Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Removed 30,000 Japanese Videos from Site
Grooves writes "YouTube has been asked to remove almost 30,000 videos from their site, according to reports. The Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC) found 29,549 videos on the site that had materials contained in them that where not authorized by rights holders. From the article, 'A spokesperson for that organization said that they were considering petitioning YouTube for a better screening process. Although YouTube is legally obligated to remove infringing material when notified, some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves.' Now that Google's is attached to the site, will events like this become more commonplace?"
That must be like 5% of the Naruto videos up there.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
That's really unfortunate. Some of those Japanese shows are hilarious, and watching videos from foreign shows is a great glimpse into another culture.
Please move along.
yes. :-D
The machine unmakes the man. Now that the machine is so perfect, the engineer is nobody. -Ralph Waldo Emerson
Seriously. Did anyone, including Google, not see this coming?
How will the world get its homemade music videos that make anime characters look like they're swooning to Evanescence or singing Rammstein, now?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Meta will eat itself
Why is this news? YouTube says if you notice a video that is hosted without permission of copyright holders to let them know and they will remove it, and this is just one japanese corporation using that policy?
Tonight @ 11: My bank stops sending me paper statements upon my request! SHOCKING!
Chums up, let's do this!
Now that Google's is attached to the site, will events like this become more commonplace?
I think it will be more commonplace, but that the "Google effect" has very little to do with it. Youtube already had a large user base and exposure to the general populace before Google came along, so increased copyright issues were bound to come along one way or the other. Expect a similar increase on other video hosting sites as well (regardless of their association with Google).
Now I'll actually have to buy their albums!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Can anyone really be surprised?
Suddenly YouTube is worth a bundle of cash. We all knew it would happen.
All in all, I'd say this is a very gentle way of saying to the **AA that we're going to try to do the right thing.
On second thoughts, they already would have said that in private discussions, behind closed doors.
This is the way to prepare the rest of us. Then it won't seem so bad when they come down like a ton of bricks on the US infringements. It won't hurt their market so much.
I remember a time when there was a piece of software that allowed people to share multimedia files. It was great, you could post legal files that didn't have copyright issues and people could download them watch or listen to them....Then of course they got sued and it got shut down. anyone remember napster? There is a tonne of nudity, profanity, illegal content on Youtube. It won't be long until all videos must be reviewed before being posted, then google will have to pay millions of dollars to people to watch and authorize all the youtube videos before being put on the site. Just wait youtube will go the way of p2p only it will be google that gets sued this time not the users since google is going to be hosting the illegal stuff. Long Live Altavista
And exactly whose job should that be?
As opposed to the print world, or the spoken world, where... They need to find and notify the authorities of copyright infringement.
I understand the feeling that 'I shouldn't need to do this' that brings up that statement. But it has always been the copyright holder's problem to identify infractions. YouTube is no different in that regard, besides that it brings a lot of creations together in one place.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
The power of copyright does not include forcing an obligation onto governments or common carriers to search or police the content. The power of copyright gives the owner a right to take down specific infringing works.
Every scribble, photo, sculpted shape or soundbite you create is copyrighted as soon as you create it. This goes for everybody within the copyright-abiding hemisphere, which obviously means that the number of copyrighted works outnumbers the population by a very large factor. Clearly, not all rights-holders are trying to enforce those rights against every transgression, thankfully. Grouse all you want, but if you own a copyright, you are the only party who should be obligated to do anything about it.
Some carriers might impose a licensing check before submissions can be completed, or they might impose occasional purges like this even without the copyright owners having to complain, but the vast majority of carriers do not (and should not) impose any such hurdle to allowing their users to publish. This is the central promise of public broadcasting and collaboration by network.
If every sheet of paper needed permission before it could hold an idea in ink, we would still be scratching words in the dirt and looking over our shoulders.
[
Will this mean the dissapearance of the Yatta video? What about Matrix Ping Pong?.
