Copyright Axe To Fall On YouTube?

theoddball writes "In what should come as no great surprise, Universal Music Group is preparing to file suit against YouTube for copyright infringement, the AP reports. Discussions with the site's owners have broken down (although talks are apparently still progressing with Myspace / News Corp over similar issues). From the article: 'We believe these new businesses are copyright infringers and owe us tens of millions of dollars,' Universal Music CEO Doug Morris told investors Wednesday at a conference in Pasadena. This development follows last month's announcement that YouTube is negotiating with labels to legally host videos. While the primary complaint is against music videos, one cannot help but wonder if this will also impact the many, many homemade videos using copyrighted UMG songs as a soundtrack (or — *shudder* — a lipsync.)"

Comments

Tens of millions

[phorm]

With the various lawsuits going on, and settlements seeming to arise regularly... I wonder whether they're actually making more profit for these various companies than some of their CD/movie sales. Certainly the lawyers are munching on a fair chunk... but how much are the studios taking in as profit?

Truely a sad business model... especially when they're going after companies that are actually trying to negotiate legitimate mutually-beneficial deals.

Re:Tens of millions

[dilby]

What I don't understand is why the hell youtube is talking to a record company in the first place. Why aren't they dealing with a Copyright collection society? (I don't know the name of the US one). They are an orginisation attempting to make money with content including copyrighted material, which the copyright holders are legally entitled to recompense. But their business model is more like the modern day equivalent of a tv station, so they should be paying in a similar way to how tv stations pay for their use of copyrighted material.

Re:Tens of millions

[Opportunist]

My guess is that the copyright holders don't want to. Suing is more profitable.

Re:Tens of millions

[superiority]

Oh damn. Your signature rocks.

Re:Tens of millions

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because Soviet Russia jokes are THE BEST! Not stale at all! ??? PROFIT!!!

Re:Tens of millions

[WebfishUK]

You could be right. Many of the older, large media companies are still struggling to update their business models to meet the changes in technology. The old model of 'owning' a copy of the entity (music, film, whatever) and this then infering certain viewing/listening rights is so much more difficult to uphold now compared to 20 or even 10 years ago. I still think the only viable solution, for music at least, will be in making the money from the live performance and seeing the recordings almost as loss leaders. One thing people wouldn't tolerate is going to fake live peformance (unless its the Australian Pink Floyd show or something.) I think we are even starting to see this happen with some dramatic price increase for major stars.

Re:Tens of millions

[Registered Coward v2]

They are an orginisation attempting to make money with content including copyrighted material, which the copyright holders are legally entitled to recompense. But their business model is more like the modern day equivalent of a tv station, so they should be paying in a similar way to how tv stations pay for their use of copyrighted material.,/I>

Except a TV sation uses material whose creators have cleared teh copyrights and have the right to use the material. They pay the owners, not the TV station. In this case, I doubt if the creators of the stuff YouTube hosts have cleared teh copyrights, and since YouTube probably has more cash than their users the studio will go after them - it's easier and cheaper to sue one thing with a stack of cash and collect than thosuands with very little.

The social networking sites had to see this coming - they're trying to make money off of other's material and didn't expect to hear form a lwyer? The arguement that they are simply hosting the materila and not infringing is like the person selling bootlegs made by others claiming they're innoncent because all they are doing is passing out DVD's.

They are mor elike a bar that has music (live or recoreded) - they can pay a license fee for the material they host; based on audience size. That of course means that they either need to make money off of advertising or start charging users. If they can do that profitably, great; if not then they had a bad business model in which case it sucks to be them.

Re:Tens of millions

[FridayBob]

What I don't understand is why the hell youtube is talking to a record company in the first place. ...

It sounds to me like YouTube has been forced to talk to them. It's called a lawsuit... :-)

Re:Tens of millions

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I see why youTube wouldn't just be considered as a hosting service. If they don't exercise any control before people upload videos, or regularly screen content, why would they not be the same as a hosting provider running any other website? The article says youTube claims they comply with takedown requests, as US law requires. At least in the article, UMG doesn't suggest that they don't comply.

Whether youTube makes money through advertising seems entirely irrelevant. Hosting providers like Geocities that provide free hosting with advertising don't become more responsible for hosted content because they get advertising revenue. Specifically, [RI,MP]AA organizations seem to insist that they oppose the redistribution of their content, regardless of whether any money is involved.

Re:Tens of millions

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoooosh!

Re:Tens of millions

[IAmTheDave]

My guess is that the copyright holders don't want to. Suing is more profitable.

I don't have a lot of hope for YouTube's future.

We (us below 30 people, and yes, some of you above 30) are a generation built on mashups, personalized media, and borrowing from the acheivments of the past to further our own pursuits.

Those sitting on the bench won't get that a suit against YouTube (especially if it's on the grounds of lipsync videos or peronal video soundtracks) is really stifiling millions of young filmmakers - no matter how horrible their films may be.

Creativity - or creativity tools - has in 10-20 years grown in accessability seemingly exponentially. YouTube provides an outlet for the creative mind that many young people have never had. If Numa Numa is on a soundtrack to a 90 second clip of two kids dancing in their parent's basement, is it really necessary to expect that YouTube owes millions of dollars for providing an outlet for these kids to share their creativity with the world?

The reason I mentioned the generational thing above is because it will take another 20 years before people that truely understand the technology and creativity revolution that is in full swing now are sitting on legal benches across the nation. Right now we have people with very, very old thoughts on capitalism, copyright, patents, etc. that hand down judgements and rulings. It isn't until my 3 year old is an adult that his peers will finally have access to make decisions that actually benefit this country, and cease these ridiculous assaults on creativity and expression.

Re:Tens of millions

[Achromatic1978]

We (us below 30 people, and yes, some of you above 30) are a generation built on mashups

Erm, huh? Mashup being web applications, and music/videos?

Sorry, this makes me laugh. You want to pick the defining foundations of "Generation Y" and you come up with Web 2.0 content aggregation / YouTube home made videos put to alternate musical soundtracks.

Oh, and speaking as a "young filmmaker", and actually someone ostensibly in the film industry, I'd be surprised if anything more than a couple of per cent of their efforts are music videos.

Re:Tens of millions

[Achromatic1978]

I think it comes down to this, rightly or wrongly: we all know (or are almost certain) that one way or another, YouTube's business model is to be advertising, context sensitive or otherwise. Based on this, and (possibly, I rarely use it) functionality of the site, they are very well aware of the most popular videos - I'm betting UMG's argument was that they'll be monitoring that, seeing copyright infringements, but not removing them at that point, rather waiting for the takedown request.

Re:Tens of millions

[IAmTheDave]

You want to pick the defining foundations of "Generation Y" and you come up with Web 2.0 content aggregation / YouTube home made videos put to alternate musical soundtracks.

I chose those as examples because they're relevant to TFA.

As "actually someone ostensibly in the film industry", you should appreciate the absurdity of having to pay tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to use a music clip here or there in your movie, and that movies shot on a shoestring budget of mere hundreds or a few thousands of dollars can't put an appropriate soundtrack in their movie - even in short samples - without increasing the required budget of the movie tenfold or more.

Re:Tens of millions

[Achromatic1978]

Actually, I do agree with you.

I also do freelance photography and was just today reading a good article on "making a living selling stock photography" - it was talking about determining the variables for distribution, use, etc, etc, to come to a suitable price for usage rights for photography. Now, granted, I'm no Ansel Adams, but the usage rights for 'popular' music is absurdly out of reach.

The devil's advocate in me, however, looks back at peer-to-peer and says, "Remember all those people talking about how peer-to-peer was all about finding those acts who are unsigned, that you'd never hear of through a major label, and it's usually better music? Why can't an indie filmmaker do the same? Who knows, if you strike it big, one of the bands on your soundtrack might, too!"

Re:Tens of millions

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny cause it's true!

Re:Tens of millions

[Anonymous Coward]

"We (us below 30 people, and yes, some of you above 30) are a generation built on mashups, personalized media"

Just reinforcing the other poster's point that that is absolutely untrue. Most people my age (25) have probably never knowingly heard a mashup. It's hardly the foundation of our culture. And unless you mean the trivial example of a mixtape/custom playlist personalized media isn't exactly commonplace either.

"and borrowing from the acheivments of the past to further our own pursuits."

Um, yes, it's called society. Remember how you weren't abandoned at birth and forced to independently re-invent cooking, the house, and sleeveless pullovers?

Re:Tens of millions

[ezberry]

Two examples of such copyright collection societies are: ASCAP and BMI. One issue with them is that they are very expensive - often they will demand a certain percentage of revenue. They were even sued for being trusts - and ASCAP lost. So they are not without their faults.

Re:Tens of millions

[superiority]

Err...it's not so much that it's a Soviet Russia joke as it's that it takes the old joke and uses it in a novel way to highlight the effect globalisation and corporatism have on democracy.

Looks like the rider beat the horse

[BadAnalogyGuy]

In a horse race, you don't want the rider to come in before your horse. YouTube seemed like they were desperately hoping that their horse would get bought up by a big media conglomerate before the litigation rider came calling.

If they don't get acquired right quick, it will be a sad day for all of us YouTube lovers.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[daspriest]

Why buy youtube, when you can sue youtube and take the site as a settlement instead.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Give the man a prize!

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[b0r1s]

Sad? It'll take about a month for all the users to migrate to one of the dozens of alternative sites that act in the same way and have slightly different features.

Those that want DRM and community support will hit grouper. Those that want porn will hit pornotube. The people who just want to use their webcams and view amateur clips will use vobbo. The ones that want to open license their content will use ourmedia, and the ones that want revenue sharing will use revver.

Dozens of alternatives, just look at The list.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[MMaestro]

The site itself is worthless. Other than maybe the name (which would be destroyed once they win), YouTube is worthless. It makes no profit (the bandwidth used to stream videos on the front page alone is mind boggling) and lets be serious, the moment they win, every OTHER group will demand the site more or less be brought down completely.

This is more or less the same way Napster was destroyed and why is never reclaimed the crown as a music distributing software. By the time Napster was re-released it was too little, too late. And then of course there would be the copycat sites, the backlash against the industry and the grassroots attempt to stop this. (Remember the publicity Napster got before they brought it down?)

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[spisska]

Nice analysis.

Youtube is often held up as an example of Web 2.0 (whatever the hell that means), but the strategy -- get an audience and bail -- is much more of a Web 1.0 (or 0.90) strategy.

Then again driving visits with user-generatated content, thought to be the hallmark of Web 2.0, is remarkably similar to Web 0.1 (codename BBS - atdt/gopher).

With Youtube, I have yet to see any coherent idea of how thay are planning to turn all those eyeballs into cash while mitigating the risks involved in hosting videos that depict clearly illegal activities or are clear violations of copyright or trademark. This ignores all the videos that are borderline copyright violations, which this suit is likely to be about and which Hollywood would be much better off ignoring.

But Hollywood tends to ignore things they shoudn't, like Office Space or Xvid, and makes a big deal of things they ought to ignore, like Napster(TM) or Gigli.

What everybody jumping on the bandwagon seems to fail to realize is that once the product everybody uses no longer does what they want, or the PITA factor gets to high, the market will turn in a moment. Hotmail was at one time the most popular web-based email app,

No cost means no commitment, and for something like Myspace or Youtube any cost at all for the user would mean death.

Youtube has been burning cash, and I'm not sure I see a way out. Rupert Murdoch seems to think he can make some money off of Myspace, and maybe he can. But places like Myspace and Flickr seem eerily similar to the basic concept of the internet circa 1994-95. There is precious little difference between Murdoch's new toy and the Cleveland Freenet other than the volume of current and potential users, the ability to include graphical content, and the exponentially increased potential for abuse.

At least I know that if Youtube falls (under its own weight or a corporate parent's), it will be replaced by another service that is faster, smarter, easier, and more pleasing to look at.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[dfghjk]

Perhaps because you see value in it and you aren't associated with businesses that feel harmed by it?

There are more potential buyers for youtube than just the RIAA/MPAA.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[utnapistim]

But places like Myspace and Flickr seem eerily similar to the basic concept of the internet circa 1994-95.

Actually Flickr's business model is different; they offer a very limited account for free and charge to remove the limitations. (A "pro account" on flickr is 24USD per year).

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Section_Ei8ht]

If YouTube was ever taken down due or changed to litigation, all YouTube would have to do is make an announcement as to why, and instantly millions of YouTube addicts with no prior knowledge of the People vs. **AAs will suddenly hate the **AAs.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Right. Like all the other times it's happened in the past.

Fat lot of good it's done so far!

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[mpcooke3]

Almost certainly at some point online video advertising is going to become a major money spinner and large companies will pay through the nose for running video brand advertising and video based viral marketing services.

In my opinion YouTube is almost certainly in land grab mode. That's not to say that YouTube will be massively profitable, it may get sued out of existence first. :) However, the potential for generating advertising revenue from the site is massive.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Anonymous Coward]

If YouTube was ever taken down due or changed to litigation, all YouTube would have to do is make an announcement as to why, and instantly millions of YouTube addicts with no prior knowledge of the People vs. **AAs will suddenly hate the **AAs.

Yes! Damn those evil record companies and their unreasonable demands that people not take their valuable property and give it away for free without permission! Information wants to be free and artists want to starve, so come, comrades! Let us rise up, throw off these chains of copyright that force us to pay for what we take, and steal, steal, steal until they sue!

By the way, I think food also wants to be free. Who's up for a bit of shoplifting while the stolen music downloads?

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Opportunist]

Because it's worthless then. Remember the Napster. What happened after it got acquired and turned into a "legal" business?

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[MisterSquid]

(Remember the publicity Napster got before they brought it down?)

Part of the reason for the publicity of the Napster case is that it happened in the days of Web 1.0 and many people, heck the entire world, were watching to see what would happen. It wasn't exactly clear that Napster would lose. In fact, early public opinion of Judge Patel's ruling was that she didn't know enough about technology to generate a sensible ruling.

When (not if) YouTube goes down, it's gonna do so lickety split because it has the pathway (I'm not sure it's precedent) of Napster to take. This is gonna be fast, folks. Allowing users to violate copyright on a mass scale using centralized servers is entrepreneurial suicide.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[cubicledrone]

their valuable property

What VALUE? WHERE ARE MUSIC VIDEOS BOUGHT AND SOLD?

Without YouTube NOBODY would watch music videos because otherwise THEY DON'T EXIST.

The only reason this argument continues is because copyright holders, for whatever reason, totally deprive their audience of what they want. People used to download billions of songs from filesharing networks. Then they turned around and bought 1.5 billion songs from iTunes. Why did they pay for what they could get for free? Because Apple gave them a high-quality easily found song for a reasonable price. If every music video were available for download off some record company site, this would be a non-issue.

Wait, it already is a non-issue.

I think food also wants to be free.

Food is free. Farmers provide the same service Apple does: a high-quality easily found vegetable/fruit/chicken dinner/bottle of orange juice at a reasonable price. And people pay for it despite the fact that anyone armed with a single orange can produce them in unlimited quantities.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, I think food also wants to be free. Who's up for a bit of shoplifting while the stolen music downloads?

If you could copy food like you can copy information, you'd have to be some serious asshole to call COPYING food "theft". It's not theft. If you shoplift, the shop has less. If you copyright infringe, someone has (at most) failed to gain. Not the same thing at all.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Nuskrad]

I'd say this is less clear cut than the original Napster. Despite what people claim about 'only some people used it to violate copyright', a good 90-odd% of file transfers on Napster was unauthorised copyright copying (statistic purely based on anecdotal evidence, bite me). Youtube is a lot less clear - granted a lot of stuff on there is clips from TV shows and films, music videos and stuff, but there is a LOT of original content on there (mostly unwatchable garbage, people thinking they're good on a skateboard and whatnot). Of course, it becomes hazy when people use copyrighted sound tracks to their original creation but still - I think we can all agree that a significant % of YouTube users are using it for none-copyright-violating purposes.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Xyrus]

Sure they can take YouTube. Then they'll charge you $X to post a video. If it contains clips from a movie, a music video, or contains a soundtrack that belongs to the *AA, you'll either have to pay $XX to post or they'll take your ass to court and get $XXXXX.

Either way, YouTube and similar services will become, at best, pay services. Most likely though, they will be killed off.

Which is exactly what the *AA wants.

~X~

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[badasscat]

What VALUE? WHERE ARE MUSIC VIDEOS BOUGHT AND SOLD?

Well, for one, they're bought and sold on DVD all the time. Most people I know have at least a few of these. I myself have video compilations from Depeche Mode, the Police, and Puffy (as in AmiYumi, but it's a Japanese DVD so it's just Puffy).

