spheric

About

Username
spheric
Joined
Visits
233
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
2,572
Badges
1
Posts
2,346

Reactions

1.7KLike168Informative

  • Apple kills long-time event archive on YouTube

    sphericspheric
    sdw2001 said:
    bonobob said:
    sdw2001 said:
    mfryd said:
    sdw2001 said:
    j238 said:
    Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial. 
    I find it hard to believe it’s copyright infringement.  And the claim wasn’t legal…it was with ScrewTube.  There is no legitimate basis for taking down. You’re talking about 20 rolled video that have no commercial value or negligible value to anyone.  
    Can you elaborate on why you believe it is not copyright infringement?

    Are you suggesting that the videos are not copyrighted, or that Apple is not the copyright owner?

    Remember, copyright law gives the copyright owner the ability to place restrictions on the copying or reproducing of the protected work.  The copyright owner does not need a good reason to prohibit posting, nor does the decision need to be in the copyright owner’s best interest.  

    Also keep in mind that infringement does not need to be for profit.

    Suppose you were a photographer and created a mediocre photo (one with no commercial value).  You wanted the photo hung in your office, and you didn’t want any other copies out there.  It would be copyright infringement for someone else to post the image to a public website for all to enjoy.  Even though they are not depriving you of sales, nor are they making money on your work.  The law says that when it comes to posting, the copyright owner gets to decide, and their decision doesn’t have to be the most reasonable position possible.  There are a few “fair use” exceptions, but keep in mind that the common language definition of “fair use” may not match the legal meaning.

    So please explain why you think someone publicly posting Apple’s copyrighted video to a website (including YouTube) does not constitute a clear violation of copyright?
    I am, in fact, claiming it is likely not copyright infringement. These are events that were videoed and broadcast at the time.  They were public events.  All this guy did was have them archived on YouTube.  He could argue it is for journalistic purposes. Now if he was getting ad revenue, that changes things.  He’s not reproducing it, just maintaining an archive.  YouTube may agree it’s infringement, but that has nothing to do with infringement under the law.  
    That's not how it works.  For instance, I can take pictures or videos out in public, on the streets.  They are still subject to my copyright, because I took them.  If someone else photographs the same scene, they get the copyright for their pictures.  If someone had videoed the Apple presentations themselves, the images would be copyrighted by that individual.  There would still be the issue of having recorded a copyrighted speech, but we can leave that for another time.
    You’re really dealing with a different situation there. You’re talking about a public event like a product announcement.  It’s really not something that can be reused.  
    No, this is not about the EVENT. This is about PRODUCED CONTENT — Various camera perspectives, pre-produced trailers, voice-overs, music, audio mix, all edited together into a finalised video. 

    If this were about somebody who attended the events and put up video he'd filmed there, it wouldn't be as clear-cut (or possibly even an issue at all). 

    But use of this material is controlled by the copyright owner — and that's Apple. There is "fair use" for journalistic purposes, but simple, publicly accessible archival isn't "journalism", and certainly isn't "fair use", even if it was a public service and didn't rake in tens of thousands of dollars in YT ad revenue (which it would, if monetisation was enabled, as I believe it was). 
    watto_cobra

  • Apple kills long-time event archive on YouTube

    sphericspheric
    davidw said:
    When I was a member of a health club, well over 30 years ago, the management held "Movie Night" every Wednesday after 6PM. On "Movie Night", the club would show 2 movies they rented from the local BlockBuster on a big screen TV in the lobby. The movies chosen was based on members request. They gave away free popcorn and lost money selling beer for $1 a pitcher. This was just something they did as a perk for members (and any guest visiting the club at the time). This went on for over a year, until one day a lawyer representing the movie industry showed up and told the club owner to stop it or face copyright infringement charges. 

    It seems that even though the club was not directly profiting money wise, from showing rental movies in their club for their members, the club gain the goodwill of their members. Plus any non members that happened to be in the club at that night, might be more tempted to join. And not to mention that anyone staying to watch the movies that didn't drink beer, might buy other beverages that the club do profit from. That counts as "commercial value" and would be copyright infringement if a business were to take advantage of that, without the copyright owners permission. 


    Any DVD you purchase comes with a license for private use exclusively. It explicitly forbids public screening. 

    So if you're a private individual, and you throw a party for fifty of your friends and show the movie while they're there, that's a sort of edge-case, but arguably private. 

    If you're a club, and you throw a party for fifty of your members and show the movie while they're there, you need to license it. 
    watto_cobra

  • I Never Expected This

    sphericspheric
    kingofsomewherehot said:
    spheric said:
    I ask because...
    .... because AppleWhacker is trolling.
    I give him the benefit of the doubt here. 

    Apple may just be too polite to simply confiscate a counterfeit product and tell him to fuck off. 
    muthuk_vanalingam

  • Twitter for iOS updated with $8 checkmark in-app purchase

    sphericspheric
    Wait, so instead of paying celebrities and official accounts for providing free content verified to be authentic, he‘s making THEM pay for the privilege of attracting traffic by veracity? 

    I mean. I guess it goes both ways, but has Musk really not understood how Twitter works?
    williamlondonwatto_cobra

  • Husband buries wife alive, smashes Apple Watch to stop her calling for help

    sphericspheric
    JP234 said:
    spheric said:
    JP234 said:
    You'll take my Apple Watch when you pry it from my cold, dead wrist. From my cold. dead. wrist.
    Apparently, that can be arranged. 
    Dude, if I forwarded that to the DOJ, you'd be looking at prison time. Be more careful with your wording!
    a) I'm probably not subject to jurisdiction by the DoJ. 

    b) I was very careful, and very deliberate, with my wording. As is apparent from this article, the prerequisite "cold, dead wrists" are not necessarily something that would stop someone.
    That's what "apparently" means. 

    I put that word there explicitly so that it couldn't be construed as a threat. 
    JP234watto_cobra