homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.173.169
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Content, Writing and Copyright
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: not2easy

Content, Writing and Copyright Forum

This 57 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 57 ( 1 [2]     
YouTube Sued Over Copyright Infringement
engine




msg:3014483
 2:19 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

A journalist and well-known helicopter pilot in Los Angeles has filed suit against video-sharing site YouTube, claiming that it encouraged users to violate copyright law.

Robert Tur says video he shot of the beating of trucker Reginald Denny during the 1992 Los Angeles riots was posted at YouTube without his permission and viewed more than 1,000 times. Tur says in his lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court, that YouTube is profiting from his work while hurting his ability to license his video.

"Mr. Tur's lawsuit is without merit," YouTube said in a statement. "YouTube is a service provider that complies with all the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and therefore is entitled to the full protections of the safe harbor provisions of the Act."

YouTube Sued Over Copyright Infringement [news.com.com]

 

incrediBILL




msg:3016358
 7:22 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

The company are making full use of the DMCA by taking the stance that they are not directly responsible for any content posted via their service.

That's garbage when you know your service is full of ill gotten material.

It's one thing to be a WEB HOST with thousands of accounts and each customer builds a website independently where the host really doesn't have a clue or the nature or purpose of each website, as it's unfeasible to check all the sites, so the DMCA safeharbor makes sense in that case.

In Youtubes case, just like Napster, the site they built is designed to most likely host copyright infringing material as the majority of the public posting these files don't have the talent to make videos, just like the majority didn't have talent to make their own music. Therefore the only logical conclusion you can reasonably expect is people posting files that they do not have the authority to post, aka copyright infringement, which isn't what the safeharbor is about.

Building a service like Youtube invites rampant copyright abuse by it's very nature so the MPAA should get off their butts and zap this site.

farmboy




msg:3016478
 9:41 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

It is technically not feasible to monitor thousands of submissions.

That doesn't exempt them from following the law.

FarmBoy

bobothecat




msg:3016481
 9:46 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

YouTube Sued Over Copyright Infringement

Hopefully they'll go down the tubes.

farmboy




msg:3016493
 9:49 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

I honestly don't understand why people cannot see that it is just plain wrong to do this. It costs me time and money to protect my website content. If copyright infringement did not exist this is one expense I would not have.

When I first heard about Webmaster World, I heard about it being a good place to find people with professional attitudes about websites, affiliate programs, ecommerce, etc. and I have found that to be true.

Since coming here, the one thing that has surprised me more than any other is the number of people who seem to have so little respect for intellectual property/copyright. You can find it here, over on the AdSense forum, etc.

The attitude seems to be, "I want it therefore it's OK for me to take it."

I hope it's only just a minority of people that are making me think it's a larger number, but it has been surprising and eye-opening.

FarmBoy

incrediBILL




msg:3016596
 11:15 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

I hope it's only just a minority of people that are making me think it's a larger number, but it has been surprising and eye-opening.

Sorry, but you would be wrong.

Why do you think XP now has license control and all the Win 98/ME people are screaming bloody murder <see windows forum> that the last versions of Windows you can steal have been officially dropped with no more support.

I used to work in companies where people would waltz in "got an Excel CD?" to which I'd say "Yes, I have MY Excel CD, get your own copy!" and these were software developers, BIG software developers, but they eventually changed their ways. However, the same arguments came from software developers and managers like "Microsoft makes enough money already, who's it going to hurt?" would come from their lips to which I replied "Who would it hurt if someone shared OUR software CD around the office? Get out of my sight..."

People are fundamentally cheap and their moral compass starts pointing south when getting something worth hundreds or thousands of dollars for FREE when nothing is physically stolen therefore the odds of getting caught are zilch.

Funny, if I ransacked those same peoples houses, that saved hundreds or thousands of dollars pilfering my software for free, to collect what was owed me from their theft they would be mad as hell and ready to kill someone.

Amazing.

timchuma




msg:3016838
 5:59 am on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

It is truly a problem of mytholgical hydra proportions as so many people post to that site. They are not helping things by planning to take over the rights to the video people post to their website and claim it as their own.

