YouTube deletes 29,549 video files after request by TV stations

Japan ASsociation for Rip offs And Corruption. these crooks charge bars with karaoke about 3500 yen a month for 'copyright fees'. absolute crooks when you think of every bar in japan paying this fee despite paying karaoke companies for the music.

 

the only winners are those two guys who sold it to google. god people are suckers. unless google can go in and purchase all the rights to distribute the material, youtube is not really much better than google video from a content perspective.

 

that had a fee added to every form of blank media because the public "might" record something that "may" be copyrighted? Screw them.....

ciao

 

...it was only a matter of time before YouTube was held to account for allowing copyright material to be posted on its site!
And the buck won't stop here, there'll be a LOT more deletions by christmas, and I wouldn't be surprised if a court case comes up!

 

YouTube was fun while it lasted. Its time to rewrite copyright law. There was a story today about Yoko Ono suing some record company for millions because, she claims, are hiding fees paid to songs written by her dead husband. I am darn sure the Beatles and record companies were not thing 40 years ahead when they released their work. They made enough money, "art" should pass into the public domain after 5 years.
The Pixies record comapany was complaing about a video on YouTube of a girl dancing to "Hey." It was a great video and probably brought in a lot of money in the long run because most of the kids probably don't know much besides Paris Hilton and fake rappers.

The last I heard was that the Naruto people loved file sharing because they are making millions from selling Naruto goods in the US.

 

not true.

 

Saraba Tuskihime episodes..uh apart from that, I wonder what the Askaninja has to say about him, the last thing I want to hear is that he's under a NTV payroll

Askaninja nittere shiki! mite mite!

sorry, just the irrational fear and speculation that follows after witnessing a terror attack.

 

There are a number of media companies and programs that are allowing their material to remain on YouTube, but YouTube really has the media industry divided. They get no royalties and no advertising dollars from having material posted. All they can hope for is that popular videos create a buzz for their material, leading more people to buy their goods and watch their programs on regular stations. In some cases, certain bands and songs have vaulted their sales by showing up in a popular video, but a lot of other YouTube content isn't doing much to help out the copyright holders.

I agree that the copyright laws have been extended way too far, but five years is a bit too extreme on the short end. Artists have the right to earn money off of their creations, and should an artist die I can see spouses and minor children still deserving proceeds from what is created. Yes, many artists probably aren't thinking 40 years ahead when creating their work, but just like a person creating a company, they should have some ownership and control over their creations.

A five-year copyright would leave most artists starving, and most artists aren't doing so well financially in the first place. Only those small percentage of pop artists who make it make it big would survive. Plus, with a five-year copyright, any publishing company right now could, say, put out editions of half of the Harry Potter books and make potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars off of them without paying J.K. Rowling a penny. Third parties making money off of an artist's creation at the expense of the author making a living seems more immoral to me than strong copyright laws.

What is bad under the recent copyright laws is that copyrights now extend often decades after an artist's death. Since corporations and not artists or their families often hold the copyrights to these works, the current copyright laws are less about protecting artists and more about corporate profits.

 

Colbert joked the other day that Google's billion-dollar acquisition was good news for him: He has hundreds of clips there, so he figured he had a few million dollarscoming to him.

I didn't see that clip on YouTube. I downloaded it.

 

Harry Potter is ripe to pass into the public domain as almost everyone who will read the book has read it by now. If a musician or author has not made money after 5 years, they will never make money. Starving musicians are not going to be living off their residuals when they retire, but if their work is freely transferable they may be able to get enough money to buy dog food by attracting a few people to a live show.

How about 5 years for music with the caviet that the publisher retains a veto to block use in things like advertising; I don't think Madonna would want "Like a Virgin" to be used in a Viagra commercial and 7 years for visual material, 10 years for written material including software if the software is not regularly updated by the original publisher. After every original update the copywrite can be extended for another 10 years.

 

going on a clean up rampage.

 

I agree. Of course, the issue that really ought to be tackled isn't extending copyright, but rather making sure that the record companies give the artists and songwriters a bigger share of the cake.

 

Wow! what a great site! I have been spending days just watching videos of all types. There are Dr Who episodes that have not been shown in the US, great video demos of video games (I am going to go buy PS2 soon), and some saddening videos of 9/11.

 

 

it's very very pity, that was really fun for us who live overseas and cannot watch Japanese TV....