KJ Youtube Filmfestival

[drainer@mpinet.net]

I first saw this short in Japan, from the original DVD, and then a version 
with the subtitles (I don't remember the original having them, but I could 
be mistaken).


How many of the 75,761 viewers would have access to it were it not posted 
online?

Prof. Gerow brings up a good point, as does Dennis, who works hard to make 
content like that available for us as consumers.

Of course we all know that Youtube is permeated with copyright infringement; 
whether the streams consist of old commercials, tv programs (old and new), 
or even feature length films (I haven't watched any on the site, but I know 
they are present).


When is it OK to view it?

I believe it's up to the individual.

Here's a bad example: I once looked for a Tokusatsu that I used to watch as 
a child. Youtube had the opening scene and random bits. As far as I know 
it's not currently available on VHS or DVD; I've also looked for it in 
Japan. The only place that "may" have it is South America.


My argument looks week (just woke up...) -- what I think this all leads up 
to is the following question: what is the audience supposed to do when 
streams are copyrighted, but not available for purchase?


Is this a matter of supply and demand? How many of those 75,761 viewers 
would actually purchase the DVD? How many of them even knew of its existence 
before that? Is this all subjective?

I am sure there have been marketing studies on these matters. Anyone in that 
field willing to share results with us?


-daniel


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <MileFilms at aol.com>
To: <KineJapan at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: KJ Youtube Filmfestival


>
> In a message dated 11/23/06 7:19:51 PM, aaron.gerow at yale.edu writes:
>
>
>>
>> When is this OK and when is it not?
>>
>>
> Unfortunately, the recent digital copyright revisions says a server is not
> responsible for the copyright infringements that can be found on a site, 
> so all
> that can be done if you're the copyright holder is to have it removed --  
> and a
> smaller copyright holder has to jump through hoops to prove ownership. So, 
> it
> 's not legal and most of these kind of clips aren't. Obviously the main
> profiteer is YouTube (and now Google) themselves. If it was a 
> Wikipedia-like
> non-profit, it would disturb me less.
>
>
>
> Dennis
> Milestone Film & Video
>