Is uploading/downloading content from/to Youtube legal or not?

[Dawson Leery]

Poll question: Is uploading/downloading content from/to Youtube legal or not?

See discussion on downloading here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=875642&mesg_id=875642

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. Any content on youtube is public use and licensed to or controlled by youtube.

I think that's how it works - or something like that.
Remember reading the EULA that you probably scrolled straight through and checked "I Agree"?
Probably not...

Terms of Service

...
5. Your Use of Content

In addition to the general restrictions above, the following restrictions and conditions apply specifically to your use of Content.

A. The Content on the Service, and the trademarks, service marks and logos ("Marks") on the Service, are owned by or licensed to YouTube, subject to copyright and other intellectual property rights under the law.

B. Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.
...
6. Your Content and Conduct
...
C. 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 in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. 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.

...

[reorg]

4. that's not "how it works", it's just the legalese to protect Youtube

from irrational claims by big companies.

I have occasionally posted content I do not own claiming "fair use" and promising to remove anything immediately if copyright holders object. Since I don't want to gain financially from this I don't see how I am doing any harm, legally or otherwise, when drawing attention to certain exemplary movie scenes, for instance.

In some cases, copyright holders or their representatives (whoever they are) have indeed objected, the content was removed, and in the earlier stages of Youtube my account as well - including all the clips nobody had ever objected to.

These days, some content will never be seen on my account since I know that anything produced by 20th Century Fox, for instance, will be filtered out immediately. Other content will not be visible in countries where Sony Music has deprived the creators of their copyrights. David Lynch has apparently tasked someone to scan Youtube daily for copyright violations, perhaps it has to do with the coffee trade on his website, I don't know. But most clips have been online for years, some of them with several hundred thousand views, and generated a lot of comments or even lively discussions in some cases. A number of people have been pointed towards creators that might be of interest to them, others were simply reminded of something they liked. Still, I'm sure property rights fundamentalists would consider me a criminal for doing this.

[Dawson Leery]

2. kick for more responses

[reorg]

3. rather than a simple yes or no

or making it a question of principle, the practices of Youtube have developed over time and become more adequate and realistic.

It used to be that you could upload anything you wanted and it would stay online until someone complained. If this was the case, you were given a few hours to document your legal claims. Failing that, the content would be removed and after two or three incidences of this kind your account would be deleted.

Now it is different in several ways. Some companies have provided "markers" of the entire content they claim. If you try, and upload, say, a clip of one their movies, it won't pass the test even before you can watch it online. With other content it is similar as it was before, you can upload it but when someone complains you will be warned. If you don't object, the content will be blocked, perhaps everywhere, or in just a few countries, or just the soundtrack. Yet another possibility is when someone detects content they own but don't insist for to be blocked. In this case, the content remains available to everyone, plus: ads will be placed around this content and the proceeds will be shared by Youtube with the legal owners.

[Dawson Leery]

5. kick