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.
Digitalghost please post more of those headlines. They had me rolling.
It's total BS, but that doesn't matter. That statement is the equivalent of saying laws threaten people that abide by them. But the Google spin machine wants people to hear that Internet freedom is threatened, and sadly, that's what the majority of the people will hear.
Internet freedom is very possibly at issue here. Common sense tells us this, not the Google spin machine.
When the websites start requiring credit card information in order to upload content.
That's discrimination, not a viable solution. I know well adjusted, law abiding adults that don't have credit cards. And I live in the US, think about the rest of the world.
DMCA
The DMCA is a very good point here. A lot of people didn't like it but it accomplished some very good things..
1) Made service providers responsible for content they host but only once they had been informed of an individual issue.
2) It stopped a lot of these kinds of lawsuits before they started.
This relates to every website that allows consumers to contribute content
Yes! This is what the majority of posters in this thread don't seem to be thinking about.
If a website/service provider is responsible for user generated/uploaded content even before they have not been informed about an individual case of infringement then this effectively destroys the business model of every community driven website.
And hobby/not for profit community websites? No chance.
The other thing to think about, as with any internet related law/precedent, is that if you create a limit that makes a certain kind of business impossible in your country then that business will move somewhere else.
In the end all you accomplish is the weakening of your position in the global economy.
That's discrimination, not a viable solution. I know well adjusted, law abiding adults that don't have credit cards
That's not discrimination, it's reality. You need credit to own a house, you need a background check to own a gun, you need money to buy stuff.
And for the love of pete, I'm sorry all I mentioned was credit cards in my first post. What I meant to say was credit/debit cards, or at least a verifiable bank account. SOMETHING short of a social security number to track your online activities with.
user generated/uploaded content
It is a fallacy to equate user "generated" content with user "uploaded" or user "contributed" content. They may often overlap, but they're not synonymous.
The lawsuit is not about user generated content so people should stop saying that!
[edited by: buckworks at 9:51 pm (utc) on May 27, 2008]
As for music, have you not seen what has happened to the music industry? Sales have been dropping year after year at exponential rates.
There's more to it than pirated music. The CD actually broke to some degree the long standing business model of mass media companies of selling you the same content multiple times, there's plenty of people like me who have already bought most of the albums they want and simply have no need for any more. :)
BTW if I want an album I just head to the local CD shop and save myself $10 instead of buying some DRM infested low bitrate audio clip. There's multiple reasons other than copyright infringement for the downslide of music sales.
They may often overlap, but they're NOT synonymous.
Semantics? Every kind of user generated content I can think of could potentially contain copyright infringement?
It is a fallacy to equate user "generated" content with user "uploaded" or user "contributed" content. They may often overlap, but they're not synonymous.
That's true, but how do you differentiate generated content from contributed content? How can Google? How can anyone other than the author of said content... not the uploader, but the actual author?
It would be great if everyone who posted something somewhere said, "Oh, by the way, I didn't create this so it's infringing somebody's copyright", but that doesn't happen in the real world. We can talk about what 'should' be or what in a perfect world 'would' be all day. The reality is that, at least for now, expecting YouTube or any other user contributed (generated or not) content site to police every posting isn't practical in the least. Think that means YouTube should shut down? Ok, we can also get rid of MySpace, FaceBook, any online forum, and every site that allows you to send a personalized greeting card.
That's the point of the DMCA. Don't get me wrong, I have copyrighted works too, and don't want to see them splattered all over the net either. I would love for there to be some great technology that just 'knows' if a posting is infringing upon a copyright somewhere. Unfortunately there isn't, and YouTube shouldn't be expected to fulfill that role.
Want an analogy? How about a bulletin board in the grocery store? Around here many stores have them for selling puppies or giving away kittens... etc. What if someone walks by and posts a copy of a New York Times article? Should the store be held responsible for that? The store is making money at that location, and they own the board. Could the New York Times sue them for copyright infringement? I understand that the New York Times isn't very likely to walk into the store, but how would such a case be handled if they did?
I'm sure there are gaps between my analogy and what's really going on... such is the nature of an analogy, but it seems close enough.
It would be great if everyone who posted something somewhere said, "Oh, by the way, I didn't create this so it's infringing somebody's copyright", but that doesn't happen in the real world.
A lot of people aren't even aware that what they are doing is infringement. I don't know how many times I've had to delete entire copies of news articles posted on my forum.
Oh, by the way, I didn't create this so it's infringing somebody's copyright", but that doesn't happen in the real world.
