YouTube Responds To Viacom vs. YouTube Lawsuit

[engine]

YouTube Responds To Viacom vs. YouTube Lawsuit [youtube-global.blogspot.com]

Yet YouTube and sites like it will cease to exist in their current form if Viacom and others have their way in their lawsuits against YouTube.

In their opening briefs in the Viacom vs. YouTube lawsuit (which have been made public today), Viacom and plaintiffs claim that YouTube doesn't do enough to keep their copyrighted material off the site. We ask the judge to rule that the safe harbors in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA") protect YouTube from the plaintiffs' claims. Congress enacted the DMCA to benefit the public by permitting open platforms like YouTube to flourish on the Web. It gives online services protection from copyright liability if they remove unauthorized content once they’re on notice of its existence on the site.

With some minor exceptions, all videos are automatically copyrighted from the moment they are created, regardless of who creates them.

We look forward to defending YouTube, and upholding the balance that Congress struck in the DMCA to protect the rights of copyright holders, the progress of technological innovation, and the public interest in free expression.

[J_RaD]

yea I'd like to see how google defends this one, but for some reason I think they'll be able to pull it off.

[disgust]

they have made moves beyond just responding to DMCA requests.

videos (and audio, too) have a digital footprint. if a movie was taken down once for copyright infringement, it won't come back up-- even if the run time's longer, or there's a watermark on it, or whatever else.

if you include a copyrighted song in an edited video of your family, the audio will be disabled, for example

their cutting the standard running time down to 10:00 also had to do with copyright; they said the far majority of uploads more than 10:00 had been copyrighted material

an additional link with some funny tidbits: [techcrunch.com...]

[blend27]

It gives online services protection from copyright liability if they remove unauthorized content once they’re on notice of its existence on the site.

#1. Tell me why do I have to go and hunt the World Wide Web for MY content while other company makes money off my content?

#2. Tell me Why do I have to wait for a Giant or any other 'User's Theft Content' site to take a chance of making a Buck and it would not be caught if I don't #1?

#3. Did the Giant make the content them selves or if they make 1 Dollar from it while it's on their site/server I could expect that 1 Dollar in my right pocket when I catch them?

We've been all over this; GORG is using TOO BIG TO FAIL THEORY?

[ken_b]

#1. Tell me why do I have to go and hunt the World Wide Web for MY content while other company makes money off my content?

#2. Tell me Why do I have to wait for a Giant or any other 'User's Theft Content' site to take a chance of making a Buck and it would not be caught if I don't #1?

#3. Did the Giant make the content them selves or if they make 1 Dollar from it while it's on their site/server I could expect that 1 Dollar in my right pocket when I catch them?

If you are in the USA, you might want to ask your U.S. Representative and Senator those questions.

[StoutFiles]

If you are in the USA, you might want to ask your U.S. Representative and Senator those questions.

They're too busy fighting over the health care bill to be even remotely useful to anyone.

[blend27]

ask your U.S. Representative

I am and I would, but he is busy getting ready for Euro Cup Trip ;-)

[creeking]

ask your U.S. Representative

yesterday a tv reporter said their phones were busy. all of them. hahaha

[pontifex]

IMHO the discussion is just on YT because they show the deep pockets... the real dark side of the web is on these moneypumping websites that offer direct downloads of software, movies and mp3s for a "storage fee"... if you look on the top sites of the world, you see that "rapid sharing" site (you know, who I mean) on position 30 - hello? There are the petabytes of warez and nobody goes after them!

P!

[sgietz]

Without content, the web will be like a hot day in death valley. It's been established that no one wants to pay a lot of money for said content.

If all those fat cats in fancy suits don't come up with an alternative way to make money off X-tube and Y-music, we'll see them disappear and replaced by something better, cooked up by some high school kid in his bedroom. But charging a fee for accessing Youtube ain't gonna work (if this is going in that direction). iTunes sort of works, because people actually get something tangible out of it, but who's going to spend 50 cents to watch some idiot lighting firecrackers in his butt, or even something worthwhile? Subscriptions perhaps? Nah, count me out!

[J_RaD]

it will have to be niched out, there are alot other video sites out there other then youtube that arn't burning cash.