I can do without all the JPop though...
As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
I can't purchase the DVD if I've never heard of the video.
YouTube vids are low-rez, perfect to get you to go out and buy the real thing.
Now that Google pwns YouTube it'll just go downhill. Remember when iFilm was taken over by MTV? So goodbye YouTube, hello YouSuck.
I mean, it's japanese. who the hell can understand japanese?
Given the low-pass signature identification algorithms we have discussed lately, I would really like to see a duplicate-video cull on these sites. There seems to be fifty copies of each of the more popular clips, cloned and re-posted to video.google and youtube in some kind of karma-whoring frenzy.
I bet there are more than 30,000 dupes if you just count the 3,000 top-rated video clips.
[
I'm not suprised. I seen too many clips from weird japanese tv-shows on Internet. People making idiots from themselves, running naked, shooting sperm, diving in hot water to watch boobs.... Based on those videos, image of japanese people is clear: they are lunatics, they are insane, their society is really fucked up.
So Japanese took the first step to correcting (hiding?) this public image of them.
:wq
If it wasn't for youtube hosting Japanese content, I wouldn't of had been exposed to Hard Gay! Wait a minute... But really, the shows that air in Japan are some of the best milk exploding out of your nose comedy I have ever seen.
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=hard+gay
...the gift horse in the mouth then kicked it squarely in the balls just like the *AA's have been doing for years. They have just kicked the best free advertisement they could have had to the curb. Granted, the material may be copyrighted, but the quality is extremely poor. The material is seen by persons who then sometimes seek out and want to purchase higher quality videos/music to support various forums of artistic expression. Nice way to shut out customers that they could have gotten for free. I guess they must be preparing to earn their money through lawsuits rather than through a legitimate business transaction which wins over customers. Money seems to be one helluva drug, seeing how it blinds upper corporate echelon.
"This is America... where the will of the few outweigh the outrage of the many..." - Unknown
How dare you say
such a thing
to me?!
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
All they have to do is make their user-base screen the video's by answering, honestly, these questions associated with every item:
"Was this original material? Have you seen it before?"
In other words, Home Of The Super-Stars, 2.0
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
is because a lot of authorities weren't aware of YouTube, but when Google bought them and it was front page news, suddenly everyone's logging on the (wrong) website, realising that (they're on the wrong site) there's copyrighted material on there and requesting it to be removed.
Slipped a nice little joke in there for everyone to enjoy too.
Summation 2
As always they want to remove everything instead of thinking first. What kind of quality does YouTube have? Sh*t, everybody knows. Those videos should be classified as promotional material. Instead removing them, they should lower the resolution (as if there's need for it already) and audio quality (look previous brackets) and add some intro like 'If you want to see it in proper way - Buy It!'. That would be much better than removing it.
Best part is that this process can be easily automated so videos marked as copyrighted by MPIA or similar can be automatically 'copyright marked'. That would create a lot of revenue for artists and a lot of fun for ordinary people.
Shame that they cannot think in this way. Create - not destroy!
"an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain
Adult Swim aside, without exposure like this there is little chance of American folks becoming fans. Heck, I've been using YouTube for the last few days to help buy Anime (check for popularity and samples) for my kids and myself for Christmas. Bad move.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
What percentage of YouTube's hosted content does this represent?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Some japanese movies are horrible... I apreciate the initiative.
YouTube needs to get rid of videos where, instead of using a VCR or DVR, people used a camcorder to record off the TV set. Why do people even bother doing that?
Because if they did, I can tell you it's really no big deal - after all, when you've seen one big-eyed schoolgirl being raped by a Cthulhoid tentacle, you've seen them all.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
to look after someone else's copyrighted works?
Does this mean no more bizarre Morning Musume videos?
