> To play devil's advocate, I wonder if it can really be said that when you watch a youtube video you have been
>> invited to witness in its entirety free of charge
> when you consider advertising. It could be argued that when you watch a monetized youtube video you are being invited to view the video in exchange for also viewing advertisements as a form of payment.
The problem with this idea is that you're quoting a case about recording televised broadcasts. The quote you pulled your quote from begins "when one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work".
Televised works were shown with embedded advertising a lot more intrusive than what can appear on a YouTube video. There is no way for the presence of advertisements to affect how this argument applies to YouTube, when it was originally cast in terms of television.
>> invited to witness in its entirety free of charge
> when you consider advertising. It could be argued that when you watch a monetized youtube video you are being invited to view the video in exchange for also viewing advertisements as a form of payment.
The problem with this idea is that you're quoting a case about recording televised broadcasts. The quote you pulled your quote from begins "when one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work".
Televised works were shown with embedded advertising a lot more intrusive than what can appear on a YouTube video. There is no way for the presence of advertisements to affect how this argument applies to YouTube, when it was originally cast in terms of television.