Forum Moderators: not2easy
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]
The key distinction that has to be made is between "user-created content" (good), "user-enhanced content" (good), and "user-stolen content" (NOT good).
I hope youtube wins.
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.
..And Tur's profiting from some poor guy's beating. I can't imagine what he's thinking, trying to claim a moral high ground.
It would be nice to see YouTube be a little more strict about copyright, if only to avoid finding 50 versions of the same video clip.
Seems YouTube is taking a similar approach to eBay and CraigsList. The community will police itself.
eBay is aggressive about protecting copyrights and trademarks. They even have a program set up (VeRO) to help protect the owners of intellectual property.
FarmBoy
..And Tur's profiting from some poor guy's beating. I can't imagine what he's thinking, trying to claim a moral high ground.
You've got that right. It seems that if anyone should be getting money from licensing that video, it should be Reginald Denny.
..And Tur's profiting from some poor guy's beating. I can't imagine what he's thinking, trying to claim a moral high ground.
From that perspective, ABC, CBS, BBC, NBC, CNN, FOX, etc. do the same thing (profit) whenever they broadcast a story, with or without pictures, of a tragedy, and then show advertisements to their viewers.
Further, since these news organizations can't be everywhere, they often purchase limited use rights to video shot by people like Tur.
FarmBoy
I hope youtube wins.
I hope the one with the superior legal standing wins.
FarmBoy
Robert Tur says video he shot...
Wikipedia claims that Robert's ex-wife Marika shot the footage while he piloted the helicopter.
Not me, I have a favorite in this race, YouTube.
It is so short sighted for people with copyrights stopping this.
Example: somebody sends you a link to a skit on the Daily Show, you have never heard of this "Daily Show" but you watch it, you like it, and you do a google search and find out it is on the Comedy Channel and now you make it "must see tv".
Similar to a band allowing audience taping and the swapping of music to build a fan base, worked for the Grateful Dead to the point that they were the top touring act for 10 years.
For sure
and...?
Example: somebody sends you a link to a skit on the Daily Show, you have never heard of this "Daily Show" but you watch it, you like it, and you do a google search and find out it is on the Comedy Channel and now you make it "must see tv".
Nonsense.
Based on your logic we shouldn't arrest shoplifters either because it might build a bigger user base of Twinkie's, Pringles and Polo shirts.
Youtube is no better than Napster, Kazaa and all the rest and deserve to get sued into oblivion if they dont police their own network. The fact that they DON'T police their own network and it is OVERFLOWING with copyrighted works not owned by the people that uploaded them just cried out for a class-action lawsuit.
There are tons of America's Funniest Home Video shows clipped and a bunch of others, we ALL know it, Youtubes ALL knows it, and that fact alone means the safe harbor provision is already worthless and they can't officially claim the Sgt. Schultz defense "I KNOW NUTHINK! NUTHINK!" when it's on THEIR SERVERS.
At least Kazaa was on individual people's computers, not on a central server, and that still didn't help Kazaa avoid being nuked for facilitating copyright violations.
Bye bye Youtube, it's only a matter of time.
Competely different than shoplifting. You only get small segments, usually of poor qaulity in a few hundred pixles wide. Compared to the quality of the real product, delivered by satellite or cable. What would you rather watch?
Same as the old days when we used to tape music from fm radio and make copies, a poor reproduction.
I bet nobody has suffered financial loss because of youtube. Shoplifting on the other hand, comes right off the bottom line.
Competely different than shoplifting. You only get small segments, usually of poor qaulity in a few hundred pixles wide. Compared to the quality of the real product, delivered by satellite or cable. What would you rather watch?
OK, how about just shoplifting one banana from the bunch, thats just a small segment, they'd hardly notice.
Same as the old days when we used to tape music from fm radio and make copies, a poor reproduction.
Just because you do it doesn't mean we all did it.
I bought records and tapes and CDs and have a huge pile of the stuff sitting in my house.
I bet nobody has suffered financial loss because of youtube. Shoplifting on the other hand, comes right off the bottom line.