Here are another ~18500 videos that the YouTube staff has been purposefully ignoring.
y +guy&search=Search+ park&search=Searcha ma&search=Search+ show&search=Search
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=famil
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=south
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=futur
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=daily
If they got rid of the copyrighted material, YouTube would be mostly junk videos and they'd be worthless to Google.
Although YouTube is legally obligated to remove infringing material when notified, some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves.
Well, that's funny. That's what the law says, and who petitioned for that law? Yes, that's right. It was the MPAA and the RIAA!
Now they're complaining about the bed they made themselves.
Boo hoo. Cry me a fucking river.
i am a soviet space shuttle
Can you really not see any practical difference between the print world, where each separate infringement by an individual typically requires a significant time and materials overhead, and the on-line world, where mass infringement by thousands of individuals using sites like YouTube is near-free and near-instantaneous? Do you really believe that these have the same potential for damaging an injured party, and at the same speed, and thus merit the same response to uphold the spirit of the law?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
the *AAs want to eat their cake and save it, too.
Today they have the following options:
1. Gootube lays the burden of checking copyright in the uploaders, remove upon request from the holders.
2. Gootube lays the burden of checking copyright in the holders (eg, automagically via fingerprinting), considers anything else fair game.
The *AAs want Gootube to check (via fingerprint), check again (when asked to), and assume responsibility if something (that the *AAs provided) goes wrong.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
awww. That's such a shame. I suppose we have the RIAA to thank for this lovely regard for intellectual property rights collecting. i'd say a good majority of stuff on youtube you can't buy on DVD yet anyway? Where is my damn Zuiikin English DVD collectors edition? What? That's right, I sure didn't think so.
Google is not managed by idiots. If they are going to shell out $1.6B for a commodity (even it's only $1.6B in stock and not cold, hard, cash), you can bet there was some due diligence involved. If you look at similar previous businesses-- Napster is the best that comes to mind.. Napster raked in a bunch of VC cash for Sean Fanning, and then it went down the tubes, but this was mostly as a result of failing to forsee the legal problems they would encouter. Google, no doubt, has already forseen this, and probably has developed a very robust (and hopefully flexible.. since web 2.0 is in its infancy) business model. One major difference between YouTube and Napster is that Napster was virtually 100% copyrighted (pirated) content. YouTube is probably 50% pirated content, with the other 50% being unique content (vlogs, etc) from users more interested in social networking, and I suspect in some ways these are more "valuable" users to google (in that they surf more often, are more susceptible/amenable to ads, etc). Of the pirated content, I suspect around 25-50% of the rights-owners actually "care enough" to pursue the fact that it is being exhibited on the web without royalties to them. The remainer are cellphone camera bootlegs of concerts, people singing covers of their favorite songs, etc.
After about 30 seconds of brainstorming, I can imagine google will focus on the social networking users (I already see YouTube making huge headway against MySpace-- watching a video of someone on their profile gives LOADS more parsable clues about them than a few blurry "MySpace Angles" photos), and secondarily attempt to convince many copyright holders to PROMOTE their retail content on YouTube rather than just ask them to cease and desist. This promotion could come in the way of YouTube "premier access" videos or site area, driven by g-checkout (or whatever its name is), where users pay for individual access to videos (at $.05 a view for a 2 minute video? maybe..) or perhaps for a site-wide access on a monthly fee basis. Or this promotion could come in the way of simply trying to pursuade copyright holders to let heir heavily compressed 320x240 webvideo stay up, with blatant text links/banners to the official site or whatever. As someone who actually creates commercial video content (I make documentaries, but have directed other projects such as music videos, etc), this is a situation I am amenable to. I'd be fine with google showing excepts of my last couple of films (extreme sports stuff), with context links on the page to buy the DVD, or maybe to "jamster" type ringtone sites that sell my video ringtones (which I don't actually have, but funny story, a large distributor [rhymes with Barner Wrothers] approached us to distribute our latest film, and one of their executive's biggest sales pitches to us [this was around a yr ago] was doing video ringtones-- "they're going to be huge!"). Also, remember, even if YouTube can't turn a profit on its own, the data-mining possibilities are endess... let's say I use my YouTube account (i am logged in via cookie) to watch lots of Morrissey videos. Then I google search for "documentary." There is [hypothetically] a new documentary coming out about Morrissey's legal battles with former Smiths bandmates, and now google can serve me context ad content based on the context of not just what I searched for, but what google also know me to enjoy. The correlations that can be made by cross referencing this content are pretty friggin extensive. I am positive this hasn't escaped their attention.
