Jump to content

Youtube Policy needs to GO AWAY!


SCVsopAaron

Youtube Ban  

58 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you in favor of banning youtube links on DCP?

    • Yes
      19
    • No
      39


Recommended Posts

I vote to repeal the youtube ban. I feel like it's COMPLETELY out of DCP's jurisdiction, AND DCI can't go after DCP for posting links to youtube vids. Below is my rant from another thread. Personally, I don't see how posting links is wrong in ANY way........ DCI and the corps have an avenue to remove material they feel is inappropriate, AND some corps have youtube channels anyways... This old and outdated policy needs to go away. Get with the times.

"I'm SICK of the stupid youtube policy. I think it's ridiculous. If it's there, why can't we share links??? Let DCI handle it and the individual corps... There're ways for them to take content they don't approve of down, so if it's been up for YEARS obviously they DON'T CARE or it's not a priority!!!! Making us PM each other and having threads deleted for mentioning youtube is just annoying. This is total hypocrisy. Welcome to the interwebs and 2008. Seriously. AND, DCP, you're not doing any "service" to the community by banning youtube links, because we're all going there anyways. RAWR! STOP BANNING YOUTUBE!!!!"

Please vote in the poll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

AND DCI can't go after DCP for posting links to youtube vids.

DCI is not the group I'd be worried about. I'd worry about the group(s) that hold the licensing rights to the music being played and shown. Ask anyone about Troopers this year on the DVD.

Edited by JimF-3rdBari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCI is not the group I'd be worried about. I'd worry about the group(s) that hold the licensing rights to the music being played and shown. Ask anyone about Troopers this year on the DVD.

True, but the whole point is that DCP is not legally responsible for the content on youtube. So an individual posting a link to youtube, where the are PLENTY of legal vids, should be totally legit. I just don't understand how DCP can be held responsible for the content on youtube in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure of the legalities of posting a link to YouTube itself. But if DCP allows links to individual vids, without knowing if the vid is legal, then DCP could be opening itself up to problems. And let's face it, we know there is some stuff on there that runs against copyright. (Now guess which is which :smile: )Personally I'm still waiting for the Napster type stinkpot to hit YouTube. Maybe that guy from Metallica (Lars?) is too busy plugging the new album to care right now. :thumbup:

DCP allows vids from corps home pages with the understanding (more like a hope) that what ever is on the corps site is legal. Also waiting for an "Ah crap" to hit a corps with that. :blink: (not that I wish angery lawyers on anyone)

Edited by JimF-3rdBari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure of the legalities of posting a link to YouTube itself. But if DCP allows links to individual vids, without knowing if the vid is legal, then DCP could be opening itself up to problems. And let's face it, we know there is some stuff on there that runs against copyright. Personally I'm still waiting for the Napster type stinkpot to hit YouTube. Maybe that guy from Metallica (Lars?) is too busy plugging the new album to care right now. :thumbup:

DCP allows vids from corps home pages with the understanding (more like a hope) that what ever is on the corps site is legal. Also waiting for an "Ah crap" to hit a corps with that. :blink: (not that I wish angery lawyers on anyone)

Still isn't DCP's problem! DCP is a fourth party, basically, just like google or something like that...

BTW - Lars got cool and doesn't care anymore... Very similar to how DCP should be... EMBRACE THE TECHNOLOGY!

Edited by SCVsopAaron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still isn't DCP's problem! DCP is a fourth party, basically, just like google or something like that...

I'd love to hear a real lawyers take on this one but I'll take a SWAG (simple wild ### guess).

With google you search for whatever all on your own.

A link is created by someone and takes you directly to the whatever.

In an illegal act believe the difference is called "aiding and abetting". And whoever provdes a place knowing that illegal acts can occur can also be pulled into the "A&A".

Edit: Maybe Lars saw the "South Park" episode... :blink: Or was able to buy that gold topped bar, or whatever it was..... :thumbup:

Edited by JimF-3rdBari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to hear a real lawyers take on this one but I'll take a SWAG (simple wild ### guess).

With google you search for whatever all on your own.

A link is created by someone and takes you directly to the whatever.

In an illegal act believe the difference is called "aiding and abetting". And whoever provdes a place knowing that illegal acts can occur can also be pulled into the "A&A".

Edit: Maybe Lars saw the "South Park" episode... :blink: Or was able to buy that gold topped bar, or whatever it was..... :thumbup:

Perhaps... I just find it a little far reaching to claim that DCP could be in any way responsible for copyright infringements... Youtube, yes, but they seem to be doing just fine...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As is discussed ad nauseam in the YouTube thread in the World Class forum, it's not that we're trying to remove stuff from YouTube or are responsible for what's there. We are, however, responsible for what we host here, and if copyright holders such as ASCAP or BMI can argue that we're allowing our site to become a reference point for illegal reproductions of the works they own, we leave ourselves open to legal liabilities. At any rate, before shooting off in here at least read the original thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As is discussed ad nauseam in the YouTube thread in the World Class forum, it's not that we're trying to remove stuff from YouTube or are responsible for what's there. We are, however, responsible for what we host here, and if copyright holders such as ASCAP or BMI can argue that we're allowing our site to become a reference point for illegal reproductions of the works they own, we leave ourselves open to legal liabilities. At any rate, before shooting off in here at least read the original thread.

Did you guys ever receive a cease and desist letter or anything like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As is discussed ad nauseam in the YouTube thread in the World Class forum, it's not that we're trying to remove stuff from YouTube or are responsible for what's there. We are, however, responsible for what we host here, and if copyright holders such as ASCAP or BMI can argue that we're allowing our site to become a reference point for illegal reproductions of the works they own, we leave ourselves open to legal liabilities. At any rate, before shooting off in here at least read the original thread.

While I will agree that directly displaying illegal IP on the site could pose a liability, YouTube has made recent advances in technology to mitigate that risk to an extent.

They have developed software capable of ID'ing pirated IP and placing advertising on the lower-third to supply the IP owners with compensation for the use of their material.

That said, there's still a lot of grey area there.

Many employers will not allow individuals to directly embed YouTube videos on internal websites due to possible infringement liability. http: links are usually permissible, because you are then viewing it on the YouTube site and it is YouTube's potential liability.

Most studios and music producers are now providing ways, and promoting the use of, embed methods for users to directly display their IP while providing advertising along with such embeds ... These companies are finding it actually helps to get the product out, and promoted, on as many sites as possible. A couple of examples of this would being singingfool.com, revver.com, blip.tv, crackle, and others.

If you embed a revver.com video on your site ... say a sitcom or something ... You will actually get 20% of the ad revenue while the creator gets 40% and revver.com gets 40%. Not a bad way to add some monetization to your site.

Edited by DCIHasBeen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...