Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Videos of Copyrighted Material

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3xla...eature=related

Here is a youtube link to Mary Heiny's Aikido video which is uploaded in its entirety. Also by the the same guy are videos by Mitsugi Saotome and Yoshimitsu Yamada. All three are currently available for sale and so these teachers are being ripped off. This bothered me and also the comments posted on the videos bothered me as they are very positive about the teachers even though the commentators are stealing from them.

I posted my opinion in polite terms but the comment was taken down. I wonder what might happen if many many people from Aikiweb were to visit and leave comments as well.

What do you think?

Charles

The people who own the rights to these videos need to post DMCA takedown notices to youtube. At that point they will be removed.

Charles Hill wrote: This bothered me and also the comments posted on the videos bothered me as they are very positive about the teachers even though the commentators are stealing from them.

Commentators, they're not stealing from nobody.

Sadly most folks in Aikido are not Media Savvy. As was mentioned, all those Teachers need to do is file a C&D with You Tube. Then they need to develop a media strategy that exploits it and brings in new students...

William Hazen

Great topic!

This is an issue that deserves major thought. We are fortunate, I believe, that digital media and the Internet are pushing it forward.

As a strong advocate of the free-market and property rights, intellectual property presents some interesting dilemmas for me.

You see, ideas are actually improved by their dissemination.

There are strong arguments that IP stifles innovation and raises prices (can anyone say Pharmaceuticals).

IP began as a form of mercantilist privilege, became a part of the individual rights revolution, and now is a tool used by corporations.

If anyone is seriously interested about this issue, I recommend reading Against Intellectual Monopoly, which the authors, true to form, have made available free online.

I might add, it's quite possible that these sensei benefit far more from the notoriety than they would from the sales of a few more videos.

By the way, that Mary Heiny video was very good.

I have been thinking about this a bit today. The person who uploaded the videos is not profiting financially from this. My guess is that he/she most likely practices Aikido. I also believe that he/she does not fully understand how it is wrong. The commentators likely don't think what they are doing is wrong as well.

With that in mind, I believe that this hurts the producers of the material and that those who do so should be told that it is not right. My interest is in how this can be done effectively. The ATM people are unlikely to have the time/resources to constantly monitor youtube like a big corporation can and those who upload copyrighted material are unlikely to realize that what they are doing is wrong when their plug is pulled.

I would like to comment on the other comments made here, but my daughter just made her first poopy on her own in the bathroom and we are busy celebrating, so later!

Charles

William Hazen wrote: Sadly most folks in Aikido are not Media Savvy. As was mentioned, all those Teachers need to do is file a C&D with You Tube. Then they need to develop a media strategy that exploits it and brings in new students... William Hazen

I agree with the OP. It's illegal, wrong, and against YouTube's T&Cs. Whoever posted it didn't even give her credit for appearing in the video.

If people want to make their own work available for free, that's great. Making snippets of one's own videos available can help people decide to buy the whole DVD. In fact, I didn't know Mary Heiny Sensei had a video/videos, and now I might buy this one. But that's not for others to make that business decision (to share videos or not) on her behalf.

Linda

Charles Hill wrote: . . . Also by the the same guy are videos by Mitsugi Saotome and Yoshimitsu Yamada. All three are currently available for sale and so these teachers are being ripped off. . . . . . This bothered me and also the comments posted on the videos bothered me as they are very positive about the teachers even though the commentators are stealing from them.

I don't buy the argument that the teachers are being ripped off. Would any of the people who watched the videos have bought them if they had not had access to them via youtube (or some similar web site)? I am inclined to believe that the vast majority of folks who have watched this video have stumbled upon it while watching aikido videos on youtube, as opposed to looking specifically for this video. As of Friday, June 26 at 5:48 am (GMT) the video had about 7,000 hits. IF all of those hits represented lost income I might agree with you, but I sincerely doubt that is the case, and believe it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Given that I don't think the argument that 'they are being ripped-off' stands too well.
I also don't buy that the commentators are 'stealing' for these reasons. To steal something, one must have the intent to deprive someone of their rightful property. Given that (at least the majority) of people who watched the video on youtube would never have paid for access to the information in the first place, the 'owners' are not being deprived of anything.

