I'k a big YouTube fan.

Nosotros can thank YouTube for cutting the gordian knot of video codecs. Instead of futzing effectually with codecs and media players, YouTube's universal, Flash-based web video "just works". After all this time, it turns out the killer app for Flash wasn't advertising or web games. Information technology was video. It's a cross-platform model Microsoft is aping with Silverlight, and for good reason.

YouTube feels like a web institution already, even though the site is less than 2 years quondam. I love the fact that (almost) whatever video ephemera I can think of can be institute on YouTube, and instantly shared with anyone in the globe using cipher more a web browser and a hyperlink. It's a beautiful thing.

But one thing bugs me nearly YouTube. On their upload page, you'll find this disclaimer:

Practise non upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts, or commercials without permission unless they consist entirely of content you lot created yourself. Delight refer to our Copyright Tips folio for some guidelines and links to assistance you decide whether your video infringes someone else'southward copyright.

Take a infinitesimal to read YouTube'south copyright tips page. I'm serious. Read information technology. It's full of gems like this:

  • It doesn't matter how long or curt the clip is, or exactly how information technology got to YouTube. If you taped information technology off cable, videotaped your Goggle box screen, or downloaded it from some other website, it is still copyrighted, and requires the copyright owner's permission to distribute.
  • It doesn't thing whether or not you requite credit to the owner/author/songwriter -- information technology is still copyrighted.
  • It doesn't affair that y'all are not selling the video for money -- it is still copyrighted.
  • It doesn't matter whether or not the video contains a copyright detect -- it is nonetheless copyrighted.
  • It doesn't thing whether other similar videos announced on our site -- it is notwithstanding copyrighted.
  • It doesn't matter if yous created a video fabricated of curt clips of copyrighted content -- even though you edited it together, the content is however copyrighted.

Now think back through all the videos you've watched on YouTube. How many of them contained whatsoever original content? Let'south encounter. Recently I've linked to the faux Machete trailer from Grindhouse, a archetype Kids in the Hall skit (and another one), a surreal computer animated skit chosen Bingo the Clown-O, and the Writer'due south Laurels intro from the 2007 Emmys. Notice annihilation in common here? That'south right. Virtually everything of interest on YouTube is copyrighted content.

Information technology's possibly the ultimate instance of cognitive racket: by YouTube'due south own rules, YouTube cannot exist. And nevertheless it does.

YouTube: f**k copyright(tm)

How do nosotros reconcile YouTube's official hard-line position on copyright with the reality that 90% of the content on their site is clearly copyrighted and clearly used without permission? Information technology seems YouTube has an clumsily convenient "don't enquire, don't tell" policy-- they brand no endeavor to verify that the uploaded content is either original content or fair employ. The copyrighted content stays upwardly until the copyright possessor complains. So, and simply then, is it removed.

Someday we become aware that a video or whatsoever part of a video on our site infringes the copyrights of a 3rd party, we will take information technology downwardly from the site. Nosotros are required to do so past law. If y'all believe that a video on the site infringes your copyright, send us a copyright observe and nosotros will take information technology down.

It'south completely glossed over on the YouTube copyright page in favor of 100% original content, but the loophole in copyright is fair use. Under the imprint of fair use, you could legally upload a video without the copyright holder's permission. Anyone who contributes anything to the web should take the iv factors of off-white utilise commited to retentiveness by now:

  1. the purpose of the use
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work
  3. the relative corporeality of the portion used
  4. the market place effect of the apply on the copyrighted work

These are the 4 factors courts use to determine if something is off-white utilize. Information technology's worth digging a piffling deeper to see how these could potentially apply to a typical YouTube video clip.

fair use factors

ane. Was information technology transformative? Uploading a 2 minute prune from Kids in the Hall isn't transformative in the least. Cypher new was added. No context was provided. Information technology'south non a parody, information technology's not research, it'southward not commentary. It'south a small segment of the original content, transplanted to the web. It'southward only "transformative" in the sense that it's much more than readily available to the public.

two. What is the nature of the source material? The majority of clips on YouTube are there to amuse; they describe their source material from works of entertainment. Entertainment is an enjoyable pastime, but it'due south not a public expert. Dissemenation of facts or information benefits the public; video clips of man getting hit in the groin with football game.. non so much.

three. How much was taken? YouTube instituted a 10 minute length limit, probably to preclude excessive use claims from taking root. It'southward a policy that seems to work. Most clips tend to be adequately small, even later factoring in the 10 minute limit.

iv. What'southward the market effect? I find it very difficult to believe that the short, grainy, low-resolution clips on YouTube could accept whatever kind of measurable negative financial effect on content providers. This is ane case where YouTube'due south below-the-bottom-of-the-barrel video quality works in their favor.

The typical YouTube clip does well on the terminal two factors of the fair utilise test, but utterly fails the beginning two. This is not good, considering the factors are listed in order of importance; the transformative and nature tests are considered the nigh significant factors by courts. It is not possible to make a supportable fair use case for most video clips using copyrighted material on YouTube.

I'm not attacking YouTube here. I recollect having access to all this copyrighted content in bite-size embeddable grade is ultimately a net good for both consumers and creators. What I don't empathize is why YouTube continues to get abroad with the big copyright lie they've perpetuated from day i. They pay lip service to copyright, while building their business on an empire of unauthorized, copyrighted content. It's so brazen-- so blatant.

You can contend that copyright constabulary is broken. I won't disagree with you. Merely I nevertheless dislike YouTube'south massive hypocrisy in this area, and I wonder why other people and companies don't get the gratis ride from the hyper-litigious entertainment industry that YouTube seems to savor.