So while I don't dismiss the RIAA's argument out of hand, I don't think they quite get the reasons why people use YouTube. YouTube's quality is really bad and you can't (easily) download clips from it, meaning it's no substitute for buying anything. I sample videos there all the time, and yes, I've downloaded some, but only videos that I literally can't get any other way. It's a last resort for videos I want to keep, while at the same time serving the same purpose that MTV did in the beginning - it's promoting all these bands I otherwise wouldn't be thinking about. Seriously, if I see a video on YouTube that I like, the first thing I do is see if I can buy it anywhere. This is not like the original Napster, where there's really no difference between the song you could download and the song you could buy. On YouTube, in most cases you can't buy what's on there, and if you can, there's a vast difference in quality and features.

The record labels should be using YouTube as a promotional vehicle. They've got everything all backwards these days. They're even saying MTV was evil in the beginning for, god forbid, promoting their music. They don't seem to realize that the lack of music on MTV at present is a big reason why their sales are down. I used to watch MTV, find new bands I liked, buy that music and buy those videos. I have no way to do that anymore. Except YouTube.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like, again, the labels want to kill the messenger. Doesn't google do the same thing as youtube?

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Luscious868]

What value? YouTube is making money. If they are doing so all or in part by using copyrighted material that they have not licensed then what they are doing is illegal and unethical and they should be sued. I'm an information wants to be free kind of guy but even I recognize that copyright serves an important purpose. It's been thoroughly bastardized with the constant extensions and the DCMA but the whole idea behind it was and still is an important one. Namely if I go the trouble to create something then that work should be protected for a limited amount of time so I can profit from my own creation. If YouTube is knowingly profiting in whole or in part from the distribution of copyrighted material that they have not licensed then they should be sued.

The grey area here is that since users can post their own video YouTube can not and does not have control of everything that is available at a given time on their sight. Given that the questions that ought to be asked here are the same questions posed to the file sharing companies. Are there legitimate uses for YouTube other than for copyright infringement? Does the vast majority of activity on YouTube involve copyright infringement? Does YouTube make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to try and prevent copyrighted material from being posted? Does YouTube do anything to encourage copyrighted material to be posted? More importantly, once YouTube is informed that copyrighted material has been posted are they quick to respond and remove the offending material?

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Anonymous Coward]

copyright infringement != stealing.

DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Anonymous Coward]

"Food is free. Farmers provide the same service Apple does: a high-quality easily found vegetable/fruit/chicken dinner/bottle of orange juice at a reasonable price. And people pay for it despite the fact that anyone armed with a single orange can produce them in unlimited quantities."

What? You can grow cultivate orange trees for free? land is free to grow them? labour is free to harvest them, fertilizer is free? And I can do all this even in the cold north?

why didn't anyone tell me this, i've been paying for orange juice and apparently it's an inexhaustable free resource like sunshine. Tropicana is $3 a carton in Toronto because if you tried to setup an orange grove here it would have to be in an expensive green house - and at the end of the day it would cost $20 a litre.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Achromatic1978]

Like they did with Napster? Haha.

"This is teh suxx0r. No more free music, til someone tells me of a new P2P service" != "*AA is bad."

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Achromatic1978]

What money is YouTube making? No ads, and a $1.2M bandwidth bill a month. They only received $11M in VC, so that clock is ticking, fast.

Pop quiz: When you're looking to buy a startup, do you go for one that's just had a massive lawsuit filed against it by the entertainment industry?

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[russotto]

And people pay for it despite the fact that anyone armed with a single orange can produce them in unlimited quantities.

I can't. I'm stuck with these DRMed navels.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Anonymous Coward]

Land IS free. Ever hear of the native americans?

Your own labour costs you nothing. Your own fertilizer (feces) costs you nothing.

If you want to grow oranges, don't live in the cold north. Go elsewhere.

It boils down to most people being too lazy to grow their own food, and most governments wanting to charge for "land ownership", whatever that means.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Psmylie]

There is also the fact that Napster allowed you to walk away with your own copy of whatever it was you wanted. You didn't have to keep going back to Napster every time you wanted to listen to a song. With Youtube, you don't get the option to download something to keep it with you. Not that I think that's going to save them, of course.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[russ1337]

Why buy youtube, when you can sue youtube and take the site as a settlement instead.

Because the one media company that buys youtube will then be sued by a different media company! AND if they give up their media company as settlement, and a third company sues them, it'll be a big game of media-company Katamari Damacy!

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[ConceptJunkie]

Youtube is often held up as an example of Web 2.0 (whatever the hell that means), but the strategy -- get an audience and bail -- is much more of a Web 1.0 (or 0.90) strategy.


But holding off on the lawsuit until the defendant has something valuable you can win is definitely a Business 1.0 strategy.

YouTube has been around how long? And they're just now noticing the copyright infringements? Sure....

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[psymastr]

They've got ads.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Salsaman]

If every music video were available for download off some record company site, this would be a non-issue.

Not so. Not by any means. There are many, many people who want to make their own music videos (see for example AMV). This is part of the ongoing battle between the read-only internet and the read/write internet, as explained eloquently by Professor Lessig.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[crabpeople]

"With Youtube, you don't get the option to download something to keep it with you"

Thats not entirely true.
http://www.methodshop.com/mp3/tutorials/youtuberip /
Disclaimer: I have not found something on there that i wanted to try these tools on and have not used them.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[cubicledrone]

What? You can grow cultivate orange trees for free? land is free to grow them? labour is free to harvest them, fertilizer is free? And I can do all this even in the cold north?

What? You can copy music videos for free? Computers are free? Internet connections are free? Electricity is free? Time is free?

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

It wasn't exactly clear that Napster would lose.

I must admit that I have never used Napster, but wasn't their service clearly illegal from day one? They were redistributing content for which they did not possess a copyright and did not have the copyright holder's permission to do so. What was their rationale for the service being legal?

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[MisterSquid]

Napster did not redistribute content. Their servers kept a database of the peers who actually provided the content, sort of like BitTorrent except that the peers kept no information about who owned what. Rather, Napster's servers collected and organized that information.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Briareos]

There are many, many people who want to make their own music videos (see for example AMV).

So they're illegally using both audio AND video that belong to someone else, and you're wondering why they get their asses sued off?

How about making their own music and animation? Nothing to worry about then.

Or how about actually licensing the material they use? Or taking a course in common sense?

Excuse me for not shedding a tear for those people. Then again, I actually buy both my music and my anime, so maybe I'm weird...

np: DJ Shadow - Outsider Intro (The Outsider) (Yeah, just bought that one...)

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[brisey]

"Food is free. Farmers provide the same service Apple does: a high-quality easily found vegetable/fruit/chicken dinner/bottle of orange juice at a reasonable price. And people pay for it despite the fact that anyone armed with a single orange can produce them in unlimited quantities." You are free to produce your own music videos if you think you an make them cheaper. Its a free market, just like the free makret for food. I lvoe the way people moan about music being low quality, but pirate it furiously anyway. And anyone being able to grow apples is not a way to justify just taking someone elses. Yeah, you can grow apples, go buy the land, plant your tree and wait a few years. Thats not the same as just stealing someone elses. Think it through.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[MMaestro]

Yeah but Napster also failed in the sense that the sheer bulk of content shared through the program was copywrited material. YouTube has the benefit of the doubt.

Like other posters have pointed out, the only reason why YouTube APPEARS to violate so many copyright laws is because the best-of-the-best videos (which of course use copywrited music because you don't get to be the best while going half-assed) are viewed the most and therefore they get the most publicity.

There are thousands of worthless, waste of time videos of people trying to impress others of their 'skillz', but no one ever watchs those because they suck. Badly. (Remember the glut of Blair Witch Project and Jackass knockoffs that appeared years before?) Think of YouTube as the video equal to Geocities 10 years ago, and you've get the same image. The cream of the crop eventually staking a claim on their own webpages and the rest fading off in forgotten corners of the internet.

Re:Looks like the rider beat the horse

[Salsaman]

Or how about actually licensing the material they use?

Not many people have a spare $million lying around.
Then again, I actually buy both my music and my anime

And you've never thought to mix them together ?

Find all those old videos

[Anonymous Coward]

and watch them before they're gone.

I figured this would end soon. YouTube is still looking for buyers/investors as I understand it... I'm not sure how they could sell it with all that content.

Re:Find all those old videos

[mrjb]

Even better, get the firefox video downloader extension and watch then *after* they're gone.

how insane

[tehwebguy]

did you know that UMG just pulled their videos off of the music video station Fuse because they couldn't come to an agreement for compensation? http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=17040 3

am i alone when i say i am blown away that record labels ask stations for a penny to show their videos? i don't know how they did things in the stone age, but MY generation will NOT pay major labels to promote THEIR albums.

Re:how insane

[ergo98]

but MY generation will NOT pay major labels to promote THEIR albums.

Um, okay. Then what's the problem — They'll pull their "promotions" and you'll have no problem with it, right?

Way back in the stone age when one business existed to profit largely via the work of another (see Napster, YouTube, etc. Though YouTube has far more legitimacy given the vast number of user contributed, non-pirated content), the copyright system is geared to demand compensation. Sort of like how the GPL, via the same copyright, is geared to demand its own sort of payment.

Re:how insane

[MoralHazard]

"am i alone when i say i am blown away that record labels ask stations for a penny to show their videos?"

Why the surprise? Music videos are certainly connected to albums sales, but they're also productive as entertainment in their own right. They're shown on TV, which generates viewership and sells ads, which means that someone is paying for it. Indirectly, sure, but they're paying for it.

That's all that UMG is trying to negotiate with Fuse. Both sides believe that UMG can charge Fuse, and Fuse can show the videos, generate viewership, and sell ads. If they didn't agree on that, they'd never have sat down to negotiate in the first place.

I suspect that, since the phenom is relatively new as a business idea, Fuse and UMG have somewhat different assumptions about what the value of the videos actually is. If Fuse pays too much, they can't turn enough of a profit on the content to bother, but UMG wants to charge as close to that point as they can get away with. This is a classic negotiation, and it's been done for years in TV. Give it time, and they'll work out how to do business in the new medium. Maybe another year or two, maybe different companies (YouTube, perhaps?), but it'll happen.

"...MY generation will NOT pay major labels to promote THEIR albums."

Which generation do you mean? If you're old, sure--geriatrics don't watch music videos so much. But if you're young, your generation most certainly DOES pay. You (collectively) buy product X, which was promoted by advertising runs on a channel showing music videos, which pays for the ads.

Simple, simple stuff, here, people.

Re:how insane

[dfghjk]

Last time I checked, music video stations where playing videos in order to sell advertising. Why shouldn't they pay for the content that ultimately nets them a profit?

Re:how insane

[drsquare]

but MY generation will NOT pay major labels to promote THEIR albums.

Your 'generation' might not, but TV companies will, as people who are watching music videos can also be shown adverts which bring in revenue above the costs of the videos, thereby producing this thing called 'profit'.

This is a very simple concept, maybe your generation is too obsolete to understand how modern business works.

Re:how insane

[jacquesm]

What's this 'TV' thing I hear everybody talking about ? Is it something like the net ?

Re:how insane

[RobotRunAmok]

am i alone when i say i am blown away that record labels ask stations for a penny to show their videos?

Pretty much, unless you can somehow cross the time-barrier about 15 years.

The labels have all made it pretty clear (and the analysts have agreed) that they made a big-time mistake providing free content to MTV for as long as they did. Sure, Huey Lewis and The News and a-Ha never would have had the careers they did were it not for the freebies, but at the end of the cycle MTV (and it's johnny-come-lately rivals, like Fuse) fared far, far better in the deal than did the labels. When MTV captured the eyeballs and mind-set, it switched gears away from vids to original programming, leaving their "purist" rivals stuck with paying the bills to the newly educated and enraged recording labels.

I was there (literally, as it turns out) when MTV launched in '82, and I can tell you that everyone I knew just kept their tube on that channel cuz there was no where else you could see these vids or hear these artists. And you couldn't search an archive, and no metadata indexing engine type-matched your interests so you could discover similar artists, and nobody dreamed of "owning" a vid they liked, they just hoped they were in front of the tube when it played again.

Why would anyone watch MTV or Fuse for the videos when they have broadband? And why would a label give a free ride to a video network, knowing what it knows now? (If Fuse does not get vids for free, it will have to pay somebody for some kind of content; label figures, 'why not me?' And they're right.)

MySpace is to youth culture in 2006 what MTV was to it in 1982. It is through the conduit of the social networking sites that the labels will be promoing their wares, not linear-ly programmed TV networks.

Re:how insane

[ergo98]

I was there (literally, as it turns out) when MTV launched in '82, and I can tell you that everyone I knew just kept their tube on that channel cuz there was no where else you could see these vids or hear these artists.

So true. Up here in Canada we had MuchMusic, and like described it basically was just videos around the clock, so many used it as a radio of sorts, with bonus visuals. At most there were "theme shows" such as the rap hour, the heavy metal hour, the alternative hour, and so on.

Nowadays it's almost impossible to actually catch videos on it, as instead it's hours and hours of lame shows (such as the "get a bunch of completely clueless hasbeens to give commentary over a video that you wish you could just watch and listen to, but instead you get to hear some guy who was on some 90s sitcom giving his "funny" opinion on it).

Re:how insane

[Cartack]

Its called capitalism.. have you ever heard of it?

When will these people get it??

[Freaky Spook]

At the end of the day, these movie/song clips are just basically adverts. Its the ultimate form of Viral Advertising and the studios should be encouraging it, not trying to control it.

If they want to make money then this sort of stuff is gold for them, it doesn't cost them anything at all and its not hard to start something.

Its all stupid. You see them release "controlled" video's onto youtube and other blogsites when they are promoting a movie/song but if its something that wasn't thought of by them they suddenly want to sue the pants off everyone.

You can't have it both ways.

Re:When will these people get it??

[larry bagina]

If Microsoft (or International Chess University) stole GPL code, would you be saying the same thing? Maybe Universal is being an asshole here, but it's their right to do so.

Re:When will these people get it??

[Anonymous Coward]

At the end of the day, these movie/song clips are just basically adverts.

You do not get to make that call. The copyright holders do.

Re:When will these people get it??

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, we're allowed to say that it's a stupid decision of questionable business sense. If they want to shoot themselves in the foot over it, they're free to do so.

Re:When will these people get it??

[plasmacutter]

If Microsoft (or International Chess University) stole GPL code, would you be saying the same thing?

No, and with good reason, the GPL specifically allows redistribution so long as it's done without financial gain. Thus, if someone were to give away copies of gpl'd software it would not raise any ire.

Now if you want to actually make the analogy work by making it a violation of the GPL.. well then you have to alter the circumstances.

Violation of the GPL and "stealing" of code would have to involve financial gain without the contribution of the new extensions you added to the source.

Until then, your analogy does not hold.

Maybe Universal is being an asshole here, but it's their right to do so.

i guess this assertion can be filed in the same junk drawer with that constitutional clause of slaves counting as two thirds of a person,gilded age before the labor and women's movements, and the phrase "the only good indian is a dead indian" in the US.

Apparently some fat old rich guys decided that "all men are created equal" means "old rich guys were created more equally than everyone else".

Re:When will these people get it??

[Tim C]

Violation of the GPL and "stealing" of code would have to involve financial gain without the contribution of the new extensions you added to the source.

The violation would be in distribution of binaries without making the source available, financial gain has nothing to do with it.

The analogy isn't great, but the basic thrust of the argument does hold - someone is doing something with a copyrighted work that the copyright holder does not approve of (and that is covered by copyright law). It may make sense to us for UMG to allow YouTube to do this for marketing purposes, but they don't want to, and that's their choice.

Re:When will these people get it??

[Air-conditioned cowh]

the GPL specifically allows redistribution so long as it's done without financial gain

Sorry to be pedantic but, as I understand it, you can charge for GPL code if you want, as long as the source isn't witheld for an additional fee. It's just not an amazing business model because someone can buy your GPL product and then start re-distibuting it for free.

I've even seen shareware, complete with nag screen and feature limitation, released under the GPL since it probably won't occur to anyone to recompile it and redistribute it themselves and if they did they wouldn't have the brand recognition. In fact, come to think of it, that's exactly what Redhat do.

Re:When will these people get it??

[LMariachi]

Maybe Universal is being an asshole here, but it's their right to do so.

Who exactly are you addressing that comment to? I don't see anyone suggesting otherwise.

But: just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Re:When will these people get it??

[XStylus]

The problem that the studios are having is that they don't want a repeat of MTV.

But what's that, you say? "MTV was a boon to the music industry, wasn't it?"

And yes, indeed it was. MTV not only promoted popular hits, but it allowed lots of artists that couldn't get airtime on the radio to find an audience via MTV. But, as we all know by now, the industry can't see the forest for the trees.

Here's a quote from this article:
Record companies are keen to avoid repeating the mistake they believe they made when Viacom Inc.'s MTV was set up 25 years ago -- allowing their artists' music to be aired for free.

Morris in his remarks to investors on Tuesday said MTV "built a multibillion-dollar company on our (music) ... for virtually nothing. We learned a hard lesson."

