Dumb? Sorry you think so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Tube#Copyright_infringement
Please don't corner me into actually having to take an RIAA-like stance merely for the sake of this discussion. I thought conservatives were supposed to have respect for the law. Downloading copyrighted content without authorization is against the law, and a 'little clip of a TV show' may very well constitute copyright infringement.
I didn't say that was definitely the case, and I chose my words carefully for a reason. Then there's the issue of whether or not a copyright holder cares enough to wish to prohibit it from being available on such a venue. Quite a few do, and, when they complain, the video is taken down.
Saving it to your HD doesn't make it not akin to illegal file-sharing merely because you say so.
Saving it to your HD doesn't make it not akin to illegal file-sharing merely because you say so.
In the examples you cite, merely viewing the content is copyright infringement. It's not clear that saving it to disk adds to the infringement (unless you then subsequently sell it or share it, of course).
On the other hand, if the online content is legal to view, then saving it on your disk is simply fair use (again, unless you publish the saved content to others without permission).
YouTube is just wrong. I refuse to support the liberals at Google.
Buy Red!
You are an RIAA Nazi.
Where do the founders say they believed this restrictive copyright system was their intent? Only useful arts and sciences are subject to copyright.
I frankly don't believe Dancing with the Stars qualifies by that standard.
Copyright infringement is wrong. But, posting a 2-minute clip out of a 30-minute show like often goes on at You-Tube is clearly within fair use limits.
The context of the discussion involves videos which might be censored by YouTube. In which case, the creator WANTS it distributed