Ahnko Honu
Well-known member
You're making profit off of somebody else's hard work without his pemission, and he receives none of the profits. That is stealing. That's the problem. It's not the money it's the priciple.
Ebayer selling copied youtube lessons, caution it could be yours next
- Thread starter MiaRosie
- Start date
You're making profit off of somebody else's hard work without his pemission, and he receives none of the profits. That is stealing. That's the problem. It's not the money it's the priciple.
tad
Well-known member
Well, not to be the dissenting voice, here, but if the CD was sold at-cost as claimed (and 45 pence sounds a little high but not ridiculous) and if the person who created the material *did* distribute it under certain forms of creative commons copyright or GPL, etc., there might actually be no wrongdoing here at all.
Just saying. There's a couple ifs in there. I don't have the time or the inclination to investigate all the allegations and claims. But not everyone screaming about copyright and the original copyright holder being wronged on this post seems to have done so, either.
Just saying. There's a couple ifs in there. I don't have the time or the inclination to investigate all the allegations and claims. But not everyone screaming about copyright and the original copyright holder being wronged on this post seems to have done so, either.
MiaRosie
Well-known member
The cd was on auction, it could have been sold at any price, not at 45p. The amount it was sold at is totally irrelevent. It looks as though GPL covers 'software' not content taken from another source such as youtube.
What you are suggesting is that anything posted on youtube 'could' be taken without your knowledge and / or permission, put onto a cd and sold for profit ? I can't imagine Aldrine wanting to hear this, of Jake, or Dominator. I can foresee problems with youtube in the future if there is a loophole here - but no doubt they will at some point get involved with this case to get to the bottom of it.
I am fortunate to have a large group of very good friends who are Hells Angels - one of them who is a lawyer specialises in copyright law and deals with it on a daily basis with people who attempt to use the HA logo for personal gain ( or even to put onto apparal to wear themselves ) - I will get in touch with him and ask for his thoughts on this.
If it turns out that this guy has found a loophole and has chosen to use it, then it speaks volumes of lack of ethics and morals.
IF it turns out that this guy has found a loophole and has chosen to use it then as the heading of this thread says, be aware, it could be your lessons or music next. Regardless whether or not it is original work.
What you are suggesting is that anything posted on youtube 'could' be taken without your knowledge and / or permission, put onto a cd and sold for profit ? I can't imagine Aldrine wanting to hear this, of Jake, or Dominator. I can foresee problems with youtube in the future if there is a loophole here - but no doubt they will at some point get involved with this case to get to the bottom of it.
I am fortunate to have a large group of very good friends who are Hells Angels - one of them who is a lawyer specialises in copyright law and deals with it on a daily basis with people who attempt to use the HA logo for personal gain ( or even to put onto apparal to wear themselves ) - I will get in touch with him and ask for his thoughts on this.
If it turns out that this guy has found a loophole and has chosen to use it, then it speaks volumes of lack of ethics and morals.
IF it turns out that this guy has found a loophole and has chosen to use it then as the heading of this thread says, be aware, it could be your lessons or music next. Regardless whether or not it is original work.
Last edited:
The seller is probably referring to Youtubes Terms of use which state under 10. Rights you licence
10.1 When you upload or post a User Submission to YouTube, you grant:
- to YouTube, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that User Submission in connection with the provision of the Services and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Website and YouTube's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels;
- to each user of the Website, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, licence to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Website and under these Terms.
Worth a thought.
10.1 When you upload or post a User Submission to YouTube, you grant:
- to YouTube, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that User Submission in connection with the provision of the Services and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Website and YouTube's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels;
- to each user of the Website, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, licence to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Website and under these Terms.
Worth a thought.
tad
Well-known member
Okay, yes. They should have sold it as "buy it now." Otherwise, it's sketch. But your point about intelectual property is not as sound as you feel it is, no matter how loudly you make it.
GPL can actually be applied to any sort of intelectual property that can be copyrighted.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonsoftware-copyleft.html
Moreover, are you familiar with Creative Commons? If I'm not mistaken, this sort of action would be allowable under certain types of CC Licenses and not others.
http://creativecommons.org/
All I'm saying is that the legalities are more vague than you're making them out to be, and that it's possible that-- with the exception of listing it at auction and not a flat rate-- that what the person is doing is okay in terms of IP. *Possible.* Not certain. Not even "highly likely." But possible. And knowing for certain would only be possible after talking to the copyright holder.
michio
Active member
wtf!! that is not cool at all.. mmmmmmmmmmmmm some people need a good A$$ whoopin.. ha
casarole45
Well-known member
You seem to be getting very caught up in the legal implications and not the moral. I see what your saying but I would be pretty unhappy if I was giving out free lessons on youtube (which are undownloadable under normal circumstances and would have to be ripped off the page... I don't know if these were) to find someone else was making a profit out of it. Which is obviously the reason they were being sold.
