YouTube Terms of Service Debate

YouTube recently updated their terms of service
to say that by uploading content to them, this gave them a “worldwide,
non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to
use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and
perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website.”
The link above clarifies exactly what this means (including a response
from YouTube’s marketing manager.)

That’s all well and good but the important thing is that this has led to a response from people on YouTube including a shirtless cowboy who defends YouTube’s new policy and many many others who take on this guy’s points very eloquently (see below)

(cross-posted at but without the fancy embedded YouTube clips because I couldn't get the page there to save with them enabled for some reason.)

Comments 2

  1. Anonymous wrote:

    A shirtless *toothless* cowboy with a shaky understanding of copyright, intellectual property, and the US Constitution. Wow. He's taken “hours and hours of courses” on “legal inappropriateness”. That's reassuring.
    And a bald man who would probably just scrap all copyright laws because he thinks that everything should be free. “Where do you want to draw the line?” That cracks me up. There's such a huge difference between word-of-mouth advertising and copyright infringement…sigh…(staving…off…rant…)
    This just confirms my belief that webcams will bring about Armageddon.

    Posted 28 Jul 2006 at 3:28 pm
  2. Anonymous wrote:

    I'm *a lot* closer to the bald guy's opinion. I think media companies are completely missing the boat here, just like when they tried to make VCR's illegal and when they shut down Napster and when the right arm of a company like Sony (their music division) implements DRM to “protect” copyrighted material while the left hand of the company (product division) makes CD-burners and MP3 players that can't be used with DRM-protected works.
    The success of ITunes proves that people will pay for material if you offer it to them in the medium and format that they desire. YouTube is another example which, as the guy so rightly points out, has the “infringed” media companies acting all angry but often overlooking the fact that their material is being virally marketed on the site to hundreds of thousands of people which in turn, ends up giving them the financial rewards. (Some clips on YouTube are now getting higher “ratings” then weekly cable shows in the US.)
    The big jump in Saturday Night Live's viewership after the “Lazy Sunday” clip went viral is the best example but there are others where clips have generated interest in the full product. Daily Show. Family Guy. Movie trailers. Every music video that's on the site but which you couldn't find anywhere anymore.
    In fact, I think a deal between NBC and YouTube has now been done and CBS was apparently next in line.
    Copyright is out-of-date and old-fashioned PLUS being controlled by the big media conglomerates. Why do you think copyright got extended in the States? So companies like Disney could maintain the rights to something like Steamboat Willie without it going into public domain. That's just wrong.
    Do you know much about Creative Commons? If not, check it out. A much more balanced solution.
    (Man, and you said you felt a rant coming on!

    Posted 28 Jul 2006 at 11:42 pm
%d bloggers like this: