26 October, 2011

OK. This is totally lame.

Nothing hampers my progress around here like the YouTube stamp Embedding disabled by request. I like embedding. It makes things easier sometimes. Say I want to show you a video here along with my thoughts on the subject presented in the video, or provide context and background to the video's content all in one place. Say I also like how having a three hundred twenty pixel wide object in my text field ultimately means I get to type less while still giving the impression that I generated content when half of the area you read in was not created by me but purloined from elsewhere on the internet. You know, like that.
So why? Why is that there?
I get that Embedding disabled by request is probably appropriate if you have a situation where, say, making your video one hundred percent private to you and your channel subscribers would be unworkable or whatever. Say you make a baby video and you post it on YouTube, say you want Uncle Danny to see it. Uncle Danny knows how to work the YouTubes but doesn't subscribe to anything or something or whatever, you have to leave the video open so he can access it. This also means that the video is public. You have to accept that just anybody can come by and watch your baby video - a private family thing - but you're still provided the option of controlling where the content gets posted, so you disable embedding so your footage of the wee baby Seamus doesn't end up on the front page of pedos.com or something.
Me?
I'm not after your fucking baby videos. I'm after that video of Posh Kenneth doing a song called "In Her Face" from season two episode one of Skins. A video that was not created by uploader bomber42, rather it was created and rightfully owned by the British television network, E4. So, why, has bomber42 disabled embedding? Embedding remains in tact for footage of him and his bros getting sloshy at the bar. Embedding remains in tact for nicked footage of Fez singing "Wang Chung" on That 70s Show or nicked footage from Scrubs. So why, if posting personal and nicked footage alike doesn't deter him from allowing embedding, is the Posh Kenneth footage blocked?
So you know what I did? I said, Fuck it, nicked it from bomber42 and uploaded it my damned self (and attached a little, ahem, note to it).
video
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

No comments:

Post a Comment

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.