OMG, thank-you, got em. If it would help somehow, here is maybe an alternate video site (?) Don't know if it would work or not to upload there as I'm not an expert at doing this sort of thing: https://ok.ru/video
Not sure if it will help...something I notice once in a while on Youtube are an occasional movie or TV show. I look at the date posted, and it is ages ago. I wonder, why are those are not being removed? What is different about them? I found that they contain original advertisements within the video. Some are from VCR's, others newer from DVR, etc. This is likely related somehow to the below court ruling, re: "timeshifting".
I would guess, because the rules of Dailymotion (and possible rule variations of others) are such that any video may be posted and stand, when and until someone complains. NBC likely has tentacles everywhere to do so. DOOL was FREE on NBC.com for a very long time, and then moved to Peacock, also for free, but sometime, I think, in the last year or so, it is free no longer. However, if so, I do not agree with NBC as that does not make sense, because, if someone has a digital antenna and receives the NBC broadcast on a local station, it's FREE for all. Further, the VCR case law from the Supreme Court about "time shift" recording still stands, and I have seen VCR TV recordings posted on Youtube, (and the posted dates being a very long time ago) and are not taken down. Here are some quotes from the case:
"Moreover, when one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work, see 17 U.S.C. § 107(2), and that timeshifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact that the entire work is reproduced, see id., at § 107(3), does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use. This is not, however, the end of the inquiry...What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists. If the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated." Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc., 464 U.S. 417, (1984). https://openjurist.org/464/us/417/sony-corporation-of-america-v-universal-city-studios-inc
As far as I know, the uploads here are NOT for commercial gain. Additionally, the case focuses on "private home time shifting". However, I propose that in addition to all who do, anyone and/or everyone who do not already have the broadcast receiving equipment (digital antenna), were to purchase the said receiving equipment needed, those purchases would have NO effect on the copyright holder, i.e., no difference of "future harm". Therefore, there is no difference between the time shifted copy of a VTR/VCR, DVR, or the upload here, because ANYONE could potentially access the "work" by the former 2 sources, whether it is uploaded here or not. The only reason someone would not be able to, is the cost of the free reception equipment (like me), which, again, does not affect the copyright holder. Again, no difference in "future harm".
As a counter example, if what was being uploaded here was from HBO, or other that was not freely broadcast to everyone, that might be a different thing.
Additionally, below is more from the case. The Supreme Court relied on this District Court ruling. Substitute "Dailymotion, etc." for "Betamax". (Again, even though DM, etc. is not "private", ANYONE can access DOOL broadcast for free, and even tape/DVR them as "time shifted", the same as DM, etc.). Note also, that in the case of DOOL, there are no "rerun telecasts" or "rentals":
"On the question of potential future harm from time-shifting, the District Court offered a more detailed analysis of the evidence. It rejected respondents' "fear that persons 'watching' the original telecast of a program will not be measured in the live audience and the ratings and revenues will decrease," by observing that current measurement technology allows the Betamax audience to be reflected. Id., at 466.36 It rejected respondents' prediction "that live television or movie audiences will decrease as more people watch Betamax tapes as an alternative," with the observation that "[t]here is no factual basis for [the underlying] assumption." Ibid.37 It rejected respondents' "fear that time-shifting will reduce audiences for telecast reruns," and concluded instead that "given current market practices, this should aid plaintiffs rather than harm them." Ibid.38 And it declared that respondents' suggestion "that theater or film rental exhibition of a program will suffer because of time-shift recording of that program" "lacks merit." 480 F.Supp., at 467.
"After completing that review, the District Court restated its overall conclusion several times, in several different ways. "Harm from time-shifting is speculative and, at best, minimal." Ibid. "The audience benefits from the time-shifting capability have already been discussed. It is not implausible that benefits could also accrue to plaintiffs, broadcasters, and advertisers, as the Betamax makes it possible for more persons to view their broadcasts." Ibid. "No likelihood of harm was shown at trial, and plaintiffs admitted that there had been no actual harm to date." Id., at 468-469. "Testimony at trial suggested that Betamax may require adjustments in marketing strategy, but it did not establish even a likelihood of harm." Id., at 469. "Television production by plaintiffs today is more profitable than it has ever been, and, in five weeks of trial, there was no concrete evidence to suggest that the Betamax will change the sturdios' financial picture." Ibid." (Note: I did not correct for internal quote marks.)
Maybe someone should file a case to update this issue.
P.S. Betamax? lol. That was so short lived, I never even saw one. My aunt had one, but I didn't get a chance to see it.
Someone should take this back to court. It would be merely the same case, but with advancing technology.
(No, I am not an attorney, but I might be able to play one on TV, and if I did, please, record it and share it.)
Good episode today. Thanks Bob.
ReplyDeleteThanks B, till tomorrow 😊
ReplyDeleteNoooooo the video has been removed....I haven't seen the episode
ReplyDelete5,6,7 all gone. I missed them all. It's only early 8th.
DeleteOMG, thank-you, got em. If it would help somehow, here is maybe an alternate video site (?) Don't know if it would work or not to upload there as I'm not an expert at doing this sort of thing: https://ok.ru/video
DeleteWe need another video hosting service.