So in short, yes, everyone (including the big G) saw this coming. Expect some cool adaptations soon, I do hope.
Sidenote: I think that there is probably an amazing documentary to be made about the goings-on inside google.. what it means to work on the campus, how google employees are treated differently than typical IT employees, how they foster innovation, how they continue to push the envelope of how to do business on the web, their expansion into china (and grappling wi
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
My college pays for a satellite feed to some of the various NHK channels and during the limited news shows they do have it's not uncommon to see a large black block appear when they show images of events or sports events. Usually there is some message about the broadcast not being allowed outside of Japan. It's at times like that I feel the copyright thing is taken to new extremes. At another time, I was going to download a music video from Yaida Hitomi from YouTube and the next day they it was removed because copyright owner JASC or whatever had said it was infringement, which it was but! Still, it gives worldwide exposure to some artist that would otherwise be seen by one country. It's sad the way artist availability and exposure can be minimalized by copyright holders who might not even be the artist themselves.
Youtube was the easiest to use source of non-dubbed sub-titled anime. Why can't Cartoon network just sub-title their anime shows instead of dubbing the crap out of them.
The voice actors for most dubbed anime aren't very good and you lose a lot of information.
If a lot of this material isn't licensed in the US (like most of the anime people download out there), why would Google have to comply? Sure stuff like Naruto has been licensed, but a lot of those sort of things are AMVS, which promote the anime more than anything, imo. Was Google really legally required to remove these videos if they weren't licensed in the US, or were they simply doing a service?
And would you apply the same standards to the countless small, specialist outfits, which produce much of the best video material out there, yet which are threatened with quite literally going under because of sites like this ripping their stuff? This type of organisation couldn't afford a lobbyist in their wildest dreams, never mind having anything to do with getting copyright law changed.
It's really very annoying when people equate "copyright law" with "abuse of power by multinational corporations". The latter are the last people who need copyright to protect them. However, when you attack the copyright system as a means of getting at the megacorps, you also undermine the protection that should be afforded to all the little guys producing new, interesting, informative, really valuable content. Yes, the actions of the megacorps suck, but you're aiming at the wrong target by going after copyright; you want "price fixing" and "corrupt legislative systems", down the hall and on the right.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
As a copyright holder, it's YOUR responsibility to defend your rights. Once properly notified, an offender or facilitator (like YouTube) is obligated to take action, but "policing" is the (C) holder's problem.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
Half of the music videos I watch have been on YouTube, so now I'm unable to watch some of my favorite Japanese artists sing.
Oh well, I guess I'll have to download them instead of watching them online.
I'm guessing Google knows what they are doing. They could have some good legal argument, they could be hoping that the date of any lawsuit gets pushed way out like in the print.google case. It seems by the time a lawsuit occurs the companies will realize the need for print.google. The same could happen with youtube by the time a few years down the road anything legal occurs the companies have changed so much that the case is mote. They may think that their Google biceps are big enough to force change. Seeing as TV is a starving industry,CBS anyone?, or Maybe a job at NBC They may be forced to see an opportunity instead of fighting. After if they can make money by posting what someone else will no doubt post why not beat crime to the punch.
at least now more people are seeing their stuff. They weren't going to get money either way so they should just let us watch em. Time to start up another video site or goto bebo dot com
What do you do all day?
