5 ms·

Something I also find ironic is that I think most people uploading videos to YouTube would not actually mind if their videos were shared elsewhere so long as th

by rjf72 8y ago

Something I also find ironic is that I think most people uploading videos to YouTube would not actually mind if their videos were shared elsewhere so long as they were given proper credit. Most people are just uploading stuff they want as many people to see as possible. It's ironic because you already have free access to their videos, and they would give you permission to share elsewhere if you were able to ask, but in practice you can't. Getting the permission is burdensome, and the video that's displayed on YouTube is very liberally licensed to YouTube who will aggressively claim 'ownership' and reject any efforts to use it elsewhere. It'd be interesting if sites that offer user generated content for free (and only these sites) could not force content submitters to opt-in to non-free licenses - though users could opt in to such agreements. It's their right as a company to only publish under non-free licenses, but this behavior serves no real purpose other than to be obstructionist and anti-competitive.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
> Something I also find ironic is that I think most people uploading videos to YouTube would not actually mind if their videos were shared elsewhere so long as they were given proper credit. This is the real question here. Are the creators getting proper credit? And for the ones who use it as a source of income, are they able to get paid the way they would on YouTube?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rjf72 8y ago
  That'd be the idea of leaving it up to the content creator to decide. If somebody believes they personally benefit from a walled garden then they would certainly want to opt out of free licensing. If they're more after just getting the content out there, then they'd want to stay on a free license. And I wouldn't just restrict this to video. Do you mind if I use your post elsewhere (with accreditation)? Probably not. I certainly don't. Yet in reality, it'd be unlawful for me to do so. It's copyrighted from the moment you write it. The only reason Hacker News can display it is because of this blurb from the terms on here: By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed. Transitioning to a free license would in no way directly negatively affect Hacker News. It certainly wouldn't negatively affect users. I expect most don't even realize what they write is copyrighted. And in any case users who want to avoid their comments being legally shared elsewhere could easily opt out.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    The question isn't whether a licensing scheme like this is possible. It's not like YouTube prevents people from attaching whatever license they want to their work. But these videos are being ripped and uploaded elsewhere today, so the idea that people who don't want their work shared elsewhere could opt out is dubious. My question is: in the world that exists today, are people on PeerTube crediting creators of content they rip, and are those creators being paid in the same way that YouTube would pay them?
    - rjf72 8y ago
      No, YouTube does prevent exactly this. This is the whole point of this idea. When you watch videos on YouTube the license you are bound to is not the content creator's, but YouTube's. When a user uploads a video to YouTube they agree to grant YouTube a license that is extremely generous to YouTube, not dissimilar to what you agree to when posting on here. And so when you then go and watch a video on YouTube you are bound by their terms that they then attach to to access to their licensed content. This includes a prohibition on duplication. Their terms and conditions also expressly prohibit commercial solicitation of users for their content. It creates this really weird scenario. A user wants their content to be shared as much as possible. They upload it on YouTube, now suddenly that content is effectively owned by YouTube and all lawful sharing stops there. If YouTube were required to allow users to default to free use licenses it would in no way negatively affect their content, but people would be able to continue sharing videos beyond YouTube - it would help enable competition and the freer spread of information and ideas.
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        From the YouTube terms of service [1]: > For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, 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 Content > You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. Which is to say, creators don't give up any rights by uploading their videos to YouTube. The license they give to YouTube is nonexclusive, meaning they can still distribute their videos however they want. (This is also how the licensing on this site works [2], as well as most other sites with user-generated content AFAIK). YouTube's license does specifically disallow its users from ripping its videos and distributing them elsewhere. But that's fine — unless they specifically choose to license their videos in that way, the normal copyright owned by the creator doesn't allow for that either! In that case, the content creators themselves are preventing sharing, and YouTube has nothing to do with it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/t/terms https://www.youtube.com/t/terms [2] https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou

by rjf72 8y ago

jakelazaroff 8y ago

> Something I also find ironic is that I think most people uploading videos to YouTube would not actually mind if their videos were shared elsewhere so long as they were given proper credit. This is the real question here. Are the creators getting proper credit? And for the ones who use it as a source of income, are they able to get paid the way they would on YouTube?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rjf72 8y ago
That'd be the idea of leaving it up to the content creator to decide. If somebody believes they personally benefit from a walled garden then they would certainly want to opt out of free licensing. If they're more after just getting the content out there, then they'd want to stay on a free license. And I wouldn't just restrict this to video. Do you mind if I use your post elsewhere (with accreditation)? Probably not. I certainly don't. Yet in reality, it'd be unlawful for me to do so. It's copyrighted from the moment you write it. The only reason Hacker News can display it is because of this blurb from the terms on here: By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed. Transitioning to a free license would in no way directly negatively affect Hacker News. It certainly wouldn't negatively affect users. I expect most don't even realize what they write is copyrighted. And in any case users who want to avoid their comments being legally shared elsewhere could easily opt out.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  The question isn't whether a licensing scheme like this is possible. It's not like YouTube prevents people from attaching whatever license they want to their work. But these videos are being ripped and uploaded elsewhere today, so the idea that people who don't want their work shared elsewhere could opt out is dubious. My question is: in the world that exists today, are people on PeerTube crediting creators of content they rip, and are those creators being paid in the same way that YouTube would pay them?
  - rjf72 8y ago
    No, YouTube does prevent exactly this. This is the whole point of this idea. When you watch videos on YouTube the license you are bound to is not the content creator's, but YouTube's. When a user uploads a video to YouTube they agree to grant YouTube a license that is extremely generous to YouTube, not dissimilar to what you agree to when posting on here. And so when you then go and watch a video on YouTube you are bound by their terms that they then attach to to access to their licensed content. This includes a prohibition on duplication. Their terms and conditions also expressly prohibit commercial solicitation of users for their content. It creates this really weird scenario. A user wants their content to be shared as much as possible. They upload it on YouTube, now suddenly that content is effectively owned by YouTube and all lawful sharing stops there. If YouTube were required to allow users to default to free use licenses it would in no way negatively affect their content, but people would be able to continue sharing videos beyond YouTube - it would help enable competition and the freer spread of information and ideas.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      From the YouTube terms of service [1]: > For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, 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 Content > You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. Which is to say, creators don't give up any rights by uploading their videos to YouTube. The license they give to YouTube is nonexclusive, meaning they can still distribute their videos however they want. (This is also how the licensing on this site works [2], as well as most other sites with user-generated content AFAIK). YouTube's license does specifically disallow its users from ripping its videos and distributing them elsewhere. But that's fine — unless they specifically choose to license their videos in that way, the normal copyright owned by the creator doesn't allow for that either! In that case, the content creators themselves are preventing sharing, and YouTube has nothing to do with it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/t/terms https://www.youtube.com/t/terms [2] https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou