Re: [videoblogging] Re: Can anybody tell me....
Well businesses pay taxes too, Er...not so much... :) Jan On 10/9/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well businesses pay taxes too, -- The Faux Press - better than real http://feeds.feedburner.com/diaryofafauxjournalist - RSS http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://wburg.tv aim=janofsound air=862.571.5334 skype=janmclaughlin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Can anybody tell me....
Oh baby baby! The tiny copyright Pirate Boogie! http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3777322 Okay it is agreed, no one is paying attention to local cable access, one reason that copyrights are not enforced in that medium. Where it is enforced, it is a bit like the old West, Bounty Hunters, surfing for violations ... gotta produce in order to get paid ... http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3777651page=1 Twenty eight people, mostly friends and family, had viewed the YouTube video by June, when mom Stephanie Lenz said she received an e-mail from YouTube informing her that her video had been removed from the site at the request of Universal Music Publishing Group, the recording industry's largest label, and warning her that future copyright infringements on her part could force the Web site to cancel her account. Be joyous and celebrate the confusing double standard ... MTV asking for trouble ... RECORD CONCERTS? Come on, that is blatent. http://yourhere.mtv.com/ Send us your photos, videos and reviews -- right from the show. http://tinyurl.com/2g9626 Verizon Wireless, the leading wireless company with the most reliable wireless voice and data network, announced today that its customers are the first in the nation that can record video with their wireless phones and upload the videos directly to YouTube using an easy to remember number -- YTUBE (98823) Is it against the law to encourage people to break the law? I think it is. Is it against the law to profit from the people that have broken laws? I think it is. A person that stands on the ground encouraging someone to commit suicide (break the law), is that person breaking the law. I think so. Yup, I think a smart lawyer will prove me right ... but until then ... allow them to set precedent, feed their ravenous greed with video uploads ... quickly and easily upload their (your) short mobile videos to YouTube over Verizon Wireless' high-speed wireless broadband network by simply sending their message to YTUBE (98823). Videos will post live in just minutes; standard messaging rates apply. (oh yeah, here too, you have to pay to play) encourage others to do the same ... http://tinyurl.com/298j6t This is a link to AOL's video portal FAQ. ATT is offering more mobile data services such as messaging, music and video to boost sales growth as prices of phone calls drop. Rebel Yell http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/billy+idol/rebel+yell_20018406.html How this current mess came about, is the history/evolution of the industry. Most copyright/IP theft was businesses stealing from business (the studios/labels). As technology changed the majors failed to Adapt, Improvise, Overcome. They wanted MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE Absolutely. I'm *ALL* for people getting their royalties. If you make a film, you either have to not use music at all, make the music yourself, pay someone to score the film for you, have music 'donated' to your project or pay whomever created the music you want to use. The question, however, becomes how BROAD is the CAST? :) What makes a video on YouTube that has 6 views a broadcast? Yes... Technically it's a BROADcast, because people all over the world COULD view it if they wanted to... except they don't. Why should a 6-view video on YouTube be held to a higher standard than a home video that's shown in a local recreation center or church basement or at someone's house over the holidays? Because there was the POTENTIAL for hundreds or thousands or millions of views? Related to all this, i know we all would like to use our favourite bands on our videos but if they have copyright, or signed it away, and we don't have a licence ot use it, we can't. ... Because we are BROADcasting? Regardless of how un-watched our videos are or how un-listened-to our podcasts are? The fact that there's the *potential* for millions of computer-owners to view our content makes us broadcasters as opposed to home-movie-makers or hobbyists? I guess this is my main question... How these lines become drawn, and by whom. What makes a video about a cat a broadcast? What makes someone sitting in front of a webcam in a double-wide talking about heading out to get some smokes from the general store a show? Why should someone doing a character video on YouTube that uses a section of Peace Sells be held to the same standards as someone doing a documentary, television show or feature film? Not to derail my own thread :D ... but this was an issue with VCRs. VCRs allowed people to record shows and watch them whenever they wanted, or collect them or take them to a friend's house that doesn't have that channel. They also allowed people to fast-forward through commercials that advertisers paid to have seen by the masses. Eventually, they created VCRs that automatically cut out commercials entirely. Why should someone *not* record shows they want to watch? The technology's there. They paid for the
[videoblogging] Re: Can anybody tell me....