[Demaestro]

If Viacom succeeds it will spell the end for Ustream, livestream and any other live streaming site as it is impossible to do some of the things that YT does in respect to attempting to curb abuse.

This really is something that will have far reaching affects outside of Youtube.

[kaz]

on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube

Can you imagine uploading your own copyrighted material to this site and then turning around and suing WebmasterWorld? This isn't rocket science, and I'm sure the courts will figure it out even if Viacom can't on their own.

[ppc_newbie]

The thing is that all these various sharing sites have stretched the safe-harbor provisions to apply to their businesses. The safe-harbor was originally included to protect actual hosting companies. You know, the ones with the data centers, servers, routers, bandwidth connections, etc.

The thing is that these sharing places are actually websites not hosting companies. And just calling themselves web hosts to bypass the regulations will eventually be addressed. I hope!

[zett]

I've had a quick read-through of the documents from both sides, and my very short summary is:

*** GAME OVER ***

The Youtube founders knew what they did. They wanted the traffic and accepted copyright protected content. Even when it became clear that up to 80% of the traffic was generated by copyright protected content, they decided to remove only selected clips. Obviously, everyone at Youtube got rich (from the infringing activity) when the site was sold to Google for $1,650,000,000.

And Google? They also knew what company they were buying. They had done serious analysis before, when Google Video was still having a "zero tolerance policy" towards copyright protected content (and hence not attracting the traffic as Youtube did). They, too, wanted the traffic and spent the money.

I can not see how the judge can possibly rule in favor of Youtube/Google.

And, yes, I think such a ruling would be beneficial for all content producers!

[StoutFiles]

The Youtube founders knew what they did. They wanted the traffic and accepted copyright protected content. Even when it became clear that up to 80% of the traffic was generated by copyright protected content, they decided to remove only selected clips.

The people who defend YouTube are the people who don't want it and other music/video sites to go away. Common sense shows that Google is doing something wrong and it needs to change.

It gives online services protection from copyright liability if they remove unauthorized content once they’re on notice of its existence on the site.

It's just too big of a scale for this to fly anymore. You take away this protection and you will kill all mass-theft sites like YouTube and all file-sharing sites. Can't monitor all uploaded content? Tough! Change your business model.

[hutcheson]

I don't quite understand either the viciousness behind these comments, or the obstinate defense of logical impossibilities.

You ask, why you should have to search the web for your own content? Two answers ought to be blindingly obvious to everyone. (1) You are the ONLY one on earth who can search the web for your content, because you are the only one who can possibly recognize it. (2) You are the only one who CARES about searching the web for your own content, nobody else on earth has any reason on earth to care whether it's yours or your evil twin brother's.

Who SHOULD search for something? Well, if you're the only one who CAN search for it, and you're the only one who CARES whether it's found or not ... then to say the answer to your question is obvious is to set a new record for understatement.

[StoutFiles]

Who SHOULD search for something? Well, if you're the only one who CAN search for it, and you're the only one who CARES whether it's found or not ... then to say the answer to your question is obvious is to set a new record for understatement.

Um, what? He's talking about how it's not fair that Viacom should be in charge of going to YouTube everyday and looking for their material, which is obviously copyrighted. YouTube should be inspecting every video to see if it's copyrighted or not if not submitted by an approved business account.

Common sense can point out the TV/Movie/song clips that many users upload are not their own. Of course Viacom is the only one that CARES whether it's found; it's their material, it costs them money to produce, so they should decide where it's shown.

[Demaestro]

I don't quite understand either the viciousness behind these comments, or the obstinate defense of logical impossibilities.

This site has become wrought with them.

Has anyone here honestly had a video accepted for revenue sharing?

I have. You are required to tie your account to a valid adsense account. If any of you have a valid adsense account then you know that a credit card is required. The video then has to be reviewed by a human and you have to jump through about 12 hoops with all sorts of measures in place to make sure that videos with ads don't have offending content. It isn't like you post a video and they only look at it if someone complains, that isn't how it works.

Until there is a central located repository that has every piece of known copyrighted content so that people running sites like Youtube can check user submitted content against it, then requiring a site to 100% make sure content isn't offending is not possible.