In the very real world of ethical publishing, if I want to publish something I didn't create, I get permission from the copyright holder AND I provide full attribution to the source.
Re your analogy: posting a single physical clipping out of an issue of the New York Times that was fairly bought and paid for is very different from someone republishing the same article around the world without permission.
if it were up to him, he'd sue every one on the planet who uploaded and downloaded a song, movie or video. aside: On the flipside, Paramount (a Viacom related co) seemed pretty cool about it
and Will.I.Am (ala Black Eyed Peas) was the exact opposite, promoting idea of figuring out how to make illegal uploaders/downloaders into "friends". Having some of the most popular downloaded (illegal) songs on the net, yet still with more than 10,000,000 album SOLD.... he was "proof in the pudding" that people will BUY good content regardless of the availability of it for free illegally.
He went as far to say illegal up/downloaders were like "free promoters" of his music.
The Investor panel even painted an even rosier picture of future mega businesses being one of open content uses licenses--and sorting out the rights and money later (theoretical posit). And these are the guys fronting money.
Point is:
Google is certainly overstating. But still...
Redstone (and his agenda) came off like a dinosaur in an age of .... no dinosaurs.
Even if he wins the battle... he'll never win the war. imho.
And the "make enemies my friend" line of thinkers...
rings true to me (and my experience).
I have bought DVDs/albums, gone to movie theater or learned new shows that I otherwise would never have if not for these uploaders (ie: it generated interest enough for me to want to buy the original product). There are plenty of cases of illegal uploaders creating/fueling the market for characters or movies that would have fallen off the map otherwise.
That is GOOD for business.
but maybe that's just how I saw it cause I want to. But I'd love to see a "study" on the quanifying intangible GOOD effects illegal up/downs.
Eitherway...time will tell.
ok. so now... in the meantime, off to watch some movies on yout... er... I mean.... checking my video distribution promotions. ^^
[edited by: GrendelKhan_TSU at 10:46 pm (utc) on May 27, 2008]
In the very real world of ethical publishing, if I want to publish something I didn't create, I get permission from the copyright holder AND I provide full attribution to the source.
Indeed, but that isn't the real world we're discussing here. We're discussing the world of user uploaded content on the internet, and no matter how much anyone would like it to be like ethical publishing... it isn't, and probably won't ever be. Good or bad, that's the way it is... and Google is no more responsible for that than Napster or BitTorrent; they've simply taken a market gap and filled it with software that plugs the holes.
Google doesn't have a leg, legal or moral to stand on. My expressions are as much my possessions as my car or my house - and if I sell the right to use those expressions to a business they have as much a right to protection against getting ripped off as I did before I sold the rights.
Freedom? Rubbish.
Google has a massive leg to stand on, the entire DMCA is designed to remove their liability.
It is nothing to do with everything being free, it has to do with Google's willingness to take down offending content. They do that regularly and are more than willing. Viacom are the ones who do not want to comply with the law, they would rather it was bypassed and they had direct access to remove anything they do not like.
In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, a service provider who hosts content must:
- have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, infringing activity on its network
- have a copyright policy and provide proper notification of that policy to its subscribers
- list an agent to deal with copyright complaints
Let's see...
1) ...have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, infringing activity on its network
Ho-hum. Youtube certainly has knowledge of infringing activity on their network. (Is it a network? Isn't it just a service?) Also, who actually removes, say, adult content proactively? Youtube certainly does this, but if they start monitoring their service to remove adult content, they should also be able to monitor their service for (blatant, obvious) copyright infringements and remove these.
And, indirectly, they also benefit financially from the infringing activity, as the infringing activity drove traffic towards the service. Also, the service is monetized elsewhere through ads.
Looking at this pre-requisite alone makes me feel that Youtube is *not* protected by the DMCA and the safe harbour.
P.S. Your if statement would short-circuit at this statement "Infringing == Stealing". It only makes people sound extemist when they make assertions like that, even Viacom is in on the act which cannot help their case. Judges are normally sensible people and they can see through this corporate bluster.
I just love how people try to justify infringement as something other than stealing.
Whoever opens a moral compass repair shop could make a killing seeing as so many got broken on the internet.
I suspect a lot of people benefit indirectly from copyright infringement, but it does not make them guilty, ISP's almost certainly benefit financially yet they are not sued, they get paid for every Mb of pirated movie that people download.
I just love how people try to justify infringement as something other than stealing.