Is it illegal? Probably, I don't know who, if anybody owns the copyright, and I don't really care. Is it immoral? I doubt it. If you think the owners ought to be informed why don't you send them an email about it, so they can decide whether or not they want to have it removed.

Oh yeah, how morally culpable are you Chuck? You DID post a link to copyrighted materials on the message board. How many people do you think watched the video, and ripped off the rightful owners of the information because of an action you took? Just saying the door swings both ways.

peace,
bettis

Hi bettis,

It's Charles, Chuck's my dad. About a year or so ago, Mary Heiny had a hip operation and a collection to help her pay her medical bills was taken up. Certainly not all 7000 hits represent lost buyers, but for the sake of argument, 10% is conceivable, is it not? 700 copies sold from aiki.com for 20 dollars would have brought Heiny Sensei a good hunk of change, right?

How morally culpable am I? How many people watched it for free and have no intention of buying it because of my posting it here? Don't know. Probably not many. How many people might see this thread and think "Yeah! I'm gonna support Heiny, Yamada, and Saotome Sensei by asking the youtuber (Suicideking btw) to take down the clips or at least not upload the whole thing."? I hope a lot!

Then best of all, Linda is now thinking of buying one! (You will not be sorry, Linda. It's pretty awesome!)

Charles

Charles Hill wrote: Certainly not all 7000 hits represent lost buyers, but for the sake of argument, 10% is conceivable, is it not? 700 copies sold from aiki.com for 20 dollars would have brought Heiny Sensei a good hunk of change, right?

1) One hit does not equal one person.
2) 10% is too much; even 1% would be stretching it. Youtube is a very fleeting medium in which you can keep following links to new videos all too easily. (To invert the argument: how many of the clips you have seen on youtube would you be willing to pay for?)
3) There's no way to tell how many of the 7000 hits did in fact lead to someone buying the dvd.
4) I live in Europe: why would I pay 20$ plus more than half of that in shipping costs for a dvd that's probably region coded and NTSC instead of PAL? (Disclaimer: I didn't check on aiki.com if that's actually the case.)
5) I live in Holland: downloading copyrighted material is not illegal here, only uploading is. (Of course, legal != ethical.)

To play Devil's Advocate here -- well, no, not me, but Eric Flint from Baen Publishing.

http://www.baen.com/library/

Baen started a free library with some of their authors and books. The link has the info by Eric Flint and how they view free online material. It's an interesting read.

Personally, no, I don't think the YouTube person should have posted the whole video. A small segment would have done just as nicely. Anyone old enough should remember the shareware revolution. You got a small portion of the game to try out and if you liked it, you could buy the rest. Did wonders for the game world.

The only part I disagree with is the lost sales part, Charles. I have yet to find any research that upholds that theory. Just as people who will go to the library to read the first book, or people that will borrow from a friend, or rent from a video store - those people represent the portion of people who do not buy the offered goods. Lump in the Internet downloaders into that group. There is no lost sale because they are not buying in the first place. (Not arguing right or wrong here)

As others have noted, a very, very small percentage (I think less than 1) of those people might have bought the dvd. I like how Stan Pranin has chosen to advertise. He posts small segments of the videos and to me, it's like what Baen is doing and like the shareware idea. Give the potential buyer a taste because otherwise, most people shy away from purchasing something they know absolutely nothing about.

Mark Murray wrote: /../ I like how Stan Pranin has chosen to advertise. He posts small segments of the videos /../ most people shy away from purchasing something they know absolutely nothing about

I agree: it's like the ability to browse in a bookstore (or touch and feel products at an electronics store) instead of having only shrink-wrapped products to look at. Clearly, more people buy in the first instance than in the latter. It doesn't matter that X number of people don't buy. The number of people Y that do buy is increased. It always strikes me as odd that an enterprise like Yodobashi Camera will have the "touch, test, feel, experience" part on most goods, but shrink-wrap books and various other products. I guess it depends on the marketing, mark-up, cost of replacement, ability to relate via experiencing, etc. With DVDs I expect that the guys who are allowing small sections to go public are on the right track---it just makes sense just like what would happen in a real-life situation to get someone interested in aikido or a particular teacher.