Well for sure many businesses, as with rich individuals, have more tools to avoid tax. But the fact remains they still pay a lot. Here are the corporation tax rates in the UK: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/corp.htm Here is a story about Apple putting its profits through Ireland to pay a lower rate of tax, with some extimates of how much tax they've been paying in recent years: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/07/17/apple-does-a-microsoft-and-goes-for-secrecy-in-ireland/ I like paying tax, I would like to pay more. Here in the UK we are somewhere in between the USA and Europe when it comes to attitude towards such things, personally Id ar rather pay a higher rate and have some sort of reasonable safety net and civilisation. I like the sound of France where employee's are 'super preferential creditors', or Germany where there is board-level representation of workers. But perhaps this info is already out of date, and they are moving more towards our rate race way of working? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well businesses pay taxes too, Er...not so much... :) Jan
[videoblogging] Re: Can anybody tell me....
Thanks for the insights, Adrian. :) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: around the 8/10/07 Bill Cammack mentioned about [videoblogging] Can anybody tell me that: Can anybody tell me how come people aren't bitching and moaning about copyrighted music in: A) Public Access shows across the country I can't speak for US but in Australia if there is music and you don't have copyright clearance it will not be broadcast. end of discussion. we have community statios here who regularly get sent great stuff from secondary schools but of course it has a soundtrack with music with no clearance, it cannot be broadcast. I may not have been clear about what I mean by public access stations here in the US. Then again, you may understand what they are. Just in case... The way things work (to grossly generalize, based on my experiences in Manhattan, NYC) is you apply to the station to get a time slot, 30 minutes or an hour. If/when you get your slot, it will either be before or after a certain hour, which determines how risque or vulgar your show can be. You give them the name of your show and the topic. Depending on the topic, your show might ONLY be slated for late-night airings. After that, it's up to you to provide the show to the station. They play whatever's there for your show at the time your show comes up. For this reason, sometimes, they will play the exact same show for three weeks in a row, because nobody went to change it. The point of all this background information is to set up the fact that there isn't anyone screening these videos for content. Because of this, you have some shows that are ENTIRELY music videos ripped from television stations with the television station bug still in the corner (MTV, VH1, BET, whatever). So I'm not even talking about someone using the music in the background of their original content. The only thing original about their show might be them talking in between ripped videos, IF that. Meanwhile, I've been to parties that were COMPLETELY VJed from YouTube. I mean, even that fad going on right now, Rick Rolling points to an actual music video. I'm not interested enough to research who posted that there, but you see the point. There's tons of stuff on YouTube also that has ZERO clearance. My point isn't being 'anti' either of these situations. It's just odd to me that people make SUCH a big deal out of whether someone uses copyrighted music in a videoblog that ~ 200 people are going to see during about a six month run, and meanwhile, you have the exact same music, the ENTIRE music video, on YouTube with 500,000 hits over the last year. Someone mentioned that perhaps it was because local public access channels have such a low viewership, but then, shouldn't that apply to videoblogs with low viewership as well? The whole thing's really weird. I'll be interested to see how it all shakes out. i also teach in a uni. media program and we have an expectation of all work from year one that it complies with copyright requirements. We don't want graduates going to work and getting their employers sued because they haven't learnt the basics of media and copyright law. Yes. That's smart. People need to know what they're getting into. lifecasting is interesting. Personally i think they should just let you pay a nominal amount, eg USD50 a year, and that is your licence so that while lifecasting if there is music in the background, you've paid a licence. same way here inn australia you can play music in your shop (you pay an annual licence to the Australian Performing Rights Association and they distribute the money to the artists). -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au [official compliance stuff:] CRICOS provider code: 00122A That's an interesting idea. Who would pay this license? The web site that's hosting the channel(s), or in the case of multiple channels, would each channel be responsible for paying their own fee? Even what you're saying is interesting to me. Why should shop owners need to pay a fee to play music in their shops when someone could sit down at their shop and play music from their radio or laptop license-free? I mean, I understand WHY... since the music is adding value to the owner's shop, but you see how it doesn't make any sense? You can play your radio, that you bought with your own money, that's receiving music from radio stations, in the park and pay nothing. You can play your own CDs, that you bought with your own money, on a laptop and pay nothing. One can argue that the licensing fee was built into the CD that the person bought or whatever media the radio station's playing. However, if that's the case, why isn't that same license built into music that someone on YouTube bought with their own money and put in the background of their non-commercial video? Seems like more than a DOUBLE
[videoblogging] Re: Can anybody tell me....