Maybe TO YOU it is just as bad as stealing and therefore the same thing, but the law treats it very differently. Anyone who is trying to make a legal case would not try to claim that copyright infringement is stealing, which is why I am surprised that Viacom's lawyer would mention it (or you to be honest).
Also, who actually removes, say, adult content proactively? Youtube certainly does this, but if they start monitoring their service to remove adult content, they should also be able to monitor their service for (blatant, obvious) copyright infringements and remove these.
It would be a lot easier to do it with adult content.I don't know how they do it but I'd imagine they might start by extracting a few random frames from the video. They could examine them for a large amount of errrrr.... skin tones... and flag them for further review. They may also possibly just have a human quickly scan the extracted frames. or...... maybe an audio based filter that looks for specific..ummmm types of sounds without any dialog.
Porn would be a lot easier to filter than regualr video, plus there are places that welcome it so why even bother. You'll also have the community itself and they'd be able to pick adult content out like that fairly quickly and 'd venture to guess more likely to flag it.
I am sure there are loads of infringements which Google has refused to take down because they make so much money from it.
You seem to not catch the point here.
In fact, it does not matter whether or not they take down a video or follow the takedown process by the letter. I think Ýoutube is NOT protected by the DMCA safe harbour because they do not qualify for it in the first place. There are tons of ads on their service, maybe not on the infringing videos (they are too smart to do that), but they are attracting a big crowd to their service BECAUSE OF the infringing activity going on. That could be constructed as case for "financial benefiting", i.e. no DMCA protection.
And once they are not protected by the DMCA safe harbour any longer, well, it's copyright infringement, plain and simple.
[news.cnet.com...]
In complaint #6 they say
YouTube has also implemented features that prevent copyright owners from finding infringing videos by searching the YouTube site.
But in complaint #31 they explain how easy it is for a user to find infringing content.
YouTube creates the thumbnails, which are individual frames from videos in its library – including infringing videos – for the purpose of helping users find what they are searching for. For example, users looking for Plaintiffs’ popular works might type in search terms such as “MTV,” “Stephen Colbert,” “Beavis and Butthead,” or “SpongeBob.” YouTube then returns a list with thumbnails of matching videos in its library, and the user can select and view a video from the list of matches by clicking on the thumbnail created and supplied by YouTube for this purpose. YouTube then publicly performs the chosen video by sending streaming video content from YouTube’s servers to the user’s computer, where it can be viewed by the user.
So somehow Google has made search so that Viacom employees cannot use it, but users can. Hmmmm... They are just trying to get out of their obligation to report infringing content AND they want a billion dollars for their trouble so far.
zett: AFAIK Copyright holders still have to send takedown notices even if they think that the host is financially benefiting, they cannot just ignore their responsibility and then sue because they believe the law does not apply in this case.
If it is the case that YouTube invalidates the law by making a profit and Viacom does not have to issue a takedown request then as Google says, the freedom of the internet would be affected because anyone could have this case brought against them without them knowing about the infringing content. The USA economy would suffer as all of the hosting companies move elsewhere so it would really only affect the freedoms of US citizens, but it would affect it.
They are just trying to get out of their obligation to report infringing content AND they want a billion dollars for their trouble so far.
This is the part which I can't understand at all, where is one supposed to get the resources to monitor copyrighted videos uploaded on daily basis, while you just sit back and enjoy the revenue.
Aren't they, no matter how much time it takes for Youtube/Google to verify that a certain material is ok to be shared, supposed to verify the content?
This is the part which I can't understand at all, where is one supposed to get the resources to monitor copyrighted videos uploaded on daily basis, while you just sit back and enjoy the revenue.
The law says it is the copyright holders responsibility, they claim users are able to find this content easily, yet they can't. If the law should be changed then Viacom should 'lobby' the law makers, not take civil action in the courts. The courts only operate against the current law and the DMCA is very explicit in this case so Viacom have no chance.
Aren't they, no matter how much time it takes for Youtube/Google to verify that a certain material is ok to be shared, supposed to verify the content?
The law (not me) says a very firm no to this question, it is the copyright holders responsibility. No matter how long it takes Viacom to check it.
This is really the problem here, filtering the content is very hard. It is virtually impossible for YouTube because they have an unlimited amount of copyright to check against. It is much easier for Viacom because they own a limited amount and they can verify what is authorised and what is not. Viacom cannot just say it is YouTubes responsibility because the law says it is theirs.
P.S. zett : I think you are misquoting the DMCA, I found the actual text and it is much more explicit than the website you are quoting.
a) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
I have highlighted the parts which I think are very important. You cannot have the material if it is not named, also actual knowledge implies knowing about a specific piece of work.