Yes folks, this is Hollywood's way of saying thank you to MTV. That channel grew a new outlet for music, brought even MORE interest to said music, and helped the music industry make billions, and in spite of all this, the industry is pissed that they gave MTV the tools to do it for free.

And with that in mind, they fear YouTube will be the next MTV, and they want a piece of it. Like usual, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Again. It boggles my mind how utterly near sighted the industry is. It can't see the forest for the trees.

Re:When will these people get it??

[R3d M3rcury]

[...] the GPL specifically allows redistribution so long as it's done without financial gain.

It does bring up a an interesting question in regards to "financial gain."

Okay, so I sing a copyrighted song in the shower. Nobody cares. I'm recorded in the shower singing this song. This recording is played for my housemates who all have a good laugh. Again, nobody cares.

Said recording is placed up on YouTube. YouTube is now, in theory, making money off of my singing this copyrighted song by placing an advertisement for T-Mobile on the same page. Suddenly, somebody cares. Why? Because someone is now making money from the copyrighted song being performed. And the owners of the copyright aren't making a dime.

So where does this "financial gain" line get drawn?

I remember there was a big deal because certain members of The Doors did not want their music used in commercials and other members did. Don't the copyright holders have a right to say how their music is used?

Re:When will these people get it??

[cgenman]

The analogy you're looking for is "What if Microsoft was bundling FireFox with Windows?" The goal of both the record companies and the Mozilla people is higher distribution as a means to higher sales (in one case albums, in the other google searches). YouTube helps achieve that goal.

What it doesn't take into account, is that Music Videos themselves have become a valuable property. The advertising has become the message. So now not only do they want the advertising for the album to get out, but they want to control and make money on how the advertising is distributed.

Re:When will these people get it??

[montyzooooma]

Before MTV I can remember music videos turning up at the most incongruous moments on my local TV station (UTV in Northern Ireland). I mean for instance I've watched the lunchtime news and there's 5 minutes until The Sullivans are on so lets have a video from some band I've never heard of before or since. The fact I'd never heard of them makes me suspect there was a time when music companies actually PAID to have their videos shown on mainstream TV (to the influential Sullivans audience of that era.)

Re:When will these people get it??

[drsquare]

At the end of the day, these movie/song clips are just basically adverts. Its the ultimate form of Viral Advertising and the studios should be encouraging it, not trying to control it.

They are encouraging it. But why shouldn't youtube pay for it like everyone else? Music videos bring in viewers which can be translated into revenue. Why should the music industry provide free revenue for youtube, MTV etc?

You can't have it both ways.

Actually they can, as it's their videos and they are free to release them for free or to charge for them as they wish. When you make a video you are free to do whatever the hell you want with it. But wait, that would mean work, it's much easier to sit on your arse whining at people who actually have initiative.

Re:When will these people get it??

[91degrees]

If Microsoft (or International Chess University) stole GPL code, would you be saying the same thing?

I would. Be nice to see MS improving their products.

Re:When will these people get it??

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, the anology is correct, your's is invalid.
The matter is that a copyright is infringed, how and if this will have some kind of "positive" effect is not relevant.

In your second paragraph you get it right, Music videos are valuable property, and the owner (let's see if someone will start on the owner of the copyright, not the actual video blaaaaaaat) has a right te decide on how and when things are distributed. Some want to make money, other want to spread free software. That is the same underlying right......

But I do udnersand that of course the average /. person will not see that because they are too busy defending tehir right to have pirated materials around....

Re:When will these people get it??

[cubicledrone]

But why shouldn't youtube pay for it like everyone else?

Who pays for music videos?

Why should the music industry provide free revenue for youtube, MTV etc?

Because... they provide revenue for the music industry? (I know this will never work of course. Modern business is WAY too adversarial to cooperate. Just look at the workplace. LOL)

Re:When will these people get it??

[Anonymous Coward]

>Don't the copyright holders have a right to say how their music is used?

Only if that means giving it away, otherwise they have nothing to say about it according to conventional /. wisdom....

Re:When will these people get it??

[Yfrwlf]

Trying to suggest that the GPL should thank copywrite law? That's a problem that wouldn't exist if copywrites didn't exist in the first place. There would be very little concern about "stolen code" if all code was "free" to begin with, except for the fact that not providing the sources would make things difficult, but oh well. I'm sure most people wouldn't mind doing so by their own free will though. The point is that everyone on earth would have good access to information and would no longer be traumatized by groups like the RIAA.

Re:When will these people get it??

[OverlordQ]

Its all stupid. You see them release "controlled" video's onto youtube and other blogsites when they are promoting a movie/song but if its something that wasn't thought of by them they suddenly want to sue the pants off everyone.

You can't have it both ways.

Yea you can. They own the copyright for it, they can control how it's distributed. If they want $foo to go on YouTube they can do that. If they dont want $bar to get put on YouTube, that's their choice too.

Re:When will these people get it??

[UbuntuDupe]

I've even seen shareware, complete with nag screen and feature limitation, released under the GPL since it probably won't occur to anyone to recompile it and redistribute it themselves

I've always thought that one way to generate FireFox users would be to sell it in a box for $34.99 at Best Buy. That's within the GPL, or whatever license FF uses, and like you say, not a lot of people are going to distribute it to others *who would only buy it because they saw it in Best Buy*. Being on a shelf with a semi-steep price would give it an aura of credibility. You'd be showing them where to get the source code -- they just wouldn't care.

Re:When will these people get it??

[Tyler Durden]

MTV, one of the crappiest, most vacuous channels ever to be shat into existence, a boon for music? Maybe in the early days it was. Now I have to agree with Lewis Black when he says, "MTV is to music what KFC is to chicken."

Re:When will these people get it??

[bigpat]

But why shouldn't youtube pay for it like everyone else?

They are trying to arrange for it. But doesn't this problem arise from individuals uploading content that has copyrighted music in it? As an Internet Service Provider there is a procedure for dealing with copyrighted material being posted to a website. It is called a take down notice. Youtube should immune to damages as long as it is following the DMCA procedure. It is the individuals that use copyrighted materials without appropriate permission who are the ones the studios should be going after, unless YouTube is indemnifying them somehow.

Re:When will these people get it??

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a thought, but maybe the people who actually work in and run the industry know more about it than you do? Maybe the reason their actions seem so nonsensical to you is because you are the ignorant one.

Re:When will these people get it??

[Anonymous Coward]

When these ruthless marketing execs loose millions of dollars from people sharing their artists music videos with others, it makes me happy inside. :)

even if we get sued, we have already won.

First P2P, then Video Sites, then what?

[iSeal]

Wherever you'll see exchange of copyright properties without labels getting money, you'll see lawsuits like this. First they went after P2P, now video sites... but what's next? What's the next logical step? Google Video I'm sure is in the immediate future, but I mean more along the lines of the conceptually different.

Websites housing lyrics? Oh wait...

Re:First P2P, then Video Sites, then what?

[pilgrim23]

No, First they went after sheet music: "If they wish to hear my music, come see my show" -very early John Philip Sousa quote, then they went after 78RPM "Buy the sheet music!", then Radio "Buy the 78s, Radio is music for Free!" then.....you get the picture. Technology never waits for the weasels in suits to figure it out, it just goes along its merry way inovating and waiting for humans, Yeah thats us, to figure out how to use it. Meanwhile the Curia argues over whether the church should ban printing presses since they will put all the clerics in abbeys out of work...

Re:First P2P, then Video Sites, then what?

[plasmacutter]

Meanwhile the Curia argues over whether the church should ban printing presses since they will put all the clerics in abbeys out of work...

except this time the Curia passed the DMCA, and thereby cunningly slipped the reigns of power under the table to copyright cartels.. now they are allowed to legislate whatever they please upon technology in the form of licensing of formats for which technology is not legally allowed to develop its own methods compatibility.

Granted it still goes on, but individuals who slave as hard if not harder to produce innovations which preserve compatibility are no longer allowed to enter mainstream marketplaces and actually profit from those labors. Untold economic growth through forces trying to meet the need for anti-drm devices drained swirling down the toilet trap.

Re:First P2P, then Video Sites, then what?

[OldManAndTheC]

Meanwhile the Curia argues over whether the church should ban printing presses since they will put all the clerics in abbeys out of work...

Why, that's a scurrilous accusation! There's nothing for it: I'm simply forced to clamber into my hansom cab, drive over there at a furious gallop, and deliver a right, good thrashing unto your person with my buggy whip!

Re:First P2P, then Video Sites, then what?

[hairyfeet]

Don't forget that thanks to deregulation cartels like ClearChannel own the majority of most markets.I'd be happy to let the copyright holders do what they want if the hadn't stacked the deck.Your band gets popular and wants to get on the radio?Either get royally screwed in a contract with the cartels or forget it.They want to shut down anything they don't control.Just as they control tv and radio they now want to control what you see on the net.

Don't believe it is about money,although their greed is neverending.It's about making sure the masses watch and listen to the corporate playlist.I'm sure all these "Joe average" users flocking to the 'net must have them seriously irked.Can't have them watching "unapproved content" now can we?

Re:First P2P, then Video Sites, then what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile the Curia argues over whether the church should ban printing presses since they will put all the clerics in abbeys out of work...

Actually the Church almost universally encouraged the development of printing. Why? Because the printing press produced many identical copies at a time, and because movable type could be corrected easily, unlike pen and ink. Therefore, printing helped to ensure that holy texts were not corrupted in the process of duplication. (Movable type printing was also developed in medieval Korea, for exactly the same reason: it was used to make accurate copies of Buddhist scripture.)

I realise it's fashionable these days to accuse the Church of opposing every discovery and invention ever made, but the medieval Church was in fact a fairly enlightened organization in terms of science and technology.

Re:First P2P, then Video Sites, then what?

[Zaatxe]

Meanwhile the Curia argues over whether the church should ban printing presses since they will put all the clerics in abbeys out of work...

Did this really happen? Sounds pretty much like "home video will destroy the movie industry"...
They say that history repeats itself, huh?

Re:First P2P, then Video Sites, then what?

[bs7rphb]

Meanwhile the Curia argues over whether the church should ban printing presses since they will put all the clerics in abbeys out of work...

That's not why they wanted to ban printing presses....

Re:First P2P, then Video Sites, then what?

[pilgrim23]

The reason was "Indulgences". An Indulgence is a written forgivness of sin; sort of a medieval get out of jail free card. But it was NOT free. The average peasant who already lived a live of daily strife torment and mire could take his few earned coppers and buy forgivness of sins in the next life from the chubby parish priest. Produced in the local abbey by a sweat shop of monks, these indulgences were used to fund the building of the great cathedrals, debts from a few crusades, Vatican building projects and the like. Along comes the printing press and suddenly fake indulgences crop up in their thousands. Also suddenly the goose qull pen users were no longer in high demand. The Church looses a revenue stream and clerics loose their cush jobs. Double blow. Users of the Printing Press were at one tme placed under Anathema and occasionaly burned...along with their press. Think of the Papal investigators of that era as RIAA lawyers protecting their turf from encroaching technology.

Re:First P2P, then Video Sites, then what?

[tomservo84]

The spacebar is your friend...

Re:First P2P, then Video Sites, then what?

[bs7rphb]

I read that there was another, altogether more sinister reason. Once the bible was translated from latin into languages that the general populace could read, some people started realising that what the church said was in the bible wasn't necessarily accurate. Things like, you need to give all your money to the church or you won't get into heaven.

The church could control this with just a few burnings when the translations were copied by hand, but once the printing presses started churning them out by the thousand they had to very quickly go after the printers and presses, or lose all control over the population. They didn't act quickly enough, and so did lose control.

I like your reason too though.

Had to be a *music* company

[PatriceVignon]

Of course it had to be a music company. A music company that is part of a much bigger media conglomerate, but it is the subdivision that is suing. And they are suing because someone creates a new music video for an old song. This at least involves some work by the person posting it. Yet there is so much content on youtube that is blatantly ripped from TV, but nobody sued about that yet.
Youtube is going to become Napster 2.0: once wildly popular, then sued into oblivion.

More like...

[Anonymous Coward]

"We believe these new businesses^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H everyone is a copyright infringer and owes us tens of millions of dollars..."

DMCA Safe Harbour

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't the DMCA safe harbour rules apply?

Or is this another case of one rich company using the court system as a negotiating tool?

Re:DMCA Safe Harbour

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Yarr! There be no safe harbor fer ye pirates!

Re:DMCA Safe Harbour

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't the DMCA safe harbour rules apply?

Because Youtube is an effective distribution system for unique content (even it if is lipsyncing), and the music industry hates success when it's not their success and will try to sue it out of existence.

Buy used music, support indie bands.

Re:DMCA Safe Harbour

[tehSpork]

Tortuga here I come! Wait... Dammit that's now part of France, they bowed to Apple's DRM demands earlier this year. Is there nowhere safe?

Re:DMCA Safe Harbour

[Modeski]

(to quote qdb.us) I need to go and reboot me ship!

Re:DMCA Safe Harbour

[loraksus]

If you'd add "and then spend SettlementInDollars*4 to set up their own ineffective service/website" I'd agree with you.

Revenue

[C_Kode]

Legal action is a revenue stream. This is what the Canopy Group err Universal Music Group does....

YouTube is not the new Napster

[Stalyn]

The difference being Napster was unable/unwilling to remove copyrighted content. YouTube is more than able and more than willing to remove copyrighted content. The Grokster case set a nice precedent in that a company must at least try to comply with copyright law. Not only that the vast majority of media companies have embraced YouTube, Capitol Records for example has uploaded their own music videos.

Re:YouTube is not the new Napster

[Bieeanda]

The problem is, users are all too quick to post the same content again. Even if Youtube started to use hashes to prevent that, the sneaky little gits will break the originals up into smaller chunks and do it again.

Re:YouTube is not the new Napster

[Lehk228]

and the site falls under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA so Universal can go pound sand

Re:YouTube is not the new Napster

[pikakilla]

This might be shooting themselves in the foot as well, but if youtube doesnt want to deal with this horse crap, they should pull the content from ALL providers with the statement of "due to the recent legal troubles with UMG and to prevent all further legal action against youtube, we do not wish to infringe on anyone's copyright therefore we are pulling all content from all providers (even those who have given permission to do so) to cover our asses." Let those who understand the power of this kind of marketing deal with the dinosaurs who dont. Youtube might not have enough influence, but im sure those who have embraced this model do.

Although, as said earlier, this could easily be complete suicide with no apprechiable gain.

Re:YouTube is not the new Napster

[BadAnalogyGuy]

This would make YouTube 100% unviable as a business. YouTube needs to be bought out. It can't sustain itself on its current profits, so it needs to be funded either through direct investment or through promotional fees by the same media companies that are now at their throats.

If they declared that they are going to take down all non-user content as a reaction to this lawsuit, they would be breaking whatever agreements they may already have with certain media companies, and they would be forced to live off the revenue generated through advertising, membership fees, and donations.

It would be extreme folly to declare themselves independent of the media companies. They are in no position to negotiate, and throwing away their best cards is a dumb strategy.

Re:YouTube is not the new Napster

[RAMMS EIN]

``The difference being Napster was unable/unwilling to remove copyrighted content. YouTube is more than able and more than willing to remove copyrighted content. The Grokster case set a nice precedent in that a company must at least try to comply with copyright law.''

And the strange thing about that is that, for example, ISPs are okay as long as they _don't_ try to filter unlawful content (and spam, malware, etc.), because if they did filter, they'd be responsible for anything that got through.

FWIW, IIRC, Napster did try to prevent people from sharing content that the copyright cartel would rather not see shared. However, people found ways around that; instead of saying the songs were by Metallica, they'd say they were by M3t3llic@ to slip through the filter. Another nice illustration of the futility of trying to stop something that hordes of people do and want to be doing.

Re:YouTube is not the new Napster

[cpt kangarooski]

The Grokster case set a nice precedent in that a company must at least try to comply with copyright law.

No, that's not what it said. Of course, all copyright cases can be read as requiring that. The trick is what constitutes compliance. Grokster simply said that a party is liable if they induce others to engage in copyright infringement. Failure to thoroughly police wouldn't show inducement. That goes more toward vicarious liability, if it matters at all.

Re:YouTube is not the new Napster

[cpt kangarooski]

And the strange thing about that is that, for example, ISPs are okay as long as they _don't_ try to filter unlawful content (and spam, malware, etc.), because if they did filter, they'd be responsible for anything that got through.

That's not true, and in fact, plenty of ISPs do filter. There was no consensus as to whether ISPs are common carriers before a few laws came in to shield them regardless, such as 17 USC 512 or 47 USC 230.

Re:YouTube is not the new Napster

[RAMMS EIN]

Thanks for the correction.

Re:YouTube is not the new Napster

[Stalyn]

Yes but actively policing content does indicate that one is not inducing copyright infringement. Indeed a failure to properly police is not by implication an inducement of copyright infringement. However to actively police and remove content is by implication not an inducement of copyright infringement.

a host or a distributor?