If it bothers you that much, why not just report it to youtube?

Charles Hill wrote: I have been thinking about this a bit today. The person who uploaded the videos is not profiting financially from this. My guess is that he/she most likely practices Aikido. I also believe that he/she does not fully understand how it is wrong. The commentators likely don't think what they are doing is wrong as well. With that in mind, I believe that this hurts the producers of the material and that those who do so should be told that it is not right. My interest is in how this can be done effectively. The ATM people are unlikely to have the time/resources to constantly monitor youtube like a big corporation can and those who upload copyrighted material are unlikely to realize that what they are doing is wrong when their plug is pulled. I would like to comment on the other comments made here, but my daughter just made her first poopy on her own in the bathroom and we are busy celebrating, so later! Charles

I am a professional teacher of Aikido. The reason I have been able to put so much time into my training, my teaching, and my writing is that I don't work a regular job outside of my Aikido. I know very few people who can do this from a dojo alone. I teach seminars all over the US and Canada and I have developed a video business that brings in as much as my dojo does.

I need that business to be part of the support for my continued focus on my training and teaching.If someone starts putting my material up on the web without permission he is hurting my ability to survive and furthermore is making it less and less likely that I do additional titles. People might feel they benefit in the short run by having free access but in the long run they will not have access to as much material because no one will want to go through the time and expense of creating new titles if they only get ripped off.

This kind of behavior hurts everyone.

Mary Malmros wrote: If it bothers you that much, why not just report it to youtube?

Only the owner of the copyright can report it.

And even than it's a long way. As I know out of experience.

I think how you interprete uploading such material depends on whether you know the teacher who's material is stolen.
Or how near you are to him/her.

When someone systematically uploads o whole DVD this is clearly theft not only to me but also in the eyes of justice.
And as George says it concerns all of us.

I wonder how, if someone who likes the aikido of a certain teacher, he or she can lack the respect for this teacher and upload the material, he or she owns?

Carsten

When someone systematically uploads o whole DVD this is clearly theft not only to me but also in the eyes of justice.

My apologies for being a bit nitpickery, but referring to violation of copyright as 'theft' suggests (whether intentional or not) that copyright law and property law are the same thing. They are not. The purpose of copyright law is to give people a limited amount of time to benefit from their creative works. The purpose of property law is to safeguard your rights to your property and has no such limitation in time. (Disclaimer: IANAL, but this much I do know.)

Hi

Joep Schuurkes wrote: My apologies for being a bit nitpickery, but referring to violation of copyright as 'theft' suggests (whether intentional or not) that copyright law and property law are the same thing.

Well, that's not nitpickery because you are quite right:

There is a big difference between the american unterstanding of "copyright", which is indeed limited in time because of the basic idea to open every idea/creation/.. to the public.

And - in difference - the european, or at least german "Urheberrecht", which has a completely other basic idea:
The creator/author/artist is the owner of his work/creation. It is not and will not become public domain if he doesn't want to.

Like Takeda Sokaku or Ueshiba Morihei who didn't show their arts openly.

I don't know whether the term "intelletuel property" makes sense in english?
So the suggestion you noticed was indeed intended.

Greetings,
Carsten

To me, the issue at stake is less about legality and more about respect. I don't think any reasonable person would have a problem with low quality short clips of one's work being made available on the net. However, most of us on this forum practice traditional Japanese/Asian martial arts. They play a very important role in most of our lives.

William Gleason Sensei told a story about every New Year when Yamaguchi Sensei's students would have a whipround and present the money to Yamaguchi with the request: "Please teach us for another year!"

I think this says a very important thing. If you respect a teacher and the sacrifices they have made to get to the level they have achieved, you should be prepared to pay to learn from them.

The argument that unfettered distribution of DVDs etc is ultimately economically beneficial is spurious. None of the above are millionaires, and I know from personal experience that (well received) videos of Henry Kono knocking around the net have not resulted in huge numbers attending his seminars. He's well into his eighties, is not rich and has a wealth of experience deserving of serious attention.

To play Devil's Advocate again, er rather Eric Flint will.