Telling them to change their business model because they can't stop any and all rule breaking is ludicrous. People here are asking that Youtube guarantees that no laws are broken on their site. What other businesses do we put that level of onus on?

looking for their material, which is obviously copyrighted. YouTube should be inspecting every video to see if it's copyrighted or not if not submitted by an approved business account.

Obvious to who though? If WebmasterWorld user "blend" creates a video and someone else uploads it to Youtube as he complains about, then who would it be obvious to? How is someone at Youtube to i.d. a video created by blend?

There is no central place to check to see if a video a user submitted was a video belonging to "blend". If "blend" wants to protect his I.P. then he needs to take steps to do so like every other entity that is trying to protect their I.P.

[zett]

I especially liked the sections where Viacom explains how Youtube is not protected by the DMCA legislation at all (from page 47 onwards):

[...]the DMCA does not eviscerate copyright by immunizing any and every infringing activity on the Internet, but protects only incidental infringement unavoidably caused by performing specified core Internet functions, such as providing "storage at the direction of a user."

This is what some here have been saying for years, but the Viacom legal team puts this so perfectly that it's actually a joy to read.

Re. the difficulties of monitoring the uploaded content, I think it really does not matter whether or not it can be done profitably. If it can not be done, then Youtube should change its business model, and that's it. Mind you, it's not impossible to prevent most of the infringing activities, it's just impossible to run a profitable service that prevents (most of) the infringing activity.

As many pointed out before, Youtube could, for example, have a strict verification process before letting users upload content. And if these users upload infringing content, just point their way. But this is not what they want. They want the users to be able to upload everything right away and not worry about the copyright issues. (They know that very few people will go through the verification process to just upload a couple of clips.)

Go read the documents. Lots of insights there.

[Demaestro]

it's not impossible to prevent most of the infringing activities, it's just impossible to run a profitable service that prevents (most of) the infringing activity.

Youtube could, for example, have a strict verification process before letting users upload content. And if these users upload infringing content, just point their way. But this is not what they want.

That is exactly what they have on videos that get ad placements. They don't put ads on videos that haven't gone through an extremely stringent review process. Their business model only puts ads on approved videos. You aren't going to find a YT partnered video with Simpson's episodes. Yes you will find Simpsons episodes on there but they get taken down and new ones pop right back up, they do not profit from these videos.

In fact it costs them money in bandwidth, labor and processing, to have video constantly taken down and reappear, not to mention legal fees. So to say they profit from offending videos seems to me a misguiding statement.

They want the users to be able to upload everything right away and not worry about the copyright issues.

Well that is a pretty big assumption. I think the amount of safeguards, automatic or otherwise shows that they are trying to stop copyrighted material, like I said it costs them money and reputation.

I think what they want is for the users who play by the rules to not be hindered by those who do not. That is a weak way people in authoritative positions punish children.

"Well kids, since Timmy can't play by the rules no one gets recess today, don't blame me, blame Timmy."

I have never understood why the people who follow the rules should pay the price for those who can't.

[blend27]

--nobody else on earth has any reason on earth to care whether it's yours--

I Do, there is a reason I made the video. I made it to educate some folks via my site/place and NOT YOUTUBE or any other site. I did it, not GORG, YOUTUBE or anybody else. I did it for me, I did it for my client and I did id for a reason - I was asked to do so. Don't get me wrong I love FREE, but to the extent as in I know not profit from it.

I am going to give a live example of it: There is a site in one of the niches I cater too. The #1 site makes educational videos on the subject. There is about 5000 visitors on a given day to the sites when someone does a research on the subject. The site that ranks in TOP 10 basically includes YoTube vids on their site and making it look like they produced the content. That site is an Aggregator of content, no not the real one, but a scraper, plagiarizer and good for nothing, they sell 20 widgets, or so they clame... We have over 500 on every site. That site is run by an SEO company using all the FREE tools that the web has to offer.

When I make that video I have to take into consideration that it will be stolen. Some might call it as a fact of doing biz on the NET or simply WWW, and it makes me sick to the bone that it is allowed.

[hutcheson]

>He's talking about how it's not fair that Viacom should be in charge of going to YouTube everyday and looking for their material, which is obviously copyrighted.

