Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
The studio said Friday that video-sharing Websites YouTube and LiveDigital have complied with a subpoena demanding the identity of the two users who allegedly posted the Emmy-winning drama's four-hour season opener, in its entirety, days before its airdate and nearly simultaneous DVD release.
And it's only going to get worse from here folks. Might as well paint a bullseye on the website.
I image the cuprits were smart enough, to realize that legal percussions were a sure thing, and left no trail.
"...demanding the fake identity of the user or users who allegedly posted..."
I think this actually helps Google. Google was not implicated in any wrong doing here - they were just the vehicle. Google comes out of this like a rose and sends a strong signal to YouTube users to shape up, or we will out you. That cuts 99% of the problem out at the source.
Next, G makes all sorts of aggreements with big media to cover the cost of some excesses (read: copyrighted material on YouTube). After that, they will use the RIAA tactics of going after those who knowingly download copyrighted material. This aint one that is keeping Larry and Sergey up at night.
> upload it at an internet cafe paying cash
or just drove around the downtown area of any metropolitan city in the USA larger than 100 people. You will find open WiFi networks everywhere.
or just drove around the downtown area of any metropolitan city in the USA larger than 100 people. You will find open WiFi networks everywhere.
Now now Brett.. surely you aren't suggesting that people make use of unsecured access points to upload videos that are illegal are you? War-driving is a no-no in the eyes of the law. heeh
However, double-clicking on "Available Networks" too fast and "accidently" connecting to a friends' neighbors port is a little more grey.
:) If they "shape up" say bye bye to Youtube. People go there to see copyrighted material not some idiot who thinks he's famous and rambles for 40 minutes.
On edit: that would also cut almost 99% of the users. Like Napster with amatuer songs.
[edited by: walkman at 9:47 pm (utc) on Feb. 13, 2007]
JAG
If they "shape up" say bye bye to Youtube. People go there to see copyrighted material not some idiot who thinks he's famous and rambles for 40 minutes.
I agree.
I only go there to see ppv ufc fights 5 minutes after they're over.
The interesting thing here is that Google complied to provide personal information after saying how evil it was to provide even less personal information to the government with the COPA deal. Talk about the power of money!
Oh please!
FOX asked for the information of 2 (TWO) people. The government didn't intially get what the wanted because they wanted an entire chunk of data from everyone over the period of a few months - that didn't even relate to a specific crime (I believe?). That meant yours and mine too! Eventually, they did get some less specific information, if I'm not mistaken.
Two things here: a) Google were completely right in handing over the data and I commend them greatly on this, and; b) Google would have been forced to give over the information anyway considering it was in relation to a specific crime that caused very obvious harm to FOX.
Kaled.
First, the website is now completely answerable for the actions of their users. We continue to see videos purged or profit sharing agreements struck.
Second, everything Google does smells of corporate America and that smell stinks to those that enjoyed playing at YouTube. By the time they're done with it we're right back to Google Video - which has zero appeal ot YouTubers.
I don't see a story here. A crime was comitted and Google was to required provide whatever evidence it had in relation to that crime.
I concur that it's as simple as that. They aren't providing their proprietary keys to the kingdom search results information a la AOL. They're just providing the userid's of two individuals who committed a crime in violation of the agreement they signed when they created a YouTube acct.
But of course, the media will have a field day trying to slam google or at least the conspiracy theorists.
George
1) all account details
2) IP address
the fact that this has been done would reduce youtube's valuation : as a hefty chunk of its visitors is from people wanting copyrighted videos.
What are the chances that the posted videos are traced back to a 11 year old kid or an 85 year old grandmother?
>>...the identity of the two users who allegedly posted the Emmy-winning drama's four-hour season opener, in its entirety, days before its airdate and nearly simultaneous DVD release....<<
It was a two-hour season opener, not four... but, small details aside, from Fox's point of view, this is not a trivial matter.
First, it's not likely that an 11-year old kid or a grandma would have had access to a video of the season opener. The amount of security around a media event like this is mind-boggling, and I'm going to guess that the security breach was via the DVD. The existence of a site like YouTube now makes simultaneous DVD releases problematic, or at the least much more difficult, and that's a serious business issue, much less for Google than for Fox.
It's inconceivable to me that Google could have done anything but what it did.
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 8:35 am (utc) on Feb. 14, 2007]
There is no way YouTube or Google can screen anything that is uploaded, they have to rely on the community to help them police it. The terms and conditions when you signup clearly state what you can and cant upload. Its not Google's fault if people breach the rules, its the individuals fault and as such good on them for giving Fox the data.
If you can only make reasonable money by having overinflated Google SE supported megasites, then the ratio of employee vs contributor becomes so unbalanced that control is lost.
I can reasonably control what my users do, if someone uploads garbage I delete it.
The problem remains everyone is measured by these megasites and they are the only ones really having a meaningful income.
Unless nothing is done against the only successful content business model: Create a platform for an uncontrolable amount of users uploading mostly cr@p or illegal content [MySpace, Youtube, Wikipedia] there is no way the web is going anywhere productive.
Living of free mediocre work with some occasional highlights is the way to go.
Wikipedia employs like two people on millions of pages, no wonder everyone copies it. Content is worthless .. the Youtube hits to employee ratio equally ridicolous ... thanks to Google ...
Producing series of algorithmically supported singularities is the problem.
A better spread of visitors would increase overall web quality significantly.
If they "shape up" say bye bye to Youtube. People go there to see copyrighted material not some idiot who thinks he's famous and rambles for 40 minutes.
I agree.
I only go there to see ppv ufc fights 5 minutes after they're over.
Yep. YouTube wants to be the network, but it's too easy to be a network now. The PPV folks understand that. Those who have the popular content will set up their own network. Now, if YouTube starts producing shows, that's another thing. (Google buys HBO next?)
Oh please!
Maybe you're right. It is far more important to find 2 people posting a 24 episode than it is to try an protect children from porn. What was I thinking?
Google did not turn it over voluntairly, they were ordered by a court. They had no choice.
Ahh...but they did have a choice. They challenged the copa subpoena so they could have done the same with this one.
JAG
This is inaccurate. There are newer technologies being used commercially that would have stopped the mentioned infringement. Google and You Tube choose not to use them. I wonder why! They choose to place the onus totally on the victims to correct the wrongdoings. They rely on this “lag time” before “exposure and take down” to generate their profits.
There are newer technologies being used commercially that would have stopped the mentioned infringement
Its hard enough to stop copyright infringement on a photo, and their are plenty of ways to defeat those.
Hidden digital watermarks may stop the casual violator, but it will not stop the pros.
For a movie, I find it hard to crasp where you would begin on detecting infringment, if the poster is intent of infringing.
Do you have any links to back your claim?
