Webmasterworld can't do it though, if I post a copyrighted text right now its going to reside on this server until it's deleted. That's the point I've been trying to make. Without pre-moderation of everthing which is basically what they want to Google to do it can't be done.

Lets me give you another example, suppose I post some copyrighted text here from another obscure source that just happens to fit into this discussion. Relistically there is no way the mods could determine that it was copyrighted.

It may be very easy to spot video that is copyrighted but that will not always be the case and it will be lot harder if not impossible for text and images. As I mentioned in a previous post one of the reasons youtube does a good job filtering out adult content is that its very easy to spot. One person could scan hundreds of videos in seconds if they have a few random frames from each video, adult content would stick out like a sore thumb.

Expecting Google to check submissions for legality isn't fair to Google. It's not about quantity, sometimes it's just hard to tell if works are copyrighted or not. The only way to fix this problem is to store actual user information and warn users that "hey, if you upload infringing material, we won't hesistate to tell the authorities who you are and where you live".

Obviously not what Google wants but I don't see another way.

I do not think that a copyright violation for a few minutes does actually count. The community here is very good at notifying the staff, and staff is very good at deleting posts quickly.

Also, Webmasterworld is certainly not known for its blatant and massive copyright violations by the members.

BUT, let's suppose, just for a minute, that pre-moderation might be necessary. What would Brett do? Hire a few more moderators (or maybe even volunteers?) and then let them do the pre-moderation. Probably it would take just a few minutes for a post to appear.

This could also work for any other site, including Youtube. However, this clearly is not wanted by those who actually earn traffic (eyeballs market share) and money from the massive infringements going on. If you were Youtube, wouldn't you LOVE the idea of making money off other people's content?

Expecting Google to check submissions for legality isn't fair to Google.

But it's fair for the copyright owners? Since when are we talking about "fairness" in this thread? And is the infringing activity fair to the rightful owners of a piece of digital content?

I like the idea of validated user information very much. This would immediately reduce infringements massively. Once people know they can and will be tracked down, they will think twice before posting a clip or two. Then throw in community monitoring and pre-moderation where necessary, and voila, Youtube is clean.

But - let's face it - Youtube would be darn boring if all the cool clips were missing, right? How many people would still turn towards Youtube if all they got is dark and shaky clips made by teenagers with their mediocre mobile phone? Not many.

As I mentioned in a previous post one of the reasons youtube does a good job filtering out adult content is that its very easy to spot.

Sorry, not buying it.
The utter absence of adult content on youtube undermines their position. Clearly, they have teams of people scouring the place for infringements of youtube TOS. Adult content works against the business plan, and they are super efficient at stopping it. I have never, ever seen adult content on youtube, but I have found almost every music video clip I have looked for.

So this shows that it is possible for youtube to enforce content rules (just as webmasterworld does). They simply enforce the ones that are part of their plan to make money.

But it's fair for the copyright owners? Since when are we talking about "fairness" in this thread? And is the infringing activity fair to the rightful owners of a piece of digital content?

No, it's definitely not fair to them. The only people that should be held responsible is the users themselves...unless you'd rather have all user-generated content be removed from the web.

I have never, ever seen adult content on youtube

Just because they remove it before you see it doesn't mean that others didn't get to see it before it was removed.

Just because they remove it before you see it doesn't mean that others didn't get to see it before it was removed.

oh sure... I agree completely. I mentioned it merely because it shows they can be diligent when they want to be, and that they already have systems in place to monitor content.
I applaud their diligence on that front, but it just makes their negligence on the Copyright front all the more blatant and hypocritical.

I mentioned it merely because it shows they can be diligent when they want to be, and that they already have systems in place to monitor content.

It must be 100 times easier to identify porn... Porn is porn, it doesn't matter whos porn it is. It would also have very high levels of flesh tones in it so its very easy to identify algorithmically.

Copyrighted content on the other hand could be anything and it will not always be easy to identify if a particular piece is violating its copyright or not. It is impossible for Google to identify other peoples copyright because there is no database of everything copyrighted and the terms of any license with third-parties.

The whole "adult content" angle is very very dangerous for Google.

Remember, the DMCA was created in 1998. Originally, it was intended to protect web hosts who offered hosting services! When a web host (who owns the hardware) rents out a space to someone who thinks it is a good idea to run the domain "getallwidgets4free.com" then he should be protected by the DMCA. He did not KNOW what content Mr. Dumb was hosting, unless the rightful owner actually notified him of the infringement going on.

