On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Krinkle krinklemail@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't fully read the context of this thread, but something that did cross my mind recently, why do we treat YouTube-links different from other links here?
Aren't most of our sources and external linked websites atleast as copyrighted as YouTube ?
Consider links to IMDb for example, the content we link to, through that, is all copyrighted!
Or just a good old "Official website"-link on an article about person X or organization Y, likely also "All rights reserved."
YouTube atleast is partially (and soon more) under a CC-license.
There's a big difference - those are copyrighted _by the person who put the material on the web site_. On YouTube the videos are often uploaded by people who do not own the copyright, nor are connected to them. It's not copyright that is the problem, it is copyright violations.