Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: goodroi
The English Premier League is to sue video-sharing site YouTube for alleged copyright infringement.
The football organisation said YouTube had "knowingly misappropriated" its intellectual property by encouraging footage to be viewed on its site.
We should just enjoy cool videos on You tube , share some links to cool videos if you have :)
Thanks Kaled you remind me to make sure i dont miss next 8 matches being played today :) checkout todays schedule for EPL
I must declare my vested interest in this as I am unable to get cricket coverage in Malaysia due to just the same kind of restrictions.
How much did Google pay for YouTube? Should Google cut its losses and unplug youtube.com from the web? Perhaps it's cheaper that way.
They both operate in the media biz and every TV or Radio Station is aware of rights and where money has to be send to the owners.
BBC: YouTube has denied those claims, saying the suit threatens the internet.
Google search monopoly threatens the Internet much more and it is almost evil minded to believe having the right to webcast whatever comes on their servers.
Brin and Page have done a great thing with old school Google and that deserves a lot of respect, But now they ball out for some tough and costly lessons for youtube and also Google search failures.
What goes up, will always come down. Especially when going over the top. In fact, it is sad to see that happening right now with two great pioneers.
Google's defense for other suites has been, "We've removed offending copyright upon notification, which according to the DMCA means that we are not liable for the infringement.
The above defense holds water (in the US, against, for example, Viacom). However, the DMCA is a US-only law. British Copyright Law does not have this get-out clause that Google is using as its defense.
I dont know , does lawyer questions this to lawsuit filers were you sleeping earlier , or enjoying videos on utube , why now?
...the DMCA is a US-only law. British Copyright Law does not have this get-out clause that Google is using as its defense.
The lawsuit was filed in New York.
BBC: YouTube has denied those claims, saying the suit threatens the internet.
I would have to agree, if one of these lawsuits finds a site owner liable for user generated content every site on the Internet that allows users to upload images, video or even text is going to be open to lawsuits. You can't expect the site owner to police each and every post or file that is uploaded. It's an impossible task.
You can't expect the site owner to police each and every post or file that is uploaded. It's an impossible task.
Essentially there are two issues
1) Does the website owner profit from copyrighted material?
2) Does the copyright owner loose money?
If either is true then a lawsuit may follow, and rightly so. All website owners have to obey the law or feel the consequences. Frankly, if all the sites that allow user-uploaded sound/images vanished from the internet completely, most people wouldn't notice or care. It certainly would not represent death - in fact, for the rest of us it would be an improvement since the net as a whole would run faster.
Does anyone know why Google bought YouTube in the first place?
Stop anyone else getting it?
At times i feel Google is being cheated
Errr... I don't. They are big enough and have enough brains to see this was coming. IMHO it wouldn't take a genius to work out that with potential copyright issues, all companies had to do was wait for someone with money to buy a companmy that never made a dime.
saying the suit threatens the internet.
Disagree. I think most of the lawsuits centre around the fact that G are making money directly from users that choose to watch videos that G have no right to show without owners permission.
Think of it like your investing a thousand pounds writing loads of content for a site, google ripping it off and then making money off it at your expense!
Or another analogy, G's cached pages becoming the pages they serve up with ads on instead of forwarding visitors to your website!
I hope Google wins...
I don't - it sets a dangerous precedent that other less scrupulous companies and individuals will force open to their own benefit and detriment of everyone else.
Just my thoughts on this. This will bring even more trouble to G unless they get a move on with that filter they have been talking about for months.
[edited by: TinkyWinky at 12:49 pm (utc) on May 7, 2007]
Why did EPL file in NY if Google is protected by U.S. law and not protected by UK law?
YouTube is an expensive legal accident waiting to happen. Google has set aside millions for legal conflict over YT, but it's 50-50 whether it'll win the big cases.
EPL needs to put some kind of embedded signal in its feed that Google can pick up and then filter all EPL uploads to YT.
All website owners have to obey the law or feel the consequences.
Agreed, if they know the content is copyrighted it ahould be removed immediately. The article linked too in the first post doesn't go into detail but I'm assuming they are referring too matches that were uploaded and never received a DMCA notice or YouTube wasn't aware of the matches.
From what I gather they are suing them simply because the content was posted. If they win such a lawsuit it will set a very dangerous precedent for any site that allows users to upload material.
Say for example I quote the entire text for a online news article and post it here. Should Webmasterworld be legally responsible for my actions? I think not, if that was the case it would doom sites like this one and any other large site that allows users to upload material. The amount of work required to look at each and every post or file would be imeasurable, it couldn't be done.
If they win such a lawsuit it will set a very dangerous precedent for any site that allows users to upload material.
It may mean that all uploaded material has to be vetted. That may mean sites are not viable - so be it. The US Government constantly berates China for not clamping down on fake goods - I don't really see a lot of difference here.
It may mean that all uploaded material has to be vetted.
But again it would be an impossible task for many sites, I run a small forum for example. It is the only forum on the Internet that covers it's particular topic. As such it's a great asset for those interested in this topic. I couldn't possibly spend the time to look at each and every post. If I was going to be held liable for any copyrighted material uploaded to it whether it be text or a file I'd have no choice but to shut it down. Simple as that, end result is a large source of information for people interested is this topic is no more.
As I see it forums such as this one and other communities great and small are the heart and soul of the Internet. Sites where users can interact, share knowledge and communicate are it's largest asset by far IMO. When I'm looking for information I don't look for a website, I look for a forum. Without them it would be nothing but a barren wasteland of economic greed. The loss of them to say the least as quoted above "threatens the Internet", at least as how we know it.
The US Government constantly berates China for not clamping down on fake goods - I don't really see a lot of difference here.
When some pirate uploads a couple of million videos to YouTube while sitting in the offices of Youtube with the "copyright police" looking over his shoulder you might have a comaprison. Those are large scale operations that cannot be hidden from the athorities and the plants have complete contol over the product they are producing.
Should Webmasterworld be legally responsible for my actions? I think not,
This forum is very well organized by smart and conscious dudes who seem to be even too sensitive at times ... :-))
Google has much bigger funds to manualy supervise uploads, partners and structures.
Champions Legue and most other fraudulent uploads are very easy to spot if they would want that.
Google is doing evil by acting above International copyright law and certainly they have earned a lesson.
"danger to the Internet" is a truly funny statement in that context and certainly each webmaster has to be responsible for what is getting displayed on his site.