I've posted the link before, but I don't think people have actually read through his articles. Here's a very pertinent one from Prime Palaver #6 (excerpt, not all of it):

Eric Flint wrote: Jim Baen and I set up the Free Library about a year and half ago. Leaving aside the various political and philosophical issues, which I've addressed elsewhere, the premise behind the Library had a practical component as well. In brief, that in relative terms an author will gain, not lose, by having titles in the Library. What I mean by "relative" is simply this: overall, an author is far more likely to increase sales than to lose them. Or, to put it more accurately, exposure in the Library will generate more sales than it will lose. As a practical proposition, the theory behind the Free Library is that, certainly in the long run, it benefits an author to have a certain number of free or cheap titles of theirs readily available to the public. By far the main enemy any author faces, except a handful of ones who are famous to the public at large, is simply obscurity. Even well-known SF authors are only read by a small percentage of the potential SF audience. Most readers, even ones who have heard of the author, simply pass them up. Why? In most cases, simply because they don't really know anything about the writer and aren't willing to spend $7 to $28 just to experiment. So, they keep buying those authors they are familiar with. What the Free Library provides-as do traditional libraries, or simply the old familiar phenomenon of friends lending each other books-is a way for people to investigate a new author for free, before they plunk down any money. That was the premise behind the Free Library, when I first set it up. At the time, since I had no experience to go by, I was basing that on common sense as well as Jim Baen's experienced judgement as a longtime publisher. Now, with a year and a half's experience with the Library actually established and running, our original assessment has been demonstrated in practice. The Library's track record shows clearly that the traditional "encryption/enforcement" policy which has been followed thus far by most of the publishing industry is just plain stupid, as well as unconscionable from the viewpoint of infringing on personal liberties. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that, based on FACTS. Let me begin by posing a simple question. Does anyone have any real evidence that having material available for free online-whether legitimately or through piracy-has actually caused any financial harm to any author? The entire argument for encryption rests precisely upon this PRESUMPTION. A presumption which has never once been documented or demonstrated-and which, to the contrary, has been cast into question any number of times. I am about to cast it into question again. Here are a number of facts which you should consider: 1) The first title to go up into the Library was my own novel, Mother of Demons. That was my first published novel, which came out in print in September of 1997. At the time it went into the Free Library, in the fall of 2000, that novel had sold 9,694 copies, with a sell-through of 54%. As of today, according to Baen Books-a year and a half after being available for free online to anyone who wants it, no restrictions and no questions asked-Mother of Demons has sold about 18,500 copies and now has a sell-through of 65%. (An aside on publishing terminology. "Sell-through" refers to that percentage of books shipped which are actually sold. Many books are never sold at all, but are returned to the publisher. Sell-through is therefore always expressed as a percentage. "Net sales" essentially refers to the same thing, in absolute numbers.) I would like someone to explain to me how almost doubling the sales and improving the sell-through by 11% has caused me, as an author, any harm? The opposite is in fact the case. Mother of Demons began its life as a typical first novel, with very modest sales and sell-through. Today, it has better than average sales and much better than average sell-through-a change that took place simultaneously with the book being available for free online. To be sure, most of that improvement is not due to the Library. It's simply due, I'm quite sure, to the fact that I've become a better known author in the meantime. Still, it is impossible to argue that the Library has hurt me any. To the contrary, I think there is every reason to believe that the added exposure the Library has given me helped the sales of that book-as well as all of my other books. And the exposure is considerable, by the way. The fact that being in the Library does not seem to have hurt sales of Mother of Demons in the least-to put it mildly!-is not due to the Library's obscurity. Quite the opposite, in fact. There were more than 130,000 visits to the Free Library in the last quarter of 2001-almost 1,500 a day.

Let me reiterate one segment.

"Let me begin by posing a simple question. Does anyone have any real evidence that having material available for free online-whether legitimately or through piracy-has actually caused any financial harm to any author?

The entire argument for encryption rests precisely upon this PRESUMPTION. A presumption which has never once been documented or demonstrated-and which, to the contrary, has been cast into question any number of times."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing right or wrong, moral or immoral at all. I'm posing the question in regards to the presumption that people are losing money. I've already said I don't agree with posting the whole video.

