Forum Moderators: goodroi
A one billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube threatens internet freedom, according to its owner Google.Viacom Lawsuit On Google's YouTube Threatens Internet Freedom [news.bbc.co.uk]Google's claim follows Viacom's move to sue the video sharing service for its inability to keep copyrighted material off its site.
In court documents Google's lawyers say the action "threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information" over the web.
The argument is that the courts, according to current laws, cannot classify it as theft.
The argument is whether Google should be liable too since they facilitate this crime on such massive levels.
Based on all of the DMCA complaints and lawsuits alone Google can't even say they didn't know and keep a straight face.
Will Youtube befall the same fate as the original Napster?
I think the only thing in Google's favor at this time is they do have a lot of original content.
However, the next shoe to drop will be when the RIAA gets involved because a ton of those videos are nothing more than idiots lipsynching and acting stupid.
I'm sure all of those videos have licensed the music they used for their "performance" ;)
If a bar can't afford to hire bouncers, are they no longer liable for allowing underage patrons inside?
I think the better analogy is if it's a public place like a beach or park where the consumption of alcohol is not allowed, should the city be liable if someone sneaks some liquor in? Certainly not, they couldn't afford nor guarantee that no liquor makes it's way onto the premises. Their only choice would be to close the park down. :)
"Collaborating with Google gives us a terrific opportunity to take our content and distribute it even more widely on the web in a seamless and targeted way," said Tom Freston, President and CEO, Viacom. "This deal fits in perfectly with our strategy to deliver the best content to our audiences – wherever they are. We're very happy to be working with Google, a true innovator in content distribution."
[google.com...]
[edited by: Habtom at 10:12 am (utc) on May 29, 2008]
I think the better analogy is if it's a public place like a beach or park where the consumption of alcohol is not allowed, should the city be liable if someone sneaks some liquor in?
It depends on how often it happens. If rampant disregard of the rule is being shown then the city would indeed be required to hire someone to check for such rule-breaking, or be forced to shut the park down.
I'm not sure the beach or park analogy works either really because that is paid for with taxpayer money and the only people making money at the beach are vendors, not the city itself. Not to mention nobody is losing money from people bringing alcohol on the beach.
I won't suggest an alternate analogy because at this point I don't think analogies are working :)
The argument is whether Google should be liable too since they facilitate this crime on such massive levels.
I think Bill Clinton had this debate in about 1997 and the result was the DMCA which says that Google should not be liable provided they act in good faith and take down content at the request of the copyright holder. You are about 10 years late to view your opinion I am afraid (unless you have a very powerful 'lobby' group).
You can't just change the law because it does not agree with your beliefs, that includes the definition of theft. If I steal your car you do not have it anymore and cannot get to work, if I clone your car then you do not notice. If you copy a song it does not remove the ability of the copyright holder to sell it, or for them to perform it in public.
If you copy a song it does not remove the ability of the copyright holder to sell it,
Ah, but if you copy a song and republish it, that does indeed harm the ability of the copyright holder to sell it and profit from it.
that does indeed harm the ability of the copyright holder to sell it and profit from it.
That is very debatable, it may actually improve their ability to sell CD's and concert tickets. Remember pirated music is normally very low quality. The music industry is convinced it is bad because the companies that make millions distributing physical media stand to lose a lot if the artists go direct to the public with digital downloads.
Look at the way that Apple is planning to sell iPhone apps, they give the developer 70% or so and they take the rest, software and music is very similar. If I am right, at the moment the artists pay roughly 90% for distribution (if they are popular).
Free samples are most likely to benefit new artists rather than established ones, so thats why there is resistance there too. Established artists will likely do well because they will be able to negotiate low costs for digital distribution.
Free samples are most likely to benefit new artists
Perhaps, but it is not anyone else's right to decide that or give away samples without permission.
Theft does not become legitimate just because you could concoct a case that the end results might somehow be good for the victim.
Given the fact that Google started their propaganda machine, I could imagine that they (or their lawyers) might see dark clouds at the horizon.
I do not have an adgenda, I just don't agree with distorting facts like saying that Google is breaking the law when the DMCA offers a lot of protection or when people call copyright infringement theft. Many people copy my site all the time, but it does not reduce my companies brand, profits or SERP's.
Given the fact that Google started their propaganda machine
It wasn't a press release, it was a response to Viacom's complaint. You have to respond or it might be difficult to fight your case. 99% of the document says 'We deny the claim'. If they wanted to start propaganda, they would be telling the world how Viacom's lawyer cannot get even basic facts right.
The developments outlined in that blog are interesting, but not at all the same as having third parties make unauthorized copies of things and distributing them willy-nilly.