:)
I work for The Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers. I brows YouTube all day looking for pron, i mean illegal japanese material that does not belong on YouTube...
Just imagine their annual review...
"Good Job Li, you found 3,000 illegal videos on YouTube. Too bad Jin found 5,000 illegal videos. 15 lashings and you need to work more than your normal 60 hours a week!"
Right. Why take responsibility for policing how folks use *your* content when you can force that responsibility on to some other company.
I bet they expect the government to babysit their kids at our expense as well.
Hasn't this problem been around for a long time (and ultimately settled down on a mechanism) for EBay, in terms of sales of e.g. pirated videos?
I'm not sure what it ended up on (whether Ebay screens every day or month, or they just act on notification) but Larry and Sergey might consider asking some Ebayers out for lunch.
My first thought when I heard this story was, "What does it matter to them? No one outside of Japan will ever get their programming anyway."
But then my friend made a very good point. Youtube was sold for $1.6 billion in no small part because they attracted viewers with copyrighted programming. They certainly have made little effort in the past to block that kind of material.
That friend has been in a similar situation where someone running a site overseas goes and essentially takes his copyrighted flash games and puts them on their site without his permission. They then lure visitors using my friend's, and other people's, creations in order to make money on advertising.
Why Youtube was ever worth $1.6 billion is beyond me.
I mean, a lot of people just watch anime on you tube. Without that the site is a bunch of wining video blogs.
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
With subtitles - http://youtube.com/watch?v=wjk-9yJBIG0
Damn that liquified rock!!!!
Under that pressure I probably couldn't even beat World 1-1 in Super Mario Bros.
Maybe Gamespot's Button Mashing needs a Japanese overhaul. I'd like to see someone beat two enemies from TMNT2 when their groin is on the line.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
I headed up a group on Youtube that posted rare videos and live shows of independent Japanese bands. We went unmolested for the most part until the last months, when we were hit with a sweeping ban that affected some of our biggest contributors.
Some of the bans sort of made sense, as there are some decidedly uncommercial bands on major labels in Japan (sort of a "whoops, totally forgot" situation). Also, there was a major crackdown by Japanese music TV channel Spaceshower TV, which a good many of the videos were recorded off of. Some banned videos, however, puzzled us.
For example, my offending videos included hand-held recordings of a long-defunct indie band Naht that were taken at the Black Cat club in Washington DC. Naht was one of my favorite bands in college, so I was overjoyed that I was able to find such rare footage and immediately wanted to share it. I'm dissapointed it was removed from youtube.
I was eventually given a permanent ban, although I hadn't uploaded anything in months. Bad timing, too, because I had switched the group back to "group leader approves videos" because of horrible video spam. It's too bad, too; a great Israeli noise group called Gaop started uploading videos. Not Japanese, but good stuff, so I kept it on.
I respect and understand my ban, but I'm still dissapointed. Maybe I should start digging around for stuff on the Chinese punk scene, see how youtube censors those.
the only copy YouTube is guilty of providing is the one on their server. The other copies others may have made is irrelevant.
If I photocopy a poster three times and pass two copies to other people who do the same, how long will it take before EVERYONE has a copy? And how much effort was it to make three copies?
Once all the porn is off of YouTube, 95% of the users will go with it.
"Shit, didn't see this coming."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Furthermore, based on my understanding of the DMCA, provided that they respond to takedown orders, I think they're protected in doing this, as operators of an Information Service (or whatever the term is in the DMCA for networked services).
As long as they respond to takedown requests and have an address on file with the Copyright Office for those requests, then I think they're pretty safe in doing what they're doing.
Everybody here on Slashdot has been predicting the death of Google by way of YouTube lawsuits, but I think they've probably thought it through a little further than that. The law as it is today seems to be on their side. This doesn't mean that the copyright holders couldn't get enough pet senators together and "fix" that, but at least right now they're living up to their responsibilities.