IF, however, the ISP starts to monitor his clients and the content they are uploading, THEN he might not be protected by the law. To remain in the safe harbor, the service provider must not have actual knowledge of the infringing material before it receives notice, or must not be “aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent.” - Now, if, for example, there were circumstances that made an infringing activity likely (e.g. high view counts), and a Google/Youtube employee manually checked the respective page, THEN they might have actual knowledge of the infringement going on. Or, if they are on their quest to eliminate adult content, they might stumble upon copyright infringements instead. Again: they might have actual knowledge. Is the presence of certain keywords (e.g. MTV in conjunction with the name of a singer) AND a high view count AND a good rating a sign of a potential infringing activity? If yes, did Google/Youtube take a look? Could they have seen that the clip in question was an infringing activity?

Also, the term "financial benefits" in the law can be interpreted wildly. Is driving traffic to a page already a benefit? Is showing ads next to a thumbnail of a photo still of an infringing clip already a financial benefit?

These will all be topics to be explored by the court, and I really really hope Viacom wins!

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Google register a patent that can discern copyrighted content using digital fingerprints?

That's what I see here [arstechnica.com] anyway. But I'm not sure if they actually had the technology working. If they did wouldn't it just be easier to get the takedown request from copyright holder and then add the fingerprint to their database?

Regarding text in posts and writer and attorney Daniel Sitarz [findarticles.com]

You can use copyrighted information relatively freely for certain purposes--for research, or for simply reporting as in a reference in a newsletter. You can use it for teaching, and you can use it for criticism--say, a critical article outlining an opinion about something else that has been published. Those uses are acceptable without obtaining permission from the owner.

That's why I think that quoting text in an article will remain protected, and therefore the majority of these user-generated sites you guys are worrying about. However the same rules cannot apply for a medium such as digital video and audio where the copyright holder is clearly losing money by having copies of its material hosted on a large, rampantly under-moderated site such as YouTube.

Zett - This is no different from the web host situation. Google provides a service for users to host their videos. By all accounts, the most popular videos on YouTube are not copyright infringing. As I've said, I don't think Google is just sitting idly by while people upload infringing material. Just because you assume they're greedily rubbing their hands together while laughing all the way to the bank does not mean they are. Given the size of the userbase and the sheer number of videos being uploaded, I don't think it's logistically possible to pre-moderate all those videos.

If you take YouTube down? A site in Sweden (or wherever piratesbay is) pops up three days later, immune from U.S. Law, and with the disenfranchised userbase of youtube looking for it. Illegal content sharing cannot be stopped without simply taking the internet down. And even then, people will still share DVDs and CDs and tape casettes if it comes down to it. In the words of the great Trent Resnor: On hands and knees we crawl, you cannot stop us all. So how do we solve this problem then..?

Instead of worrying about how much money they're losing, Viacom should think about how they can use YouTube to their advantage. Prior to this lawsuit, I could imagine Google being open to a partnership. Yes, we'll host all the music videos you guys want, and we'll share profits.

So rather than throwing millions into attempting to fight the DMCA and get a billion quick big ones from Google, set yourself up for a partnership that stops infringing at its source. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. That's how the saying goes, right? Amirite?

If you take YouTube down?

The most that could happen to YouTube is users are responsible legally for the content they post. It would hurt Google incredibly if they did that so Google will fight this as hard as they can.

the most popular videos on YouTube are not copyright infringing

Did a Youtube search for "MTV" a second ago:

“MTV” video results 1 - 20 of about 452,000

#1 - music video, 268,000 views
#2 - MTV Roadies episode, 64,000 views
#3 - Some MTV awards, 2,664,000 views
#4 - music video, 23,965,000 views
#5 - Britney at the MTV awards, 590,000 views

and so on, and so on. And Youtube actively HELPS me to find even more stuff! They suggest...

Also try: mtv movie awards, mtv unplugged, mtv awards, mtv cribs, 15 minutos mtv, akon, 50 cent, 4 minutes

Doh!

Certainly you can find some user generated content, somewhere on Youtube. And maybe some of these clips also see a significant number of views, but I still think that the majority of attractive content is copyright protected. This is whaat draws the masses in. not some shaky clip by a teenager with a mediocre mobile phone.