around the 25/10/07 Bill Cammack mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: Can anybody tell me that: Even what you're saying is interesting to me. Why should shop owners need to pay a fee to play music in their shops when someone could sit down at their shop and play music from their radio or laptop license-free? I mean, I understand WHY... since the music is adding value to the owner's shop, but you see how it doesn't make any sense? You can play your radio, that you bought with your own money, that's receiving music from radio stations, in the park and pay nothing. You can play your own CDs, that you bought with your own money, on a laptop and pay nothing. One can argue that the licensing fee was built into the CD that the person bought or whatever media the radio station's playing. However, if that's the case, why isn't that same license built into music that someone on YouTube bought with their own money and put in the background of their non-commercial video? Seems like more than a DOUBLE standard... Seems like A FEW different I'll answer this in bits :-) there is a distinction made between personal use nad broadcasting. turning on the stereo in the shop becomes broadcasting. it isn't about adding value, it is simply a technical definition of broadcasting. Radio stations here pay APRA fees, which cost more than the restaurant's :-) As do dance clubs. The fee is reasonable and its aim is not to stop the practice but to return royalties to the artists. I don't know the specifics, but I do know that radio stations sent their playlists to APRA, and also that they do spot audits just to try to get an idea of the sors of material being played so that they have a reasonable idea of who should be getting the royalties. youtube, you're broadcasting. So the rules are different for making a home movie that once upon a time really was a home movie (ie was only viewed at home by immediate family/friends). Personally I like the licence system as it provides revenue back to copyright holders. Related to all this, i know we all would like to use our favourite bands on our videos but if they have copyright, or signed it away, and we don't have a licence ot use it, we can't. But at the moment while this is pretty silly in this day and age, my response is just to find material that can be used and encourage and support this alterrnative copyright economy and regime. I'm a sad idealist, i don't think you will get far with Sony et al, so I prefer to go around them by using material they don't control. if we do this enough then the power of the big owners must decline simply because they no longer control access to publishing/distribution/broadcasting and as importantly now republishing/redistribution/rebroadcasting/remxing. -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au [official compliance stuff:] CRICOS provider code: 00122A
[videoblogging] Re: Can anybody tell me....
