Skip

Sorry, kids. We're stealing your work and selling it
July 21, 2006 9:34 PM   Subscribe

Commercial exploitationTube? Creative Commies-Tube? Plagiarism® ? "…you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels…" moc.ebutuoy

whata circlejerk... Now where's my aeroflot and reversed copyright Tee-Shirt! and Negativland, Tape-beatles, EEC records. I'm ready for a copyfight !
posted by Unregistered User (27 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
©
posted by Unregistered User at 9:40 PM on July 21, 2006


You realize that without that license term, YouTube would not be legally allowed to serve the files? Almost all websites with professionally written TOSes have similar clauses.
posted by delmoi at 9:47 PM on July 21, 2006


Kids these days. So cynical. So apathetic. Where do they get that nihilism they affect?
posted by Unregistered User at 9:50 PM on July 21, 2006


From YouTube, this strikes me as pure protection from them. If they do a promo ad with some kid's stupid "my humps" lip-sync (or, to be fair, your brilliant indie film), they can't get sued. The lip-sync would be run without sound of course, because they're not dumb enough to mess on the RIAA's turf.

YouTube's not going to be putting your short movie on Walmart's shelves any time soon.

Now, Hotmail... they basically reserve the right to read your email and put any cool business plans you have in use.
posted by ®@ at 9:56 PM on July 21, 2006


Yeah this has pretty much been debunked already. No biggie, really.

What's really gonna suck is when YouTube gets shut down, and a huge chunk of the archived internet will be useless to the future. Think of how many blogs, content aggregation sites, etc. are pretty much just YouTube links now. All that stuff will end up linking to nowhere.
posted by First Post at 9:57 PM on July 21, 2006


Key phrase: "... in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business"

This limits the scope of what rights you're giving them considerably. It looks like they're pretty much only asking you to give them permission to display your video on their website and any associated distribution channels they set up. Which no one should be surprised about.

But gee, let's torch the place anyway.
posted by cillit bang at 10:00 PM on July 21, 2006


Given that most people are posting someone else's copyrighted material this is pretty funny.

delmoi, by posting the material on youtube, you are giving them an implied license to use it the way they use other videos right now. What they are seeking is much broader rights.
posted by caddis at 10:08 PM on July 21, 2006


Without that, someone could create a video, upload it to YouTube, publicize the URL -- and then sue YouTube for royalties for every time it got downloaded.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 10:16 PM on July 21, 2006


No they couldn't.
posted by caddis at 10:17 PM on July 21, 2006


this is pretty much standard fare for any site that allows such uploads. it is simply to protect against frivolous lawsuits from people who might claim that uploaded content is not supposed to be, for example, featured on the youtube homepage, or included in youtube advertisements.

however, it appears you are all missing one key element of the youtube terms of service:
"The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website."

don't like youtube having rights to your content? host it elsewhere, and their license to use it goes away.
posted by djenigma at 10:21 PM on July 21, 2006



What caddis said!
posted by Unregistered User at 10:24 PM on July 21, 2006


delmoi, by posting the material on youtube, you are giving them an implied license to use it the way they use other videos right now. What they are seeking is much broader rights.

Well yes, but those broader rights are very limited in scope by the phrase I quoted above, and appear to just be getting your permission in advance to use your videos with new features they add to the YouTube service.
posted by cillit bang at 10:28 PM on July 21, 2006


I agree
posted by caddis at 10:31 PM on July 21, 2006


It's so ironic. Whenever people like the RIAA and MPAA want to put onerous restrictions on how a person uses a work, people start yelling "Information wants to be free!1!!".

When the opposite happens, well, people start yelling about my rights. The word stealing was even used in the title of this entry. If you used that in a RIAA piece, you'd get a paragraph long pedantic dissertation on how the proper term is copyright infringement, and how its impossible to steal something when all you've done is make a copy of it, etc, etc.

So say that YouTube becomes totally evil, changes the license again, and Coca-Cola enters a deal with YouTube to start making "mashup" advertisements with YouTube content. What's the damage here, and what's the difference between that and negativland?
posted by zabuni at 10:47 PM on July 21, 2006


Okay, so... what about my left nut?
posted by squirrel at 12:08 AM on July 22, 2006


This is why I love MetaFilter! We can be counted on to see right through your idiocy.

The always nonsensically hysterical hipster blogtards have even issued a second retraction of their usual mindless attacks on anything that ever mentions copyright in a remotely corporate setting, no matter how sensible. Usually they just append multiple emailed-in corrections and complete reversals of their their invective to the bottom of the original post.

