Slashdot Mirror
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.)"
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.
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.
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.
-- lol pwned
Yarr! There be no safe harbor fer ye pirates!
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.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
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.
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...
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
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.
"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.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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*
Blessed are the 1337, for they shall pwn the earth.
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.
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.
The problem that the studios are having is that they don't want a repeat of MTV.
... for virtually nothing. We learned a hard lesson."
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)
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.
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.
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:
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
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.