[roman_mir]

Is YouTube just a host or are they a content distributor? If they are just a host, how can they be liable for what others post on their site?

Re:a host or a distributor?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

By promoting certain videos (the "director's corner" or whatever they call it), they have risen above mere shuttling bits around to actively selecting and distributing content. If they can take action to promote certain videos and remove certain other videos, not to mention restrict access to some types of videos, then they are a much more active player than a mere Napster who was only a middleman.

Re:a host or a distributor?

[cryptoluddite]

As long as the process is automated, such as 'most discussed' or 'most viewed' then they have some protection under the DMCA. It's not their responsibility to determine if all their videos are legit, only to take down ones that are not authorized when and if they find them and to take down any videos when copyright holder gives them a notice to do so. Thanks to Grokster they also can't advertise or make money off of having unlicensed content.

This is just more evidence that the big corporations don't care what the law is, even a crappy law they paid for like DMCA. Even though YouTube *is* legal they'll sue them to death anyway.

Prompt removal of copyrighted material not enough

[ConfusedSelfHating]

So as soon as someone posts copyrighted material on a website, the owner of the website owes money to the copyright owner. I guess it's under the impression that for a brief period of time the website owner made money off ads and the copyright owner should get that ad money. It seems a little like the patent trolls waiting until a company has a successful product. If people want to use a song they will have to wait until the copyright expires .. oh, wait...

I don't get the tens of millions of dollars part though. I've heard of $150 million to $400 million a year in potential revenue for YouTube. I understand it from the greedy record company standpoint, but I can't see it from the actual damages perspective. I guess every single person who saw a video that had a copyrighted song copied the song and E-mailed it to their friends in the Hong Kong Triads who later distributed pirate versions of it throughout Asia.

There is incentive for major content providers to completely destroy user content websites. After all, the content oligarchy would not want competition, even poorly made funny cat video competition.

Dirty Play

[OverflowingBitBucket]

UMG are just playing dirty. They are trying to negotiate with YouTube and MySpace and things aren't going (entirely) their way, so out comes the threat of potential future lawsuits with a nice big number (tens of meeeellions of dollars!) to crash the stock value of YouTube and MySpace today. The threat is basically: "Look at what we can do to your stock with a few choice words. Accept our last offer or we hit you again."

Re:Dirty Play

[jZnat]

Why is it that when ATT got sued by pretty much everyone at once over the NSA illegal wiretapping, their stocks didn't plummet? Why doesn't Microsoft's plummet after pretty much everything they do?

Re:Dirty Play

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hope that they go after myspace with a potential suit. News International aren't the kind of people to be pushed just because they can actually afford damn good lawyers. If I was YouTube I'be be trying to hide behind MySpace and hoping that maybe News International could set a good precedent in this area

Re:Dirty Play

[Opportunist]

Because it's only people who got angry. Not companies. When people get angry, they shout and riot. When companies get angry, they sue. Which one do you think is more damaging for a company?

Re:Dirty Play

[OverflowingBitBucket]

Why is it that when ATT got sued by pretty much everyone at once over the NSA illegal wiretapping, their stocks didn't plummet?

Probably depends on the relative size of the players, the strength of their arguments, and likelihood of victory.

Why doesn't Microsoft's plummet after pretty much everything they do?

Why should it? They have the office productivity, OS, OEM market, and US administration exactly where they want them, and have a warchest if someone does take them on.

It begins...

[ImaNihilist]

It was ineveitable. Looks like Universal gave up waiting for YouTube to make some coin before they filled suit. I guess they realize now that YouTube will never make money.

The reality is that more people use YouTube to view content that shouldn't be on there than to view the content that should. I'm no exception. The only thing I really use YouTube for is watching South Park and other shows off Cartoon Network. I'll also use it to watch music videos, but not even watch the video. I just want to hear the song, and I know YouTube has it.

Sure, there are people who actually don't use YouTube for this purpose, but I'll tell you right now that they are in the minority.

The only way YouTube can save itself is by moderating ALL videos. That is, videos will only appear on the site once they are flagged, much like Google does. If and when that day comes, all the content I want will be gone and there's really no reason for me to ever go to YouTube again.

Did anyone really think YouTube was going to stay around? I'm amazed that investors kept pumping money into it.

Re:It begins...

[cgenman]

Thinking back a month... Things I've watched recently on You Tube:

Trailer for Transformers - Legalish
Transforming Robot Beetle - Legal
Playing With Electricity Video - Legal
Metalocalypse - Not Legal
Ask a Ninja - Legal
Street Running - Legal
ZeFrank talking at a convention - Legal
Some guy blowing the whistle on faulty helicopter design - Legal
Quake 3 Rocket Jump super skillz video - Legal

I know there are a lot of illegal uses for YouTube. But it seems like unlike a lot of P2P apps, the non-infringing uses are substantial. If YouTube could successfully filter out all of the illegal content, it would still have a lot of uses

Re:It begins...

[ghyd]

How do you know that more people use Youtube to see illegal content, really ? For example I don't remember having watched illegal content. All I look on youtube is mostly digged videos, like the truck wich loose its rear to a train, the odd scientific experiment, or the ritual colbert extract (wich helps me to learn spoken english, thanks alot youtube and google video for that). I can't remember when i have last looked to a music video or such. So I would argue that few people look to really illegal content on youtube (what for would they, the low quality don't go well with meaningless but highly polished mainstream entertainment) and thats maybe universal problem ? They just don't like people having a word on what they look at, thats all.

Re:It begins...

[Kjella]

I know there are a lot of illegal uses for YouTube. But it seems like unlike a lot of P2P apps, the non-infringing uses are substantial.

If I recall reading my stats correctly, the illegal content on P2P networks was found to be close to 90%, which would make slightly over 10% legal. I don't know the legal definition of substantial, but it's certainly not negliable. Plus, if you take the broader view of "P2P" to including anything up to and including the Internet itself, the picture changes dramatically. It's like taking the statistics for a border road between US and Mexico and concluding that all roads are heavily used for drug smuggling.

Re:It begins...

[ImaNihilist]

Take the average piece of illegal contnet. Look at the number of views it has. Scale that according to the amount of time that it's been on YouTube and you'll instantly see what I mean. Aside from videos from lonelygirl or brookers or something like that, things like episodes of South Park or the Colbert Report have the highest amount of views for the amount of time they are on YouTube before they get deleted, only to return again two days later.

Okay

[cubicledrone]

"We believe these new businesses are copyright infringers and owe us tens of millions of dollars"

Fair enough. Please direct us to the site where we can see Universal Music Group artists' music videos.

Okay. Please direct us to the television--

Okay. Please direct us to the DVD--

Oh, you mean nobody would ever see these videos otherwise? So if there's no market for these videos, how can it be established there were tens of millions in damages?

BZZZT. Thanks for playing.

Re:Okay

[nosferatu1001]

Statutory damages, unfortunately!

which is the most stupid crime here, that unlike most other place no actualy damages need to be shown....

Re:Okay

[MikeXpop]

Step One: Go to the iTunes Music Store
Step Two: Bend over and pay $2 for a 3 minute 320x240 video with DRM
Step Three: Profit! (Well, not for you. But someone.)

So yeah, basically they are available. It's just simply rediculous for what they're charging. While some videos are really good and might be worth buying to own (Hurt by Johnny Cash is an example, though iTunes doesn't even sell that one), the vast majority of them I'd like to see once and then really never watch again. The industry doesn't really get that.

Re:Okay

[k98sven]

Oh, you mean nobody would ever see these videos otherwise? So if there's no market for these videos, how can it be established there were tens of millions in damages?

That's a rhetorical question, isn't it? Well.. here goes anyway..

Now, I'm not sure whether you're trying to make a political point against the current copyright laws (although the matter really extends to quite a lot of civil liability) or whether you believe you're stating an argument that's relevant within the current legal system. Nevertheless I think it deserves an retort.

Lemme first say the premise is factually incorrect. Many, if not most of the videos in question are actually commercially available. That's not entirely relevant, as I'll get to though.

But assuming that premise and that you're talking about how the law currently stands, the question is: What damages are they entitled to? Three kinds, basically: Compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages. As the names imply, the first exists to compensate the owner's loss, the second serves to punish the infringer if their conduct was found to be particularily malicious/negligent, and the last are damages to which they're entitled by law. Since copyright law has statutory damages, there is no real argument to why they wouldn't be entitled to the latter. Given your argument, it's fairly obvious you're not adressing those damages either, so there's no point in going into that matter further. Just take note that they're entitled by law to at least that much.

Punitive damages are a bit difficult to guess in the US, and their somewhat haphazard nature is a popular argument for tort reform. But let's consider some things I think the court would reasonably find to be fact:
1) YouTube is violating their copyright.
2) They know they are.
3) They are profiting from it.
4) YouTube has taken measures to stop infringing content
5) Those measures have been rather ineffective.
6) They're aware of that fact.

I think the real linchpin is in how the last points are interpreted. If YouTube can convince the court that they'd done all that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent it, then there was no real malice or negligence on their part, and punitive damages would be out of the question. On the other hand, if the plaintiffs convince the court that YouTube was merely making a token effort without any real intent to stop infringement, then they might be found to have acted negligently. And that may entitle the plaintiffs to punitive damages. Personally I think it could go either way, but there's no denying that the large amount of copyrighted stuff is a major factor in YouTube's popularity. But it'll probably depend on what the other damages amount to as well.

Anyway. Let's get to the real issue: Compensatory damages. Which is what your argument is aimed at.
As I parse your argument, it goes as follows:
A) If they're not currently selling the product, there's no profitable market for it.
B) If there is no profitable market for the product, the product has no economic value.
C) If the product has no economic value, then they cannot have suffered any economic loss.

Only C is true. A is obviously false. As-of-yet unreleased products can certainly be profitable once they start selling them. It's also false for the other case, products which have been withdrawn from the market. There are any number of counterexamples of profitable re-releases of products.

I understand the implied argument though: That if there was any profit to be made from releasing or re-releasing the product, they'd have done so. Since the product isn't on the market, one concludes there's no profit to be made from it. It's plain old business sense.

The thing is, that argument has little legal relevance. And for good reason, too. The court can't operate on the assumption that you're making good business decisions. Nor should they. But I'll get back to that.

B is also false. There is no legal justif

why are music vids even neccessy on youtube

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a shame youtube cant just agree to try to stop hosting comercially licenced music vids..
and the music industry in turn 'give some slack' in regards to personally filmed home-movies using soundtracks..
Personally I reckon youtube is great for the home made and TV content.. most modern pop music (and the industry bendind it)
just does not interest me.. but there is so much more on youtube..

believe it.

[Anonymous Coward]

'"We believe these . . . owe us tens of millions of dollars,"

I believe that they owe me tens of millions too!
can i sue? please?

well

[ImTheDarkcyde]

Copyright Axe hasn't hit Ebaumsworld yet, and they have plenty of content ripped straight from DVDs. And hell, they even get a TV show out of it.

Re:well

[jb.hl.com]

Considering how eBaumsworld's content is 99% ripped from other places, I would imagine they thought a few DVD rips wouldn't hurt.

I would dearly, dearly love a lawsuit to be brought against eBaumsworld, if only because the resulting page on Encyclopedia Dramatica would be fantastic.

I can see their point

[Sathias]

I was going to buy the latest Metallica album, then I realised that I could get all their film clips to be viewed in a blurry little window, with near-radio quality sound! Not to mention that a series of YouTube links doesn't take up valuable space on my CD rack! Chalk that up as one lost sale *cha-ching*

Re:I can see their point

[Modeski]

This is a very good point. Youtube doesn't pose any realistic threat to UMG. Can anyone honestly say they've seen or heard something on Youtube in preference to buying it? I see YT as the latest incarnation of friends swapping tapes amongst each other. I think they're just bitter because they've missed the boat.

Re:I can see their point

[McFadden]

Youtube doesn't pose any realistic threat to UMG.

I agree, but you missed the word "yet" from the end of your sentence. What happens a few years down the line when the technology has the capacity for the small blurry video and radio quality sound to turn into a full screen, high bitrate, perfect copy of what was uploaded. At that point, Youtube becomes nothing more than a centralized file sharing network for getting any media you want. Companies like UMG aren't so stupid that they can't see this coming, so why not knock Youtube out of the game early, before the bigger problem materializes?

Don't get me wrong. I despise the RIAA, UMG and their cronies as much as anyone. They're a bunch of blood sucking parasites whom I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. But the problem with rich assholes is that they like being rich and want to stay that way.

It's a control issue

[TheoreticalString]

For the RIAA, this is about far more than money. This is about control. Consider the high-profile members who are so much more than music companies. Sony. Warner Brothers.

This is about control over entertainment. You Tube is a form of entertainment that they simply don't control. They don't produce it. They don't write it. And they don't make money off it. Theoretically, a band could make a hit song that never passed through any of their doors. A person could make a You Tube video so famous that he could achieve status as a director without ever setting foot in one of their offices.

You Tube has the ability to deliver content to every person with an internet connection. Statistically, it is inevitable that eventually a breakout new band or director will arrive through You Tube without any member of the big corporations having their claws in them. For the RIAA this is about the fact that they want to retain control over every note of music you hear. It assures them they will never be caught by surprise. It allows them to stay in the forfront of new trends. It lets them juggle bands, hits, and artists with impunity. It lets them create restrictive contracts that give the vast majority of money from CD sales to them, instead of the artist. It lets them artificially inflate prices and manipulate the market.

That's worth infinitely more than $1 million in proprietary content that they might be losing, if we take the highest number imaginable. That's why they care.

Re:It's a control issue

[dfghjk]

"Statistically, it is inevitable that eventually a breakout new band or director will arrive through You Tube without any member of the big corporations having their claws in them."

No it's not inevitable. Not even likely.

"For the RIAA this is about the fact that they want to retain control over every note of music you hear."

That has never been the case.

Re:It's a control issue

[oyenstikker]

"They don't produce it."

They DO produce it. They made the product, and somebody else is selling, illegally, it for profit. That is why they are suing.

Don't complain that the RIAA/MPAA are taking legal action to protect their legal rights. If you don't think there should be laws against what YouTube is doing, complain about the laws and the lawmakers.

Don't complain that I'm impeding the advance of traffic flow because I'm doing 60 in a 65; complain that the speed limit is only 65.

note: Don't start ranting about how information should be free and copyrights are wrong and non free software is "ethically tainted". What should be has nothing to do with my comment. It is about what is, and what the appropriate response is.

Re:It's a control issue

[Illserve]

For the RIAA, this is about far more than money. This is about control.

It's about control.... to enable them to make more money.

I know this is slashdot but let's keep things in a reasonable perspective. The RIAA is about money, not control for control's sake.

That's the government's job.

Re:It's a control issue

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube and the like threaten centralized control of entertainment distribution - absolutely. But if the protection of that is the motive for this suit, why aren't the tv and film industries behind it? Possibly tv and film execs lack imagination. Possible?

But I do find it strange there is no litigious frenzy about the tv shows on YouTube. I'm not deeply familiar with the site, so I may be missing something, but I wonder how they get away with it.

think profits

[troll -1]

We must never forget the purpose of copyright laws. They are there to promote the useful arts. Ask yourself: how is suing youtube accomplishing this?

The idea that no one will create anything if youtube users are allowed to use it in their homemade videos is absurd. But don't blame Universal. Blame congress for favoring promotion over profits and allowing the recording industry to make massive campaign contributions in what would *appear* to be an exchange for legislation.

The entertainment gives our elected officials about $30 million/year to make sure they can bring lawsuits like this one.

Re:think profits

[cpt kangarooski]

We must never forget the purpose of copyright laws. They are there to promote the useful arts.

I agree that we shouldn't forget, and in fact, we should craft the laws to best fulfill their purpose. But copyright has nothing at all to do with the useful arts. Copyright is meant to promote science; patents promote the useful arts.

Remember, the Constitution was written in the late 18th century, and English is a very dynamic language. But their meaning still shows in the structure of the clause (which always goes copyright/patent), in historic definitions (check your OED), in vestigal terminology, like 'state of the art technology' or 'prior art' or 'a person having ordinary skill in the art,' etc.

This is stupid

[GoatPigSheep]

Has anyone noticed videos on youtube don't even have sound in stereo? They are all in mono.

You can't even listen to music properly using the videos on that site, the quality is too low.

As for the lip-syncing and dancing videos, it's free advertising. I bet "numa numa" sold a lot more records since that fat dude posted a video dancing to it, in fact they are using that to market a new version of that song now...

Re:This is stupid

[anagama]

Without having seen Brolsma (sp?) lip sync the Numa Numa song, I would never have bought it on iTunes. So in certain circumstances, it is true that distributing the song without permission will benefit the artist. On the other hand, if something already is very popular -- the chances of an infringing use generating a sale are probably low.

Re:This is stupid

[iainl]

I see your point entirely. I'd rather pay money for something I want and have it in a decent quality.