Of course they could still get sued -- this is America, anyone can sue anyone for anything -- but I'm not sure that they'll necessarily lose. And they have enough money to keep a lawsuit going for a while, it's not the bankruptcy-inducing thing that it would be for a small company.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I wonder, did they prove they have rights to those 30,000 videos? Or they just sent a note to GooTube requiring them to remove the videos and GooTube just silently swallowed that?
In my case, that means buying from stands out on the street for $.60 per disc. I live in China- the J-pop sections of the music stores I've been to are either full of pirated CDs (see what I said in the first sentence) or they're dominated by Ayumi Hamasaki and BoA (still only $7 per disc though, but I have enough Ayu albums to last me at least a couple of years, even more with BoA, but I can barely find Ami Suzuki or Ai Otsuka- only like 3 or 4 albums from both of those, I guess because they're not as popular outside Japan).
OSx86 FTW
Now that Google's is attached to the site, will events like this become more commonplace?"
Yes. Today I read similar story about Finnish TV broadcasters contemplating what action to take against YouTube on copyright infringement. They're hopeful Google will be more responsive to copyright infringment than what YouTube has been in the past.
They acknowledge that the user uploading is responsible for the infringement but since YouTube isn't strict in verifying identities, in the end it is YouTube (Google) who faces the legal onslaught.
YouTube has been able to navigate itself so far without ending up like Napster but personally I think it's just a matter of time. Either they get bogged down and shut down by temporary orders from the legal system or uploading will change to include more stringent identity controls at which point the eyeballs and hipness Google exchanged 1.65B stock for will move somewhere else.
Either way, YouTube is going to be the Internet fad of 2006. By end of 2007 I bet most traffic has moved somewhere else.
You must be new here.
There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
Of course this happened. YouTube is the next Napster. Same centralized hosting of uploaded content, same business model, same excuses, same legal problems. YouTube is in a worse legal position than Napster. Napster just hosted the index. YouTube hosts the actual content.
YouTube could well be shut down by an injunction. That's what happened to Napster. "Napster is enjoined from copying or assisting or enabling or contributing to the copy or duplication of all copyrighted songs and musical compositions of which the plaintiffs hold rights." -- U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel.
As for it being the responsibility of the copyright holder to find the material, "Napster wrote the software; it's up to them to write software that will remove from users the ability to copy copyrighted material," -- Judge Patel
YouTube, like Napster, is a contributory infringer. "The district court determined that plaintiffs had demonstrated they would likely succeed in establishing that Napster has a direct financial interest in the infringing activity. We agree. Financial benefit exists where the availability of infringing material "acts as a 'draw' for customers." -- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
I was amazed that Google bought YouTube. It was obvious they were buying into a huge litigation problem.
They are geniuses. American TV could learn something from them.
--Chag
Jpr0n FTW!!
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
I mean, yeah, it probably was copyrighted and all, but they were, "not doing this because [they were] greedy." "The Bears are doin' it to feed the needy."
But wait, for some reason, it's still on Google Video,. . .
Think of all the space that could be saved if YouTube managed to remove duplicate Naruto videos ;-)
Thankfully, the Pythagoras Switch (pitagora suicchi) Rube Goldberg machine videos are still up. Great example of sharing fun stuff from one country to the delight of kids (and adults!) all over the world.
Losers choose to abuse the use of "loose".
I really do wonder about these copyright holders. There is obviously a demand for their content. Instead of insisting on immediate takedowns, why are they not instead offering to license the content for the particular use? Copyright holders complain that their incomes are being hurt by their material being made available, yet whenever they find a new medium that provides a way for their content to be distributed (and an opportunity for them to make money) they always insist on takedowns rather than negociating a license. Perhaps their are incapible of neogicating licenses?