Alex_Miles




msg:3016853
 6:14 am on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)


EFV said,

Youtube is using copyrighted work that doesn't belong to them, running advertisements to make money off that same product that DOESN'T BELONG TO THEM

So is Google.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:3016929
 8:40 am on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

It is technically not feasible to monitor thousands of submissions.

HWGA!
This is one recurring argument that really raises my hackles. "Technically not feasible" applies to many things but that should not place them outside of the law.

Youtube is using copyrighted work that doesn't belong to them, running advertisements to make money off that same product that DOESN'T BELONG TO THEM

So is Google.

HWGA!
Perhaps, but like it or not they are doing it legally. If Youtube is ultimately proved to be doing it legally then so be it.

HWGA! This is one I just invented for Here We Go Again ;)

Tapolyai




msg:3017222
 2:04 pm on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Farmboy wrote:
Tapolyai wrote:
It is technically not feasible to monitor thousands of submissions.
That doesn't exempt them from following the law.

Nor have I said that it does. I simply stated a technical glitch in Youtube's business model.

IncrediBILL wrote:
Farmboy wrote:
I hope it's only just a minority of people that are making me think it's a larger number, but it has been surprising and eye-opening.

Sorry, but you would be wrong.

Gentlemen/Ladies, have faith in our humanity. Although I do not disagree in the last couple of decades we have (as in most of us) fallen under the impression there is such thing as business ethics, family ethics, and such, most people do not steal. (There are no such separate ethics. There is just ethics that must be applied throughout one's life.)

BeeDeeDubbleU wrote:
Tapolyai wrote:
It is technically not feasible to monitor thousands of submissions.

HWGA!
This is one recurring argument that really raises my hackles. "Technically not feasible" applies to many things but that should not place them outside of the law.

You may lower the hair on your neck. Refer to my response to Farmboy. I did not imply that YouTube is imune from the law - my first sentence clears that
Tapolyai wrote:
I believe YouTube has no right to republish copyrighted material

but, the law (DMCA) allows a reasonable time for YouTube to act on a DCMA request.

Does this make their business model ethical? Did they presume that no one will dare to use their system to post copyright violating material?

Not everything that is legal, is ethical. YouTube allegedly violated copyright laws when they had recieved the posting of the material. The law allows them a leeway (stemming from the aforsaid technical issue of volume) to act in a "reasonable" fashion, among other things, when they get a DMCA notice from the copyright holder.

So where does that leave us?

Is YouTube illegal concept in general?
Did YouTube knew that things illegal will happen on their site?
Did YouTube put in mitigating solutions to prevent such illegal activities?

Is YouTube ethical concept in general?
Did YouTube knew that things unethical will happen on their site?
Did YouTube put in mitigating solutions to prevent such unethical activities?

Clearly the answers to the two sets of questions are really different.

There are thousands of businesses that take full advantage of unethical things, that raises[our]hackles;). They might be unethical, but they are legal.

I want to make sure I do not mix the two.

An illegal activity should be punished to the full extent of the law. An unethical activity that is not illegal... I can shun, and not participate, speak out so others do the same, but there are no laws in the US (home base of YouTube) against just being unethical. (Yes, I am aware that most illegal things are also unethical.)

(I did not intend to go down a too philosphical path, but had no better way of elucidate my statement.)

[edited by: Tapolyai at 2:07 pm (utc) on July 21, 2006]

jtoddv




msg:3017304
 2:56 pm on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

Plain and simple:

YouTube is distributing content that is copyrighted without the permission of the copyright holder.

The user that uploads the file is not entirely resposible. The end game lies in the hands of the distributor.

I would not let others post material on my sites that is copyrighted by others without the copyright holders permission. Would you?

Syzygy




msg:3017313
 3:08 pm on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

I would not let others post material on my sites that is copyrighted by others without the copyright holders permission. Would you?

Based on a moral or legal argument?

