YouTube jointly responsible for copyright infringement

[QuaterPan]

Austrian court: YouTube jointly responsible for uploaded content
The Vienna Commercial Court ruled that YouTube is not a neutral intermediary, but jointly responsible for the transported content.
[broadbandtvnews.com...]

As reminder, the EU is currently working on its upcoming Copyright Directive - [webmasterworld.com...] in which, sites are responsible for material uploaded, and have to set up filtering system to prevent copyright infringement before this content goes online/public.

[alexkevin]

I don't know how to react on that, is it a good news or bad news? Now it will become difficult for normal users to put any video on YouTube.

[Samizdata]

Now it will become difficult for normal users to put any video on YouTube

It depends what you mean by "normal".

If they are not violating other people's rights they will have no difficulty at all.

...

[QuaterPan]

From now on, if people have to upload creative and original content, then it will be difficult, for them, the World is collapsing (joke)

[NickMNS]

If they are not violating other people's rights they will have no difficulty at all.

This issue is not that, the issue how or by who is the determination made as to what constitutes a violation of copyright.

Will a video of my 5 year old impersonating pop-start and singing their pop song be a copyright infringement? What if my child were 16?

[QuaterPan]

Will a video of my 5 year old impersonating pop-start and singing their pop song be a copyright infringement? What if my child were 16?

If this is a cappella, and you are not generating money from it, then "no" .
If there is music, "yes".

[MrSavage]

Fact: YouTube is the biggest cesspool of copyright infringement ever. Google brings in money via ads thanks to the many many (too many to count) copyrighted materials being uploaded in mass. In a sense Google has been getting away with not being responsible for bad tenants. Up to the copyright holders to police it, which is actually an impossible proposition. I just watched a series of PPV videos that were supposed to cost MONEY to watch, but YouTube had no problem playing them for me at no charge.

The concept of this law is the death nail for YouTube. Maybe Google knew that the day would come or perhaps they know that for the US, they would never be so bold by changing loopholes in laws that are exploited.

I don't knock YouTube for all the amazing free content that other people paid to create yet gain zero dollars in return. I didn't have to pay for the PPV yet I watched it on YouTube. I'm no better a person. However nobody should be able to create an empire by harboring mass copyright infringement. But they have and will continue to do so.

No question the apologists will show up here (if they haven't already) and make light of copyright and what that means. <insert crying babies here> Right or wrong, I can say it's unethical to knowingly use a loophole that allows you to profit from mass copyrighted infringing properties. To say you have all the tools people need to take videos down is nothing short of a F joke when you look at the sheer volume of uploads per second to the platform.

Changed to this law or loophole is a serious serious issue for YouTube. Considering how reliant Google has become on it, this heat could be catastrophic if the news of this spreads. If this becomes a talking point (which it certainly won't on this forum) then things are going to get ugly. Or shall I say, things may steer back to where they should have been all along. And that is? Where copyrighted material cannot be freely shared. Sound familiar? Oh, don't paint Google with the torrent or Napster brush but it's eerily similar.

[MrSavage]

LOL I love the way at the end of story Google says they need to analyze the courts findings. Like they didn't realize it was creating a simple platform for people to upload freely whatever they choose, regardless if it's copyrighted material and then leave it on the platform (while cashing in on ad revenue) until the copyright owner took some type of action. And of course many don't take any action because they can't staff enough people to do it. As they say, not enough time in the day.

[tangor]

Different strokes for different folks.

USA recognizes "fair use" (which is actually pretty limited, despite all the claims otherwise) and the EU has something similar, but hasn't been enforced all that well.

What EU is ATTEMPTING to do is force all SERVICE PROVIDERS and SITES to be copyright gatekeepers (ie, know what's copyrighted and what is not) BEFORE THE ACT AND WITHOUT EXAMPLE OF COPYRIGHT.

This will not fare well.

Where does this come from? Copyright IP creators such as film studios and record companies who have discovered just how difficult it is to police their own product in the wild and desperately wish the GUBERMINT (sic) will do their dirty work for them.

How will this work out? Don't know, but I can predict that USA will not pile on to avoid a CONSTITUTIONAL crisis which dates back to the country's founding. That said, the EU will do what they do and...

... I have my bag of popcorn and ready to watch the show begin!

[QuaterPan]

All this is showing how Internet giants built empires on unhealthy basis.

[tangor]

Until the creators said "ouch"! and began their lobby work. Deep pockets can do wonders....

[QuaterPan]

If you remember, when Google bought Youtube, ... (yes, some still believe that Google created Youtube), the site was already facing lawsuits from the movie and music industries. I remember during one of these lawsuits, about an email from the creators showing they were perfectly aware of what people were uploading and that it as fine for them. So...