Maybe the state should just step in a set a "set license fee" for different non-commercial uses of content. If a use isn't listed it should be up to the copyright holders to either allow the material to be given away for free or convince the state why a "set license fee" for that particular use should be set up. Also, if a copyright holder chooses not to make certain content available for purchase, people should have the right to just copy it will. The "copyright" is there to give the holder a chance to make money by selling copies - if they don't make copies available for purchase it would seem that they are renegging on their side of the deal.
I don't see copyright as a right, it is a short-term priviledge that is offered by the state in order to foster the creation of content. These copyright holders always seem to want to have their cake and eat it to.
Now they aren't getting paid in addition to not getting world-wide exposure.
Yes, but why only remove the duplicates?
> some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves
Well, no kidding.
I'm sure they would love to have someone continuously investigating all content on all web-sites for possible copyright infringement.
Who do they think is going to do this for them? The government? The web-sites themselves?
Of course not. Nobody else has any incentive to do a good job policing the content. If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself.
This is also the way policing works in the real world: The police aren't going to investigate until someone makes a complaint.
Basically, all "victims" everywhere are burdened with one primary responsibility in order to seek justice: they must initiate a complaint. Nobody is ever going to do that automatically for them.
Who made you the arbiter of what is and isn't a useful contribution to culture?
I happen to like anime music videos, thank you very much. I still have some old Otaku Vengeance videos from many years ago that I watch from time to time. Anime music videos are an innovative re-mixing of cultural media into something interesting.
If you don't like them, don't watch them. No need to shit all over the rest of us who DO like them.
lonelygirl15, littleloca, renetto and brookers were Japanese
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
I've posted below the DMCA's requirements. Note in particular that false statements constitute perjury under the DMCA. Realistically, they sent a list of infringing programs (names in English and romanized Japanese, dates of original broadcast, and rights holders), the URLs to any instances they found with language saying "And if you see anything else with that title, its probably ours too", and a signed/stamped* "Me, too!" letter from each participating rights holder. (*Traditionally in Japan contracts are executed with a personal seal or a seal representing the entity engaging in the contract. Signatures are also legally sufficient in the vast majority of cases, and when dealing with foreigners most people just sign stuff, but some folks and businesses stamp legal documents as a matter of course. Ironically the last time it happened at work it was an Italian who had read about it on the in-flight guide and was really hot to try -- we put in a rush order with a local carver when the person expressed his desire in the morning and had it ready for the "signing" ceremony after lunch.)D 130).
---------
(Taken from the DMCA Faq located here: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QI
The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
If YouTube removed duplicates, then it would becomes the next low-quality scene. :P
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
How about it then, chaps?
A sequel to YouTube but with swarming distribution, and none of this copyright adherence stuff.
Wait a second...
Neither are more obscure videos that still could easily be found by the copyright holder.
I would be very intrested to see wich videos were actually removed. NHK is mentioned but a lot of morning musume stuff belongs to them or at least if I remember correctly was broadcast on that station.
Then again I find it all pretty silly anyway. 99% of the japanese stuff is NOT available outside japan, nor do the right holders have any intention of ever making it available outside japan. So they cannot reasonably claim any loss of revenue.
Offcourse as a non-copyright owner I can easily claim that copyright owners should just loosen up but I really think they should.
Who is harmed by me in country X watching a program from another country that I would never get to see otherwise?
Let us not forget that japan itself got most of its western knowledge by making copies of dutch books they got from trade. Long before copyright existed in its current form but nonetheless, the japanese gained a wealth of knowledge by copying material from another culture they would normally not have access too.
Oh shucks...a bunch of Japanese media that can't be obtained outside of Japan anyway, will no longer be available in a blurry pixelated format on the internet...Thank god for protecting the artists' rights!!!
What if the AMV in question is some sweet (pun intended) Matthew Sweet video from the 80s?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjXsW7sY1tY
We all know that this censorship makes the Great FireWall of China look puny by comparison.
They took down political comentary, and criticism of the Jap Govt, not "copyrighted" material.
Andy Out!
