Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Plagiarism detector
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Plagiarism detector
Copyright seems like a simple thing to understand and respect. You don’t go and use someone else’s work and claim it is yours. However, with the rise of Youtube came people who would break copyright rules and upload others work or even upload entire movies and shows. The solution for taking down or de-monetizing any videos found guilty of doing this was for Youtube to put a bot in their algorithm and let it deem which videos where guilty of copyright. Now in the first few years this actually wasn’t a bad thing as only videos that where committing plagiarism where getting taken down. Sadly though around mid-2010 Youtube decided to crack down on copyright and made the bot more aggressive.
This led to some false copyright strikes and videos
…show more content…
being pulled but nothing too serious or life breaking. All that came from content creators on these matters where occasional rant videos and asking Youtube what was going on. Overall everything was still tolerable and no one thought Youtube was broken. Skip ahead to early 2013 and a rather large review channel titled IHE (I Hate Everything) did a review on a otherwise unknown film.
His review wasn’t really positive but he managed to find a reason or two for why people would want to check it out. It was all going normal until two days after when everybody who was subscribed to IHE went to his channel only to find it gone. In place of his channel’s home page was a small text box saying that the channel had been removed from Youtube.
People immediately started making videos and talking about what had happened. The story was that the guy who made the movie IHE had reviewed had mass flagged his video with copyright strikes from fake accounts. Now Youtube’s copyright bot saw this and proceeded to determine that IHE’s channel had to be taken
…show more content…
down. Now you couldn’t take two steps on Youtube without finding someone talking about this and it was thanks to all the attention from content creators that helped get IHE’s channel back up.
This whole situation exposed how easy it is to abuse Youtube’s copyright policies. Luckily ever since this situation no one has fallen into similar problems but another one popped up. When IHE’s channel was down he made no money for about a week and for a channel of his size that’s a pretty decent chunk of money. As it turns out when a video is hit with a copyright strike from someone all money that the video makes goes to the owner of the copyright strike even if the content creator manages to successfully dispute the copyright strike. So now people who don’t agree with content creators views or opinions of their products can flag their videos and make any money that the content creator should get. It’s even worse when it’s a false company that makes the strike when they in fact have no connection to the content.
Now the solutions I have heard mainly consist of Youtube to fix their copyright policies. Now that would be nice and at one point they may have it down. However, the way Youtube works makes copyright difficult to manage as you have thousands of videos uploaded every hour and some content is very borderline in regards to copyright. Another solution I have heard is for Youtube to hire people to monitor what the bot flags and verify if it truly does break copyright. I don’t see the second
one happening soon as right now Youtube barely breaks even for Google. My solution falls more into the area of after a video is copyrighted and a content creator attempts to fight the flagging. Fighting or disputing a flagging can take weeks and that’s if it doesn’t go to court. During the entire ordeal all money that the video makes is put in the pocket of the person doing the flagging. Instead I believe that the money should be put in a side account and given to the victor of the dispute. I’ve told other content creators and I know this idea has spread but I’m not sure if it has been implemented yet. I do know that in 2015 a petition was made to bring this to the Supreme Court. I believe the petition got enough signatures (mine included) and while I’m not sure what became of it entirely I am happy that this issue is getting attention.
Last year, Lopes was engaged in another beef with her label when they decided not to release her long-talked about solo debut Supernova domestically (see "Left Eye Plans To Stream Delayed Album").
Late May 2011, a YouTube channel by the name of ksawomen2drive posted an eight minute video. The first day it was up it became the most viewed clip in Saudi Arabia, and became so popular it started trending worldwide. Any non-Arabic viewer might have been slightly baffled by its popularity. To them it would merely be a clip of a woman in a hijab driving while talking to her passenger, and a poorly filmed clip at that. The hundreds of thousands of Arabic viewers however, saw something all together quite different. They were witnessing a crime take place, an act of dissent. The video gained over 600 000 the few days it was up, but was taken down following the arrest of the driver shown in the clip. Manal al-Sharif was that driver.
Abstract: In 1995 Lance Rose and Esther Dyson wrote articles in Wired Magazine expressing polarized views on the future of copyright law and copyright infringement. This essay reviews those articles, analyzes each article's accuracy as defined by current trends years later.
“Mexican YouTube Star MURDERED After Insulting Cartel Boss | What's Trending Now!” YouTube, YouTube, 21 Dec. 2017,
The evolution of the Internet into a mainstream resource has provided its users with access to whatever their hearts desire, often at no cost. Such free access has instilled in the minds of users that they are entitled to possess all that they may obtain, without regard to those from whom they are taking. Causing the damages to our economy and society on a global scale, and challenges to the current state of copyright law, resulting from the growth and advancement of digital technology, which has created a pandemic of apathy among an entire population of users toward the interests of copyright owners.
