rate one so that a person on holiday abroad cannot use it - an occasion when they're possibly more likely to need to. I dont think the BBC are in any positon to be demanding copyright protection, I think the UK public are quite happy to share all their programms with the rest of the world.
New copyright laws should not be created for the internet as this will obviously only restrict access to information. Instead leave it as it is and naturally it will evolve in which all corperate money interested garbage advertisment and so on will no longer find their money and so that type of content will slowly die which can only be a good thing theres enough of that junk on regulated TV and Radio. How is that different to YouTube? It was a short clip that I had re-edited from an episode of Doctor Who - the bright red-clad monks from Tooth And Claw - and replaced the soundtrack on using the Tai Chi music freely available at www.
How this posed a threat to any BBC income stream I don't know but the clip was soon taken down after 'a complaint from the copyright holder', i. So clearly all you have to do is contact YouTube and they will take anything down that you say infringes your copyright.
Christopher Tierney "The problem is the BBC use either Windows media streaming , or Realplayer which requires registration to use to stream your video. Along with other respondents, I agree that the entire idea and concept of conventional copyright needs to be sorted out - on an internationally agreed and practically enforceable basis.
In this age of rapidly increasing bandwith and storage it becomes ever more ridiculous to talk about who "owns" some sound or video bytes of data. Either you make something publically available or you don't. The same applies to software, although it's much more complex and therefore easier to police. Do I need a "per user" license for every song I own?
The "finger in the dyke" reference is correct. Copyright needs a re-write. Not sure where it leaves the content creators Your old road is rapidly agin'. Please get out of the new one If you can't lend your hand For the times they are a-changin'. It's not just only youtube that puts up copyright material on the internet, you can surf the web all day long and find thousands of web pages hosting movies or clips that have a copyright on them.
Anyway with all the repeats the BBC show over and over again, its not like they are losing out to pre recorded releases. I can see youtube moving servers in the near future, to a country that will not give a hoot about copyright material imo. It's intriguing how common a topic this has become in the light of Napster etc.
I can't give a definitive answer about youTube suffice to say up in Scotland "You Tube! The law says that it is precisely by the re-use, adaption, transformation etc of others work that society develops. Imagine the evolution of jazz and blues if early performers had to get permission to sing or adapt each others songs?
Restrictions on our rights to 'copy' or re-use a creative work exist not simply for the benefit of the creator, but in order to encourage creators to make their work public -- so that in turn it will quoted, referenced, and circulated because this, says the law, is for the good of society. Without these restrictions, many works would simply sit in drawers or in cupboards where they benefit no-one. When it applies, it is not a priviledge, it is a right. Fair use exceptions in the UK are different, but as previous posters have pointed out, the law and reality are currently out of kilter.
Would updating UK law to include a similar Fair Use clause based on the right to freedom of expression benefit our society?
And would it include the right to post BBC programs on youTube? Answers on a postcard please.