Imagine you're a small time
videographer that is trying to make it big on YouTube. You constantly put up
original idea videos hoping people will end up seeing it and enjoying it. Now
imagine that one or more of those video ideas someone saw and took, making it
their own and getting the money that you should get from it. Sadly there isn't
much you can do to prove they took your idea due to the copyright infringement
laws. This is just one general scenario of what is wrong with YouTube and the
governments current copyright infringement laws.
With
YouTube becoming more and more popular as time goes on and more people trying
to become online entrepreneurs, one thing that must be adjusted is YouTube's
current copyright policies. Currently many people on YouTube have experienced
theft of an idea from work they uploaded online, but there isn't much we can
currently do to prove it was stolen. The United States Code Service suggest that you register your work within
three months of uploading it onto the internet [1], which may be nice for
directors who have a big project they want to protect, but isn't beneficial for
many YouTubers who upload each week and are trying to stay relevant. In the
article YouTube--The Next Generation of
Infringing on Creative Works: What Can Be Done to Protect the Screenwriters? by
Ashlee Knuckey she talks about the copyright policies and how registering a
video/idea within the three months before uploading it will make that person
eligible to sue for any sort of damages, but
"even if they register their work
within the three-month period, they would not be eligible to recover damages
for any infringement taking place prior to the copyright registration." [2].
Meaning that even if someone registers one of their works that someone did take
in the past, they would be protected, but still couldn't do anything about that
incident since it was before the registration. Plus with registering content,
there is a registration fee and yearly renewal that shall also cost money [3].
And even if content is registered, " Direct proof of copying is often
impossible for the plaintiff to show; thus, copying must often be inferred from
proof that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work, as well as that
there are "substantial similarities" between the two works." [2].
What kind of direct proof does the government need to prove that someone's
content is indeed theirs? What could be
done to help protect YouTubers from theft of content?
One thing that many people have
talked about is that YouTube and Google (since Google now is a parent company
that bought out YouTube) should look at is adjusting their privacy setting on their
websites. From before I brought up that the direct proof courts need to decide
whether the content was stolen and does indeed belong to the plaintiff, if
YouTube and Google adjusted their privacy settings, making it easier to see who
viewed your video and when they viewed it, the plaintiff would have a time
frame of when the defendant saw their video in comparison to when the defendant
made their content. This being solid evidence that could be used in the court
room.
Work Cited
1. "§ 411. Registration and Civil
Infringement Actions." UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE, 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 3
Mar. 2015.
2. Knuckey, Ashlee M. "YouTube--The Next
Generation of Infringing on Creative Works: What Can Be Done to Protect the
Screenwriters?"LexisNexis Academic. N.p., 2009. Web. 23 Feb. 2015.
3. "TITLE
17. COPYRIGHTS CHAPTER 4. COPYRIGHT NOTICE, DEPOSIT, AND REGISTRATION."
Http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.uwm.edu/lnacui2api/results/pubTreeViewDoc.do?nodeId=TAARAAFAAJ&pubTreeWidth=325.
UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE, 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.
Your first paragraph does a good job of explaining why you issue matters, rights ownership for YouTubers if I understand it correctly, explaining it as you see it and show us the frustration and concerns that someone might have if they published videos on YouTube. And throughout your document I see that you are using a consistent way of citing sources, although I am not sure if it’s the most proper MLA formatting.
ReplyDeleteI think that you have a blend of different forwarding styles. “The United States Code Service suggest that you register your work within three months of uploading it onto the internet [1], which may be nice for directors who have a big project they want to protect, but isn't beneficial for many YouTubers who upload each week and are trying to stay relevant” is a good example of borrowing a term or definition from another source and also considering that you are pulling that citation from a legal document - at least insofar as I understand the process. When you write, “Ashlee Knuckey she talks about the copyright policies and how registering a video/idea within the three months before uploading it will make that person eligible to sue for any sort of damages” I notice that you mentioned the author by name and that you use the same source later so you could said to be authorizing your paper there. But one thing that I noticed overall was while you explaining your sources, “. . . . Meaning that even if someone registers one of their works that someone did take in the past, they would be protected, but still couldn't do anything about that incident since it was before the registration” does a good job of summarizing and restating what you have in the quote, you did not exactly explain why those were good quotes. If you try to illustrate or extend some you the quotes a bit more I think that that problem would go away. The last quote I gave comes close to that, but it also feels like it’s more of a summarization restatement without giving new information or adding your own “spin”.
Lastly I’ll just say that your topic seems to weave a little between YouTube’s upload policy and how copyrights are managed legally, which is a little different from talking about how YouTube gets to decide its policy. In a paper this size, and especially because its a rough draft, it is not too hard to understand what you’re talking about, but in a longer paper it might easier if you spend more time talking about those differences.
Good job opening with “illustration”, probably one of the best ways to convey or introducing concepts to people. Not only I can relate to the example (because I’ve been worrying about the same issue), but now you have my attention to the paper as I want to see what others have to say about something I’ve been struggling with.
ReplyDeleteStaring off your second paragraph by “extending” on the history of the subject seems pretty effective to me. I can see why the copyright infringement laws matter regarding Youtube’s history. And once again, “illustration” is used to further carrying the idea, feels like I’m being smoothly pushed by a wave of excitement for new information.
Even though you use good citations for the US Code Service and Ashlee Knuckee (as “borrowing”), it seems like that was as far as you got with them. Maybe I’m missing something but for this part you didn’t use as much “illustration” and “extending” as I think there should be, otherwise it would be confusing as of why these citations work in that exact place they are placed at. But still, great use of “authorizing” and “borrowing”. I guess you just need to explain more why they are relevant.
One thing I’m not sure is that, whether you’re addressing the copyright issues with Youtube as the medium of illustration or are you specifically attacking Youtube policies..? Maybe you did make this clear before and I’m not recalling anything because it’s past mid night and I’m just trying to fill up the response.
All in all, I don’t believe there will be a lot of problems with all the examples you will have and analyze in the paper, maybe it’s just the material itself. I’m not too sure if you can make it to 10 pages long…
Your purpose seems to be exploiting the YouTube privacy laws along with copyright laws in order to show the misuse or theft of YouTube users materials. Having said it is very important that you show how impossible it is for a you tuber to protect his or her material. You did a good job at doing thing by using the quote “"even if they register their work within the three-month period, they would not be eligible to recover damages for any infringement taking place prior to the copyright registration."” to illustrate your point. Where I think your lacking is putting the Burdon on you tubers rather then the law and YouTube. Meaning that it seems like it’s possible for you tubers to protect their material although it is just very hard. I think in your argument it ma be easy for someone to say well you tubers are just lazy and arnt taking affirmative action on protecting their stuff. I don’t think this is the case I just think you need to back up your point more. For instance when you say “Plus with registering content, there is a registration fee and yearly renewal that shall also cost money” bring in a quote to help authorize the idea your getting across. Quote how much it would actually cost for an you tuber to protect their things and how unreasonable this would be. The quote “" Direct proof of copying is often impossible for the plaintiff to show; thus, copying must often be inferred from proof that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work, as well as that there are "substantial similarities" between the two works." Is a very good one that drives home the idea of it right now being impossible for you tubers to protect their work, but elaborate on it more. Show a case where one could see a clear misuse or theft of an idea but it didn’t go through in court. That would be about as good as an example as you could get to prove your point.
ReplyDelete