- Joined
- 25 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 5,298
- Location
- Ipswich
Very nice analogy I must say.
So this whole (ISP block sites thing)
- Thread starter Allnamestaken
- Start date
Very nice analogy I must say.
I think a bit of turning a blind eye is being done seeing that youtube basically advertises the film studios for them for free by hosting their movie trailers and interviews.
How much revenue do you think movie companies would lose if they upset google/youtube so all their trailers got flagged and removed?
How much revenue do you think movie companies would lose if they upset google/youtube so all their trailers got flagged and removed?
Last edited:
What has compensation got to do with it?
the ones I've watched never seemed to be edited at all during the actual film, some have a run time showing longer than the actual video is and some have hour long black screens after the movie
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 5,298
- Location
- Ipswich
Everything.
Why?
because the ultimate reason they make films is to make money and if they're making money off these films then...
well the person I replied to stated
they are uploaded by random people FFS we are not talking about the ones the film studios put on there them self and charge for
nothing because people would simply watch them elsewhere and most people probably do like on the imdb website
google would never remove the legal trailers , interviews , music videos etc anyway as they bring to many people to the website
Last edited:
Just re-thinking this analogy, the sites in question (whichever site or protocol it may be, the "it's not hosting any content" type site) are not a map. They are the boozer who is allowing "Shady Dave" to operate from their premises. They are not committing an illegal act directly but they are facilitating it. Surely?
So we could be talking of other things than compensation?
Why would that change things? You do understand a contract could have a clause for this?
I didn't think too much into it to be honest. I doubt a boozer selling guns out the back door would be done under the licencees approval
I don't know. But I'd guess that google and youtube supply the movie industry with a large chunk of revenue. They don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, maybe?
If you uploaded some 1980s B-movie then I doubt it'd get removed, while If you uploaded the next Star Wars movie then I reckon it'd be removed within the hour.
and pig's could fly for all we know they might grow wings when we aren't watching like particles being fired through slots change behaviour when they are being observed.
you have no evidence any such contract exists and we are not basing this thread on assumptions.
youtube are breaking copyright laws by allowing people who do not own the rights to upload them unless the movie studios openly state it is allowed or remove the copyrights
If that's what you believe.
so you believe "2 guns" is on youtube and the company that owns the copyright does not mind because youtube/google have some secret pact with the movie studios ?
UK DVD & Blu-ray : December, 2013
it's a proper telesync on there as well and not a dodgy blurry cam with poor audio
IIRC Youtube has come to deals with a lot of the IP owners and that includes giving them easy ways to contact youtube to get content removed (and from memory a toolkit to assist in id'ing such content), and an agreement that youtube will remove the content if asked.
Random smaller sites usually ignore such requests until it goes to court.
Here's why:
It's the decision of the rights holders - the people and companies who make the content which you are illegally watching - whether to ask the court to issue an order to ISPs to block a site.
One of the key considerations in whether a court will demand that ISPs block a site is whether that site is actively promoting piracy. It is not Youtube's purpose to promote piracy, and Google does a pretty good job of removing pirated material on demand.
Accordingly, due to the service provided by Youtube, applicants would be highly unlikely to succeed in winning an order to have the site blocked, and would be throwing an awful lot of money away in legal fees. It's more cost effective to ask Youtube directly to take down infringing content as and when rights holders want that to happen.
See paragraphs 78-80 of the judgment here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/268.html
Because the majority of YouTube's content isn't for the sole purpose of sharing content without the owner's permission. I understand that that people have uploaded TV/Movies but clearly the industry doesn't care much about those.
I doubt any ISP is also doing online searches for this content, they'll just see the usage reports and logs and get updates of sites illegally hosting content using high bandwidth. Is it possible to tell a legit YouTube video from another without seeing it?
Last edited: