In its decision, the three-judge panel ruled that copyright holders must consider fair use before asking services like YouTube to remove videos that include material they control.
In its decision, the three-judge panel ruled that copyright holders must consider fair use before asking services like YouTube to remove videos that include material they control.
I understand both sides.
I am kind of sitting on the fence on that issue.
If I were to compose a song that would end up on youtube and millions of people would listen to it, I would get zero royalty ( unlike when it plays on the radio or on tv or in a movie ) because youtube does not pay royalties ( as far as I know ) and that would not be fair.
Imagine you have a bakery and there is an open window and hundreds of people simply grab pastries trough the window and do not pay for what they take. Is that fair to you?
well people taking your music for free is the same thing.
But I also understand that woman who was not intentionally stealing anything, her video was about her dancing baby, not about ripping off anyone. She did nothing wrong.
It is youtube who should pay the artist some royalty, people who make baby or cats videos should not have to pay anything or be punished.
Youtube is the problem; it is the open window in the bakery…it should pay the baker for the millions of pastries people take “for free”.
I would much prefer that copyright should be automatically attributed the the performer(s), and non-transferable.
A corporation should never own copyright (or patents). No-one not directly involved in the performance or design should ever be eligible for ownership.