The problem lies in there being no legal definition of 'decent quality'; after all, I bought CDs rather than download 128kbs mp3 files, but that didn't stop the tonnes of legal bricks falling on Napster's head.

Sue'm All

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube Legal Strategy:

We seem to be liable for 'contribuatory infringement'; aka we make it possible (knowingly?) for others to violate copyright (even though we respond to requests to remove copyrighted material).

The RIAA, etc, want their 'pound of flesh', and we don't think they deserve it.

If we are liable, for contributing to the violations, then necessarily, others must be as well. While we provide the service to share, the individual users must knowingly violate, as well as everyone between the copyright holder and us.

Therefore we sue:

• CD manufacturers (they don't prevent people from copying)
• CDROM drive manufacturers (they allow the cd to be read)
• Computer manufacturers (they allow the cd to interface to software)
• OS manufacturers (they allow software to access the CD, through the computer
• Software manufacturers (they provide software to access the CD, convert the copyrighted material, and upload it.)
• ISPs (they allow the transmission of copyrighted material, we merely provide access to it).
• Chair manufacturers (they allow users to sit while they abuse copyright)
• Housing contractors (they provide a safe haven for infringers)
• Electricity Generation Companies (they provide the electromotive force that allows the infrinment to take place)
• End Users of our service (we take every IP that has every connected to use, and individually sue them for the infringment).

Amen. The lawsuit to finally decide the issue.

Re:Sue'm All

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is: If ISPs are liable for copyrighted content, and a website allows users to create content, at what point does the website assume responsibility?

Assuming the website responds to requests to remove copyrighted material, how is it any different from an ISP?

What allows an ISP to ignore copyright violation, via transmissions through the network, while a website can't?

They both provide the same basic service, only the website is somewhat more persistant then the ISP...

Re:Sue'm All

[dfghjk]

"What allows an ISP to ignore copyright violation, via transmissions through the network, while a website can't?"

No one said a website couldn't, but ISP's can as long as they are a common carrier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

I'd love to see YouTube argue that it's a common carrier.

Re:Sue'm All

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I certainly respect where you're coming from here, but there's something I don't think you appreciate.

Not meaning to troll here, but I've found that the liberal ideal revolves around giving people freedom by restricting the law. By demanding that it be followed word-for-word, by demanding education over legislation, by trying to iron out inconsistencies by reducing the powers of authority. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that the law is merely a tool for persecuting those they don't want around (be it for safety or purely selfish reasons). They don't tend to care if it goes beyond the law's juristiction, they just want the offending party outta there.

That seems to be where UMG coming from. They don't give a shit if the law is inconsisent, they're just want to permanently squash the healthy competition that YouTube (and P2P networks) provide(s).

Re:Sue'm All

[cpt kangarooski]

They won't even bother. No one does. ISPs use statutory provisions (e.g. 17 USC 512) to protect themselves. There was never any conclusion on common carrier status for ISPs, and so long as there are statutes that provide safe harbors without having to answer the common carrier question, there never will be any conclusion.

Re:Sue'm All

[dfghjk]

So you are saying that YouTube is in a similar position?

Re:Sue'm All

[cpt kangarooski]

If they're going to get sued, it's either because they have failed to adequately use the 512 safe harbor, or there is some theory the suit is based on that gets around it. Neither seems very likely to me, but you never know.

Re:Sue'm All

[dfghjk]

I'm curious to know why you chose to respond to my post rather than the parent. Specifically, why didn't you respond to the question:

"What allows an ISP to ignore copyright violation, via transmissions through the network, while a website can't?"

Are you claiming that YouTube qualifies as a service provider under 512?

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cg i?QuestionID=127

"A service provider is defined as "an entity offering transmission, routing, or providing connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received" or "a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities thereof.""

YouTube clearly does not qualify. How would you address ""...without modification to the content of the material as sent or received"? YouTube creates their own modified versions of the content you upload; it is not simply a neutral conduit for it's users' data.

"...because they have failed to adequately use the 512 safe harbor.."

Yes, it's this one.

Re:Sue'm All

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, I'm looking at 17 USC 512(c), and I'd guess that YouTube is a service provider as that term is defined at 17 USC 512(k)(1)(B).

You're looking at the wrong definition -- at (k)(1)(A) -- and probably the wrong of the four safe harbors within 512.

Re:Sue'm All

[dfghjk]

Thanks for the putting the burden on me to try to figure out just what you are trying to argue. If you are well-versed in copyright law, surely you can form an argument on your own or answer a simple question.

17 USC 512(c) is for "Information residing on systems or networks at direction of users." My feeling is that YouTube is not providing that kind of service. What YouTube does is create derivative works of user-provided content and profit by making them available to the entire internet community. The resultant works are not the user's original content and their use is not under the user's direct control. A user can restrict availability and delete the derivative works only. 17 USC 512(c) is meant for internet file storage IMO.

No doubt YouTube wants to consider itself not liable for the posting of infringing content by its users. Just wishing doesn't make it so, though. YouTube is not offering an ISP-like service nor is it offering neutral internet storage for a user's content. Instead, YouTube is a service that takes user-contributed content, provides a means for other users to view it, and ultimately profit from the (potentially infringing) content provided.

I see no parallel to an ISP service AT ALL and that was the original question---one which you've made no attempt to address yourself. Just why is it that an ISP cannot be held liable while YouTube can? Can you answer that or explain why YouTube also can't, please? I would be delighted to learn that YouTube qualifies for safe harbor and would love to hear a compelling argument to that effect.

Re:Sue'm All

[Anonymous Coward]

17 USC 512(c) is for "Information residing on systems or networks at direction of users." My feeling is that YouTube is not providing that kind of service. What YouTube does is create derivative works of user-provided content and profit by making them available to the entire internet community. The resultant works are not the user's original content and their use is not under the user's direct control. A user can restrict availability and delete the derivative works only. 17 USC 512(c) is meant for internet file storage IMO.

What the hell are you talking about? That doesn't make any sense.

YouTube is exactly internet file storage.

Why are you talking about derivative works? If anybody makes derivative works in those videos its the users who upload them.

Re:Sue'm All

[dfghjk]

When a user uploads a video to YouTube, what gets stored on the YouTube site is not what the user uploaded. Instead, a new video is created using the user's video as input. The user cannot download what he originally uploaded so YouTube is not internet file storage. YouTube is a content publishing site.

Re:Sue'm All

[Anonymous Coward]

That's still not a derivative work.

It's the same work. Changes in presentation (or encoding or whatever) don't create a derivative work. The changes applied to YouTube uploads are universal and not creative in nature.

Re:Sue'm All

[dfghjk]

It is probably true that it's not a "derivative work" but I used that term in response to the requirement "...without modification to the content of the material as sent or received"...". Clearly YouTube doesn't meet that requirement so that question of whether it's a derivative work is moot. Furthermore, someone else pointed out that they believed that definition didn't apply in any case and I agree. Instead, they argued that YouTube was a storage service and I disagreed. Curiously, I attempted to explain how YouTube is different from an ISP and others are more than happy to argue yet none will take a position and back it up with a coherent explanation.

Re:Sue'm All

[cpt kangarooski]

Thanks for the putting the burden on me to try to figure out just what you are trying to argue. If you are well-versed in copyright law, surely you can form an argument on your own or answer a simple question.

Well, you had been looking at the statute already, which I actually found impressive. I merely thought that you were looking at the wrong part of the statute, so I didn't think it was necessary to do much else. Apparently, I was wrong about that, so I'll try to be more clear.

17 USC 512(c) is for "Information residing on systems or networks at direction of users." My feeling is that YouTube is not providing that kind of service. What YouTube does is create derivative works of user-provided content and profit by making them available to the entire internet community. The resultant works are not the user's original content and their use is not under the user's direct control. A user can restrict availability and delete the derivative works only. 17 USC 512(c) is meant for internet file storage IMO.

The statute itself is what's key, as always. 512(c) is applicable for "the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider." This differs from system caching, which is "intermediate and temporary storage of material." I would say that YouTube falls into this category. Users direct them to store material on their system, and it's not caching. That's all that it takes.

The works are not derivatives, as that word is defined in section 101. They're not bit-for-bit identical, but minor differences do not a derivative make. Also, it wouldn't matter, as there's no requirement that the work not be identical, as we'll see shortly.

There is no requirement in the statute that the material be created by the user. In fact, that would be absurd, since this statute is meant to protect ISPs from users who infringed and are dragging the ISP down with them. Nor is there a requirement that the user have control over the file, other than that he directs it to be stored; since not storing it anymore wouldn't possibly be infringing, there would be nothing for 512(c) to shelter ISPs with regards to, so there isn't even a requirement that the user be able to take it down at will in order for 512(c) to apply.

Ultimately, these are files, they're on the Internet, and so they qualify under the safe harbor meant for files put up on the Internet. 512 is extremely broad in some ways, and this is one of them.

YouTube is not offering an ISP-like service nor is it offering neutral internet storage for a user's content. Instead, YouTube is a service that takes user-contributed content, provides a means for other users to view it, and ultimately profit from the (potentially infringing) content provided.

ISPs, particularly the free, ad-supported ones, do this all the time. There's no 'neutrality' requirement, whatever that's supposed to be, in the safe harbor. And there's every protection for vicarious infringement on the part of ISPs.

It is probably true that it's not a "derivative work" but I used that term in response to the requirement "...without modification to the content of the material as sent or received"

Which is in 512(a), and not 512(c). 512(c) doesn't care if there is modification, which is not the same thing as whether or not there is a derivative, so whether the work is bit-for-bit identical, slightly modified (as is actually the case), or is a full-fledged derivative, it is irrelevant. 512(a), (b), (c), and (d) are four separate safe harbors. As long as YouTube qualifies for one of them (in practice, (b)-(d)), it is safe. It does not have to fall within all four.

So yes, it's a moot question because it is irrelevant to the discussion we're actually having.

Re:Sue'm All

[dfghjk]

I certainly agree that 512(a) doesn't apply. After all, I was trying specifically to differentiate ISPs and YouTube in response to the original question. You comment changed the subject (for me) to why YouTube might qualify anyway.

Regarding "derivative works" that was simply careless language on my part. I didn't mean it in the legal sense that the phrase carries. What I meant was that the data was not bit-identical which 512(a) required. It is moot anyway since 512(a) we both agree doesn't work for YouTube. That was the extent of my original argument.

It is true that ISPs frequently provide storage in addition to an internet connection. The difference IMO is that the ISP doesn't promote what its customer stores in any way. It doesn't profit from what is stored, it simply profits from offering the storage service whether it is used or not. YouTube can only profit from what is stored since it doesn't charge subscription fees for the storage itself.

YouTube's slogan is "Broadcast Yourself". The question is whether YouTube is "a partner" in that effort or that they are simply offering a tool. I have noticed recently that MySpace's similar video-hosting service overlays the myspace logo on top of the uploaded content. It would be interesting to see the opinion on whether that has any impact on liability. I haven't read any user agreements for YouTube or MySpace so I don't know how that might impact things either.

IANAL so it is not for me to judge, but I see distinct differences between what an ISP does and what YouTube does. That doesn't mean that YouTube doesn't qualify and there's no doubt that they must believe that they do. I hope so.

Re:Sue'm All

[cpt kangarooski]

The difference IMO is that the ISP doesn't promote what its customer stores in any way. It doesn't profit from what is stored, it simply profits from offering the storage service whether it is used or not. YouTube can only profit from what is stored since it doesn't charge subscription fees for the storage itself.

And that's an irrelevant difference. The statute protects service providers; it doesn't care about profit. And one of the things it protects them from is vicarious infringement, where profit is actually a factor. So you just aren't making an argument for why 512(c) wouldn't apply here.

I see distinct differences between what an ISP does and what YouTube does

The thing you need to bear in mind, though, is that what you think of as an ISP isn't what the statute has in mind. The statute takes a far, far broader approach. The statute says that "the term "service provider" means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor" YouTube provides an online service. Thus, it is a qualifying service provider.

I have no interest at all in commercial vids.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality is that more people use YouTube to view content that shouldn't be on there than to view the content that should. I'm no exception. The only thing I really use YouTube for is watching South Park and other shows off Cartoon Network. I'll also use it to watch music videos, but not even watch the video. I just want to hear the song, and I know YouTube has it.

Sure, there are people who actually don't use YouTube for this purpose, but I'll tell you right now that they are in the minority.

Fuck that copyrighted shit...I lurk at YouTube to watch the home videos of preteen girls.

You pirates make me sick.

Re:I have no interest at all in commercial vids.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly right. Who the hell watches music videos?! The grandparent says he loads them just for the music - yeah right. The quality is so awful, I don't know how you can bear to listen. YouTube is exclusively about looking at girls in various sorts of home movies.

Any artist

[Tweekster]

that believes they honestly deserve money because someone lipsynced to their video should be boycotted until they are back stocking shelves at walmart. they are not artists in any way shape or form, they are money grubbing whores and that is it. fuck them

Re:Any artist

[dfghjk]

It's not about lipsyncing videos, although anyone song that gets the lipsync treatment is popular enough to matter.

It would be interesting to see your change in perspective if you ever produced anything worthy of being lipsynced on youtube.

Re:Any artist

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod troll.

Re:Any artist

[Tet]

It's not about lipsyncing videos

Perhaps not, but some of them are awesome: Xiquets De Banyoles.

Re:Any artist

[Tweekster]

No I wouldnt, because if I were an artist I hope I wouldnt be so money hungry that I was trying to literally grasp every penny out of every outlet possible. There are chains of distribution where I will be making my money, lipsyncing isnt one of them...

Lipsyncing videos, Is it costing me money as an artist...no it is not.

Re:Any artist

[dfghjk]

So where is it documented that artists are trying to collect royalties from lipsyncing home videos? The concern is with the uploading of entire copyrighted works. Should an artist be concerned when all his videos are uploaded to YouTube? Should he be concerned when all his music is made available for free? Is it fair when only 5% of his work is taken without compensation? 10%?

"...if I were an artist I hope I wouldnt be so money hungry that I was trying to literally grasp every penny out of every outlet possible."

Professional artists are in the business of selling their work. Why should they be held to a different standard as professionals in other businesses? Should the cashier at the grocery store not bother to ring up every tenth item because they shouldn't be so "money hungry"? Why do you think that some professionals, by virtue of their professions, should allow a portion of their work to go uncompensated? Why don't you come over and cut my grass this weekend for free then? I guess it's because you're too money hungry.

Another one bites the dust ...

[getkashyap]

Yeah, yeah!! we've seen it all before. X sues YouTube. YouTube closes. Someone startsa sute called MeTube! (pun not intended). :)

Fine...

[fuzzybunny]

While I dislike ham-handed copyright suits, at least this might serve to get rid of the gajillions of Backdorm Boys ripoffs by pimply American college kids.

I mean, the originals were pretty funny, at least Da Da Da, Peking Opera and Don't Lie made me laugh, but aside from that, Go Get'em Universal!

Where will it end?

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in: the RIAA has issued a lawsuit against Al Gore, creator of the internet, over copyright infringment...

What everyone seems to be missing

[BadAnalogyGuy]

UMG seems to think that they can just haul up to this site and drive away with truckloads of cash. What they don't get, and what everyone seems to be glossing over, is that the Internet isn't a truckload of cash. It's a series of YouTubes.

Re:What everyone seems to be missing

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I hear you. I mean, what's the point of suing someone for bajillions of dollars if they haven't worked out step 2 yet...?

fp

[Anonymous Coward]

final post plz

Finally

[SQLz]

Someone else to hate besides Sony.

Re:Finally

[Opportunist]

It's just a superset of Sony, so you don't have to redirect your hate too much.

Doing our business is what DMCA notices are for

[Dachannien]

I shudder to say it, but isn't this what DMCA takedown notices are for? If someone puts some music they don't own on the web space that their local ISP gives them, then the copyright holder's recourse is to send a DMCA takedown notice. The ISP handles it, problem solved.

Why should YouTube be any different? Send them a DMCA takedown notice, and surprise surprise, they'll happily remove the offending content. Problem solved.

There's only one reason why YouTube is getting treated differently. UMG sees a cash cow that they don't own, and they want desperately to milk it.

Re:Doing our business is what DMCA notices are for

[jb.hl.com]

UMG sees a cash cow that they don't own, and they want desperately to milk it.

That or playing DMCA Takedown Whack-a-Mole with the huge number of music videos etc that YouTube host would be a pain in the ass and take forever.

Re:Doing our business is what DMCA notices are for

[Dachannien]

Ah, yes, kind of like suing P2P users.

Negotiating tactic

[OldManAndTheC]

Looks like Universal gave up waiting for YouTube to make some coin before they filled suit.

More like they want to put pressure on YouTube to sweeten the eventual settlement. TFA said it best:

"To drive the negotiations in the directions they want, they're starting to make it clear there are legal alternatives for not complying with what Universal wants done," he said.

