terms of use, matter [Learn from the mistakes of others]

YouTube 'can sell videos it hosts'
Louisa Hearn (July 24, 2006 - 10:45AM)

The YouTube video sharing site has been much celebrated as a free ride to virtual stardom for the uninhibited masses, but a recent redraft of the small-print terms and conditions has added a slightly sour note into the mix.
Although most users of the US-based free video hosting site founded last year might be oblivious to recent changes in its terms, a number of US blogs and news sites have seized on the issue, claiming that the new conditions give YouTube the freedom to sell any creative content that it hosts to any format or channel.
Although those who have posted clips to satisfy exhibitionist urges rather than serious commercial aspirations might think the issue does not apply to them, comments posted to the Boing Boing blog point out that, under the new terms, they might one day see their unique interpretation of the duck dance being used in a television advert without either their consent or knowledge.
While some watchers say YouTube has created the conditions only to protect itself from the re-use by external sources of any material posted there, others believe it could pave the way for new commercial revenue streams, particularly if the company were taken over by a large media group.

Terms of Use are pretty important. We never read them, but they can be very important. This, however, is not the first, and will not be the last, of this kind of upheaval regarding Internet and legal stuff.

May

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4 1	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

I remember when someone on the 7th Sea (RPG) email list looked at the standard email footer and noticed that it said that all content posted to the list was owned by AEG. Heh. Or, for that matter, White Wolf's recent announcement that it owns all matterial created for an official Camarilla LARP, and that anyone caught using the same plots and characters after the Camarilla ended would be breaking the law.

Sure. That's sane.

[link] [reply]

not to mention rather onerous to enforce.

the current trends in so-called "intellectual property" is just outright rape and pillage. someone may die on a fork before it's all over.

i wonder whether they'd stick to the ownership claim if someone posted offensive material to the list then sued them (or someone else sued them) for carrying it ... i imagine backpedalling would occur.

[link] [parent] [reply]

That would be novel... I suspect they also had some clause about not being responsible for the content (even though they own it). They not only want to have their cake and eat it, they want to eat your cake too, but only the icing. LOL.

intellectual property laws have become a bit of a horses arse.

I occasionally wonder how something that was designed to ensure that the creators of something cool got paid for their efforts got so perverted that it's now often used to ensure that the creators of something cool never see a cent.

Though I bet I'd find abuses going all the way back to the Baroque if I looked hard enough.

I suppose the rich and powerful will use whatever tools are at hand to protect their interests.

Learn from the mistakes of others

terms of use, matter

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

May