[MrSavage]

I don't know the difference between the Torrent search engine websites that were to focal point for every complaint, lawsuit, etc, vs. a site like YouTube that hosts copyright content (blatantly illegal content). The Torrent sites always claim they don't host the files, yet YouTube does host the file. I don't get it. If anything it just tells me the laws are a joke or so dated they make no sense. I know certain musicians and labels take issue with YouTube about amount of money paid out, but it's obviously easy for YouTube to deal with music that they can identify and remove via the system itself. So it's like a double standard. YouTube can take automatic action against music copyright infringement, but they can't for many many many many other copyrighted materials. If they can do it for music, then clearly they know about the copyright infringement and are covering their PR a$$. I would say when the dust settles, shouldn't Google pay the companies for all the resources they were required to hire in order to keep track of all the uploaded works? Manual action by copyright holders isn't done by bots and that does cost money. Must be nice to be Google to cash in a let everyone else worry about whether the content is copyright infringement or not. That's a win for any corporation and they can't be blamed to taking advantage of it.

You don't have to be a genius to know the difference between right or wrong. If I'm watching (for free) a movie, TV show, sporting event, etc, then something must not be right. Are we all smart enough to know the difference between right and wrong? That's usually the basis for how laws evolve or are written. My example was watching a PPV event, for free on YouTube. So who's fault is that? Who is providing the platform for me to watch for free? Torrent sites didn't host anything, yet they were destroyed via the courts. If anyone thinks that me watching the PPV for free (obviously not live) is the fault of the copyright holder and it's totally ethical for me to be watching it for free? Clearly you have no moral compass.

[tangor]

Those who view (benefit) from the content are not the target for this legislation. The uploaders and those who maintain it ARE. Big difference.

As for moral compass, since when is "free" when I click a freely given link a moral failure? I did not create the theft, nor can I know if it WAS theft. That said, most consumers know when that "too good to be true" link is there, so in part, they are guilty of perpetuating this shame.

[MrSavage]

Just browsing YouTube today, and it's pretty clear that copyright is rampant. As in, you have the original podcast for example being sliced by somebody random that happens to show up in recommended links ahead of the actual copyright owner. Just like the SERPS, Google can't distinguish who created what and who owns what. Point being, at some point the actual content creators who are essentially getting scraped and ranking that said content is going to be an issue. Take the Joe Rogan podcast as one example although he did create his own clips channel. I just watched a product review which was a scraped audio from the original guys video and presented as their own. So ultimately YouTube is that cesspool of copyright infringement in pretty much every conceivable way. Perhaps the original creators have their collective heads up their A and haven't taken time to see or realize how many views they are missing out on. I tend to think they are counting their money and not seeing the landscape. Like the bands from yesteryear they fail to see where half the money goes because they have so much coming in. Given the number of Google shopping ads I've seen below the player box and above the video description, Google can't afford to have this legal battle or negative PR with the platform.

The in-house copyright breaking on YouTube shows clearly that it's impossible for the average channel owner to police. They would be spending their time finding infringes (scrapers) and not creating any new content. The more popular their channel and content, the biggest ongoing task it would be. Given the headaches with copyright, I can see why Google scoffs at the concept.

[QuaterPan]

Google has all kind of high end algorithms in all kind of domains. They have AI, facial recognition, etc... they can develop technologies for the Army, so if they want, they can easily identify if two videos, are the same, even if only a fragment of it has been copied,reverted, or resized. And, when two videos are matching, in 99% the legitimate creator is the first who posted it, which is something Youtube can easily tell.

But the biggest issue of Youtube is more with tv/movie/music industry, than with Youtubers.

[brotherhood of LAN]

I'm not one to moan about big co, but it's patently obvious the amount of copyright infringement is on there and how the whole model is incapable of stopping it.

Saying that, I know I watch them, old TV shows, repackaged clips of other people's videos... it's convenient as an end user but patently unfair on those who make the effort to create the works, especially so when others are generating cash from it.

[MrSavage]

Life is better for everyone when there is no such thing as copyright. Hence, it's why we all love YouTube so much and the world's population uses it. It's why you can find practically every television show and every music bootleg video ever recorded. Amazing isn't it? It's amazing that the only reason that content was ever created was because at that time, it generated income for the content creators. The bootleg music videos? Bands used to sell those and made money. Now? I wonder what cut they get from YouTube on those. Those many things we enjoy on YouTube that technically posses copyright protection would never have been created if YouTube was going to be their platform. I do believe in the past Google decided to look past book/author copyrights so that for the betterment of society, those works could be easily indexed for the mass consumption. Again, like YouTube, copyright issues stand in the way of convenience. Ah, but consequences are? Ask yourself what happened to the music industry and how many live music venues there are in your city and then realize that there is no money in that industry anymore. So enjoy those classic bands because the new talent isn't getting the money from the likes of YouTube that will support the time, effort and money that it takes to become a real musician. It all works together and money is what makes or breaks things (obviously). YouTube doesn't pay nor does Spotify or any other streaming service. Likewise, if those TV shows only had YouTube revenues to pay the bills, then content creation will dry up just as fast as the music industry these days. YouTube, for a fact, pays S to the labels and musicians yet this is where everyone goes for free music. This won't last, nor should it.