I see, copyright infringment is harmless, NONSENSE.
Technically, they are stealing as they make money without paying royalties on copyrighted property. Those same video clips would be sending profits back to the owners had they been properly obtained with a LICENSING FEE so your argument is weak.
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, they are violating and diminishing the owners rights to his property.
You can argue all you want but I make my living off of copyrighted works as a programmer, webmaster and even as a photographer and you are WRONG when you say the author doesn't suffer from copying and I vigorously defend my copyrights when infringed.
I see Youtube as nothing more than the same bottom feeding scum trying to hide behind technicalities that haven't helped their predecessors like Napster and Kazaa.
It is so short sighted for people with copyrights stopping this.
Isn't that why a copyright exists .. to allow copyright holders to decide how their material is to be used .. whether short or long sighted?
Example: somebody sends you a link to a skit on the Daily Show, you have never heard of this "Daily Show" but you watch it, you like it, and you do a google search and find out it is on the Comedy Channel and now you make it "must see tv".
No problem is that link is to a site with permission to show the copyrighted material. See same argument as above.
..And Tur's profiting from some poor guy's beating. I can't imagine what he's thinking, trying to claim a moral high ground.
Isn't that the same video that allowed police to identify the criminal(s) who beat Denny?
If so, I believe that Tur holds the "high ground" in more ways than one.
You can argue all you want but I make my living off of copyrighted works as a programmer, webmaster and even as a photographer and you are WRONG when you say the author doesn't suffer from copying and I vigorously defend my copyrights when infringed.
And so do I so I hope YouTube gets reamed. 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.
Death to the copy thieves! Off with their heads!
But seriously, I think this guy has good case and I hope he wins.
No. Its like getting a photocopy of a banana.
I may have taped from the radio, I taped from friends albums, i have used napster. I also spend a small fortune on music, from 45's to LP's and CD's and DVD's. Now some of those bands I taped on the radio, I am paying $150.00 for a concert ticket.
In few cases I have purchased the same music in 4 different formats.
Do not accuse me a of stealing, I am supporting people with intellectual copyrights on a weekly basis over the 35 or 40 years.
I may have taped from the radio, I taped from friends albums, i have used napster. I also spend a small fortune on music, from 45's to LP's and CD's and DVD's. Now some of those bands I taped on the radio, I am paying $150.00 for a concert ticket.In few cases I have purchased the same music in 4 different formats.
Do not accuse me a of stealing, I am supporting people with intellectual copyrights on a weekly basis over the 35 or 40 years.
I completely disagree, whether or not you went on to support those bands (and made them money), is completely irrelevant to the fact that your initial contact was illegal.
As an example: I steal a BMW from a showroom and go joyriding in it, but like it so much I buy a BMW with my own money. BMW may well make a profit, economically it may be in their interests, but it certainly doesn't justify the joyriding in the first place.
If you download an illegal mp3 you can't say that's ok, because you 'may' go on to buy their album.
Essentially they are deferring responsiblity for any breaches onto the poster.
So who's in breach then? The poster or the hoster? This is what any court case will ultimately be about.
Syzygy
[edited by: Syzygy at 2:20 pm (utc) on July 20, 2006]
Its not illegal to tape music off the radio! Neither is napster illegal where i live. Its not illegal to record tv with a Tivo or video tape. It may be illegal to make these recordings and sell them. That is a different story.
So who's in breach then? The poster or the hoster?
That's right and the courts will decide but AFAIAC YouTube provide the vehicle that encourages and supports these infringements so they must carry the can. There's too much of this sort of stuff going on on the Internet and it has to be stopped. People must be accountable on the Internet as in other spheres.
That is presuming that the clip was removed immediately when they received the first notice.
It would be a very slippery slope for the courts not to take YouTube's side on this, if my above presumptions are correct.
The DMCA is a double edged sword, and no single edge can be destroyed without damaging the other.
spelling
[edited by: Tapolyai at 7:12 pm (utc) on July 20, 2006]