DeleteNot sure if it will help...something I notice once in a while on Youtube are an occasional movie or TV show. I look at the date posted, and it is ages ago. I wonder, why are those are not being removed? What is different about them? I found that they contain original advertisements within the video. Some are from VCR's, others newer from DVR, etc. This is likely related somehow to the below court ruling, re: "timeshifting".
DeleteHi Bob, thanks for your uploads - could you please reload the 6th June, says it's been removed
ReplyDeleteYes please Do Reupload today's episode of Days...the video says it was removed..
ReplyDeleteC'Mon Upload the Video please, we haven't seen it Yet!!!
ReplyDeleteAnyone on here from Australia because all the episodes are on 10play now
ReplyDeleteWhy do they keep getting took down haven't watched 6th and the 7th yet
ReplyDeleteI would guess, because the rules of Dailymotion (and possible rule variations of others) are such that any video may be posted and stand, when and until someone complains. NBC likely has tentacles everywhere to do so. DOOL was FREE on NBC.com for a very long time, and then moved to Peacock, also for free, but sometime, I think, in the last year or so, it is free no longer. However, if so, I do not agree with NBC as that does not make sense, because, if someone has a digital antenna and receives the NBC broadcast on a local station, it's FREE for all. Further, the VCR case law from the Supreme Court about "time shift" recording still stands, and I have seen VCR TV recordings posted on Youtube, (and the posted dates being a very long time ago) and are not taken down. Here are some quotes from the case:
Delete"Moreover, when one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work, see 17 U.S.C. § 107(2), and that timeshifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact that the entire work is reproduced, see id., at § 107(3), does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use. This is not, however, the end of the inquiry...What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists. If the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated." Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc., 464 U.S. 417, (1984). https://openjurist.org/464/us/417/sony-corporation-of-america-v-universal-city-studios-inc
...Cont
As far as I know, the uploads here are NOT for commercial gain. Additionally, the case focuses on "private home time shifting". However, I propose that in addition to all who do, anyone and/or everyone who do not already have the broadcast receiving equipment (digital antenna), were to purchase the said receiving equipment needed, those purchases would have NO effect on the copyright holder, i.e., no difference of "future harm". Therefore, there is no difference between the time shifted copy of a VTR/VCR, DVR, or the upload here, because ANYONE could potentially access the "work" by the former 2 sources, whether it is uploaded here or not. The only reason someone would not be able to, is the cost of the free reception equipment (like me), which, again, does not affect the copyright holder. Again, no difference in "future harm".
ReplyDeleteAs a counter example, if what was being uploaded here was from HBO, or other that was not freely broadcast to everyone, that might be a different thing.
Additionally, below is more from the case. The Supreme Court relied on this District Court ruling. Substitute "Dailymotion, etc." for "Betamax". (Again, even though DM, etc. is not "private", ANYONE can access DOOL broadcast for free, and even tape/DVR them as "time shifted", the same as DM, etc.). Note also, that in the case of DOOL, there are no "rerun telecasts" or "rentals":
"On the question of potential future harm from time-shifting, the District Court offered a more detailed analysis of the evidence. It rejected respondents' "fear that persons 'watching' the original telecast of a program will not be measured in the live audience and the ratings and revenues will decrease," by observing that current measurement technology allows the Betamax audience to be reflected. Id., at 466.36 It rejected respondents' prediction "that live television or movie audiences will decrease as more people watch Betamax tapes as an alternative," with the observation that "[t]here is no factual basis for [the underlying] assumption." Ibid.37 It rejected respondents' "fear that time-shifting will reduce audiences for telecast reruns," and concluded instead that "given current market practices, this should aid plaintiffs rather than harm them." Ibid.38 And it declared that respondents' suggestion "that theater or film rental exhibition of a program will suffer because of time-shift recording of that program" "lacks merit." 480 F.Supp., at 467.
"After completing that review, the District Court restated its overall conclusion several times, in several different ways. "Harm from time-shifting is speculative and, at best, minimal." Ibid. "The audience benefits from the time-shifting capability have already been discussed. It is not implausible that benefits could also accrue to plaintiffs, broadcasters, and advertisers, as the Betamax makes it possible for more persons to view their broadcasts." Ibid. "No likelihood of harm was shown at trial, and plaintiffs admitted that there had been no actual harm to date." Id., at 468-469. "Testimony at trial suggested that Betamax may require adjustments in marketing strategy, but it did not establish even a likelihood of harm." Id., at 469. "Television production by plaintiffs today is more profitable than it has ever been, and, in five weeks of trial, there was no concrete evidence to suggest that the Betamax will change the sturdios' financial picture." Ibid."
(Note: I did not correct for internal quote marks.)
Maybe someone should file a case to update this issue.
P.S. Betamax? lol. That was so short lived, I never even saw one. My aunt had one, but I didn't get a chance to see it.
Someone should take this back to court. It would be merely the same case, but with advancing technology.
(No, I am not an attorney, but I might be able to play one on TV, and if I did, please, record it and share it.)
Feel free to share the above with anyone or everyone.
ReplyDeleteLukas is so bad of crying. He is a bad actor.
ReplyDelete