Forum Moderators: goodroi
A one billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube threatens internet freedom, according to its owner Google.Viacom Lawsuit On Google's YouTube Threatens Internet Freedom [news.bbc.co.uk]Google's claim follows Viacom's move to sue the video sharing service for its inability to keep copyrighted material off its site.
In court documents Google's lawyers say the action "threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information" over the web.
Google has the money to actually pay lawsuits.
I think we have found the basis for this lawsuit, not to mention the previous tie-ups between Viacom and Microsoft... Something about cutting off Googles air supply.
Of course, they can usually be tracked down
Unless they do everything through a proxy, or a public computer, etc. But yes, most of the time people can usually be tracked via IP to ISP, but it is a pain. CC info would cut this workload down by a lot, and eliminate the untouchables.
But clearly, this is not in the best interest of Google, because Youtube would quickly die
That's why they need to pass a law requiring it. This would also save a lot of grief in the social networking sites as well. We all saw how hard it was to indict Lori Drew in that MySpace hoax suicide. Would she have thought twice about doing what she did if she had to give credit card information? Quite possibly. It would also save a lot of superfluous garbage pages being built, spammers, and children being preyed on.
And as much as it might initially bring down visit numbers, think of the add-ons Google could offer if it already had your CC info: Premium Content, Services, and Shopping would all be much easier to sell to the user if all they had to do was press 'OK' and then the CC would be charged. So it's not a completely bad thing.
In any case, the precedents we currently have in place do not address the current need for personal accountability on the web, so those measures have to be PUT in place. I for one, am all for it.
That's why they need to pass a law requiring it.
Well I'd trust Google with my CC info...but not a whole lot of sites after that. Smaller user generated sites would be crippled because for sure there would be sites popping up whose sole purpose would be using CC info for malicious purposes.
My concern isn't so much this case in particular, but a feeling I have that whenever important cases are argued dealing with the internet, they are be presided over by judges that lack even a basic understanding of of the internet. And at times jurors without the same understanding of how the internet works. Very big court cases that could change the future of arguably the most powerful thing on earth(the internet) are being steered by helmsmen that couldn't tell you the difference between a text link and an H1 tag. That's a concern to me that runs deeper than Viacom vs YouTube.
YouTube et al should require credit card information in order to allow users to upload digital media.
Because no one without a credit card has anything useful to add to the internet? Some of the funniest user created videos I've very seen on YouTube where done by kids that I'm sure don't have credit cards. There are third world people all over this planet that don't have credit cards but deserve an outlet for their creative voices. You'd be shutting out millions of people that haven't broken any law to protect yourself from a smaller number of law breakers. That's a poor solution.
for sure there would be sites popping up whose sole purpose would be using CC info for malicious purposes
I wholeheartedly agree, but like with any law I believe that small time sites can get away with being "under the radar" and not having to actually follow the rule until the turn into a high-profile, money making site that is forced by way of it's own popularity to actually follow the rules. There are plenty of sites out there right now breaking any number of laws you can think of that exist solely because of the fact that they are as small as they are.
As far as entering your information, ANY information into a website, that is the responsibility of the user and to that end, I ALSO believe in bringing internet awareness education into the schools. I'm amazed that there aren't already mandatory internet classes in schools today.
Because no one without a credit card has anything useful to add to the internet? Some of the funniest user created videos I've very seen on YouTube where done by kids that I'm sure don't have credit cards. There are third world people all over this planet that don't have credit cards but deserve an outlet for their creative voices. You'd be shutting out millions of people that haven't broken any law to protect yourself from a smaller number of law breakers. That's a poor solution.
First and foremost, let me clarify that I am only talking about US and European law here.
Also, with people uploading digital media, you're telling me that they can afford a digital camera but they can't afford to get a bank account and a debit card? Give me a break. Debit cards are the driver's license of the new millenium. If you can't get one, you're either homeless, lazy, or under legal age. I honestly think that requiring children to get their parent's permission to create an account where they upload their personal activities or otherwise to be a responsible route.
edit - posted before I saw WebPixie's reply
[edited by: Murdoch at 6:34 pm (utc) on May 27, 2008]
A few years later: zero difference; no slowing of the rate of change.