But, if you read the Prime Palaver, you'll read that Eric talks about how the free library generated interest in not-well-known authors. In short, I have yet to see any facts that piracy has hurt revenues. I have seen facts to the opposite as noted by Flint. If I recall correctly I think the RIAA had a very good year in sales either last year or the year before -- all the while screaming about losing billions in online piracy. Presumption, not fact.

Mark Murray wrote: "Let me begin by posing a simple question. Does anyone have any real evidence that having material available for free online-whether legitimately or through piracy-has actually caused any financial harm to any author? The entire argument for encryption rests precisely upon this PRESUMPTION. A presumption which has never once been documented or demonstrated-and which, to the contrary, has been cast into question any number of times." Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing right or wrong, moral or immoral at all. I'm posing the question in regards to the presumption that people are losing money. I've already said I don't agree with posting the whole video. But, if you read the Prime Palaver, you'll read that Eric talks about how the free library generated interest in not-well-known authors. In short, I have yet to see any facts that piracy has hurt revenues. I have seen facts to the opposite as noted by Flint. If I recall correctly I think the RIAA had a very good year in sales either last year or the year before -- all the while screaming about losing billions in online piracy. Presumption, not fact.

This arguement is both relevent and a poor excuse depending on your point of view...

The facts are revenues are declining for MSMC's so litigation and enforcement is cost effective (so far) so...For folks like Sony and Universal if you have the money then you can protect your IP and go after copyright violaters on the Web.

Entirely different if your a small business owner like Stan Pranin who has one millioneth the legal resources of a MSMC...

So the paradigm is adapt or die for SMB's. Either you come up with new web distribution models or you watch your old models get destroyed

Case in point...I'll bet 90% or more of you have not watched a VHS tape in more than a year and more than half of you have not even watched a CD/DVD...With the price of digital storage going down year after year and the rise of broadband in most of the developed world Physical Media like CD/DVD's will (mark my words) go the way of the VHS tape. (Hell I don't even burn CD's anymore I just put stuff on USB Drives, so I also expect CD/DVD burners to go the way of the VHS recorder in short order too And so does Apple by the way)

Sooner rather than later the Big Dogs will figure out a way to protect and monetize thier IP In fact they are very close...

So it comes down to are you willing to continue to steal something that you are used to getting for "free"? LOL and since you're part of the Aikido Community Are you willing to steal from each other?

Personally I would rather not have George Ledyard waiting tables at Chili's

William Hazen

Years ago as a teenager I got a speeding ticket. I was angry. There was no way the officer was near enough to see me. No way he could measure my speed. And besides, it was a clear open road in the middle of nowhere I was only going a bit over the limit, nothing unsafe, nothing all that horrible. I thought he pulled me over simply because I was a teenager in my dad's (rather nice) car. And that upset me.

So I go to the judge. I lay out my argument. He asks me "Okay, fine, but were you going over the speed limit?"

"Um, well, um... Yes."

He then told me to pay my ticket on the way out and called the next case... Because the speed limit was the speed limit. And I was going over it. Period.

Currently there are those who assert intellectual property rights to their work. Currently the law protects those rights in many mediums. As such it is illegal to violate those rights *regardless* of arguments about financial harm, gain, whatever. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't apply to you.

Or as a friend's kid said one day to my daughter when she wanted to play with his new toy... "You can't play with it because it's *mine*, okay?!?!?"

Simple as that. He had a point. It was his. Regardless of the fact he wasn't playing with it at the time, he didn't seem to even like it. But it was his to share (or not share).

Change the law if you don't like it. Offer up your work for free if you think it's the way to go -- I have musician friends, artist friends, writer friends, etc. who offer up work all the time for free. And others who go the more conventional route. Most do a bit of both as we're all motivated by a need to do it regardless. Respect however it is that those who create offer up their work. Some don't want their work copied or taken without their consent or compensation or whatever. So be it. We all have to make a living. And it ain't up to the person *taking* the property to decide whether the creator *should* be compensated. You vote on that by whether you buy it.

I.e., it's the creator's to share. Not yours to take on your whim.

The simple fact is that like my ticket there are rules society has made. You may not agree with the rationale, but... Life's a bitch and it ain't fair.

