The RIAA has become extremely aggressive in going after P2P for sharing copyrighted work, filing lawsuits against kids, etc., and they destroyed Napster, BECAUSE the labels did not want to give their stuff out for free. . .

. . .or at least, that's what we thought. . .

You see, there is a whole bunch of copyrighted stuff on YouTube, which is all CENTRALLY hosted, and no one, not the artists, not the RIAA, not the record labels, is going after it. Now, of course--the label certainly has a right to promote videos and artists on YouTube, and I imagine there is stuff that is copyrighted there that is publised with the permission of the copyright holder.

So is it true, are the labels publishing their stuff for free on YouTube?

So let's assume the labels are publishing on YouTube. Why do they have no problem giving their stuff away free on YouTube, but are raising hell when it's on P2P? I mean, free is free. And I'm wondering if it has occurred to these labels that it's pretty simple to rip videos off YouTube to disk--or perhaps they're not aware of that, but the point is they can't argue "we permit watching but no downloads." Ultimately, the message is "it's OK--you can download from YouTube, but not from BitTorrent or Gnutella--if you do, we'll hunt you down!"

The only logical explanation is that INDIVIDUALS are pirating the videos and then publishing on YouTube. But then, given the popularity of YouTube, one would think the RIAA would be at Google's throat. But they are not. Yes, there is talk of enforcement, but anyone who has followed the news knows that enforcement against sites like YouTube and MySpace is SUBSTANTIALLY less than the zeal by which the RIAA went after Grokster, Napster, etc.

I'm not taking the side of the labels here. I'm saying there is some hypocrisy in terms of enforcement of YouTube, MySpace, violations, etc.--the big corporate sites, vs. P2P networks.

If itsn't already obvious, it seems the RIAA really has it in for P2P--it's not the copyrights that are the issue--it's P2P! P2P is just somehow bad, evil. But hosting copyrighted works on corporate sites is, well, LESS bad, or LESS illegal.

Given the nature of copyright enforcement, that is the message.

I think the big difference here is the type of media that's being distributed. There isn't much a ton of money in music videos, that I know of anyway, and most of the money that they do get is from royalties from MTV and such places. On top of that, most bands have more success getting their sound/image out to the public through free music videos online. That way the band loses money on the music video, but it serves as an advertisement that boosts record sales, where they make their real money. Record labels will probably lose some because of YouTube, but not much. After seeing an Okay Go video on YouTube I, and a bunch of my friends, decided to go see them in concert, so the band is still making money off of us. However, the labels stand to lose millions through P2P file sharing of the actual albums.

EDIT: I should also say that this is all just an educated guess, I really don't know the hard facts, and I don't really have the time to find them right now. Just some thoughts, though.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

They are going after the biggest problem, and people STEALING music from P2P clients are hurting the industry the most. People can download music files and burn them on CDs or put them on their iPods and allways have them, wheras stuff off of Youtube is limited in the ways in which the media can be used. The RIAA has concentrated on P2P and has invested a lot of time and money combating pirating, so they don't want to abandon their efforts in this area just yet.

It is NOT limited--that's what I said in my post. Content from YouTube CAN easily be ripped onto disk and be redistributed. A person could rip the audio, and redistribute that portion of it, or the whole video and redistribute it.

Its still not as easy as downloading and people aren't doing it in the way that they are pirating using P2P software.

The RIAA has to pick their battles, and they can't take on Youtube users pirating music until they have got the P2P situation under control.

First, I'd like to point out that you are not really "stealing" anything in the normal sense when you download from P2P. Stealing would be taking your car away from you, and this is often the comparison used in the anti-piracy advertisements ("you wouldn't steal a car"). What you do in P2P is more or less equivalent to making an identical copy of your car for my use, and you get to keep your car.

As for youtube, I assume you mean the regular video files from the website. If so, it is stunningly easy to download. First of all, I will point out that if you can see a video being played on your computer, you CAN download/rip it. Whether you find some hidden link directly to the file or film your monitor with an external camera, it can be done. Youtube is really easy since all you need to do is enter the URL into a script that already exists. I have never ripped youtube videos before I read this thread, but I knew it could be done, and after searching for five minutes about how to do it, it was right there. So yeah, it is VERY easy.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

The RIAA has been hosing us for years, and I have no sympathy for them.

Every time I buy blank CD media to archive data, those scumsucking vulture get money - even though I am not recording any music at all.

Screw em!

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

You think YouTube is free of copyright troubles?

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...tube+copyright

__________________
“Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” -Dr. Carl Sagan

not stealing? If anything it is worse. Intelectual property rights, are in my opinion, even more important than physical property rights. Intelectual property ownership is the fundamental core of what makes america so great. Without the security to know that your ideas will be protected from theft, there is little drive to do anything great. If you did not purchase a license to use the media, you have stolen it. Period.

I'm sorry, but even though it is called "intellectual property theft," it is not actually theft. It is copyright infringement.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

And theft isn't called theft either, its called larceny

Are you being sarcastic or thick? All I'm trying to say is that calling "intellectual property theft" theft is not really correct because in theft, you take someone's property so they do not have it anymore. Copying a document is not the same as taking it.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Yes it is correct because you are taking something that does not belong to you without the owner's permision or without paying for it.

Using your logic, identity theft isn't stealing either because you are not phsically taking anything.

But the writer of the music still has the music. It was not taken from him. Identity theft is impersonation. You provided another good example here that just because "theft" is in the group of words, does not make it theft. Now if you take things from the person while impersonating him, then that would be theft. "Identity theft" on its own is simply impersonation.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

the writer may still have the music, but the thief (yes, if you take something when you do not have a right to do so, you are a thief) did not purchase a license to use the music. The artist owns the music and nobody has a right to use or distribute the media unless that artist either gives permission or sells licenses to use it.


You are arguing that because you do not have something that you can physically hold in your hands, it is not stolen. If you steal a music CD you are doing the exact same thing. You are not only paying for the physical disk when you buy a CD, you are also buying a license to use the music. If you steal a CD you are not only stealing the little plastic disk, you have also stolen a copy of the media because you did not purchase a license to use it.