The company, for purely commercial reasons, is using the latter. Is this 'right'? In the eyes of the law they believe it is.

Syzygy

[edited by: Syzygy at 3:09 pm (utc) on July 21, 2006]

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:3017497
 4:43 pm on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

The end game lies in the hands of the distributor.

One would think so.

Tapolyai




msg:3017574
 5:31 pm on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

It is not plain and simple.

Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.Blah blah blah blah.

The above material (presume it is a poem) is under copyright. How should WebmasterWorld be punished?

Yes, moderators might remove it before you read it or a spider grabs it... but what if they don't? What is WebmasterWorld's liability?

[edited by: Tapolyai at 5:32 pm (utc) on July 21, 2006]

jay5r




msg:3017625
 6:05 pm on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

It is technically not feasible to monitor thousands of submissions.

Actually, it is feasible, but copyright holders would need to embed invisible watermarks in their images, video and audio to claim ownership. Digimarc has the patent on the technology (one of my clients has a license to detect the watermarks in broadcast video).

Most of the major news agencies and networks are watermarking their video, as are a lot of entertainment companys (TV, movies). They don't do it so much to protect their rights as they do to track and understand usage. But if it came down to it they can clearly show ownership by running the video through a detector that can pick up the watermark.

But things need to be streamlined, the prices have to be brought down, and the big companies like YouTube need to pass all the video they post through detector software to look for the watermarks and if it's owned by someone that they don't have an agreement with, then it doesn't get posted and the person who tried to post it has some explaining to do.

Likewise, the search engines could check the images they download for watermarks and if they see a watermark and they don't have an agreement to use the image then it doesn't show up in image searches.

The watermarks are also being used to specify if the image has adult content which can factor into "safe search"/"safe surf" filters, though I don't believe that's really taken off.

Bottom line - the capability is out there, but it needs to become pervasive.

Mr_N




msg:3017921
 10:49 pm on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)

This journalist doesn't appear to be the only person who isn't happy with YouTube:

[mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp...]

crescenta




msg:3018032
 12:49 am on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

Just yesterday I noticed that a video clip I host on my site was "republished" (without permission from the artist) on YouTube. Very frustrating. People are clueless and selfish and are going to do this.

I have no love for YouTube. It has been suggested to me that I host some of my own video work on YouTube (as a way to save on bandwidth). No thank you.

By the way, has anyone read Bob Tur's information on Wikipedia? He's quite familiar to those of us from the Los Angeles area: [en.wikipedia.org...]

old_expat




msg:3018282
 9:25 am on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

"No. Its like getting a photocopy of a banana."

LOL! That's so much spin it's a typhoon!

incrediBILL




msg:3018697
 7:22 pm on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

Do not accuse me a of stealing,

I didn't, you admitted it freely.

I may have taped from the radio, I taped from friends albums, i have used napster.

Not sure where your confusion comes from because it doesn't matter how much you buy, you still stole something from recording albums and downloading off napster. Buying something later doesn't compensate for the original act of theft, and buying concert tickets sure didn't do anything for the record company and everyone that worked on the album, only the band.

Maybe you downloaded the original song from Arista records off napster then bought the "best of" compilation from Capitol records, so how are you compensating Arista for your original theft of their production and marketing efforts?

That would be like claiming you didn't steal the 10 grapes you ate in the produce dept. because you bought $200 worth of groceries.

See the point?

You may compensate someone along the way but others are being harmed and not compensated.

One act does NOT validate the other.

Nice try, no cigar.

mgpapas




msg:3018997
 5:38 am on Jul 23, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well ultimately either something like youtube can't exist at all or they shouldn't be expected to police themselves.

A friend of mine had a website a few years ago where people could post their music. I mean small bands and vocalists could post their original songs. Someone posted a song by a fairly well know rapper and claimed it as his own. A representative of the record company contacted him and he removed it and that was the end of the story.

How is an entity like youtube supposed to even know what is and isn't copyrighted let alone police it. Not to mention the gray areas. If someone posts a Bill Maher clip how is youtube supposed to know it wasn't posted by an authorized representative of the Bill Maher show. Same with anything that is posted.

