Woah! Watch out! You said something unpopular around these parts with that last sentence. I'm seeing so many people believing that it actually is okay to distribute something you haven't made from scratch. I don't know why but I do suspect that they don't think of is as "distributing something you haven't created yourself from scratch". I've seen so many times in these discussions people defend pirating and saying that all software should be free and then there's excuses like "pirated works are just free marketing" and "well they wouldn't have bought it anyway".
It's very hard to explain why copyright infringement is not okay to people these days because the physical analogies no longer apply. People think theft is when you take something and deprive someone else of that thing. With digital media you're taking something but the creator still has it and that's where things get messy. But just because the author still has the original copy that doesn't mean that it's still okay to take. Then you get into the whole argument about how whichever industry (music, movies, whatever) are so rich and greedy and screw people that it's okay. True or not, it still doesn't change what's wrong with this stuff.
Even if we take the premise that it's not okay to distribute something you haven't made from scratch, there's still the issue of whether that should be enforced legally or not.
Right, thats an excellent point and I glossed over that. A lot of this touches on a very gray area. In general I'm for copyright and I'm talking about the huge number of people who think there's nothing wrong with pirating movies, music, and software and have a long list of excuses for it. Now, even I can get on board with what you're saying. The 15 year old kid who uses some copyrighted video or audio in a YouTube video should not be prosecuted. And there are lots of cases like that where it would be silly to prosecute. Now, in the case of the Pulp Fiction scene reordering from the post, I don't think anyone should get in trouble and I personally think there's no need to take it down but that's not my call and I think if the creators decide that it shouldn't be published we need to respect that.
We have to remember that the YouTube system is automated though so they can't review things manually. That means no one is there to judge that gray area. So even in cases where we think something has been taken down for some silly copyright related reason we really can't bitch because A) it's automated and B) copyright is the law and the holders do have their rights.
In general I'm for copyright and I'm talking about the huge number of people who think there's nothing wrong with pirating movies, music, and software and have a long list of excuses for it.
Frankly I think this reveals a strong bias, since that sentence directly contradicts itself: An excuse is something people have to justify something they see as wrong. I think the fact that you assume they have excuses shows you can't really put yourself in a position where copyright infringement isn't in fact perceived as wrong.
I think if the creators decide that it shouldn't be published we need to respect that.
Do we? Why?
So even in cases where we think something has been taken down for some silly copyright related reason we really can't bitch because A) it's automated and B) copyright is the law and the holders do have their rights.
Bitching against Youtube¹ is certainly pointless, but we can "bitch" if we believe the law itself is wrong.
¹ at least in cases where the takedown is mandated by law. There were plenty of cases where works covered by fair use were taken down automatically by their algorithms.
Actually what I meant was that legally you shouldn't distribute stuff that's not made by you. While I myself am somewhat pro-copyright, I also respect other peoples anti-copyright opinions. But I think that even anti-copyright people should follow the law, and keep advocating changes to the law if they feel that law and their views do not align. That doesn't mean that I think people should blindly follow laws, but rather see following law as a temporary concession.
It's very hard to explain why copyright infringement is not okay to people these days because the physical analogies no longer apply. People think theft is when you take something and deprive someone else of that thing. With digital media you're taking something but the creator still has it and that's where things get messy. But just because the author still has the original copy that doesn't mean that it's still okay to take. Then you get into the whole argument about how whichever industry (music, movies, whatever) are so rich and greedy and screw people that it's okay. True or not, it still doesn't change what's wrong with this stuff.