If they wanted to start propaganda, they would be telling the world how Viacom's lawyer cannot get even basic facts right.
From the article referenced in the OP:
"In court documents Google's lawyers say the action 'threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information' over the web."
What Google wants to distract from is the fact that the action threatens the way Google can earn money from a service that supports the mass distribution of copyright protected material (that is not theirs), uploaded by anonymous users of the service (who also do not own/licence the content).
So, the claim that the freedom of the Internet is threatened, is propaganda.
But as I said, let's see how the courts decide.
I just don't agree with distorting facts like saying that Google is breaking the law
I don't believe they're breaking the law either...yet. They're using a real shaky old law (10 years is old for the internet) to defend their real shaky business model. I think that the law will get changed soon and that's what Google is worried about...their big boy YouTube could come crashing to the ground if the law is altered.
Many people copy my site all the time, but it does not reduce my companies brand, profits or SERP's.
I can't see how theft != copying. If I make something original that I sell and people are able to get it elsewhere and I see no profits when I made it for profit, then I will be angry. If I wanted to distribute it for free and try to increase sales that way, then it would have to be my choice. It's MY WORK.
I believe that at the end of this Google will be forced to change their business model to punish users who upload content. When that happens, all sites will have to start doing this as well.
I'm sorry to say it (well, not really), but Google's going to win this one. The DMCA protects them, and it should remain in place for good reason.
I don't believe Google is tongue-in-cheek about the copyrighted material. I remember when Google bought YouTube, there was a mass cleaning of copyrighted works. It is not to say that they have not been trying to keep the site clean (by their own power, nonetheless, frequently without someone having to invoke the DMCA), it's simply that with the massive user-base and the sheer number of videos uploaded regularly, there is no means to scan the site for illegal content.
Bottom line is that YouTube is a service, and that the users who use that service are responsible for the videos they upload. Google works hard to keep it clean, but until they turn their massive collection of servers and databases into a full-fledged AI (Google WILL do it, and it will be probably be AJAX powered), there's no possible way to scan everything going up there.
If Viacom wins this battle, there's potential that the DMCA could be invalidated through common law. There's a good and a bad side to this, but that's why we have the DMCA: we need to negotiate what's best for everyone, not just copyright holders, and not just internet users / content providers.
Mark my words, Google will win this one in court. If they don't, look forward to a further bogging-down of our court system with frivolous lawsuits.
If Viacom (and you) really believed they have suffered a $1 billion theft, then they should report it to the Police and file a report with their insurers. Thats what every other company on the planet does when they are stolen from.
At some point the safe harbor is going to expire because it's been an ongoing daily problem that Google and everyone else is aware of, it's very public, every member of Youtube has seen it, so where's the safe harbor for a knowing ongoing violator?
This is a case where they need to get spanked.
The solution is to simply pre-moderate all new uploads and if you can't afford to do that, then you can't afford to offer Youtube as a service.
Not that complicated really.
I don't see how the DMCA can save Google when in fact these companies have put them on notice time and time again that they have copyrighted data on their servers.
Because the law treats each violation separately.
At some point the safe harbor is going to expire because it's been an ongoing daily problem that Google and everyone else is aware of, it's very public, every member of Youtube has seen it, so where's the safe harbor for a knowing ongoing violator?
There is nothing in the DMCA about the safeharbour expiring if there are lots of items taken down. ISP's must get thousands of take down requests.
This is a case where they need to get spanked.
Is it about preventing copyright infringement or about spanking Google? If they were shut down, there are thousands of other sites who will do exactly the same thing, OR all sites which accept user posted content would close because they could not afford to pre-moderate each piece of content against an unknown global database of copyrighted music, videos, books, code etc.
Some would say that would affect the openness of the internet.
The solution is to simply pre-moderate all new uploads and if you can't afford to do that, then you can't afford to offer Youtube as a service.
That's pretty easy to say until you realize it will effect more that just youtube this site included. That is the point many people are missing in this thread that want to see Google hang , an adverse ruling against Google isn't just about youtube but millions of sites.
the way Google can earn money from a service
Not that it really matters but I understand that youtube isn't making all that much profit.
I don't see how the DMCA can save Google
Please read it :-)
isn't just about youtube but millions of sites.
Exactly. This isn't about Google, this is about the concept being fought over. If Google were to lose unconditionally there's a real chance the US could become an impossible place to do business for many websites.
an adverse ruling against Google isn't just about youtube but millions of sites.
Not true as millions of sites aren't free-for-all video uploading sites.
This is a very specific problem like Napster was, not much difference.
Some would say that would affect the openness of the internet.