Enter ANY brand name, TV show, band name, actor name, movie title, song title, and see what comes up. Now compare the view counts of the quality productions (i.e. ripped by some Youtube user) with the view counts of the amateur productions. And then tell me, with a straight face, that Youtube is all about user generated content. ;-)

A site in Sweden (or wherever piratesbay is) pops up three days later, immune from U.S. Law

Well, the European laws are probably much tighter than the U.S. laws. The introduction of DMCA was the worst thing that could happen to producers of unique content.

Well, the European laws are probably much tighter than the U.S. laws.

Yeah - that is why Pirate Bay is based in Sweden, have you ever seen their site?

Well, Zett, you're right. Many of the videos are in fact copyright protected materials.

But wait; let's take a moment for a second and review the most popular videos. Justin Timberlake, anyone?

Do a search for Justin Timberlake and you will undoubtedly see a large number of music videos. In fact, if you just look at the popular videos from all time, you'll see many music videos. But take a closer look at who's uploading those videos. I, in fact, encourage you to click on their names. Maybe not in all cases, but in many cases the person posting it is an official representative of the musician! Possibly even the record company.

Personally I don't watch much TV, so I'm not so sure what's popular these days. Nonetheless, I've tried. I've heard a lot about Heroes, so I search for that and I find: some more music videos (posted from official sources), a few trailers, and some bootleg clips from live concerts.

Okay, so that was a bust, IMO. A show I do watch is Naruto. Now, there's GOTTA be some clips from this. But no, I see cosplayers, user-generated FLASH ANIMATIONS (something you seem to be forgetting about), and fanart slideshows set to music (a strain on fair-use, but technically valid, I suppose).

Apparently I get some different content on my search for MTV. Over half of the top results returned for me were posted by UniversalMusicGroup, an official collection of record labels.

Maybe this doesn't prove that YouTube is about user-generated content (and I am still telling you with a straight face that YouTube, for me, has always been about User-Generated Content; I may search for a music video every once in awhile, but if I'm there it's to watch the world make an ass of itself), but it does prove that the suggested criteria for a copyright infringing video simply doesn't work. Most of those official videos had several million views and high user ratings. More importantly, they were not in violation of copyright laws!

Just for the record, I have seen user-generated videos with views in that range as well; it's not just music. There is some really EXCELLENT work that is put into videos that are posted on youtube: between animators, flash developers, and video-majors looking for critiquing, I will say that yes, YouTube is about the user-generated content.

The number of videos on the service is ridiculous, and as stated previously the number of copyright-infringing videos is around 160,000 or 0.005% of the total (don't recall if that was correct, feel free to rip me a new one if I was wrong), and with views totalling around 1 billion. I'll compare that to one video with over 90 million views and say that their loss is truly not that great.

As I said before, Viacom's best option is to join them, not sue them. I didn't even know that some record companies already had!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT:
PirateBay was started by a Swedish Anti-Copyright group in 2003. There are currently no laws in Sweden prohibiting what they are doing. 0 torrents have been removed, 0 torrents will ever be removed according to their site.

You quote a full article? Post will be deleted.

Irrelevant, the infringement has already happened. Are some of the implications starting to sink in now? :-)

The utter absence of adult content on youtube undermines their position. Clearly, they have teams of people scouring the place for infringements of youtube TOS.

Well I don't know how they do it but even one or two people could probably filter all the video for adult content simply because its so easy to spot. Just as an example if they generated 5 random frames from the length of the video then served them up to the person doing the filtering that person could easily review hundreds of clips in seconds. I'd imagine just about anyone could spot a porn image if shown a random set of hundreds or even thousands of thumbnails. I'll bet if you uploaded a clip with adult content edited into the middle of it that it would get through. :)

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Google register a patent that can discern copyrighted content using digital fingerprints?

The audio is probably possible but as I suggested in another thread the video would be very hard to do. There' too many things you can do to it and the processing power alone to do this would be enormous even for Google.

> absence of adult content on youtube undermines their position.

95% of adult content is spotted by an algo. The other 5% is done via reported feedback.

The majority of all adult films will have a human "flesh tone" color on the screen on 50% of the screen for over 80% of the video. Once you know the range of human flesh tone color, you can write an algo to reliably predict if a video is adult oriented or not. Most of the major video engines have adult detection technology.