At times I cringe at these discussions. Because at the bottom it's all "But hey, it's all about meeeeeeee. I want to play with his toy. I don't care if he doesn't want to share -- I want it. It won't hurt him to share..."

In other words... It ain't your decision to make. It's all post hoc rationalization for behavior.

Now all that said I think there are very good arguments made for why artists might want to offer up their IP for free. Janis Ian famously wrote on this topic a long time ago and I have nothing but respect for her point of view. But again this is an ancillary argument -- we're talking about why an artist might benefit from sharing their stuff for free. Or why an artist might actually be benefiting in the long run from people illegally downloading their work. But... Regardless of the argument of benefit or harm the simple fact is that they didn't say you could have it. They laid down the conditions for obtaining a copy of their work. And if you're not willing to abide by those conditions you're taking it illegally. Maybe they're the idiots in terms of their own financial gain, but... It is *their* decision to make. Not yours. And the rationalization that in the long run someone violating their IP "helps" them financially is simply not your decision to make.

All posted fwiw as a guy who has a handful of things that pay royalties. And some that don't. The point is that *I* decided what to share freely and what not to share freely... Whether I did it in the best way possible financially is only a small part of how I decide to do things. The bottom line, however, is still the same. It was my decision to make regardless of what anyone else may think.

I do photography, write, do swords, etc. I've had a *lot* of things I've done "borrowed" shamelessly. And I've given permission many more times. I prefer the latter. And there is a *lot* of stuff I've never put out. Simply because I don't want it taken.

Note that I agreed with most here. I don't think the video should have been posted. However, rather than leave it at another, me, too, post, I brought up a valuable point on how to take advantage of the "shareware" idea. And, provided real world facts to back it up. All most people hear are the RIAA and MPAA screaming about billions in lost revenue. Most don't hear about real world models that take advantage of showcasing part of their work and how it relates to generating revenue. No, that doesn't mean giving it all away for free. But if you're a small business and don't have a lot of money to spend on advertising, then every little bit helps.

Who would have posted "Immoral and Illegal" if the Youtube person had posted 2 minutes of Mary Heiny and then posted a link to where you can buy her video in the description section? Granted, it wouldn't have come from Mary Heiny, but who would want to shut that kind of free publicity down? We already know from this thread that one person is now interested in buying the video.

Instead of crying outrage at the heinous act, why not try to educate and illuminate the Youtube poster about how to do it right?

Certainly not all 7000 hits represent lost buyers, but for the sake of argument, 10% is conceivable, is it not? 700 copies sold from aiki.com for 20 dollars would have brought Heiny Sensei a good hunk of change, right?

So, if we follow this logic through, the OP (Charles Hill) makes the situation much worse because now there are over 7300 hits on that video, many (most?) of them from people browsing this thread. Thats about 300x20$ that Heiny Sensei lost.

Mark Murray wrote: Who would have posted "Immoral and Illegal" if the Youtube person had posted 2 minutes of Mary Heiny and then posted a link to where you can buy her video in the description section?

Indeed that's not what we - or at least me - are talking about.

We are talking about nearly 60 minutes, a complete dvd.

Instead of crying outrage at the heinous act, why not try to educate and illuminate the Youtube poster about how to do it right?

In the cases I experienced people also tried to load up dvds of shihan. Chapter by chapter or technique by technique, so you can easily create dvd-menus after downloaning.

It is done just to save money.
The youtube posters are educated and illuminated how to do this.

But, if you read the Prime Palaver, you'll read that Eric talks about how the free library generated interest in not-well-known authors.

What about the well known ones?

I tbink, it is a big difference whether you try to get known or whether you are known and people are activly looking after material of you.

Greetings,
Carsten

a) So what if the wheel inventor filled in a copyright form?

b) So what if I lend a book to my friend? Am I (or he) violating the copyright?

c) So what if I post a link to copyrighted material? Am I guilty of anything? Am I "copying" anything? Am I stealing or ripping off the author?

d) Isn't all of this copyright, intellectual property, etc. simply an anachronism coming from the original book press business some centuries in the past?

e) What about evolution and going with the times? You can't stop this. Simply as that. Change your business model.