Re:Prompt removal of copyrighted material not enou

[Tim C]

IANAL, but I believe that US copyright law allows for punitive damages, that is damages that are intended to serve as a punishment.

UMG aren't suing YouTube just for the money they made by distributing these videos, they're suing to punish them for violating their rights.

There is incentive for major content providers to completely destroy user content websites. After all, the content oligarchy would not want competition, even poorly made funny cat video competition.

As much as I don't like a lot of what certain copyright holders and their interest groups are doing, this is easily avoided by simply not violating someone's copyright.

I hope they dont

[Private.Tucker]

Seriously, it is coming to the point that you can't even whistle your favorite song without being sued for copyright infringement.

Isn't that what YouTube basically does? User posted content? A person plays their favorite song, a person dances to their favorite song, a person posts a music video thats already available on MTV/VH1 (when those stations actually play music 1 hour a week).

Mark this, the end of cover bands, the end of whistling while you work, and the end of free speech.

Re:I hope they dont

[Gotta ask yourself..]

"Seriously, it is coming to the point that you can't even whistle your favorite song without being sued for copyright infringement."

Oh, that's been a reality[*] in Italy since the existence of the SIAE, the Italian equivalent of the RIAA.

[*]Automated English translation

Re:Prompt removal of copyrighted material not enou

[Netsensei]

In Belgium, the IFPI (that's like RIAA to you, yankees) started litigation aganst seniorennet.be, a website for 50+ surfers. They object against the fact that seniorennet hosted several discussionboards where visitors shared links to IP protected material.

Altough the webmasters of seniorennet.be complied with their demands and shut the boards down, the IFPI isn't satisfied: seniorennet.be effectivly still "provides" the means to share protected files through comments, etc.

It's not the first time this thing happens over here. But as far as the IFPI is concerned: even the most simple guestbook should be shut down as it provides "means to share links to website that share protected material".

Kinda spooky!

Links!

[Anonymous Coward]

So can the rest of this thread be used to post all the really good YouTube videos before they get axed?

Evanescence AMVs

[TheGreatHegemon]

Actually, this happened a long time ago. Websites with AMVs to Evanescence songs were told to cease distribution of the videos or face legal action. The RIAA already made up its mind a long time ago on this...

Re:Evanescence AMVs

[cubicledrone]

Websites with AMVs to Evanescence songs were told to cease distribution of the videos

Yeah. That worked. You can't swing a cat on the internet without knocking over two dozen Final Fantasy videos set to "Bring me to Life"

YouTube is down

[Anonymous Coward]

Good work, guys.

Re:YouTube is down

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no it isn't.

Overestimate?

[modeless]

To me, tens of millions sounds like a gross underestimate. Every view of every video containing even a small piece of a copyrighted song is an infringement, possibly multiplied because the video could be downloaded and redistributed. Using the same math they use on P2P infringers, I could easily see the calculated damages being in the billions or trillions. The revenue YouTube actually makes is immaterial to the calculation of damages.

The music companies want to sound reasonable so they quote a figure that YouTube might actually be able to pay. If they quoted the real figure people might catch on to just how unreasonable current law is.

My time is valuable too

[noz]

I believe these copyright holders have wasted my time and owe me tens of dollars.

Re:My time is valuable too

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not rich, so what you "believe" is worth shit.

How do they lose money?

[clickclickdrone]

You can't buy pop videos so no loss of revenue there.
You can download the video from YouTube, think 'I like that' and go out and buy the CD. Money made there.
I can't think of any downside to free pop videos online unless someone wants to rip the mega low quality sound off the video stream but frankly you'd be pretty desperate to do that.
Sounds like record company is shooting itself in the foot to me.

When will they learn?

[core_dump_0]

When will the music industry learn that producing the same trash while using Mafia-style business tactics against their customers just increases their problems of low sales?

What are they trying to do? Will they wind up becoming a government subsidized industry because they have alienated all but the true Hollywood-loving sheep and can't afford to pay their employees? Now I hate corporate welfare, but I'd be REALLY pissed off if I had to subsidize the Music Mafia.

All I know is I have not bought a CD (except from independent foreign labels) in ages. I have no reason to, anyway, everything here just sucks.

took this long?

[pbjones]

I'm surprised that it took this long for a legal battle to start. YouTube was becoming the Napster of video and it had to be a target sooner or later.

Music Videos

[WizADSL]

No big deal, just get rid of all the music videos. I can't watch one anymore without thinking for the greedy rat bastards behind their distribution anyway, makes me sick! Record companies are just something I will avoid alltogether from now on, and the artists will unfortuanatly have to suffer as a result. It seems that getting your music legally still guarantees you might be doing something illegal once you have it because even the legally aquired version has so many restriction on how it can be used. I'm getting much less flexible/liberal rights to the music that I am still paying the same money for. The record companies are getting to the point that they're going on protect their material right off the market.

Re:Music Videos

[wharlie]

From the http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,71791-0.ht ml article about the same topic.

"Record companies are keen to avoid repeating the mistake they believe they made when Viacom's MTV was set up 25 years ago -- allowing their artists' music to be aired for free. Morris in his remarks to investors Tuesday said MTV "built a multibillion-dollar company on our (music) ... for virtually nothing. We learned a hard lesson.""

Not unlike how the record companies built a multibillion-dollar business on the artists music for virtually nothing. Oh the irony.

Re:Music Videos

[popsicle67]

The only artists who would suffer from the demise of big music are the manufactured sensations that make up the top 40 airwaves. Honestly, I want to know,deep down in your heart, Could you live without another new Ashley Simspon album? I could and that is what the fight is about with the RIAA right now,protecting the system that allows for huge profits on negligable outlays for talent. Interest in many artists does not generate the same cash flow because everybody wants a cut so the less individual artists there are the less money that has to go for managers and pressings and studio time and distribution. The RIAA wasn't always evil because when the PMRC was at full strength the organization was helping artists fight censorship so I know it used to stand for freedom, I just wonder whose freedom they stand for now.

YouTube is Ruining the Internet

[Jack Action]

I don't mean to sound like an old coot, but I liked the web better when people couldn't put little YouTube players on their websites and blogs. Previously, they actually had to write something. Now its just, watch the video.

That said, YouTube, like most p2p sharing sites is a great place to learn about bands (and other entertainment) you've never heard of before. Example: The Wildhearts.

Though, as its been said better above, maybe that kind of decentralized information sharing is what large cartels like the RIAA are (instinctively) against.

Re:YouTube is Ruining the Internet

[geekoid]

people who want to write on the internet still are writing on the internet.
This allows people who want to put video on the internet to do so.

Those things are not mutually exclusive.

You old cooger.

Nah, they just want the cake AND eat it too

[Opportunist]

The ad effect is there already. So why not milk some extra money with a lawsuit?

This is probably just the beginning of the end...

[Gotta ask yourself..]

... of Copyright Law as we know it.

Face it guys, when something becomes habitual, natural, for millions of people, rights and wrongs get swapped.

People are finally starting to realize that information wants to be free, they are literally enjoying the pleasure of creating their own content, even if based upon the creation of others, and someone can't just come along and tell them they're not allowed to do it.

I forecast a revolution of some sort.

So let the market do it's thing....

[Anonymous MadCoe]

If what you say is completely true, a new label will rise (or maybe more, or maybe individual artists) and crush the existing labels using this brilliant viral marketing.

Actually that sounds good to me.

Always remember if this is sych a good idea it will happen or you have to ask yourself why it doesn't/didn't (maybe reality just works slightly differently...)

They will get it once the market shows them, or tehre was noting to "get" in the first place...

Takedown notices

[theonetruekeebler]

Well, maybe what YouTube should argue is that they have no special liability beyond any hosting service -- that if Universal and or any other copyright thug has a problem, they can submit a takedown notice, same as any other copyright holder. Maybe YouTube could offer Universal a mechanism to do it easily, like maybe e-mail.

So when YouTube has received one of these notices, they can replace the video with one that's basically just a banner:

This video has been banned by the alleged copyright owner, Universal Music. click here to see the takedown notice. Click here to purchase an authorized copy of the video for $14.95. You will be asked to provide them with your name, address, and a credit card number.

Actually, the banner should show up about fifteen seconds into the video, when the viewer is starting to get into it. Oh, and every time Universal submits a bogus takedown notice, YouTube should issue a press release.

Sometimes the cruelest thing you can do to somebody is give them what they ask for.

Re:Prompt removal of copyrighted material not enou

[cpt kangarooski]

IANAL, but I believe that US copyright law allows for punitive damages, that is damages that are intended to serve as a punishment.

No, it does not.

Lipsyncing.

[ravenshrike]

Given that every single lipsync vid I've seen should be filed under parody, I'm pretty sure they're safe. Unfortunately. However, if they push it it does spell doom for AMVs.

Pardon Me For Asking, But...

[Albert71292]

Isn't Universal Music Group a part of the new NBC-Universal partnership, and didn't NBC recently reach some kind of promo deal with YouTube? If so, seems like one hand isn't paying any attention to what the other hand is doing...

US lawyers only interested US IPO rights

[appelsiini]

Interstingly, Youtube has whole tv-series and movies available, for example Chinese. So actually American lawyers are only intersted protecting american intellectual property rights, not battle copyright infringement in general. If music video is from Madonna or U2, subpoena is already on the way, but if it's Faye Wong or Andy Lau, nobody takes action. What's the puzzling logic here? They are just wanting to protect and maximize their invest and interest groups. It's just business, nothing about honesty nor justice actually. Lawyers or RIAA are not existing for charity. It's about sucking blood. I think it would be rather appropriate calling them hypocrits and liars.

Smoke and Mirrors

[Locus Mote]

YouTube doesn't advocate the use of copyrighted material on its site. Technically, YouTube's responsibility should extend only so far as to warn its users of the consequences of copyright infringement. If the users engage in copyright infringement, shouldn't the users be responsible for their own actions? "But suing individuals is bad for business!" whines the music fatcats... "It makes us look like total greedy jerks." Yeah. It does, doesn't it?

Suing YouTube over the actions of its users is like suing General Motors because someone's idiot teenager hit you with a Hummer. It's not GM's fault that the kid lacked the discipline required to actually use the Hummer with prudence and restraint. It's the kid's. Clearly we can't tell GM that they aren't allowed to make Hummers simply because sometimes idiot kids cause accidents in them.

Once again we see big business terrified by a powerful new infrastructure that threatens its very economic model. These lawsuits aren't about recouping some profits lost when junior uploads the latest Jay-Z music video to YouTube. Heck, music videos are a lost-leader anyway. They give them away for free on three different cable networks here in the US. This is about stifling the competition. The major players in the content industry are terrified that people will turn to each other for content rather than the players themselves. If a musician can get on YouTube and release her own music video, made legitimately with her own money and content, she doesn't need the major music labels. This is about distribution rights. YouTube has positioned itself within a distribution channel which presents itself as a feasible DIY alternative to the old corporate system. The old system is simply trying to sue that new distribution channel out of existence.

Re:Smoke and Mirrors

[Creepy Crawler]

Yes it is YouTube's fault.

Our communication system laws have not caught up with the Internet. Websites DO NOT HAVE common carrier status and can be held liable for illegal actions they didnt prevent.

How unfortunate.

[FridayBob]

This past summer I've been busy writing a series of articles for Wikipedia on venomous snakes. I only because aware of YouTube when someone started to leave links to it in the articles I was working on. The videos are made by a guy who has an impressive collection of venomous snakes. It's great! He's been sharing examples of snake behavior that I've never seen anywhere else. For example, check out this strange head-bobbing rhinoceros viper.
I had no idea that others might be uploading videos that contained copyrighted tunes. Oh, well. I guess this is what we get for dancing to proprietary music as opposed to "open source." A good example of copyrights crushing innovation.

A classic mistake

[scwizard]

It's a classic mistake that people seem to make. It sounds like the "thought" process for the studios is going like "there's only so much money in the world, therefore if companies like MTV are making more of it, then we must be making less of it".

Well guess what, it turns out that everyone can be happy; that youtube can make money, and because youtube is making money the studios can make even MORE money.
I think people who try and destroy win win win win win situations are insane.

New business plan

[Zaatxe]

1 - Make a crappy song
2 - Wait for it to pop in some website or to be shared by a teenager
3 - Sue the pants off this website/teenager
4 - Profit!!

This way you could get all the money you would get by regular selling if the music wasn't crappy. Talent not required!!

Re:New business plan

[teh_meph]

You fail to remember that only crappy songs with the RIAA seal of approval are eligible for profit by litigation. The costs of such suits will almost certainly overshadow your capital + benefit from such a venture.

Reposting of shows, music, and more...

[ursabear]

I've laughed so many times looking at YouTube stuff. Talking dogs, babies that say interesting things, and more. My wife went from not knowing what YouTube was - to being a YouTuber in about two seconds. IMHO YouTube is a popular site because people have lots of fun surfing the content, looking for laughs, seeing things from other places, and generally enjoying the YouTube timesink. I don't know how YouTube can make money on all those zillions of eyeballs, but I hope they figure it out - I think the site is fun.

I've wondered aloud several times now about copyrights, broadcast privs, and other things - I'm constantly running across (in YouTube) shorts that are essentially recordings of a TV show (complete with laugh tracks). I am quite sure that the networks, programmers, and content creators didn't give Jane or John (by the millions of Janes and Johns) permission to post uncontrolled and unattributed tons of "their" content.

With that said, what about this: People like me take bits of our music and post it to an open audio sharing area of a video-sharing site, then the users who like it can take the music (or sounds, or spoken word, etc.) and make their own videos with the recordings. I'd be willing to venture a guess that people would love a free site that lets them have fun making their own videos with interesting audio (and their own audio, of course). The same goes with little non-commercial video clips and pictures. Remixing music (that is offered as freely-mixable content) is great fun (well, at least, I think it's a blast), and maybe the public will make their own audio-video remixes? Some assembly required, batteries not included...

Re:Reposting of shows, music, and more...

[NiteShaed]

My wife went from not knowing what YouTube was - to being a YouTuber in about two seconds.

YouTuber....the next evolution of a Couch Potato. ;)

youtube didnt infringe

[a_greer2005]

The users who posted the content without permittion infringed.

Re:youtube didnt infringe

[kehren77]

agreed. why would the RIAA and MPAA be going after youtube and not individual users like thay have in the past?

More to come

[Nichole_knc]

IMO... I believe as the Media companies win friends and influence people (win cases) they will go after more and more... I have only BRIEFLY even touched places like myspace and youtube but the amount of commerical media being used on personal and some (for biz) pages is well a great amount (just from my small sample). Now not being smart challenged I would have to say that most if any got something to say "you can us it"... Of course in the early days of the internet (web 1.0??? how stupid) shareing was just part of it... Commerical or otherwise...

There is only one reason why Universal is doing

[Anonymous Coward]

this shit. They are looking to aquire them as they did MP3.COM. They are a a corporation that based their business on lawsuits. The earliest example I can think of was suing Nintendo and Atari for Donkey Kong since it was alegedly so close to King Kong. Once they aquire youtube.com they will sell the name. With the lawsiut I imagine they will simply take the number of registered users and multiply that number by $150K. Knowing the MP3.COM case they will not accept a settlement, but rather make an example of them so no one will build another service similar to youtube. WELCOME TO THE POLICE STATE OF CORPORATE AMERICA!!!!

Pot/kettle/black

[Rich Klein]

'We believe these new businesses are copyright infringers and owe us tens of millions of dollars,'

I believe showbiz companies are crooks and owe me one billion dollars,.

Cocaine does that you know.

[cheekyboy]

My god dude, dont you see it, all those music execs, directors, managers, accountants, etc....

They all have taken so much cocaine their brains are friend and 'greeeedy', and 'hostile'

or so you say

[Ender Ryan]

Why the surprise? Music videos are certainly connected to albums sales, but they're also productive as entertainment in their own right. They're shown on TV, which generates viewership and sells ads, which means that someone is paying for it. Indirectly, sure, but they're paying for it.

That's quite the news to me, as I haven't witnessed this being the case for at least 10 or 15 years. There is not a single time on any channel during any day that I can reliably watch music videos. As far as I can tell, there are no channels on television that show music videos for the purpose of bringing in ad revenue. In fact, the only reason I can figure that MTV and VH1 show videos once or twice a week is so they can claim to be Music Television stations.

And do you really believe they PAY to play videos? Myself, knowing certain folks in the "biz," know for a fact that MTV wanted $5,000 in order to show a particular band's music videos less than a handful of times.

Simple, simple stuff, here, people.

Bah! Nothing is simple when the music industry is involved.

Re:or so you say

[Nyall]

There is not a single time on any channel during any day that I can reliably watch music videos

My hdtv recieves many more digital channels than analog. Most of them are junk weather but there is a dedicated music video channel called 'The tube' that shows music videos 24/7. All this is over air-waves. I didn't have to pay a cable company to recieve it.