In my opinion it should be copyright holders obligation to notify websites and request that text/images/video/music be removed.

In this case youtube states that they were not even contacted regarding the video in question before the law suit was filed. If they were and didn't then a lawsuit would be understandable.

No individual or company can be expected to be know which of the 100's of millions of stories/books/images/songs and video's in existance are copyrighted and which aren't and whether the person submitting it is or isn't the copyright holder or someone authorized by the copyright holder.

Obviously IF it can be proven that a website was specifically aware in advance that a particular item was copyrighted and used anyway or continued to use it after they were made aware of it that is a different story.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:3019110
 10:23 am on Jul 23, 2006 (gmt 0)

How is an entity like youtube supposed to even know what is and isn't copyrighted let alone police it.

Surely this must be their problem?

You cannot put the responsibility for policing this on anyone else. They are profiting from this so they must be responsible. Ignorance of the law is no defence nor is ignorance of the source of their material.

incrediBILL




msg:3019570
 10:59 pm on Jul 23, 2006 (gmt 0)

No individual or company can be expected to be know which of the 100's of millions of stories/books/images/songs and video's in existance are copyrighted and which aren't and whether the person submitting it is or isn't the copyright holder or someone authorized by the copyright holder.

Excuse me but ALL stories/books/images/songs and video's are copyrighted the minute they are created so there's no mystery, it's ALL copyrighted.

Let's expose the hypocrisy of all the "how can you expect to know arguments" right up front as I just went to YouTube and right on their front page, when I was just there, was an obvious problem:

war on lebanon (1) July 16, 2006 - (AUDIO)

Listen to the horrifying blasts of israeli bombs ... This video brings back haunting memories from the 82 israeli invasion of Beirut - I was then only 4 years old ...

It's obvious this kid didn't make the video when he was 4 years old.

And this video linked to some BBC news clip, MSNBC clips, and on and on and to someone that had upload 99 video clips from various news agencies which linked to more unauthorized content and then some.

That wasn't so hard now was it?

Less than 2 minutes and I uncovered 99 most likely infringing items.

As a matter of fact, the problem was so blantantly flaunted at every click that it's impossible the suits at YouTube can claim they aren't aware of this and can't clean it up with a straight face.

If they can't afford to moderate all submissions and/or use automated means to check files then they simply shouldn't be in the business.

Obviously, they can't tell if I upload something that looks like amateur video that it's MY amateur video, but all these news clips are a no-brainer, as are all the America's Funniest Home Videos, SNL, Daily Show clips and so on and so forth.

[edited by: incrediBILL at 11:16 pm (utc) on July 23, 2006]

Tapolyai




msg:3019783
 4:59 am on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

IncrediBILL, I do not disagree with you that too many sites that take cover under the online service provider safe harbors, actively and intentially craft their plan so copyright protected material will be added.

But, it is a very slippery slope to demand that
if they can't afford to moderate all submissions and/or use automated means to check files then they simply shouldn't be in the business.

Will you thrust this upon the Forum owners? WebmasterWorld does an excellent job, but there could be slip ups. What about other forums, and the big sticks - which we never talk about automated search engines? There are video, book, picture, magazine, store, etc. search engines out there that duplicate (not just take synopsis) of sites. Will they also be required to check each and everyone of the contents? What about Internet Service Providers? Would they be required to check each and every web site they host? Maybe each and every web page, image, and file? What about carriers?

Again, I do not disagree that YouTube been more than lax (and I think unethical) about their efforts in protecting such materials, but Mr. Tur did not go about it in the right way.

YouTube is entitled by law for a "strike" through a DMCA notice. Mr. Tur never provided that to YouTube. Just because Mr. Tur is wronged, it doesn't negate his responsibility to act according to the law.

incrediBILL




msg:3019805
 5:36 am on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

YouTube is entitled by law for a "strike" through a DMCA notice.

