Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Not sure about the framing of the choices. How about "no - we would like to continue operating"

Your only Yes option is " yes, fuck the laws, we can do what we want without repercussions "

What two hippies clicked on that one. Obviously not your ass and site on the line.

** oh yea those quotes are improvised. not verbatim.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I actually do believe in respecting copyright - but think the laws, as they stand need overhauling and that copyright infringement should be a civil matter- not criminal. /2¢

Copyright is obviously juvenile, possessive nonsense and I'm all for shitting on ridiculous laws; but there's a question of tone as well as keeping advertisers and other administrative bullshit like not being harassed by the FBI to worry about.

There are other places we can go to watch full movies and tv episodes. I'm not sure adopting a Laissez-faire if-it-sifts-it's-okay approach would be a total disaster for the site, but I think the "no camcorder recordings of the dark knight, no midget bukkake, no shotgun suicides" rules do a pretty good job of defining the sort of place we want to hang out.

I want a "No, copyright laws are antiquated." option.

No ... but not because of civilization bondage.

I'm with @gorillaman ... I think the rules *as is* on the sift are just about right [which makes it a place I WANT to hang out ... not an easy feat mind you] =o)

Why not just allow public domain/free movies only?

If you want to change a law, you have to break it.

There are movies/documentaries that are not public domain that have been on here for more than five years, yet VideoSift is still operating. That said, our rules have not been enforced and seem to target individual's rather than videos.

I'm not proposing that we actively hunt and sift full-length movies just to make a point. But if we can sift a scene from a movie -- which is copyrighted -- why can't we copy and paste the embed for its entirety? It's a slippery slope argument that is constantly being redefined.

If the Federales ask dag, or lucky, or me to take a full-length movie down, then by all means I think we should. Furthermore, I'd almost argue against resubmitting another embed of the same movie!

But why not allow us to embed and share until we get a request to cease and desist? That's my point.

Have we been warned, yet? If so, please let us know. If we allow another four or five pages of full-length movies to sift, are we destroying everything we've worked for? I don't want that. But again, the onus should be on the owners, not us, in my opinion.

People saying copyright is stupid baffle me.

I get the arguments about the current laws and that they're a touch insane... but not getting that it's not ok to take for free what someone spent a lot of time/effort/money to create is bizarre.

Why do you think it's ok to just take music, movies and tv shows without rewarding the creators?


THAT is a juvenile position to take.

"I want it, I should be able to have it for free"

And I think the rule should stand, it's just part of what makes the sift 'feel' better than other places

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I don't mind a conscience vote but if the "yeas" have it - we'll be issuing a rare executive veto.

Also, I'm not sure the choices in the poll are biased enough.

Do you think copyright is the work of Satan and his minions?

* Yes, of course it is. Only the Dark lord could come up with such a scheme
* No, I work for Satan and know he had no hand in it. I love Satan and love copyright
* I'm on the fence because I have no spine and am obviously also ok with killing kittens

Personally, if a movie is that good enough to watch (again), I'd rather see it in a better resolution than the flash codec.

Junk 'em.

spoco2 assume the royalties of movies go to the writers, actors, musicians, etc. In fact, the royalties, largely, go to the copyright holder.

I'm with dag. If the latest blockbuster sifts, kill it. But if it's older than your ex-wife, let it ride.

Rosa Parks never had such callous disdain for appropriate questionnaire design.

Crackle

*blocked >> ^Fletch:

Crackle

Crackel actually pays for the rights to stream content and has commercials regularly throught said content. The Youtube portal is just a gimmick to spread the word. Try their site directly - they have a mobile ap as well. They don't pirate the stuff out. They're legit.
http://www.crackle.com/c/movies

>> ^Fletch:

Crackle

>> ^ant:

Why not just allow public domain/free movies only?


thats what i was going to suggest.
i have posted a few full length features but they came in two forms:
1.they were public domain
2.documentary

>> ^dag:

I don't mind a conscience vote but if the "yeas" have it - we'll be issuing a rare executive veto.


I don't think an autocratic veto will be necessary.
Just put a rationally worded poll up--instead of this republicanesque push-poll.

I guess it depends on who has the power. I mean if we let every little scum fucker post every sequel to Spider Man then we would be in for trouble. But, if we had a Ruby star member with good taste in film posting up rare Fassbinder films that the corporate pigs dont care about since it isnt rotting money out of the populous' brains... then whatevs?

