Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 107.22.87.205

Forum Moderators: not2easy

Message Too Old, No Replies

YouTube Sued Over Copyright Infringement

     
2:19 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month Best Post Of The Month



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]

2:57 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



was only a matter of time really before someone challenged them.. As it says in the report that all copyright is now down to the user uploading the actual content, so youTube cannot be directly responsible.. (im sure this is heavily written into their terms and conditions.>)
Think it will need a bit more of a heavy weight than Robert Tur to have a go at them.. I have seen loads of obviously copyright infringement on there with music videos etc - surely the music industry will want to do something about it.
Ally
3:18 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Next comes the domino effect.
3:29 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jane_doe is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



I don't see why youtube is any different than the music sharing sites that were shut down except with youtube you get video, too. I predict they'll adapt the same business model as Napster eventually.
5:46 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator rogerd is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



Another crack in Web 2.0?

The key distinction that has to be made is between "user-created content" (good), "user-enhanced content" (good), and "user-stolen content" (NOT good).

6:05 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



That is unfortunate, I visit Youtube just about everyday.

I hope youtube wins.

6:10 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



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.

7:19 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I can only see YouTube trying to manage infringement by blacklisting certain keywords in the title. Otherwise, how can YouTube scan for copyright videos in an automated way? Seems YouTube is taking a similar approach to eBay and CraigsList. The community will police itself.
8:03 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member farmboy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



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

8:07 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



..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.

8:10 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member farmboy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



..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

8:12 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member farmboy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I hope youtube wins.

I hope the one with the superior legal standing wins.

FarmBoy

8:17 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Robert Tur says video he shot...

Wikipedia claims that Robert's ex-wife Marika shot the footage while he piloted the helicopter.

9:07 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



They have quite a lot of copyrighted stuff up there. Lots of Family Guy snippets that are like 1-2 minutes long. I doubt it can be considered "fair use".
9:16 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



>>>I hope the one with the superior legal standing wins.

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.

9:17 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



"Next comes the domino effect."

For sure

10:12 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)



>> Wikipedia claims that Robert's ex-wife Marika shot the footage while he piloted the helicopter.

and...?

12:49 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator incredibill is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



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.

1:29 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



>>>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.

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.

2:14 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator incredibill is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



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.

2:55 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I can foresee many blogs being sued from displaying videos.. It amazes me there are so many porn blogs, celebrity blogs, etc etc displaying videos that you can download the full video once you click a link to a video site.
6:24 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



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.

6:27 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



..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.

9:00 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



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.

1:09 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



>>>OK, how about just shoplifting one banana from the bunch, thats just a small segment, they'd hardly notice.

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.

2:05 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



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.

2:13 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



The morality arguments are worthless here. 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. Weakly, they are taking a laissez fair attitude and offer retrospective compliance to any complaints with a policy of, "When you tell us something infringes or breaches regulations, we'll do something about it."

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]

2:16 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



>>>your initial contact was illegal.

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.

2:36 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member beedeedubbleu is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



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.

7:11 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I believe YouTube has no right to republish copyrighted material - but since it seems Mr. Tur never made a DMCA claim to YouTube, YouTube most likely win under the safe harbor provision as they are quoted. It is technically not feasible to monitor thousands of submissions.

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]

This 57 message thread spans 2 pages: 57
 

Featured Threads

Hot Threads This Week

Hot Threads This Month