I wonder what the business model of this channel is cause I've never seen any adds.

Re:or so you say

[Ender Ryan]

That's interesting. Where abouts do you live?

In any case, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were simply paid by the industry to play them, for promotional purposes. But OTOH, according to some sources, it looks like the industry doesn't like that business model anymore, even though they haven't figured out any way to make more money on videos...

Re:or so you say

[Nyall]

wikipedia link has a list of all affiliates.

Re:or so you say

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't remember exactly when, but some time back maybe last year?
Universal decided to stop servicing everyone's shows.
We were all told not to air Universal Music labels, unless we wanted to
kick down 8000 bucks a year they would continue, that pretty much killed
non-profit shows from running Universal Media, Interscope, Geffen, A&M,
Dreamworks, Island, Def Jam, Lost Highway, MCA Nashville, Mercury, Motown, Univeral, Verve.
There's probably more labels I don't know.

Anyway, no more OTEP, Jack Johnson, TI, Papa Roach, 50c, Garbage, Nirvana, Lifehouse, or U2 Videos.
The only label I am still confused about (to this day) is Astralwerks.
Maybe they are free from the new policy, not sure.

On the other hand, there are thousands and thousands of other labels still.
It's kind of a shot to their own foot type thing if you ask me. But I guess
if you have a million dollar budget like corporate media does then $8k ain't
a drop in the bucket.

As far as their media (videos) being online this was never allowed that I know of,
each disk/tape said specifically it ain't allowed online. Only for Brodcast.
If there were videos ever online it would have been from one of universal's websites.

So if stuff is showing up on youtube.
I wouldn't know how it got there, but it shouldn't be there.
It's not really Youtubes fault if you ask me. It's whoever uploaded it.

if you can track it, copyright is obselete

[cheekyboy]

EVeryone, why is there a copyright 'requirement' because if someone copies it and uses it for free its a lost sale?, but
the big but and the hole grail but is, that all 'ingringements' are LOGGED and accountable and chargable.

ie. if youtube makes 15c of each video viewed, then give back 50% back to the owner. Solution solved, everyone wins
, no one losses. Except those cocaine addicted criminals who run corporate media cartels.
Its not a lost sale if you know how much was made and when and by who.

Reverse the situation

[DesertWolf0132]

I think YouTube and MySpace should turn the tables and sue record companies for compensation for promoting their bands. Record companies gain exponentialy from exposure and by suing the people giving them free exposure they are biting the hand that feeds them. I can think of three bands I have purchaced CD's and concert tickets for just from seeing their YouTube video on a MySpace page. Without the free promotion these pages gave I would never have heard these bands. YouTube and MySpace should capitalize on that by charging record companies that decide to get their panties in a wad.

One of the biggest issues for the Internet

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I think this is another example of one of the biggest legal issues on the Internet today.

Whether it's YouTube, or P2P software, or posting reg-required articles verbatim on Slashdot for that matter, it comes down to the same thing: we now have services that can host/transport copyright-protected content on the Internet, which mean that content can reach huge numbers of people very quickly.

Now, as the saying goes, technology is neutral and it's what you do with it that counts. Clearly there are valuable uses for rapid, widespread distribution: look at the use of BitTorrent to distribution large OSS installers, or the small bands taking advantage of the opportunity to increase their profile. On the other hand, let's not kid ourselves: the vast majority of the content on some of these services is infringing someone's copyright. Those people aren't always the big players, either: YouTube is full of rips of specialist videos/DVDs about hobbies, made by teachers who aren't going to get much compensation in return for their efforts even if everyone in their small target audience buys a genuine copy.

The problem is that this is a legal rock meeting an ethical hard place. The legal concept of a common carrier, and more generally the idea of unmoderated forums, have served us well historically. No-one's going to run a large-scale communications service if they're legally responsible for every transmission they carry. They don't have the resources to check everything. Even if they did, I don't think we should appoint commercial entities to the role of courts. And they can't possibly know about every copyright in the world, so they couldn't guarantee the right decision even if they were checking.

On the other hand, copyright holders have a legitimate grievance here. I know people who teach various hobbies I have, and I've seen copies of their videos on YouTube, and (this is the bit that annoys me) I've heard people talking about ripping those videos rather than buying them. I may not have much sympathy with the RIAA and their ilk -- they're big enough to look after themselves, and hardly paragons of ethical virtue -- but I have a lot of sympathy for the little guys, and there must be a lot more of them. I think it's really sad that the number of specialist DVDs being produced for my hobbies by world-class teachers is dropping fast, and I have a pretty good idea from all sides about why that is.

That all said, I think there are some inescapable conclusions if we're going to keep any hint of sanity in the legal position:

1. Infrastructure providers are facilitating widespread copyright infringement.
2. It is unrealistic to believe that there is no damage caused by the copyright infringement.
3. It is also unrealistic to believe that there would be no damage if the infrastructure was completely shut down (even if this was technically possible, which is doubtful).
4. It is unrealistic to expect infrastructure providers to filter all content to prevent that copyright infringement ahead-of-time (and we probably shouldn't ask them to even if they could).
5. It is easily possible for infrastructure providers to block or remove specific content if they know what it is and where in their system to find it.
6. Requests by individuals to infrastructure providers to remove content put them in a difficult position, because again they are being asked to act as judge and jury, and potentially liable for making the wrong decision either way.

As long as our copyright system remains in something like its current form (for example, with copyright being assigned, without explicit registration, to any artist who publishes their material) I think the most realistic approach is to have a system where copyright holders can show infringements to some binding authority, which can then instruct infrastructure providers to block that particular infringement quickly to limit any damage they're helping to cause. (An infrastructure provider that fails to honour suc

Re:One of the biggest issues for the Internet

[Surt]

It is unrealistic to believe that there is no damage caused by the copyright infringement.

I have to disagree with that premise. I think most people feel like the flowering of free expression that is resulting is a benefit to everyone, including those who currently think they are being harmed.

It is also unrealistic to believe that there would be no damage if the infrastructure was completely shut down (even if this was technically possible, which is doubtful).

Same thing ... we'd all be much better off. Even those who currently rely on copyright for their livelyhood. Because our culture would be so much more wealthy, everyone would benefit. It's like the old horse manure shoveler's union fighting the coming of the automobile because they were afraid of losing their crap shoveling jobs. The auto was a boon to everyone, and those people didn't have to spend their lives shoveling crap anymore (instead, they at least have road laying jobs, if not automobile manufacturing jobs).

Re:One of the biggest issues for the Internet

[Shimmer]

I think the most realistic approach is to have a system where copyright holders can show infringements to some binding authority

Fine, but think about the scale of the problem. Five bazillion people are uploading ten bazillion bytes/sec at any given moment of the day, using a largely automated, very distributed system we call the Internet.

If the authority you're speaking of is a monolithic, largely manual institution that takes anything more than a few minutes make a decision, it will quickly fall behind and be useless. Instead, you'd need some sort of distributed authority which uses automated means (read: artificial intelligence) to compare two chunks of data in order to determine if one is a copy of the other.

This is an immense technological effort. Even if we could tackle the distributed aspects, we don't have the AI to make these kinds of decisions accurately. So, for now, I'm afraid your suggestion has to go into the category of science fiction.

Re:One of the biggest issues for the Internet

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

I do and do not agree that the copyright holders have a legitimate grievance. Yes, people are infringing copyrights and the copyright holders are clearly in the right for defending themselves. However, there's no excuse for suing YouTube for infringement when there are other channels available for resolving the issue. Copyright owners can simply ask that their content be removed, there's absolutely no need to involve the courts. If copyright owners want to attack the source of the problem (the people uploading the content) they're free to do so.

Re:One of the biggest issues for the Internet

[GWBasic]

Here's a simple solution: When uploading a video to YouTube, (or a similar site,) there's a checkbox that must be checked in order to continue. Next to it, the following text is printed: "I assert that I have permission from the copyright holder to upload this video to be freely shown on YouTube. I ASSUME ALL LIABILITY IN THE EVENT THAT THAT THIS VIDEO IS SHOWN IN VIOLATION OF ITS COPYRIGHT. I aknowledge that my IP is logged and it will be given to the copyright owner if it is proven that this video violates copyright."

Re:One of the biggest issues for the Internet

[ejp1082]

I see this and read two things from it:

1. Copyright law no longer reflects normal social behavior.
2. Copyright law no longer reflects the realities of modern technology.

There's two ways to read this: Either copyright law needs to be changed, or technology and behavior need to change.

As much as the RIAA et al wish to go with the second, ultimately it has to be the first.

My preferred solution? Legalize non-commercial file sharing. Make a strong distinction between commercial uses and non-commercial uses. The copyright holder looses his monopoly on distribution, but still retains the exclusive right to profit from the work. (A Creative Commons license, more or less).

I think that even in such an environment, there's still enough money to be made to provide incentive for corporate shitbags like the RIAA, and there are more than enough people willing to make creative works and give it away for free anyway to pick up the slack for any decline in industry.

That fixes everything without creating new regulatory bodies or censorship technologies or anything of the sort.

Re:One of the biggest issues for the Internet

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Either copyright law needs to be changed, or technology and behavior need to change.

Agreed, those are the two plausible ways forward. Indeed, I think I specified that the discussion in my earlier post only applied if we assumed copyright in essentially its current form.

However, I think your argument is overlooking something when you write this:

My preferred solution? Legalize non-commercial file sharing. Make a strong distinction between commercial uses and non-commercial uses. The copyright holder looses his monopoly on distribution, but still retains the exclusive right to profit from the work.

What if the reward someone seeks for their work isn't financial? The GPL is an obvious example. People share their code, but on the understanding that it's a two-way deal and anyone who benefits from it in certain ways will share their own improvements in return. No money is involved, but if non-commercial use is free for all, you've just removed the incentive for a certain type of person to share their work with others.

Now, the scale of the damage in that policy is debatable. Personally, I suspect that a lot of the applications currently distributed under the GPL aren't given that licence because of the author's particular philosophical or ethical agreement with the principle, but merely because they want to contribute and that's the trendy way of doing so in geek circles. If we did as you suggest and opened non-commercial distribution entirely, then probably a lot of these people would still give away their code, and so would a lot of the people who then built on it. But not all of them, and there's the rub.

Re:One of the biggest issues for the Internet

[Surt]

Tsk tsk mods, overrated on one moderation for something that bothered your sensibilities, eh?

Viral Ownership by the Anti-Publishers.

[twitter]

At the end of the day, these movie/song clips are just basically adverts. Its the ultimate form of Viral Advertising and the studios should be encouraging it, not trying to control it. If they want to make money then this sort of stuff is gold for them, it doesn't cost them anything at all and its not hard to start something.

For a normal publisher, that would be true. A normal publisher finds and promotes excellent works in a free market. Big media is the exact opposite of all that. They are based on exclusion and it has nothing to do with artistic merit. YouTube is just another attempt a free entertainment market, a competitor to be owned and destroyed.

The two big music companies make money by controlling your taste in music. They grew up with physical median and are still geared to the "big hit" marketing model. They don't want anyone else exposing you to something they are not promoting because that will take money away from their promoted act. Their whole business model is based on owning the broadcast spectrum and excluding everything but their sad top 40 songs a week. They have bought an extensive set of laws to extend this model into the future

YouTube is going to meet the same fate as Napster and MTV before it. They own your culture because they own all recorded media by purchase and intimidation. Witness the problems Jib Jab had over a parody of a song that was actually in public domain. It's a chicken and egg problem big media thinks they can win. At a nominal rate of $40,000 per sample, big media can decide who gets to use anything from the recorded past in our common memory. When a YouTuber puts a Led Zeppelin guitar riff into a home video, big media can screw YouTube. They did it to MTV, which no longer plays music and they did it to Napster, which is now a failing M$ music service.

This is viral ownership. Because big media owns a tiny portion of the work placed on YouTube, they think they can take it all. In cases like MP3.com, the courts agreed with big media. I hope that the courts look at this one and finally realize that it's bad for culture to be owned like that. If big media is allowed to steal every new business this way, they will continue to own and limit what we are all exposed to. That's exactly the opposite of what copyright is all about.

Re:Viral Ownership by the Anti-Publishers.

[jb.hl.com]

For a normal publisher, that would be true. A normal publisher finds and promotes excellent works in a free market. Big media is the exact opposite of all that. They are based on exclusion and it has nothing to do with artistic merit. YouTube is just another attempt a free entertainment market, a competitor to be owned and destroyed.

YouTube isn't a "free entertainment market". Half of YouTube is copyrighted music videos and clips from TV shows which have been uploaded by people, and the other half is stuff recorded by 15 year olds which nobody with half a brain can watch.

The two big music companies make money by controlling your taste in music.

The TWO big music companies? Dear god you're stupid.

YouTube is going to meet the same fate as Napster and MTV before it.

Napster was used primarily to distribute music by already signed artists which was under copyright. That's all anyone I know used it for. MTV is still going strong and is still a central plank of the music industry; you do realise they have channels other than just "MTV" don't you?

Because big media owns a tiny portion of the work placed on YouTube, they think they can take it all.

"Big media" owns a LOT of the work placed on YouTube. You'd have to be a fool not to see so.

That's exactly the opposite of what copyright is all about.

Copyright is the exclusive right to publish and distribute a work of art. Not exactly exclusive if any YouTuber can stick something copyrighted up there, is it?

re: hijacking copyright?

[King_TJ]

This is absurd! Nobody is forced to upload their content to YouTube! They haven't kept their terms a secret, as evidenced by the fact that you're aware that they claim ownership of all content uploaded to them.

Most of the homemade stuff put on YouTube is not worthy of copyrighting in the first place. It's just college students playing around with a camcorder and throwing some junk up there for their buddies to laugh at, and people trying to hone their skills at making documentaries by putting some "trial runs" online for the world to critique them.

YouTube is just hoping some quality "underground" material might get posted that ends up being profitable for them by a fluke. If they didn't stake a copyright claim on the uploads, they'd be out of the loop on profiting from it, despite footing the bill for all of the distribution costs.

The people posting commercial, copyrighted works are just doing so because they *can*. YouTube is probably smart not to proactively erase such content themselves, because as soon as they do so even one time, they destroy any legal argument that it's "just not feasible to police the uploaded content due to the quantity". (EG. An attempt at claiming a "common carrier" status.) But realistically, if something is already copyrighted, YouTube has no claim of "taking that copyright over" just because someone uploaded it.

Enjoy the Ride

[CrazyTalk]

When I first discovered YouTube, my first two thoughts were 1. Wow, this is so cool! Videos, movie clips and previews, old TV shows or cable shows shown on channels I don't have,old funny commercials, available anytime I get the whim to see something and 2. This is just like Napster back in the day - there is no way this is going to last long. Which is sad, because I enjoy using the service (and might even be willing to pay a small fee for it) and it's not like I would be spending money on these copyrighted videos anyway, so the copyright holders are losing nothing.

Re:Enjoy the Ride

[geekoid]

thought 3:

Man, if the media companiess could think bigger then 1 quarter at a time, they could make a ton of money by using youtube service for market mindset.

This is just stupid.

[Endo13]

Ok, so let me get this straight. They're spending millions of dollars to take down YouTube, when it's already obvious YouTube isn't worth even a fraction of the cost they'll spend suing them. And let's face it - there's no way on earth that the videos on YouTube are in any way costing them money. It's not like Napster was, where people were downloading copyrighted material in lieu of buying it. Any 'copyrighted' material you find on there is used in someone's original production. No one's going to say 'hey, I've just GOT to have that new jessica simpson music video/song so I'll just go find a video on you tube and watch it there!!'. If anything, YouTube is free advertising for whatever 'copyrighted' material gets used there. The only possible monetary gain UMG might see from this lawsuit is forcing new artists to sign through a label instead of being able to gain some notice on their own for free. But even anything they might gain through that would be pretty much negligible. So it's safe to say they're doing it purely for spite. What makes these big stupid companies like UMG or *AA look even more pathetic is when you realize all they're really accomplishing is to force anyone who wants to host this kind of site to do it overseas, where there's no laws to stop it and the governments really don't give a shit.

This kind of BS just really makes me mad. Screw UMG and screw the stupid justice system that let us get here in the first place.

How about....targetting the users....

[Chanc_Gorkon]

The USERS of YouTube are the issue. NOT YouTube itself. If your making a video to put on YouTube, make sure you have the right to use the music you want to use. My best suggestion is to use Pod Safe Music if you need it at all. This will address the AMV crowd as well as some of the other videos that include music on YouTube.

As for copyrighted TV (like current run TV shows), regular everyday users just should not be posting that stuff. YouTube needs better policing other then the users for that also. I'd say if you post copyrighted material 3 times, you get your account suspended.

Re:How about....targetting the users....