John posts the video on YouTube and embeds it on his blog. John begins receiving more media attention for his views after the video is posted. The senator sues him, claiming that John intentionally shot the video and posted it because he doesn’t agree with the senator politically and wanted to ruin his job opportunity with the Nuclear Safety Association. The senator sues on the grounds of defamation and on the fact that he was on private property at the time of the filming. The senator is trying to win monetary gains for personal damages, as his job offer was rescinded after the posting of the
NEW RULES. YouTube's policy is to remove copyrighted clips once alerted to their existence. Content providers say the company needs to be even more proactive. YouTube was sued on July 14 by Robert Tur, an independent photographer, for distributing his work without permission (see BusinessWeek, 8/7/06, "Whose Video Is It Anyway?"). Universal Music Group weighed whether to sue YouTube over copyright infringement as well (see BusinessWeek.com, 9/18/06, "Sour Musical Notes on YouTube, MySpace").
In terms of the political and legal landscape, Netflix could be involved in changing laws as regards copyrights of confident kinds of con...
Music Copyright is a very important aspect of the music industry. The Copyright law was established to preserve the creativity and rights of authors, composers, performers of expression. Copyright is the law that protects the property rights of the creator of an original work in a fixed tangible medium. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/copyright) A fixed tangible medium is something substantial like copying lyrics on paper or putting a song on tape or CD. Copyright can be seen every where in the music industry. Many music artist of our culture today have been involved in copyright issues. Recently, on MTV news it was stated that, "As the music industry becomes increasingly concerned about protecting the integrity of artists copyrights in the age of MP3. Prince has now filed a motion in New York federal court aimed at shutting down several websites offering free downloads of the Artist's songs." (http://www.mtv.com…19990304/prince.jhtml) In addition, in recent music news, "Nine Inch Nails lead man Trent Reznor copyright infringement suit was dismissed. Another artist claimed that the Reznor had stolen material for his last album." (http://www.mtv.com…19991202/nine_inch_nails.jhtml) The copyright law has become an important legal aspect to know our music generation.
Copyright, in its first form, was first introduced in 1710 with a British statute of Anne. Since this time copyright laws have changed to remain current, and have grown into an international agreement by many countries around the globe.
The reason it is not illegal is because these two factors (Education and Parody) fall under Fair use, Professor Faden did not violate any copyright laws in the creation of the video. He took several creative works and transformed them into a ten minute educational video on fair use and the laws of copyright. Not only was the video beautifully structured, it was quite entertaining. The mash up of multiple colorful movies put together in such a short amount of time is absolutely extraordinary. His video was exactly like a remix, it actually was a remix.
The internet today is a vast network that contains nearly limitless amounts of information and media. With this immense amount of data at our fingertips, the line between right and wrong has begun to blur. The illegal downloading of copyrighted material has exploded in recent years, but a larger issue looms over the current
This is a relatively simple step in the process as Youtube almost always provides the uploader with the reason why their video was removed. For instance, if the video has copyrighted content in it the video will have red text underneath the video description in your video manager stating that the video's content has been matched with third-party content or that the video has been taken down by the request of the owner of the copyrighted content.
Since YouTube has a phenomenally large user-base and allows for the monetization of videos using advertisements, it has become a viable job; yet the jobs it has created, it is now destroying. It first does this by not simply warning content creators when copyrighted content is found, but by immediately diverting revenue of the video to only Google and the supposed copyright holder (Tassi). This approach is quite like an officer who, upon pulling over a speeder, takes him immediately to jail, rather than giving him a ticket. By doing this to not only videos with little copyrighted content but with no copyrighted content at all in the way of false positives (Tassi), YouTube is causing many to lose money. Says an expert on the subject, “Whoever is accusing these content creators of copyright violation needs to provide sufficient evidence for their claims rather than this auto-flagging, wide-sweeping algori...
Before YouTube was bought out by Google it was suffering from financial struggles. The company was a victim of its own success as consumer demands for their service would allow people to upload videos to YouTube which continued to add capacity (Kafka, 2010). Consequently, the company could not turn a profit. In fact, consumer demand for YouTube remains strong today as there are hundreds of hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute and there are now hundreds of YouTube channels that can be subscribed to (Youtube, n.d.). Google, o...