3 ms·

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 c

by 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
- rjf72 8y ago
  I don't believe you've understood the initial suggestion, so let's go back. Many people would prefer to make their contently freely available to as many people as possible. In practice this is a copyleft license. Such licenses are of the form that the licensee, such as YouTube, is granted a license allowing them to use and do anything with this content - so long as the same rights are extended to any others who are provided access to this content. Unfortunately most sites, including e.g. YouTube, do not allow this. They require uses to agree to non-free licenses. One of the primary reasons they do this is to help prevent and obstruct competition. YouTube goes a step further by making it against their terms to contact users for licensing inquiries. This is all extremely anti-competitive. So what can be done? Well that's pretty easy. Free licensing would in no way meaningfully burden or, in itself, harm YouTube or other such publishers. If a site primarily generates revenue by providing free access to user generated material, then require that the users be allowed to enter into free licensing agreements with that site, if they so wish. While creators could be incentivized to agree to non-free licenses, such as by payment, the content itself would be treated identical whether a user chose to enter into a free licensing agreement, or a non-free licensing agreement. The goal is to turn "free" into free. And in the process help spur more competition and a wider spread of information and knowledge.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    Here's the point of disagreement, then: I don't think YouTube prohibits "non-free" licenses, and I don't see how their terms of service can be construed as such. I also don't see anything that would prevents users from contacting content creators for licensing inquiries. Could you point out where in the terms these exist?
    - rjf72 8y ago
      YouTube itself refuses to agree to free licensing agreements with content creators. It forces them into a non-free agreement, or nothing. This is done, in no small part, to deter competition. The term is 4H, "You agree not to solicit, for commercial purposes, any users of the Service with respect to their Content.". That would include licensing requests. Commercial purpose does not mean e.g. only for pay. It has a broad definition that would almost certainly include a peer to peer company reaching out to content creators to try to host their content, even for free. Once again, that is their exclusively for anti-competitive purposes as I doubt even users that just want to share their content with no expectation over remuneration would opt in to having any and all proposals preemptively killed off.

by rjf72 8y ago

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

rjf72 8y ago
I don't believe you've understood the initial suggestion, so let's go back. Many people would prefer to make their contently freely available to as many people as possible. In practice this is a copyleft license. Such licenses are of the form that the licensee, such as YouTube, is granted a license allowing them to use and do anything with this content - so long as the same rights are extended to any others who are provided access to this content. Unfortunately most sites, including e.g. YouTube, do not allow this. They require uses to agree to non-free licenses. One of the primary reasons they do this is to help prevent and obstruct competition. YouTube goes a step further by making it against their terms to contact users for licensing inquiries. This is all extremely anti-competitive. So what can be done? Well that's pretty easy. Free licensing would in no way meaningfully burden or, in itself, harm YouTube or other such publishers. If a site primarily generates revenue by providing free access to user generated material, then require that the users be allowed to enter into free licensing agreements with that site, if they so wish. While creators could be incentivized to agree to non-free licenses, such as by payment, the content itself would be treated identical whether a user chose to enter into a free licensing agreement, or a non-free licensing agreement. The goal is to turn "free" into free. And in the process help spur more competition and a wider spread of information and knowledge.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  Here's the point of disagreement, then: I don't think YouTube prohibits "non-free" licenses, and I don't see how their terms of service can be construed as such. I also don't see anything that would prevents users from contacting content creators for licensing inquiries. Could you point out where in the terms these exist?
  - rjf72 8y ago
    YouTube itself refuses to agree to free licensing agreements with content creators. It forces them into a non-free agreement, or nothing. This is done, in no small part, to deter competition. The term is 4H, "You agree not to solicit, for commercial purposes, any users of the Service with respect to their Content.". That would include licensing requests. Commercial purpose does not mean e.g. only for pay. It has a broad definition that would almost certainly include a peer to peer company reaching out to content creators to try to host their content, even for free. Once again, that is their exclusively for anti-competitive purposes as I doubt even users that just want to share their content with no expectation over remuneration would opt in to having any and all proposals preemptively killed off.