Will each one of the millions of videos uploaded have to be manually approved by on of the major copyright holders (do not think this judgment will help the little guy)?
As for the little guy, they get hurt more than anyone in the copyright infringment loop. They are the ones that don't have a powerful team of lawyers who can whip out C&Ds at their every request. They don't have the staff to go out and find their material being infringed on throughout the web.
But honestly, the biggest problem right now isn't Google, it's the outdated copyright laws. DMCA (safe harbor) gives these companies a loophole that they abuse. Until the legal side of things catches up to what is going on online, this issue will never be resolved.
DMCA (safe harbor) gives these companies a loophole that they abuse.
This law was only enacted in 1998 and was specifically designed for this circumstance. How can a 10 year old law already be out of date?
If the safeharbour clause was removed then ISP's and hosting companies would all go out of business and the USA would not have an internet industry to speak of.
As for illegal videos being only a small fraction of the number of videos, I suspect that's a useless measurement. I bet the number of illegal *downloads* is a lot more substantial percentage.
This case is about Google not doing enough, but they are doing everything required by law (and more) so this case is a real loser.
Nobody can even point to one video which is infringing, let alone one that is so good that it would stop most people from buying the original. Clips are allowed under fair use, if Viacom does not like it then they can send a takedown notice and if Google does not remove it then they can sue for each case.
when only 0.005% are POTENTIALLY infringing.
I don't think so. A good portion of the videos have full songs and already websites like Seeqpod and Songza have found ways to strip that music from YouTube and stream it on their own sites.
Of course, they use the excuse "well it's from YouTube so it's not our fault". I don't think people realize just how important this case is. It's not just about YouTube; it's about telling every video sharing site they can't willingly host copyrighted content because it's inconvenient to try and stop it.
If Google wins this continues for a long time. If Google loses we might might finally see some standards put in place.
Viacom vs YouTube = Metallica vs NapsterA few years later: zero difference; no slowing of the rate of change.
It went from everyone using Napster with no fear to "you can find free downloadable music out there but it's illegal and you're taking a risk". It's a HUGE difference. Ask all the college kids who got caught and had to pay fines around 100k.
This law was only enacted in 1998 and was specifically designed for this circumstance. How can a 10 year old law already be out of date?If the safeharbour clause was removed then ISP's and hosting companies would all go out of business and the USA would not have an internet industry to speak of.
Ten years is a long time. Lawmakers couldn't see how we'd be uploading videos minutes after they appeared on TV. DMCA needs to be updated to provide better protection for copyright holders while not destroying the internet at the same time.
I don't think so.
But Viacom DOES, they are the ones bring the case so I expect they will know. I am using an estimate of 3 billion videos and Viacoms figure of 150,000 infringing.
The law says that content owners have to issue a request for material to be taken down and that any ISP or host is not liable unless they refuse to comply with those requests. Nobody (including Viacom) have shown any evidence of YouTube refusing to take down content. There is no law being broken here so I doubt Viacom will ever get their $1 billion ($6,666.66 per infringement which they haven't asked to be taken down).
There are 20,000 legit videos for every one that is potentially infringing, to me that seems like a fairly good rate. Maybe they should compare it to other video sharing sites to see how good YouTube is at keeping infringing material off.
It doesn't need to be removed, just changed.
This is nothing to do with this case, it is about Viacom getting compensation. If you want to change the law then you have to go through the law makers not the courts. When the law is this explicit they have no chance in this case.
I think what we are talking about here is a bit more defined than fair use in comments. If this was true there would be a precedent for not allowing me to do what I just did in the above line by quoting your text.
But it is the same thing. If this case were to rule that Google is responsible for verifying copyright infringements for all videos submitted, what is to stop the next lawsuit against consumer articles/comments?
And again, I stated that this applies to "copyrighted" material. My comment that you "quoted" is considered fair-use, and even beyond that, my comment does not have valid copyrights that would hold up in a Federal court of law unless I register my comment and apply for a copyright.
Do you see where this is going? Anyone on any site that allows comments can cut and paste copyrighted material. Are you capable of researching and validating every piece of user-generated content to your site? I cannot think of any site (that allows user generated comments, articles, videos, whatever) that has those kind of resources. It is not practical.