around the 25/10/07 Bill Cammack mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: Can anybody tell me that: I may not have been clear about what I mean by public access stations here in the US. Then again, you may understand what they are. Just in case... The way things work (to grossly generalize, based on my experiences in Manhattan, NYC) is you apply to the station to get a time slot, 30 minutes or an hour. If/when you get your slot, it will either be before or after a certain hour, which determines how risque or vulgar your show can be. You give them the name of your show and the topic. Depending on the topic, your show might ONLY be slated for late-night airings. After that, it's up to you to provide the show to the station. They play whatever's there for your show at the time your show comes up. For this reason, sometimes, they will play the exact same show for three weeks in a row, because nobody went to change it. here the community system is different. the broadcaster is still responsible for content, though like the US system anyone can come and pitch shows/content. It is like editors ot the editor. the editor and the newspaper owner is responsible for what is published even if it is a letter to the editor. The point of all this background information is to set up the fact that there isn't anyone screening these videos for content. Because of this, you have some shows that are ENTIRELY music videos ripped from television stations with the television station bug still in the corner (MTV, VH1, BET, whatever). So I'm not even talking about someone using the music in the background of their original content. The only thing original about their show might be them talking in between ripped videos, IF that. The only problem I have with these things is that if you do this to others content you can hardly complain when someone does it to yours. For example on this list there have been numerous examples of third party sites aggregating other people's video without credit, etc. But if in your videos you have been reusing others material without a licence, I think you're in a glass house throwing stones :-) Meanwhile, I've been to parties that were COMPLETELY VJed from YouTube. I mean, even that fad going on right now, Rick Rolling points to an actual music video. I'm not interested enough to research who posted that there, but you see the point. There's tons of stuff on YouTube also that has ZERO clearance. yep. welcome to the pointy end of diy media. we are all in the middle of these enormous changes and we can see that google are working rather hard to allay the anxieties of big media while also getting to keep the cake -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au [official compliance stuff:] CRICOS provider code: 00122A
[videoblogging] Re: Can anybody tell me....
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: around the 25/10/07 Bill Cammack mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: Can anybody tell me that: Even what you're saying is interesting to me. Why should shop owners need to pay a fee to play music in their shops when someone could sit down at their shop and play music from their radio or laptop license-free? I mean, I understand WHY... since the music is adding value to the owner's shop, but you see how it doesn't make any sense? You can play your radio, that you bought with your own money, that's receiving music from radio stations, in the park and pay nothing. You can play your own CDs, that you bought with your own money, on a laptop and pay nothing. One can argue that the licensing fee was built into the CD that the person bought or whatever media the radio station's playing. However, if that's the case, why isn't that same license built into music that someone on YouTube bought with their own money and put in the background of their non-commercial video? Seems like more than a DOUBLE standard... Seems like A FEW different I'll answer this in bits :-) there is a distinction made between personal use nad broadcasting. turning on the stereo in the shop becomes broadcasting. it isn't about adding value, it is simply a technical definition of broadcasting. ok. So how is (and I'm not disagreeing with you :D) playing your radio in the park NOT broadcasting? What if more people can hear your music in the park than at, say, an outdoor cafe where they've paid a license to play music there? How about DJing? You bought the records. You bought the turntables. You bought the speakers and brought them out to the park. How is that *not* broadcasting? Is it broadcasting because one person has a business and the other one doesn't? Radio stations here pay APRA fees, which cost more than the restaurant's :-) As do dance clubs. I'll assume your point here is that playing music over your radio that you bought and brought to the park is 'covered' by the fees that the radio station paid in the first place. However, if that's the case, why isn't the shop owner similarly covered? And if the shop owner isn't covered to play the radio in the shop, why is the consumer covered to play the radio in the park? The fee is reasonable and its aim is not to stop the practice but to return royalties to the artists. I don't know the specifics, but I do know that radio stations sent their playlists to APRA, and also that they do spot audits just to try to get an idea of the sors of material being played so that they have a reasonable idea of who should be getting the royalties. Absolutely. I'm *ALL* for people getting their royalties. If you make a film, you either have to not use music at all, make the music yourself, pay someone to score the film for you, have music 'donated' to your project or pay whomever created the music you want to use. It makes perfect sense in that case that since you're not incurring the cost of having your film scored, you should pay whomever you got the copyrighted music from. youtube, you're broadcasting. So the rules are different for making a home movie that once upon a time really was a home movie (ie was only viewed at home by immediate family/friends). Personally I like the licence system as it provides revenue back to copyright holders. I think the license system sounds fair as long as it's proportional to the project's actual budget. The question, however, becomes how BROAD is the CAST? :) What makes a video on YouTube that has 6 views a broadcast? Yes... Technically it's a BROADcast, because people all over the world COULD view it if they wanted to... except they don't. Why should a 6-view video on YouTube be held to a higher standard than a home video that's shown in a local recreation center or church basement or at someone's house over the holidays? Because there was the POTENTIAL for hundreds or thousands or millions of views? That's part of my point. I'm not sure at this point how many millions of people live here in NYC, but I guarantee you the *potential* viewership of a public access show is WAY up there, due to the numbers of people with television and cable accounts. No, people can't watch NYC public access in Japan, but that doesn't make a video blog with relatively no traffic more of a broadcast than that public access show, IMO... Of course, I'm no expert in what IS and ISN'T a broadcast. Related to all this, i know we all would like to use our favourite bands on our videos but if they have copyright, or signed it away, and we don't have a licence ot use it, we can't. ... Because we are BROADcasting? Regardless of how un-watched our videos are or how un-listened-to our podcasts are? The fact that there's the *potential* for millions of computer-owners to view our content makes us broadcasters as opposed to home-movie
[videoblogging] Re: Can anybody tell me....