Yes. And it's an extraordinarily stupid thing to say.

Who but Viacom COULD be in charge of looking for their material?

Because, first of all, it's NOT, and can't EVER be "obviously copyrighted" to anyone, except Viacom. And secondly, even if that copyright were "obvious", only Viacom knows what of its copyrighted content it is using YouTube to promote (today) -- and nobody disputes that Big Mediafia has been selectively uploading content to YouTube for promotional purposes. And thirdly, only Viacom gains any advantage to taking the material down.

So, again, whose is the obvious responsibility to do what only Viacom CAN do, and what only Viacom has a RIGHT to do, and what only Viacom has any vested INTEREST in doing?

Viacom may or may not be "too big to fail": they're certainly big enough that probably even notice (and, if I didn't have anything better to do, dance on the grave). But it doesn't matter. The same principle applies. The person who is responsible for finding and reporting copyright violations is, and should be, the person who owns the copyright and knows what should be considered a violation.

Nobody else can do the job. Nobody else cares whether the job is done.

Sometimes justice is simple AND clear. And this is one of those times.

[hutcheson]

My background no doubt influences my views. I have occasionally viewed YouTube videos -- educational or amateur (or both), I have no interest in any of Viacom's predigested pig food. So the nonprofit/educational part is basically 100% of the YouTube I see. But I'm not all that big a video fan anyway. I make heavier uses of text-oriented aggregator sites like the Internet Archive, or Project Gutenberg.

I have contributed thousands of hours of labor, helping prepare public-domain content for posting on aggregator websites. They provide enormous social benefits (1) allowing me and other non-wealthy people, access to information that would otherwise be accessable only by extremely wealthy people. (2) allowing me to participate in preserving culture for posterity.

I'm willing (no, make that eager) to see a lot of business models, and all the businesses that depend on them, crash and burn -- if that's what it takes to preserve this enormous social benefit.

Educational videos are good: but surely, they are better if they are _authoritative_. It seems to me that a video can be made to contain its own internal, authoritative, attribution: if so made, it's more valuable to its users (who know where the information is coming from, and can evaluate its reliability better). And if so made, wherever the video is copied, it redounds to the reputation of the entity self-identified as its source.

I could mention, that one one occasion, a website set up to promote a major motion picture, posted copies of content I created (several day's work on my part). I think they were probably violating a copyright claimed by the aggregator. I also suspect that the aggregator really hadn't done enough additional work to claim a copyright. And my work didn't rise to the level of creativity required to claim copyright. So I was in no position to complain. (But I didn't want to complain anyway.)

[TheMadScientist]

Who but Viacom COULD be in charge of looking for their material?

So, again, whose is the obvious responsibility to do what only Viacom CAN do, and what only Viacom has a RIGHT to do, and what only Viacom has any vested INTEREST in doing?

According to the DMCA YouTube is the answer...

See this thread for references and citations:
Viacom Find YouTube Smoking Gun [webmasterworld.com]

To paraphrase some of the citations and references: material (content) which 'raises a red flag' as far as copyright infringement goes MUST be removed or have the viewing disabled WITHOUT a complaint being filed for the host to qualify for DMCA protection.

YouTube had the Right and Responsibility to search for likely infringing content and remove it or disable the viewing of it from their site WITHOUT a complaint being filed to qualify for DMCA protection. It is not only the responsibility of the copyright owner as they would like all of us to believe, but it is also the responsibility of the host when the host does more than store the information passively at the request of the user.

There are some fairly good points on how YouTube goes far beyond a simple 'host' in the other thread and linked resources, and if the host makes a single dime off the content, has knowledge of likely infringing content, knowledge of infringing content (turning a 'blind-eye' constitutes knowledge), makes any adjustment or takes any action with the content other than passively storing it at the direction of the user they lose their DMCA protection and MUST remove likely infringing content even without a complaint being filed.

These are some possible disqualifications from DMCA protection:

Knowledge = Disqualification.
Profit from the Content = Disqualification.
Turning a blind eye = knowledge = Disqualification.
Anything other than storage at the direction of the user = Disqualification.
Not removing likely infringing content WITHOUT a complaint = Disqualification.