A ruling of this kind would eventually cripple the growth of the internet. And that may be what some of these big media companies want, since user-generated content is growing every year and fast becoming their competition.
How can you say it is their business model or that it is why they are so popular when only 0.005% are POTENTIALLY infringing.
-9% of all videos were removed due to copyright violations.
-Viacom videos accounted for over 2% of all YouTube views.
These are just on videos that were found and removed. It is also as of last year after many companies had given up fighting YouTube and just cut deals with them on their material.
Whether numbers like that seem small, YouTube built it's userbase up in an age when anything went. Their site was filled with full TV shows, movies, and music videos. They have cracked down a lot on that over the years, but it still doesn't change the fact that the site became popular to many people due to the ability to upload copyrighted material.
Everyone needs to look at the big picture, the Google statement is right on the money.
Just to add the studios can't protect their own content yet expect Google to do it... pffft.
But it is the same thing. If this case were to rule that Google is responsible for verifying copyright infringements for all videos submitted, what is to stop the next lawsuit against consumer articles/comments?
But I do see the potential consequences of a ruling. Unfortunately, I don't know of any better solution at this time. Perhaps something that would punish repeat offenders who have shown a blatant disregard for their user submitted content. In any case, something needs to be done to protect copyright holders. We can't continue to freely distribute every movie, TV show, song, and written piece of work. Eventually people will stop creating, and that's a bigger problem than the loss of some social interaction on websites.
I just don't understand this argument. It's saying "I should be able to break the law if the law is time consuming to comply with". Liquor stores could then withold checking IDs, large companies could stop paying taxes.
This is exactly what Viacom is arguing. They are saying that there are too many videos for them to issue takedown requests so YouTube should monitor them (and be held responsible). The law REQUIRES Viacom to send takedown requests, so it is them who do not want to follow the law.
-9% of all videos were removed due to copyright violations.
Yet Viacom says they are not doing enough, they can get 9% down to 0.005%. I think thats a good hit rate myself.
This is exactly what Viacom is arguing. They are saying that there are too many videos for them to issue takedown requests so YouTube should monitor them (and be held responsible). The law REQUIRES Viacom to send takedown requests, so it is them who do not want to follow the law.
I don't know if I feel Viacom has a case at the moment, but I do feel current DMCA is flawed.
Yet Viacom says they are not doing enough, they can get 9% down to 0.005%. I think thats a good hit rate myself.
I just don't understand this argument. It's saying "I should be able to break the law if the law is time consuming to comply with". Liquor stores could then withold checking IDs, large companies could stop paying taxes.
No. Google is not breaking the law. The consumer who posts the content is the guilty party, and should be held accountable. Viacom should go after the consumer just like the music industry went after the consumers who were sharing music. Look at how far the music industry has come. Most folks buy their music now. Why? In part because the music lawyers went on a full attack of consumers.
This is also why systems such as copyscape exist. So folks can monitor any illegal use of their copyrighted content. Viacom does not have such a system, hence they are expecting the entire internet of websites to police their content that is being mis-used by consumers, not the site owners! Why should the site owners foot the bill for Viacom's inability to go after each and every consumer who is stealing from them?
What about blog pages? Is Wordpress.com now accountable for policing every blog they host? By this same ruling, they would be. No more user-blogs. Do you see where this is headed? What if they don't host it, what if an ISP hosts it. Well now that ISP is on the hook for validating all the blog content it hosts.
To say this is just about videos is to miss the entire point of just how bad this would be for the internet.
No. Google is not breaking the law. The consumer who posts the content is the guilty party, and should be held accountable. Viacom should go after the consumer just like the music industry went after the consumers who were sharing music. Look at how far the music industry has come. Most folks buy their music now. Why? In part because the music lawyers went on a full attack of consumers.
As for music, have you not seen what has happened to the music industry? Sales have been dropping year after year at exponential rates. A study in January found that 95% of music downloads are illegal. I wouldn't exactly call that progress.