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: around the 25/10/07 Bill Cammack mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: Can anybody tell me that: I may not have been clear about what I mean by public access stations here in the US. Then again, you may understand what they are. Just in case... The way things work (to grossly generalize, based on my experiences in Manhattan, NYC) is you apply to the station to get a time slot, 30 minutes or an hour. If/when you get your slot, it will either be before or after a certain hour, which determines how risque or vulgar your show can be. You give them the name of your show and the topic. Depending on the topic, your show might ONLY be slated for late-night airings. After that, it's up to you to provide the show to the station. They play whatever's there for your show at the time your show comes up. For this reason, sometimes, they will play the exact same show for three weeks in a row, because nobody went to change it. here the community system is different. the broadcaster is still responsible for content, though like the US system anyone can come and pitch shows/content. It is like editors ot the editor. the editor and the newspaper owner is responsible for what is published even if it is a letter to the editor. I see. There are lots of derivative public access shows, like there are lots of derivative text blogs. You know, the kind that just regurgitate celebrity gossip, for instance. There's nothing of original value from the web site creator, but they get a lot of hits because people want to read about what Britney or Lindsay jacked up THIS week. Somehow, it doesn't matter that nobody involved with that site took ANY of the pictures on that site or know ANYTHING first-hand about the topics they cover. They're putting on a web site what they learned on Entertainment Tonight or in some tabloid they subscribe to. Just like nobody forces sites like that to be original, nobody forces public access shows NOT to be a rehashing of what came on a particular music video channel this week. The point of all this background information is to set up the fact that there isn't anyone screening these videos for content. Because of this, you have some shows that are ENTIRELY music videos ripped from television stations with the television station bug still in the corner (MTV, VH1, BET, whatever). So I'm not even talking about someone using the music in the background of their original content. The only thing original about their show might be them talking in between ripped videos, IF that. The only problem I have with these things is that if you do this to others content you can hardly complain when someone does it to yours. For example on this list there have been numerous examples of third party sites aggregating other people's video without credit, etc. But if in your videos you have been reusing others material without a licence, I think you're in a glass house throwing stones :-) Absolutely. I think this is a major factor for a lot of people... I wouldn't want this to happen to me. Like with that MyHeavy thing. People didn't want their family videos with their children in it flanked by 50-foot (relative to the video itself) chicks in bikinis or bras or whatever and all the other gaudy advertising they had placed around our blip feeds. I think this is a great motivator. If we were The Rolling Stones, we wouldn't want our music to be played without us getting royalties! :O... except we're NOT The Rolling Stones. :) [not that there's anything wrong with that] -- Bill http://billcammack.com Meanwhile, I've been to parties that were COMPLETELY VJed from YouTube. I mean, even that fad going on right now, Rick Rolling points to an actual music video. I'm not interested enough to research who posted that there, but you see the point. There's tons of stuff on YouTube also that has ZERO clearance. yep. welcome to the pointy end of diy media. we are all in the middle of these enormous changes and we can see that google are working rather hard to allay the anxieties of big media while also getting to keep the cake -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au [official compliance stuff:] CRICOS provider code: 00122A
