GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I see articles left and right about YouTube receiving cease and desist letters telling them to take down copyrighted material. I also see articles left and right about morons who downloaded films off the internet that were sued. Put two and two together and one would think watching YouTube content might be illegal too. Of course, often times it is hard for the viewer to determine exactly which content on YouTube is legally placed there. Has there been any cases where people watching copyrighted content on YouTube were targeted by the copyright holders with legal action?
I think that would be a bit of a stretch. Most of the issues with copyright infringment regard unauthorized duplication or distribution of copyrighted works. Obviously things that are inherently illegal to view, like child pornography, would be different entirely. Note that I'm not a lawyer and I've never played one on tv either so it would be wise to take my opinion as you would taking medical advice from some random person on the intarnets.
Note that I'm not a lawyer and I've never played one on tv either so it would be wise to take my opinion as you would taking medical advice from some random person on the intarnets.
I quite understand that this is not the place to find a lawyer. Yet, I figure there are a lot of people on this site and someone might have run into a related article or thread discussing the matter. I have had little luck in finding information from Google searches myself.
I don't care either way - as though this is something like a crime like murder or arson which the music and movie industry makes it to be. And I'm going to continue watching youtube videos if it interests me, regardless of whether it's copyright or not. If somebody wants to take down a particular video from youtube that's their problem not mine.
They show lots of copyright material on Television too, by the way. Every damn thing out there in fact is bloody copyrighted if you think about it (including this post of mine which I'm making here) and if viewing copyrighted material is going to be illegal, I think we need to poke our eyes out to comply.
Last edited by vharishankar; 10-01-2006 at 12:00 AM.
Possibly, but not to the original poster. The copyright would more than likely be owned by linuxquestions.org.
False. In most countries anything created by $someone is implicitly copyrighted to $someone. Not LQ, unless of course, LQ has some small print that you agree to when signing up that "all comments are property of LQ". I am fairly certain this is _not_ the case.
... Not LQ, unless of course, LQ has some small print that you agree to when signing up that "all comments are property of LQ".
I'm not sure about US law, but if I'm not mistaken, German law states that even in this case copyright will remain with the author. It is only the exploitation right that may be conferred on someone else (and this cannot be done exclusively and across the board for all kinds of usage).