They've moved on to hyping other things undeserving of any attention, like yet more decontextualized images of goatse, and the perennial favorite: Google maps 37Signals with Flickr iPod
posted by blasdelf at 1:15 AM on July 22, 2006


You beat me to it blasdelf - this is a storm in a teacup set in motion by Boing Boing's usual policy of selective quoting/wilfully missing the point. (Which is fine, and their right, but nonetheless annoying.)

And, zabuni - well said.
posted by jack_mo at 3:16 AM on July 22, 2006


Jesus blasdelf, ease up on boing boing hatred. They're not always nonsensically hysterical. Nor are they usually mindless. Nor are they lockstep anti-corporate-everything. I can practically see your spit flying out of the monitor. Did the cool kids not let you sit with them at lunch in junior high or something? If you don't like bb, why read it? Why get so worked up about it?
posted by Scoo at 5:25 AM on July 22, 2006


But "hysterical hipster blogtards" is pretty damned funny.
posted by persona non grata at 5:40 AM on July 22, 2006


You're right Scoo: they aren't entirely anti-corporate, they just adore O'Reilly Publishing, especially the whole look at us, we're makers ridiculousness they're trying to foster. And they always have time to make a number of posts detailing whatever inane thing one of them is doing in the MSM or at some costly conference. Ego whores central.

They didn't used to be anywhere near this bad, they sort of hit their stride three years ago, then began the descent into self-parody, which was complete some time ago.

Why read it? Why get so worked up about it?
I don't read it, and don't want to either, but it's fans and imitators spread their histrionics all over the web. Just like the duggalos.
posted by blasdelf at 7:02 AM on July 22, 2006


First Post writes "Think of how many blogs, content aggregation sites, etc. are pretty much just YouTube links now. All that stuff will end up linking to nowhere."

Ya, the MeFi archives are going to suck.
posted by Mitheral at 8:07 AM on July 22, 2006


omg licensing agreements wtf

What's the damage here, and what's the difference between that and negativland?

negativland is cool, man.
posted by cortex at 9:18 AM on July 22, 2006


OMG! YouTUbes owns all the clps from cable TV I posted up there!
posted by Artw at 9:34 AM on July 22, 2006


Well, for heaven's sake, what did you expect from a free service? Didn't think there was going to be a catch? What do you think the whole point of "user generated content" is in the first place? All that means is, you do their work for them, and they own your ass in the unlikely event that you happen to upload something that's worth something, and not the ending the last week's episode of 24. Welcome to the brave new world of Web 2.0, chumps.
posted by slatternus at 10:01 AM on July 22, 2006


Duggalos? Now that's funny! I'll meet you half way re: the waning coolness of bb: if Frauenfelder ever splits, I'll be visiting the site far less frequently. Xeni icks me out, Cory I can take or leave. I cut him some slack on stuff like this, as there are far too few organizations acting as a bulwark against the unleashed corporate intellectual property lawyers currently blighting the land.
posted by Scoo at 1:39 PM on July 22, 2006


Yeah, that whole MetaTalk thread about digg was solid gold.

Mark is the only 'best' contributor to bb, he's a good writer and illustrator all by himself, and the whole Rarotonga thing years back was great.

Cory can write, I've read several of his books in print form, but all his main characters are obviously essentially him, without the filter provided by a blog or conference – paranoid schizoid asshats that piss everyone else off and don't know why.

David was swallowed up into the whole "Make:" shitfest a while back, a bottomless pit of people patting each other on the back for making something extra-shitty by themselves for far more time and money than it would have taken to buy something of quality.

Xeni is hopeless, and always was. Her hanger-on Violet Blue is at least twice as hopeless – an amazing feat.
posted by blasdelf at 2:59 PM on July 22, 2006


Key phrase: "... in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business"

This limits the scope of what rights you're giving them considerably. It looks like they're pretty much only asking you to give them permission to display your video on their website and any associated distribution channels they set up. Which no one should be surprised about.


While I agree that YouTube's intent is probably benign, I disagree that the language you quoted limits the scope all that much. "...in connection with YouTube's business" could include plenty of things outside of the website. They certainly could have been more specific about the limitations of the grant of rights. Would have avoided all of this hubbub.
posted by schoolgirl report at 3:26 PM on July 22, 2006


« Older Abraham Cherrix's Fight for Life   |   I've got big plans for my future. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post