There are some genuine people out there who want to help people out with nothing in return, be it money or otherwise, to then find someone else taking advantage of this is just not right.
But cheers for the legal point of view, its good to be knowledgeable on how to protect yourself.
Edit: don't want to make out like I'm having a go at your post as its really good to hear someone talk about the actual legal implications and so forth rather than the mob rule, but there is more to life than the law its not always going to help those who need it.
Last edited:
casarole45
Well-known member
not convinced this is the same in even the slightest. People posting their attempts at playing a popular tune, not for monetary or any other purpose than to say hey look at the song I've been working out as you would do with friends, no money or anything but spirit involved. Compared to someone trying to make profit out of someone elses work... how is this remotely similar??
tad
Well-known member
No, I'm not.
MORALLY, I do believe in releasing as much of my work as I can under Creative Commons License.
And MORALLY, I have no problem if someone else were to sell my work, not at a profit, to someone else.
Honestly, I think you and others might be getting too wrapped up in the money, and not thinking about what's actually, you know, morally right.
But then again, I'm a PhD student. I'm working on a dissertation, and hoping to be an academic. Academia works differently. We're not making money off our books anyway, so a lot of academic authors would LIKE to see their work distributed in as many ways as possible, becsause it's about dissemination of knowledge, not about money.
That's why people release things under GPL and CCL-- because they care about helping people and putting their stuff out there. If you do that, you're saying that if someone else wants to distribute your work, AT COST, it's no skin off your nose, 'cause it's just putting your work out there for more people to see. And yeah, MORALLY, I would see no problem with someone else doing just that with something I released under such a license, because they'd be HELPING ME AND HELPING OTHERS.
casarole45
Well-known member
MiaRosie
Well-known member
** Honestly, I think you and others might be getting too wrapped up in the money, and not thinking about what's actually, you know, morally right.**
As said in an earlier post, this isn't about money. Nor is it about putting something out with the intention of helping others. It is about taking something posted on youtube to help others and selling it for gain, regardless of amount, without consent or recognition. Please don't bring this down to a level of being about money.
Perhaps Mike would have been flattered and agreed to this had someone had the courtesy to contact him about using his work before putting it for sale on ebay.
I do understand where you are coming from Tad, but surely even an academic would like to have some recognition for his work ? Had Mike Lynch not introduced himself on each of the lessons there would have been no knowing who he was, unless he was recognised.
** That's why people release things under GPL and CCL-- because they care about helping people and putting their stuff out there. If you do that, you're saying that if someone else wants to distribute your work, AT COST, it's no skin off your nose, 'cause it's just putting your work out there for more people to see. And yeah, MORALLY, I would see no problem with someone else doing just that with something I released under such a license, because they'd be HELPING ME AND HELPING OTHERS.**
Another vaild point, if you have made that decision to release your work for this purpose. For those that haven't yet made that decision or chose not to release their work in this manner, does it still apply ?
My last thought on this is how many of us seriously believe that this cd of Mikes lessons were being sold for the altruistic reason of putting his work out there for others to see ? I am sure that had that genuinely been the case his name would have been plastered all over the listing and on the cd - or at least mentioned 'somewhere'.
As said in an earlier post, this isn't about money. Nor is it about putting something out with the intention of helping others. It is about taking something posted on youtube to help others and selling it for gain, regardless of amount, without consent or recognition. Please don't bring this down to a level of being about money.
Perhaps Mike would have been flattered and agreed to this had someone had the courtesy to contact him about using his work before putting it for sale on ebay.
I do understand where you are coming from Tad, but surely even an academic would like to have some recognition for his work ? Had Mike Lynch not introduced himself on each of the lessons there would have been no knowing who he was, unless he was recognised.
** That's why people release things under GPL and CCL-- because they care about helping people and putting their stuff out there. If you do that, you're saying that if someone else wants to distribute your work, AT COST, it's no skin off your nose, 'cause it's just putting your work out there for more people to see. And yeah, MORALLY, I would see no problem with someone else doing just that with something I released under such a license, because they'd be HELPING ME AND HELPING OTHERS.**
Another vaild point, if you have made that decision to release your work for this purpose. For those that haven't yet made that decision or chose not to release their work in this manner, does it still apply ?
My last thought on this is how many of us seriously believe that this cd of Mikes lessons were being sold for the altruistic reason of putting his work out there for others to see ? I am sure that had that genuinely been the case his name would have been plastered all over the listing and on the cd - or at least mentioned 'somewhere'.