They aren't an ISP/Host for starters and it took a casual glance to find 99 strikes so that argument doesn't fly.

Comparing them to WebmasterWorld is an insult to WebmasterWorld as they run a tight ship with 2 million emails online and are proof to the naysayers that YouTube couldn't keep it under control.

The team at WebmasterWorld does rougly the same thing and does a reasonable job, maybe a slip here and there, but if there are 'slips' it's not in-your-face blatant like I found oozing from the home page of YouTube.

Thanks for proving my point, if WebmasterWorld with 2 million emails, so can YouTube.

I love it when others cofirm what I'm stating, very nice example indeed ;)

[edited by: incrediBILL at 5:38 am (utc) on July 24, 2006]

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:3019841
 7:33 am on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

But, it is a very slippery slope to demand that
if they can't afford to moderate all submissions and/or use automated means to check files then they simply shouldn't be in the business.

Slippery slope? Why on earth is it a slippery slope to require any business, internet or otherwise, to comply with the law? Do you honestly think the world or the internet would suffer for businesses having to comply?

Will you thrust this upon the Forum owners?

Yes.

There are video, book, picture, magazine, store, etc. search engines out there that duplicate (not just take synopsis) of sites. Will they also be required to check each and everyone of the contents?

Yes, why not? If they can't stand the heat then they should get out of the kitchen.

What about Internet Service Providers? Would they be required to check each and every web site they host?

This is not the same as publishing the material yourself but they should clearly be obliged to follow the standards.

I am a one man business so there are limitations to what I can achieve. I could achieve (and earn) more if I was willing to allow my ethical standards to slip. More again, if I was willing to bend or break the law. I don't do this because I am aware that it is wrong so why should I have any sympathy for those who do?

Tapolyai




msg:3021677
 5:47 pm on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

My comments provided no support to your stance.

YouTube falls under the DMCA "service provider" category under section 512(k)(l)(B)
a provider of online services or network access, or the operator
of facilities therefor.

YouTube's responsibility stops at
(1) it must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers; and (2) it must accommodate and not interfere with “standard technical measures".

Further,
* The provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge of the infringing activity, as described below.
* If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, it must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.
* Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, the provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the material.

The last part - YouTube is protected from further liability if they receive and act on a "take down notice" according to Section 512(c)(3). They have not recieved such take-down notice from Mr. Tur, as far as I know.

Technically speaking, it is much simpler to do comparison of a textual document then images or videos. Just because WebmasterWorld can do it, it does not imply YouTube can.

YouTube is required to comply with the law - get takedown notice - remove content. That is their compliance.

The slippery slope refers to not requiring to notify the service provider with a take down notice prior to going for a lawsuit.

I don't recall approving YouTube's actions on ethical basis. As a matter of fact, I have indicated several times that I find their business model unethical. I commend you for your ethical stance.

Yet, law has very little to do with ethics.

Let me try to put it in a compact form:

* YouTube is lax on their checking for copyright violations.
* Mr. Tur went directly to the courts, instead of asking YouTube to remove the copyright protected material.
* YouTube is protected under DMCA as a 'service provider', if they have sufficient controls for a take down procedure.

Should it turn out that Mr. Tur indeed served YouTube with a take down notice - then YouTube will be liable.

[edited by: Tapolyai at 5:50 pm (utc) on July 25, 2006]

incrediBILL




msg:3021821
 8:01 pm on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Not sure I buy your interpretation...

Definition: For purposes of section 512(c), a “service provider” is defined as a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, including an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.

YouTube modifies the content by placing advertising on the page, etc. etc. which probably doesn't make them a "service provider" but just another website with stolen content.

Who cares, let a court sort it out, but your arguments didn't fly for Napster or Kazaa.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:3022313
 8:25 am on Jul 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Mr. Tur went directly to the courts, instead of asking YouTube to remove the copyright protected material.

I will confess that I am not fully au fait with US or any other copyright law but what I do know is that people who steal others' material know that they are doing so.

This 57 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 57 ( 1 [2]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Content, Writing and Copyright
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved