and this is legal how, exactly?

[gaz]

Here is an example of what the OP is referring to. Someone who is quite clearly not the rights holder to this music has uploaded a full album onto youtube. The video has 3 sets of adverts attached to it, and to the right of the description contains a link to various online stores as to where you can buy it.

YouTube has recognised that the uploader does not own the rights to the music and rights holder has elected to allow the breach of copyright in return for placing adverts that generate revenue for them. It is against the law to upload such videos in many countries (including the UK), but breaking such a law is often not taken to a court and punished in a way that many laws might be as copyright law is seen to be acceptable. As such, it is often the case that parties come to an agreement for breaches of copyright, usually involving money.

In the cases of online videos, music and youtube. Right holders (in many cases record labels) decide that it is better for their music if they allow people to actually listen to it, make money from it and hopefully entice people to purchase more music from that artist. Where as if you just remove them, file law suits etc.. then you drive it underground further and make even less money.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv1XG1A9dUU

 

[spen666]

Here is an example of what the OP is referring to. Someone who is quite clearly not the rights holder to this music has uploaded a full album onto youtube. The video has 3 sets of adverts attached to it, and to the right of the description contains a link to various online stores as to where you can buy it.

YouTube has recognised that the uploader does not own the rights to the music and rights holder has elected to allow the breach of copyright in return for placing adverts that generate revenue for them. It is against the law to upload such videos in many countries (including the UK), but breaking such a law is often not taken to a court and punished in a way that many laws might be as copyright law is seen to be acceptable. As such, it is often the case that parties come to an agreement for breaches of copyright, usually involving money.

In the cases of online videos, music and youtube. Right holders (in many cases record labels) decide that it is better for their music if they allow people to actually listen to it, make money from it and hopefully entice people to purchase more music from that artist. Where as if you just remove them, file law suits etc.. then you drive it underground further and make even less money.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv1XG1A9dUU

You appear to have a prejudiced view in that have decided you tube / the person uploading the material has breached copyright.

Where is the evidence in relation to the OP that copyright is breached?


Not that word EVIDENCE, not prejudice, assertion, gut feeling etc.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

So lets look at S107

Where is the evidence that the person who posted the clip knew or believed they were infringing copyright - without that there can be no offence

Would you agree that where such guilty knowledge could be shown, an offence would have been committed?


GC

 

[spen666]

Would you agree that where such guilty knowledge could be shown, an offence would have been committed?


GC

Not necessarily, that is only 1 element of the offence and all elements need to be proven to make out the offence

 

[gaz]

You appear to have a prejudiced view in that have decided you tube / the person uploading the material has breached copyright.

Where is the evidence in relation to the OP that copyright is breached?


Not that word EVIDENCE, not prejudice, assertion, gut feeling etc.

I see you once again missed my previous post, you really are getting good at this aren't you.

Like I said previously (you seem to be good at skipping over things that people have said). The OP hasn't linked to the video in question, so how can we say anything?

As such, you can't equally say that anything that has happened is legal. As the situation is unknown.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Not necessarily, that is only 1 element of the offence and all elements need to be proven to make out the offence

Okay, you'd said that without that particular element there could be no offence. If all of the required elements are present, is there an offence committed?

GC

 

[spen666]

Okay, you'd said that without that particular element there could be no offence. If all of the required elements are present, is there an offence committed?

GC

If all of the required elements of an offence are present and none of the (statutory) defences are present, the obviously an offence may be made out

I see you once again missed my previous post, you really are getting good at this aren't you.



As such, you can't equally say that anything that has happened is legal. As the situation is unknown.

So, where is this EVIDENCE in relation to the opening post situation. Specualtion, hypothetical or other examples are not evidence.



I can say something is not illegal as it is legal until it is decided it is illegal. It is the fundamental basis of law in this country that you are free to do something unless prevented from sdo doing.

I suspect you are missing the legal subtelty of the situation

 

[glasgowcyclist]

If all of the required elements of an offence are present and none of the (statutory) defences are present, the obviously an offence may be made out

So the situation described in the OP could, therefore, contain examples of an offence of copyright infringement?

GC

 

[spen666]

So the situation described in the OP could, therefore, contain examples of an offence of copyright infringement?

GC

There is no evidence of any offence, let alone any complainant or injured party and without an injured party there can be no offence

 

[gaz]

There is no evidence of any offence, let alone any complainant or injured party and without an injured party there can be no offence

HAHA. and this is the problem with peoples perception of copyright.

 

[gaz]

I can say something is not illegal as it is legal until it is decided it is illegal. It is the fundamental basis of law in this country that you are free to do something unless prevented from sdo doing.

I suspect you are missing the legal subtelty of the situation

I don't know why you keep banging on about this.
I have agreed with you on several occasions that without context from the OP all we are talking about is hear say.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Its legal, because there is no law against it.

In a common law based jurisdiction, like England & Wales, things are legal unless there is legislation to prevent it.

If all of the required elements of an offence are present and none of the (statutory) defences are present, the obviously an offence may be made out

<snipped>...

I'm having trouble following your line of reasoning here.

What are you saying isn't illegal and has no law against it in your first quote above, and what are you saying may constitute an offence in your second quote above?


GC