Last edited:
tad
Well-known member
Do you really not see the contradiction here? What you're saying is that it's about SELLING IT, which is about MONEY.
This is not about flattery. All I'm saying is that if he has released the materials under CCL or GPL, he is saying that it's okay, before hand, and that there is no need to then ask him. That's what the license does. It answers that question.
IF he has released the work under GPL or CCL, honestly, I think that NOT altering it is the best option. In other words-- in the process of noncommercially distributing another person's material that they have released under a license that allows for noncommercial distribution, I think it's more respectful to not add things to it. Adding titles, or what have you, would be altering the work. IF he had not identified himself, then he would have not been identified, but he DID, so that seems to be rather moot to me. If he had, the distributer might have felt more compelled to make it clear in other ways. This is all speculation.
No. That's where copyright comes in. All I'm talking about is that, if the assertion that the seller has made here, that the creator released the materials under GPL, if that is true, you're getting upset about something that the content producer has explicitly okayed. I'm just saying.
Not necessarily. Bootleg DVDs from Chinatown often do look like that. Legitimate, legal DVDs of Linux distros often do not. The thing about taking the commercial incentive away is that a lot of times-- not always, but often-- people get lazy. In general, when something is not being made for profit, it is less well packaged than something with a 3000% markup from the cost of manufacture.
---------------------------------
All I'm saying is that there's a lot of assumptions being made here. And that assumptions can be dangerous. Do your due diligence, and put your rightous anger on hold until you have. Anger's not good for you. Contact Mike, see how he's licensed his work. You might be raising your blood pressure over nothing.
Or it might be as bad as you're assuming. All I'm saying is that until you get the word from the person who produced the work in the first place, there's no point being so full of indignation, etc. There are possible explanations where, and again, except for the part that it was auctioned and not sold as "buy it now," although personally I think that *could* have been a legitimate mistake or misunderstanding-- but yeah, there are possible explanations where there's no need for you to get angry on behalf of other people's Intelectual Property Rights.
MiaRosie
Well-known member
**All I'm saying is that there's a lot of assumptions being made here. And that assumptions can be dangerous. Do your due diligence, and put your rightous anger on hold until you have. Anger's not good for you. Contact Mike, see how he's licensed his work. You might be raising your blood pressure over nothing.**
Tad,
Of course Mike has been contacted, I did so immediately after seeing the cd and contacting the seller.
Mike has informed me that he has not released his work under gpl ccl or any other licence and has never given anyone permission to copy, redistribute or sell his work. He is completely aware of the situation and is involved with ebay, sending them the information that they requested.
Righteous anger ?
Tad,
Of course Mike has been contacted, I did so immediately after seeing the cd and contacting the seller.
Mike has informed me that he has not released his work under gpl ccl or any other licence and has never given anyone permission to copy, redistribute or sell his work. He is completely aware of the situation and is involved with ebay, sending them the information that they requested.
Righteous anger ?
I didn't say it was the same thing, I said, "So, how do you feel about copyright violations now?"
You guys are screaming like stuck babies when somebody absconds with your work, yet you don't mind absconding with somebody else's. In fact, you're getting pretty militant about your self-proclaimed right to do so. One difference, the source material was already given away free, so I think he would have less to be upset about than the holder of a copyrighted song. If somebody presents a "Best of the Web Collection", why would those chosen mind? I think this is hilarious...
buddhuu
Super Moderator (Retired)
You may think it is hilarious, but you might want to watch the tone you use when addressing your fellow members.
All are entitled to their opinions. Courtesy in expressing them is appreciated.
Thanks.
All are entitled to their opinions. Courtesy in expressing them is appreciated.
Thanks.
buddhuu
Super Moderator (Retired)
That is very interesting. I was certainly not familiar with that text. I wonder how many of us have really read the Ts & Cs...
casarole45
Well-known member
dunno, I think people were upset on the other thread because all they are doing is playing the music without any negative affect to the company, its non-profit, you can actually buy tab books to learn these songs, it promotes the actual music. I think some people are upset on this because at the end of the day, somebody wanted to give a free resource for help. A business who is of course in it for profit (thats what businesses do) takes the work to sell without the publishers permission when the creator wanted to give people help for free (or at least thats how I understand it from the thread creator). Thats why I would say its a big differences. I've always helped people out for free in things that are not my actual proffesion, I enjoy it (and everyone owes you a favour =D), I'd be pretty upset if someone took my free help resources to turn it into a money spinner, when the original intention was to give people a free resource.