A good example of this is The Decalogue is posted on Youtube. Methinks it should be posted if the pigs want it taken down theyd go after Youtube. Whats the prob?

It's my birthday.

I'm about to upload a rare flick to You Tube, Leni Reifenstahl's Das.Blaue.Licht.1932, a rare snoozer procured through free and easy file-sharing.

If her estate cares anything about clearing up the tarnished name of an incredible talent they should be fine with it ~ If not, YouTube sends a shot across the bow and there's no harm or foul, just a friendly reminder to, "Don't Doo Dat!" (Probably some fucking self-hating Nazi or Jew, anyhow....)

Do the same with ANYTHING that has to do with Tallulah Bankhead (last feature film made in 1965), and her estate goes ballistic....PROBABLY because certain people who think lawyers can solve problems waste millions of dollars trying to get their way through intimidation and evil.

The lawyers are their employers are the only ones making out like bandits on copyright laws and the artists matter not: The people who hired the lawyers are the ones who have fucked the artists through contract already!

Fuck em all, when pirating and "illegal" downloads stop on the internet is the day I take up noodling or cribbage and convert my computer case into a nest for opossum!

This is more divisive than Roberts' Supreme Court.

>> ^MrFisk:

It's my birthday.


Happy birthday!

>> ^MrFisk:

It's my birthday.


>> ^MrFisk:

It's my birthday.


Oh shit, here we go....Happy Birthdays' come in waves, Narcissus..

http://videosift.com/video/Ja-anese-Bug-Fights-Round-the-15th

Love me some Japanese Bug Fights!

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Yes, copyright laws are antiquated..

We'll have to amend the Siftitution to enact this landmark decision.

I recommend establishing some ground rules clarifying that new releases, and the like, aren't included because of this vote.

Perhaps there's a way to prominently display the origin the source, to serve as a disclaimer of sorts?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Nice. You should go into politics. This Siftquisition is hereby vetoed. I don't really want to go through any errant full-length movies and remove them- but I'm going to. Sorry all.

>> ^MrFisk:

We'll have to amend the Siftitution to enact this landmark decision.
I recommend establishing some ground rules clarifying that new releases, and the like, aren't included because of this vote.
Perhaps there's a way to prominently display the origin the source, to serve as a disclaimer of sorts?

>> ^dag:

Nice. You should go into politics. This Siftquisition is hereby vetoed. I don't really want to go through any errant full-length movies and remove them- but I'm going to. Sorry all.
>> ^MrFisk:
We'll have to amend the Siftitution to enact this landmark decision.
I recommend establishing some ground rules clarifying that new releases, and the like, aren't included because of this vote.
Perhaps there's a way to prominently display the origin the source, to serve as a disclaimer of sorts?



BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Ok, public domain retaliation then!! Get ready for some forgotten, cinematic, awesome-sauce!!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Looking forward to it.>> ^chingalera:

>> ^dag:
Nice. You should go into politics. This Siftquisition is hereby vetoed. I don't really want to go through any errant full-length movies and remove them- but I'm going to. Sorry all.
>> ^MrFisk:
We'll have to amend the Siftitution to enact this landmark decision.
I recommend establishing some ground rules clarifying that new releases, and the like, aren't included because of this vote.
Perhaps there's a way to prominently display the origin the source, to serve as a disclaimer of sorts?


BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Ok, public domain retaliation then!! Get ready for some forgotten, cinematic, awesome-sauce!!

Well, it can't be said I didn't try.

>> ^MrFisk:

spoco2 assume the royalties of movies go to the writers, actors, musicians, etc. In fact, the royalties, largely, go to the copyright holder.
I'm with dag. If the latest blockbuster sifts, kill it. But if it's older than your ex-wife, let it ride.


Ahh, the old 'well the money only goes to rich pig corporations anyway' justification. If it makes you sleep better that you're taking away the small bit the artist gets as well as the rest. ..then yeay, but it doesn't make any sense.

Dag might've removed all those videos, but whose the dick in the end ? eh ?

http://videosift.com/video/Fair-Use-Copyrights

"Most laws are written on one page, the exceptions are written on 300 pages."

http://videosift.com/video/Understanding-Copyright-Law-and-Exclusive-Rights