Some would say the use of the term openness is just another buzzword for taking whatever they want without consequences.
Not true as millions of sites aren't free-for-all video uploading sites.
It's not really about video though, it's about user uploaded copyright infringement. There is no way this ruling, whichever way it goes, is going to effect video sharing only.
There are millions of free-for-all (insert media here) uploading sites. WebmasterWorld is one of them.
Under the DMCA, if someone posts copyright infringing material, WW would not be liable until after they had been informed of the infringing post and had failed to remove it in a timely manner.
Using Viacom's thinking, however, if a copyright holder contacts WebmasterWorld's designated agent and informs them there is copyright violation happening on their site "in general", WebmasterWorld is now liable for all infringement they fail to prevent that effects the copyright holder forever.
The only solution in this case would be pre-moderation... WW's operating costs skyrocket while revenue drops because visitors start migrating to forums where conversations can happen in something closer to real time. Farewell WW.
And that's just an online forum, where pre-moderation is possible. At a large multi-facted community site pre-moderation isn't even an option.
Not true as millions of sites aren't free-for-all video uploading sites.
There's millions of sites that allow user uploaded material including this one. You can't really believe this would only effect google? It's not going to matter whether its text, video, audio, code...etc. If one site can be held responsible for material uploaded then all sites will be responsible for the material that is uploaded to them.
It's not really about video though, it's about user uploaded copyright infringement.
Most sites don't have uploaded copyright infringement.
Mine don't. Do yours?
And WebmasterWorld, just like my site or any other react to issues like copyright infringement.
However, Google knows the infringing material is all over their service and is just rolling the dice like Napster did. Waiting until you get a DMCA notice while knowing it's there already doesn't forgive you of the offense.
If it were a criminal matter and not civil I believe the term would be "depraved indifference" which is really what we have here.
Take a look at the [insert name of popular document/book sharing service]. But before you do, just answer one question out of your gut: Which kind of documents regularly see the highest view counts? Just take a quick guess, please!
Right - the valuable copyright protected books from serious publishers and writers. I do not know who takes the time to digitize a 345 page book, but some people apparently do. And upload these books to the service. Under a default CC-NC licence (which makes things even worse).
Sure, there are other "documents" as well. Also some documents with user generated content. Unsurprisingly, one of the most viewed documents is an instruction on how to download a Youtube video and convert it into an AVI. Another user-generated document contains 131 pages of serial numbers for popular software. 671,464 views when I looked this morning, uploaded more than a year ago, and still streaming happily.
But most of the other popular documents are books that you otherwise would have to BUY at your bookstore, for $40, $50, $60, or even more. You've got everything over there: business books, programming books, comics. You want it - they (probably) have it. Nowadays you'd be silly to NOT look there.
Not only do they host the digital books (very much like Youtube), but they do offer derivative works as well, as they offer to download in various formats, and even offer to have the book read to you. Or download as MP3.
So yes, I am all for the Youtube ruling to affect this service and all its evil brothers and sisters as well.
Sure, from a user point of view, it is sad to see Youtube and the like go. I like my bit of "freedom" on the net as well. But as a publisher I'd favor all these sites falling into pieces.
I could copy and paste the front page of every online newspaper right now and post it here. You can't possibly think that sites like this can continue to operate like that if the threat of lawsuit is hanging over the their heads if I do that.
There's other issues as well, what about fair use? Not only will you have to determine if material is copyrighted but you'll also have to judge whether material is being used under fair use. Viacomm can't seem to figure that out themselves...
[informationweek.com...]
If that's the case and you don't think a ruling against Google is going to effect the way sites like webmasterworld and others do business you're being quite naive.
For the record, Webmasterworld is extremely well maintained. The moderators and community are doing a GREAT job to avoid trouble for Brett. This is a very good example of how a community site SHOULD be run. Brett faces a high volume, but he reacts by adding staff.
unless each and every post is checked for copyright infringement which truthfully is an impossible task no matter how many moderators you have
No. The Webmasterworld TOS make this very clear:
9. Email excerpts of ANY type or length are not allowed on WebmasterWorld. There are no exceptions to this rule.
10. No press releases, newsletters, web pages, or copyrighted content may be inserted into WebmasterWorld posts. Minor fair use excerpts of less than one paragraph (4 sentences) may be used if the content is publically available on the internet. All other forms of inserted content from press releases, newsletters, web pages, or any other copyrighted content placed into messages will be removed without exception. A link to the content is acceptable and appropriate.
This rule makes it fairly easy for anyone to avoid copyright infringements. You quote a full article? Post will be deleted. You post photos with obvious copyright mark? Post will be deleted. You get the idea. If Brett can do it, Google should be able to do it as well.