[Endo13]

How about targeting the losers that are trashing Fair Use and what it was originally intended to be? Using 'copyrighted' music and/or videos in your own personal creations to show people for fun, where no one will be making money off it is no different than copying a page from a book to use in a public venue. No, it's not YouTube who's at fault, nor is it the users. It's also not really the fault of the labels or the artists. The people who are to blame for this whole mess are the ones who put in place things like the DMCA, DRM, and don't throw out stupid court cases that lawyers should be ashamed to even take to court in the first place.

Re:How about....targetting the users....

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Sorry...YouTube IS making money (or I should hope they are.....). They are probably getting at the very least some fat checks from google ad sense.

Re:How about....targetting the users....

[Travelsonic]

Using 'copyrighted' music and/or videos in your own personal creations to show people for fun, where no one will be making money off it is no different than copying a page from a book to use in a public venue.

Be careful with your generalizations. This is my problem with the companies and people's opinions these days on this issue, it is mislead.

Using copyrighted works in itself is only bad when you don't have permission to do so, granted a great majority of works on Youtube are like that, but that does not make generalizing right.

YouTube is making money

[foniksonik]

And they are doing it by showing 'copyrighted' works.

Think for example of a pirate drive in theatre... say someone is showing movies projected against the back of their house and they are charging a few bucks for people to come watch it. Now if ten people show up and the person makes $30 no big deal... but if they get 100,000 people to come by every day and watch a movie... that's $300,000.00 per day with no money going back to the content creator for the rights to use their content to make money.

The guy can say... hey I'm giving the movie away for free and just charging for parking but those people wouldn't be paying him just to park... they are paying to park AND watch a movie.

SO YouTube is wrong on this one, even if the quality of the content is poor, people are still coming there to see the content (a lot of the times the copyrighted stuff)... not the ads or whatever it is YT is making money off of.

RIAA should learn from Microsoft Model

[BHShaman]

Microsoft (and others) put our a ton of shareware, free demos, and really turned a blind eye to piracy for a long time until they were in a position to understand the market start to clamp down. There is no doubt that their open approach led to sales and eventually to dominance. They should be viewing YouTube, MySpace and others as the new distribution model. They should allow free, or at least economical, views of appropriate videos (videos over 5 years old, etc.) Personally, I just hit YouTube up for some old 80s Vids and it induced me to actually PAY for an album I had not thought of in years. I still have the vids on my 'favorites', but it led me to buy the CD as well. Someday a record company is going to break out and offer a model that allows for fiscal gains without the strangle hold on artist and retailers. Someday....

Copyright is copyright

[csoto]

Don't want any risk of being sued? Don't use copyrighted materials. Don't like copyright? Use only materials with more desirable rights attached. Because you want to use something in a manner you have no right to doesn't change the fact that you have no such rights.

Re:Copyright is copyright

[geekoid]

"se only materials with more desirable rights attached."

or start working on changing copyright.

Copyright is privledge granted by congress, not a right.

Where is my free orange?

[Wisconsingod]

I think food also wants to be free. Food is free. Farmers provide the same service Apple does: a high-quality easily found vegetable/fruit/chicken dinner/bottle of orange juice at a reasonable price. And people pay for it despite the fact that anyone armed with a single orange can produce them in unlimited quantities.

So I just got a crate of orange seeds delivered to my home in Anchorage Alaska.... What's the next step to unlimited oranges?

**** You pay for the service to efficiently produce the product, not for the product itself...Welcome to the world of Capatalist Specialization (the advancement the industrial revolution)

Re:Where is my free orange?

[cubicledrone]

What's the next step to unlimited oranges?

Dirt, water, carbon dioxide, sunlight. In that order.

Re:Where is my free orange?

[Wisconsingod]

Sunlight... Which corner market supllies that in anchorage, because i can't seem to find it anywhere else?
Dirt... is that the solid blocks that you find in the ground, how can you dig into the solid block?
Water... will ice work, it's the only water I know of that doesn't require boiling

Abuse of copyright...

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is what copyright holders are doing with their copyright, then maybe it is time to reform abandon copyright laws on moviews and video altogether. Copyright in this instance is being used by corrupt and greedy organisations to thieve from the innocent. I have no sypathy for the greedy profiteers.
If movies / digital audio were made available at reasonable prices on a fast, Digital Restriction Management free system, there would be no problem with 'piracy'. 'Piracy' by consumers is only a reaction to Piracy on a large scale by the media companies.

Even shudderer

[kbox]

(or -- *shudder* -- a lipsync.)

Or - *double shudder* - an 'nsync lipsync!

Actually, you might think so but the **AAs are ...

[crovira]

in existence to STAMP OUT all progress while the pursue the profits from the past.

There is nothing more threatening to the established order of anything than the creation of something new.

That's all there is to it.

If there is an industry or even a corporate structure that favors change, from AT&T to Erie/Bucirus, I'd like to hear about it.

Please note that AT&T is but a shadow of its former self and Erie/Bucirus is in museums.

We live with that kind of schizophrenia all the time.

The **AAs just want us to consume.

We just want to create. (podasting is merely the latest technology, the next rung on the empowerment ladder. http://www.msbpodcast.com/ )

We will ALWAYS be dealing with the opposition between the old, existing and the new, just created.

The worst thing is that the **AAs would not be bothered by winning, except that the profits would shrink as people REMEMBERED. We'd have to be pithed to keep the **AAs happy.

Im really FED up with this

[unity100]

Yes. REALLY REALLY fed up with copyright-intellectual property SHIT.

We do not fucking have to rearrange everything in this world so that some fat assed rich bastards who fattened on some tolls on long-before produced material get fatter or richer.

In many countries, copyright penalties are worse than TREASON goddammit.

I personally will be forever biased against whoever deals in copyrights,defends them, furthers them, enforces them upon newly fledging innovations, takes them seriously. Ill discriminate against them, seeing them as "enemy of the people" - because this is what they are.

Hint: the answer is "Universal"

[Caiwyn]

Universal Music Group, you say? Wow, what a surprise. Remind me again, which was the only record label to refuse to settle with mp3.com over the my.mp3.com service? And who was it who subsequently bought mp3.com, gutted it, and eventually sold off the remains afterwards? It's on the tip of my tongue, I just can't quite place the name...

Seriously, it's obvious where this is heading.

Someone pulled the video for album i wanted to buy

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it was this one: Rammstein - Rosenrot What a bunch of idiots!

oh yeah...

[fizz_daddy]

thats what I always do when I want that "new song"... get a firefox extension, download the flash movie file, de-mux the audio and then convert it to mp3. oh wait...

Try before you buy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I purchased a computer game (Star Trek: Borg) as a direct result of seeing video excerpts uploaded by this guy:
http://youtube.com/profile?user=KadratisVelevere

The media companies (except for bookstores, thankfully) seem to have forgotten that "try before you buy" is a very effective business model.

Is this Universal's bid for YouTube?

[PCM2]

When you're looking to buy a startup, do you go for one that's just had a massive lawsuit filed against it by the entertainment industry?

Maybe not, but I wonder ... if you're looking to buy a startup, is it easier to pay money for them or to sue them for so much that you end up owning them without any money changing hands?

it's time to resist

[Anonymous Coward]

the biggest threats to the individual in the digital age are big business and big government.

we have to begin taking positive steps to cripple both.

Re:Prompt removal of copyrighted material not enou

[crabpeople]

"even poorly made funny cat video competition"

torrent?

Video Response to this article on YOUTUBE

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24yD-mJy4GY

Re: Common Carrier Status

[Locus Mote]

You're talking about fault within the legal system. I was merely talking in terms of logical analysis. (You know, the set of mental tools we use to determine if laws are valid or not... entirely different from the much smaller set of mental tools we use to determine if a law exists or not. Just because it's a law doesn't make it a good law and as citizens, wouldn't you say it's our job to question these things?)

My point was that logically speaking, if you hold all companies to that burden of responsibility, then gun manufacturers could be held responsible for crimes committed through the intentional misuse of their products, automotive manufactueres could be held responsible for crimes commited with the intentional misuse of their products, and so forth. It isn't as though YouTube is intentionally encouraging its users to upload copyrighted material.

At what point are Americans going to become accountable for our own actions again? The reason that websites do not have "common carrier status" is simple: The media corporations saw to it that they weren't given it. They have gigantic lobbies which all but guarantee that any laws passed favor their interests. Since individuals breaking copyright laws aren't a desireable litigious target for the media companies, they saw to it that a law was created that enabled them to sue the fatter juicier targets; the websites over which content is shared. The lobbying and legal muscle of an AOL/Time-Warner is several orders of magnitude more powerful than a company like YouTube.

PS: DON'T USE ALL CAPS. IT'S SHOUTING AND IT'S CONSIDERED RUDE.

But copyright is really about future works

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I think you're missing one of the most commonly overlooked points about copyright: it's not really there to protect stuff that already exists, it's there to incentivise the existence (and sharing) of stuff in the future.

The cost to society of revoking copyrights in their entirety would be nothing for those works that already exist. The artists can't unmake them, or take them back. Everyone in society would gain them all for no further cost. Taken in isolation, that's clearly a good thing for society.

But of course it doesn't happen in isolation. It's also a bad thing for the artists who get stuffed, because society isn't honouring its side of the bargain. And there's the downside: those artists may then choose not to trust society in future, and as a consequence they may choose not to create or release further works. This is where society really takes a hit.

Now, personally, I couldn't give a damn if the big record labels suddenly find it hard to sell lots of prefabricated pseudomusic. There are enough good musicians in the world that we can afford to lose the odd Robbie Williams or Madonna, or at least they could afford to lose 90% of their income.

But again, something that's often overlooked in these discussions is that copyright is also there to protect the little guy, and there are a lot more little guys than big guys. For one of my hobbies, my partner and I travel over 100 miles to have lessons with a world-class teacher. We spend three times as long travelling as the lesson itself, and the effective cost of a 1.5 hour lesson is nearly 200 pounds (UK).

For the same amount of money, you can buy a set of DVDs from another world-class partnership, full of well-edited explanations and tips, that lasts several times as long. Sure, it's not tailored to our personal needs, but on the other hand, we can watch it more than once, or in slow motion to capture details of how the presenters move.

In fact, the teacher we go to see has some DVDs of her own. The target audience isn't big, but they bring in a little bit of money for the teacher each time someone buys them. That money helps to keep the teacher's rates down, particularly when she's supporting amateurs who couldn't possibly afford the rates a teacher of that calibre could charge if she was in it purely for the money.

The net effect of this typical "little guy" scenario is that if you start putting videos like that on sites like YouTube (and people do, in their entirety), a teacher with a lot of dedication to her students and a lot of knowledge to pass on loses out on her DVD income and stops making DVDs. Then everyone loses out because a valuable teaching resource has gone. Moreover, the students who go to the teacher in person lose out because their rates inevitably go up to compensate, since the teacher still has rent to pay. Everybody loses, and the people who watched on YouTube instead of buying a DVD just lose less.

As you've probably figured, this is not a hypothetical scenario. I know of people who have been in this position, and I've seen the results. And I've seen it in more than one field; you get it in any subject that makes sense on film, from performing arts to sports strategy. The biggest loser in the long run is always society, if they don't get to benefit from further works from valuable sources, and there is often collateral damage as well.

This is why it really is important to protect the basic principle of copyright, or to produce a similarly balanced replacement, even as we fight to defend the legitimate users of copyright material from being unreasonably controlled by rightsholders.

Re:But copyright is really about future works

[Surt]

I think historic evidence completely discounts that point of view. Most of the great works of history were unprotected by copyright. Artists create because they love to create, and they share their works for the joy of having their works appreciated. With more free exchange, artists will go further than ever before. We'll have more, and better, art without copyright.

The little guy who makes a DVD that is a great teaching resource will draw students in more than sufficient numbers to make a good income. Artists don't need to get rich, nor do they need to make art full time, in order to make great art.

Re:But copyright is really about future works

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I think historic evidence completely discounts that point of view. Most of the great works of history were unprotected by copyright.

This is a common counter-argument, and I agree that on the face of things it has merit.

However, consider that historically, much art was done on commission for a wealthy patron. There were no printing presses, and there was no concept of mass distribution of works where many individuals contributed a small amount each to the cost. Most of those historical works didn't benefit the masses for many, many years.

The little guy who makes a DVD that is a great teaching resource will draw students in more than sufficient numbers to make a good income.

Not necessarily. As I noted before, my partner and I travel around 100 miles just to see on teacher of that calibre. A lot of people aren't lucky enough to live so close to such good teachers, even if they have the money to afford the transportation costs as well as the lesson fees. As a corollary, the number of realistically available students for even the best teacher is always limited.

If people respect the basic idea of copyright, then the knowledge and insight of such teachers can reach further, and the teachers are less dependent on a sparse resource (students close enough to visit) to make a living.

Re:But copyright is really about future works

[Surt]

If people respect the basic idea of copyright, then the knowledge and insight of such teachers can reach further, and the teachers are less dependent on a sparse resource (students close enough to visit) to make a living.

I think that respecting the basic idea of copyright is wise. I think people ought to give money to those whose instructional DVDs they find have value. But I don't think they should be forced to pay for the instructional DVDs they find useless, and that's what copyright really enforces: making sure you pay whether you get value or not.

And I think poor children should be able to get access to those DVDs if they cannot afford to pay. DRM will soon make that impossible unless we outlaw it.

I also think remix culture ought to be completely legal. Derivative works ought only to be asked to credit what they have built upon (and if they don't, the consequence should be shaming/social, not monetary/legal).

Slow Drivers

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Don't complain that I'm impeding the advance of traffic flow because I'm doing 60 in a 65; complain that the speed limit is only 65.

I agree with your statement about copyright defense, but not this one. I drive the Chicago expressways every day and people in the left lane that can't keep up with traffic should be shot; I don't care if the posted limit is 55, people drive 70+ (actually more like 80+ on I94). People that are in the wrong lane contribute to accidents since there's usually a mile gap in front of them and people are forced to the middle or far right lane to get around 'em.

Yeah, I know you were probably half-serious, but I'm about to head home and I'm guaranteed to encounter at least half a dozen people who are clogging the expressway because they are moving too slow for the lane they're in.

Re:Slow Drivers

[oyenstikker]

If I was doing 60 in the left lane then I'd be failing to keep right except to pass, which is a violation in most places. But I'm doing 60 in the rightmost lane, which still does slow down traffic as people wanting to go 65 or 70 need to get into the middle and left lanes to pass me.

RIAA is effectively the copyright society.

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA is effectively the copyright society, through its subsidiary, SoundExchange. SoundExchange is authorized by congress to collect royalties on behalf of copyright owners.

Our friends at Vivendi Universal

[Submarine]

Read this article to know more about how Universal Music (Vivendi group) supports agressive copyright legislations...

Re: Common Carrier Status

[Creepy Crawler]

---You're talking about fault within the legal system. I was merely talking in terms of logical analysis. (You know, the set of mental tools we use to determine if laws are valid or not... entirely different from the much smaller set of mental tools we use to determine if a law exists or not. Just because it's a law doesn't make it a good law and as citizens, wouldn't you say it's our job to question these things?)

As was I. I'm speaking in logical analysis of whether they seem to breach law (either tort or criminal). I bet (I have no proof...) that if they were to be somewhat proactive about enforcement, a judge would find that to be a mitigating factor, if not a reason to outright dismiss a case.

---My point was that logically speaking, if you hold all companies to that burden of responsibility, then gun manufacturers could be held responsible for crimes committed through the intentional misuse of their products, automotive manufactueres could be held responsible for crimes commited with the intentional misuse of their products, and so forth. It isn't as though YouTube is intentionally encouraging its users to upload copyrighted material.

That is completely wrong. How many times must we deal with peoples who make this tired gun analogy? If you accept something on your property (bits or matter), you better make sure it's legal to have that there. If someone uploads content that they do not have a copyright to do so, they're breaking tort law. If YouTube maintains it and does not investigate, or take complaints of copyright infringement, I see no reason why YouTube should fall flat on its' ass.

---At what point are Americans going to become accountable for our own actions again? The reason that websites do not have "common carrier status" is simple: The media corporations saw to it that they weren't given it.

Bwhahahah! What a pile of... Common carrier was a legal term for protection of companies that make information and telecommunications systems. Normally, police confiscated equipment in connection to a crime, but the telco's wanted immunity so that their network would not be considered. That happened a while back, before the Media Corps took it away. Rubbish..

---They have gigantic lobbies which all but guarantee that any laws passed favor their interests. Since individuals breaking copyright laws aren't a desireable litigious target for the media companies, they saw to it that a law was created that enabled them to sue the fatter juicier targets; the websites over which content is shared. The lobbying and legal muscle of an AOL/Time-Warner is several orders of magnitude more powerful than a company like YouTube.

Wrong, wrong and TOTALLY wrong. MSN doesn't have common carrier. Google doesn't have common carrier. Slashdot doesn't have common carrier. Only network providers and telco's have common carrier on specific lines.

---PS: DON'T USE ALL CAPS. IT'S SHOUTING AND IT'S CONSIDERED RUDE.

I did that so these comments might sink in.