# Watching TV shows on youtube?



## Rufus (Sep 17, 2011)

Sinful? I would argue that it is but I want your opinions.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Sep 17, 2011)

I may be hopelessly ignorant - but what is the difference between watching TV shows on YouTube or on TV?


----------



## MarieP (Sep 17, 2011)

Do you mean any TV show or just cable shows? Even Fox put old episodes of "24" on their website just days after it was aired. It seems a great way to archive old shows too, such as "I Love Lucy." It's fun to watch shows from your childhood- I found lots of Rugrats, Ducktales, and Alf!

PS- Alf was great, but it was a little depressing to hear the background saga of the lives of the cast. Apparently the stage manager got angry if they'd touch Alf or call him a puppet. And the actors all hated doing the show.


----------



## Rufus (Sep 17, 2011)

kainos01 said:


> I may be hopelessly ignorant - but what is the difference between watching TV shows on YouTube or on TV?



Goodpoint. But aren't you stealing from there profit in some way? What if the show isn't on tv anymore but its available on DvD?


----------



## Andres (Sep 17, 2011)

Listen to your conscience.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Sep 17, 2011)

Ah. I see. I really don't watch any shows on YouTube (and precious few on TV) so I was confused. At any rate, I second Andrew's position.


----------



## AThornquist (Sep 17, 2011)

There are many programs on YouTube now that are legal to watch. Normally if they aren't on there legally they are removed because of copyright and the account that loaded the program is penalized.


----------



## Edward (Sep 17, 2011)

Copyright issues on Youtube can be complex - in some cases, the networks themselves post content. Youtube doesn't screen for infringement, however, leaving it to the rights holder to notify them of infringing material posted on the site. Then, of course, there is the largely undefined area of 'fair use', although a complete TV episode probably isn't (unless someone hires me to establish that it is). 

So in summary, I'll echo the advice of my neighbor to the west, 





Andres said:


> Listen to your conscience.


----------



## smhbbag (Sep 17, 2011)

Andrew is right. Youtube is very, very quick to take down infringing material, especially for major movies and shows (upon the request of the owner).

Most full-length animated Disney movies are on there, also. Disney is notorious for protecting its brand and its copyrights to the fullest extent possible. If Disney stuff is on youtube for free, it is because Disney lets it be there, which makes it fine by me.

With youtube, it is so easy to take things down, I generally think that if it's there, the owner approves of it.


----------



## Edward (Sep 18, 2011)

smhbbag said:


> I generally think that if it's there, the owner approves of it.



Viacom did sue for a Billion dollars (and lost - may still be on appeal). Viacom - YouTube Litigation | Home

I wouldn't take that as owner approval.


----------



## JoannaV (Sep 18, 2011)

Users can sometimes upload such content for many months before it is taken down, and then someone else will appear offering the same show. So it _is_ true that there is material on there that the copyright owner does not want you watching.

It's not necessarily true that profits are being affected, depends on the individual viewer. Some viewers may not be in the market for cable or DVDs, _but_ watching a few shows on youtube sustains their interest in a show and increases the likelihood of them spending money once they actually are in the market for such things. So they may be perfectly happy making do with local tv, but youtube reminds them of the pleasures of cable so when they can afford it they do so.
Which doesn't necessarily imply you should be watching such shows, I'm just saying. Honestly I probably shouldn't spend time watching a show if it's not something I would ever consider spending money on.


----------



## smhbbag (Sep 18, 2011)

You can file a lawsuit for anything, even with no case. When that happens, your suit is thrown out. And that is what the original court did to Viacom.

Even Viacom admits that Youtube took down anything that Viacom asked them to take down, and that they did so immediately. In one example, Viacom even requested 100,000 infringements be taken down, and they were down the very next day.

Viacom's complaint is that Youtube should have had filtering software and tried to pro-actively detect infringement, not just taken things down when asked.

Viacom's suit was thrown out in summary judgment. Viacom appealed, and is going to lose again....but it will take a few years.

It is ridiculously easy to find where your stuff is pirated on Youtube. 

So I will change what I said - a video being on youtube doesn't necessarily imply consent from the owner. It could also imply indifference to piracy, negligence, or stupidity. None of those options are the fault of Youtube or the end-user.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 18, 2011)

There are tons of music videos on there, some official, many bootlegs and some where the music is just uploaded. I think the law here may be somewhat different than Napster. In this case I wonder if it is considered broadcasting, since you're not downloading it. Some are pulled down due to infringement, but it appears that increasingly that's happening less and less. In some cases, the copyright holders, and perhaps especially, the artists, should be glad someone posted it because it's likely the most exposure they've gotten in many years! But the downside is that some casual fans will never bother to buy the material (unless they want it for their ipod) since it's readily available there and perhaps elsewhere online. I think it might be difficult to calculate whether someone posting such material on YouTube it is a net gain or loss. But I can see why a network would be upset about TV shows being posted because they stand to make a lot of money from selling DVD's of popular shows. 

As a tennis fan who grew up in the '80's, I've recently watched a good many matches from that era on You Tube. If CBS or the other networks cared about their 25 year old footage, I'm sure it would be gone by now. Many of them seem to be the work of old tape traders who have converted to digital. (Some of the quality is good, but some of it from the late 70's and very early 80's leaves a lot to be desired.) It's also interesting to see part of one match with English commentary and see the next few games of the same match (and the same upload) with Italian or German commentary!


----------



## athanatos (Sep 18, 2011)

There is also a difference between man's law and God's law. I think we're in a strange age, where intelligence or creativity is considered property that can be owned, sold, licensed, etc. That is just downright weird. It comes from particular schools of economics. As such, I'm not convinced that copyright infringement contradicts "truth, faithfulness, and justice in contracts and commerce between man and man,(1) rendering to every one his due;(2) restitution of goods unlawfully detained from the right owners thereof;" --- _except that the society or government categorizes it as such_. From my understanding, I'd put this under a Romans 13 disobedience, not an 8th commandment disobedience.

So, wrong sorta.

Meanwhile, I agree with what's been said before. Follow your conscience, and if you have good reason to believe the video has been up a while then let not your conscience be troubled since it is probably/most likely OK.


----------



## Edward (Sep 18, 2011)

athanatos said:


> There is also a difference between man's law and God's law.




It is a 5th commandment issue:

Q. 127. What is the honor that inferiors owe to their superiors?
A. The honor which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart, word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them;a imitation of their virtues and graces; *willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels*; due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defense, and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honor to them and to their government.


----------