You can't go trampling over the rights and privileges of the masses just to protect the interests of a few corporations because of a few bad apples. Sites shouldn't be encouraging piracy and removing the material as they become aware of it. Ultimately though the responsibility should be that of who posted it and the copyright owner. All I'm doing is providing a service, the analogy of the grocery store with the bulletin board is quite a good one. An entire community should not have to suffer because of a few.
If sites containing user generated content are going to be held accountable for such material before its even posted then they'll go away. Your "mom and pop" forums and non-profits will be the first on the list. As suggested by another poster it will ultimately just move elsewhere outside of the reach of the copyright laws. In fact the situation would probably get worse but its never been said the mass media corporations were the smartest where this is concerned. They need to rethink their strategy and find a better business model. Shutting down Youtube is not going to make the issue go away. It's like that whack-a-mole game, they hit one on the head and five others pop up somewhere else.
AFAIK Copyright holders still have to send takedown notices even if they think that the host is financially benefiting
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of the DMCA is that this is the case.
If this were not the case, as mike pointed out, service providers would be liable for all copyrighted material they host even before they are informed.
Every time someone found infringement within a hosting network, or on a web forum, etc., they would immediately be entitled to sue the service provider (as opposed to the customer or poster).
To use a popular argument from this thread... Certainly, like YouTube, every web host and community site online is aware that they are potentially hosting copyrighted works and should therefore be liable?
If the courts were to adopt this kind of thinking the internet as we know it could not exist. At least not in the US...
Maybe TO YOU it is just as bad as stealing and therefore the same thing, but the law treats it very differently.
OK, give me a link to your website where you make all your money so I can clone it and make that money instead and see if you treat it differently.
To use a popular argument from this thread... Certainly, like YouTube, every web host and community site online is aware that they are potentially hosting copyrighted works and should therefore be liable?
Facilitation is the key for me. A random web host isn't necessarily actively facilitating copyright infringment unless they have shown a long history for hosting offenders. The same would be said for video sharing sites. If you could prove that the site/host has consistently been responsible for hosting copyrighted material, then that would seemingly make them a facilitator.
Right now the laws are just too vague and hurt copyright holders. There needs to be some evening out in this arena. The ability for services to not have to worry about the threat of constant lawsuits, while at the same time being liable if they show a continual facilitation for copyright infringment.
The major flaw in DMCA is that it encourages companies like Google not to fight infringment. The minute they start actively monitoring their videos and pulling out obvious cases of copyright infringment, they lose their safe harbor status.
If you could prove that the site/host has consistently been responsible for hosting copyrighted material, then that would seemingly make them a facilitator.
As a result of actively defending my own copyrights, I could easily prove that countless sites/hosts have been responsible for hosting copyrighted material consistently and repeatedly.
If I were to get together with a few other webmasters we could make an airtight case to that effect.
Fortunately proving this would mean nothing in court (I hope). What web service can afford the staff to review every page available on their network and every change in every page on their network?
If the host were to advertise bulletproof hosting for copyright infringers it would be different. I don't think there's any evidence of YouTube doing that.
What web service can afford the staff to review every page available on their network and every change in every page on their network?
OK, give me a link to your website where you make all your money so I can clone it and make that money instead and see if you treat it differently.
The argument isn't that it's RIGHT to infringe. The argument is that the courts, according to current laws, cannot classify it as theft. If I gave you a link to my most profitable website and you duplicated it, I couldn't take you to court for theft. I could file a DMCA on you, and depending on the circumstances I may be able to sue you... but only because you knowingly copied the content yourself and placed it on the internet.
Should I be able to sue your web host as well for giving you the means to infringe upon my copyright?
Part of the problem is that some of us are arguing moral implications and others are arguing legal implications. I don't think there's anyone in this thread that thinks Viacom should't protect their copyright or that infringement is good... but legally I don't think they have a case here.
I couldn't take you to court for theft
I don't care how you quibble the semantics, it's theft.
If we were in a video store and I shoplifted a hard copy DVD they'd cart me off to jail.
Sadly, on the internet it's called intangible goods and "infringement" yet the end results are the same, you took something that didn't belong to you.
If the status changes and states start taxing on intangible goods, such as California is attempting to do to get taxes from iTunes, then the line between infringement and theft gets a lot thinner and eventually I think the digital copying of a work, esp. when you upload it for others to use, will become the same as taking a tangible item and the tax laws will lead the way to this change IMO.