This is also why systems such as copyscape exist. So folks can monitor any illegal use of their copyrighted content. Viacom does not have such a system, hence they are expecting the entire internet of websites to police their content that is being mis-used by consumers, not the site owners! Why should the site owners foot the bill for Viacom's inability to go after each and every consumer who is stealing from them?
What about blog pages? Is Wordpress.com now accountable for policing every blog they host? By this same ruling, they would be. No more user-blogs. Do you see where this is headed? What if they don't host it, what if an ISP hosts it. Well now that ISP is on the hook for validating all the blog content it hosts.
You can claim that no one is responsible for copyright theft, that no one should ever have to pay. But what happens when people stop creating because of it. When movies, TV shows, books are no longer profitible. We're seeing the music industry die and TV network ratings drop. I find a world where it is no longer profitible to create something unique more dangerous than one where people have to moderate their sites more heavily.
Sorry to dissapoint you Murdoch but you can easily get a CC without giving any personal information, at least in the UK and most of Europe
I stand corrected on that. Thank you. I guess I will have to restrict my comments to US law only. And even then, with prepaid cards here in the US, it may make it a bit more difficult to pursue as well. I'm not sure if it is easy to tell a prepaid card apart from one that is connected to an actual account (Anyone know this?)
As much as I would love to argue this further, I don't think it's going to go much further than it already has in terms of user viewpoint. My final opinion is basically:
1. User generated content such as writing is completely different and much more relative than easily verifiable digital media. Therefore, while I can't say for sure that it would be protected, I would expect it to be.
2. I do not condone the fact that Google has copyrighted content on their sites. However a verification process should be in place to dissuade people from uploading copyrighted content, and then Google could shift the blame/lawsuit onto the users themselves rather than try to defend some BS "internet freedom" argument.
The credit/debit card solution is the best (only?) means of verification I can think where the information is both secret to all but the user, and easily verified via electronic means. (But apparently only in the US). Hey I didn't say it would be a perfect solution :)
-Doc
2. I do not condone the fact that Google has copyrighted content on their sites. However a verification process should be in place to dissuade people from uploading copyrighted content, and then Google could shift the blame/lawsuit onto the users themselves rather than try to defend some BS "internet freedom" argument.
It's not as simple as that though. Google is providing the landscape for the illegal act to take place. How is it different than if I allow drug dealers to sell from my home?
If you want to use this example, please make it a more realistic/fair comparison. It would be like a mayor of a city managing millions of people living in the city, and allowing a small percentage of those inhabitants to deal drugs simply because they can't catch them all. Should the mayor be thrown in jail? There is no way of catching them all. But look at how the system works, and how it has worked for hundreds of years. A crime is committed against a person, that person has the right to go after the criminal. Not the landlord where the criminal lives, not the employer where the criminal works, not the mayor of the town where the criminal has been dealing for years... The law goes after the criminal. And you can say that major knows these drug dealers are out there, but does that make him guilty of their crimes?
As for music, have you not seen what has happened to the music industry? Sales have been dropping year after year at exponential rates. A study in January found that 95% of music downloads are illegal. I wouldn't exactly call that progress.
Online music sales are breaking records every year. Yes, it is true no one is buying CD's any more. We all buy it online now.
If you want to use this example, please make it a more realistic/fair comparison. It would be like a mayor of a city managing millions of people living in the city, and allowing a small percentage of those inhabitants to deal drugs simply because they can't catch them all. Should the mayor be thrown in jail? There is no way of catching them all. But look at how the system works, and how it has worked for hundreds of years. A crime is committed against a person, that person has the right to go after the criminal. Not the landlord where the criminal lives, not the employer where the criminal works, not the mayor of the town where the criminal has been dealing for years... The law goes after the criminal. And you can say that major knows these drug dealers are out there, but does that make him guilty of their crimes?
You are correct that a landlord isn't charged if he doesn't know what it going on. But the argument is that Google does know what's going on. They do know that people are uploading copyrighted content. Landlords of strip clubs and massage parlors are charged all the time for prostitution that takes place inside. Owners of liquor stores and gas stations are ticketed with selling tobacco/alcohol to underage people daily.
Online music sales are breaking records every year. Yes, it is true no one is buying CD's any more. We all buy it online now.