The vultures are circling....
Trule a shame though that the Japanese couldn't see the advantage of having their videos on youtube. It was free advertising to a fresh new audience...but no, they want to keep all their toys to themselves. Heaven forbid they find new potential consumers! Smart business indeed.
If I write and record a song, and I want to put my own music on a P2P network or put a music video of my own music on YouTube, then how can I determine whether or not I have rights to my music? For example, if I subconsciously plagiarized the music from a copyrighted source, as George Harrison did with "My Sweet Lord" and Michael Bolton did with "Love Is a Wonderful Thing", I don't have rights to it.
I wrote and recorded a song, created a video for it, and want to post the video to YouTube. How can I be sure that the song I wrote doesn't violate anyone's copyright?
They wouldn't want wider exposure for their products. That would be wrong. And terrible. Oh sure, they may widen their market by an order of magnitude, but really this is all about authors rights. or something like that.
So if I want to write a fantasy novel, how can I tell whether specific scenarios have already been used? If I want to write a song, how can I tell whether specific melody lines have already been used?
hear hear! I wish they had a way of choosing to exclude certain categories of video's in the search. Seriously you can search for ANYTHING YOU WANT and at least one video with "Naruto" in the title will be a result.
"which produce much of the best video material out there, yet which are threatened with quite literally going under because of sites like this ripping their stuff?"
Oh really? You mean people aren't interested in downloading the latest issue of Lost, rather they are taking produced museums clips, specialized kiosk videos, etc. and putting them out there because (a) nobody will then pay for them (?????) (b) People are just clamoring for this stuff (?????)
Seriously, what you're saying doesn't make sense. People pirate MP3 of mainstream stuff. People put up videos of mainstream stuff. If a small production house that does boutique business is going out of business, you cannot come up with a scenario where it's because they were so popular on YouTube.
If you would think about it rather than just cast around mindlessly you'd see that problem is not what you think it is.
"posting entire seeeasons of episodes from TV shows is something entirely different."
Yeah. Imagine the nerve of some people making entire TV seasons available so easily that people could sit on the couch, press a button and watch *for free*. That's worse than piracy... that's called.... ummm Watching TV?
I've heard there's a Linux based device that will let you capture it at your leisure, move it to your computer to edit and then turn into DVD. It's called Tivo, and I think they should ban it!
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
You sir, are wrong. No, I don't mind getting the links. Get them yourself. Not *everything* you create is *automatically* copyrighted.
Since the creater/owner of the video has the copyright, the uploader should sign they created the video, else they, and not the "common carrier" Google be subject to penalty. Its pretty hard to be totally anonymous to Google. They log every transaction and can probably cross-search them to find out who you are.
There goes pretty much the only reason I visited youtube in the first place.
I'm really disappointed by this; although I understand that this sort of thing is obviously the "right" response given the situation, I was hoping that the astounding array of music videos and the like from below-the-radar Japanese acts would go unnoticed by Japanese agencies not used to monitoring oversees sites. Youtube used to feature clips from bands like the Moon Riders and Dixied the Emmons, but I noticed that the selection slowly dwindled as the site matured. I can't help but feel that while this is the first reported mass deletion of videos, it's been going on for quite some time.
Fortunately, they didn't delete Japanese Algorithm Dance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhuiDjiBigs :-)
Sig erased via substitution of an identical one.
...ube at all. No doubt they had a hand in reporting the programs and surely will not stop there. They would like to see all foreign programs barred for whatever reason simply because an eyeball glued to YouTube is NOT an eyeball glued to the major networks. If they could ban the home videos on YouTube they'd like to see that done too.
They perhaps are beginning to realize that the drop in their revenue is not so much because of media piracy, but because there's just so darn much competition that's been enabled by the internet and they're getting beat up. And unfortunately, it's not like there's just one upstart that they can buy-out and assimilate, there's millions of individual, independent content sources out there that's diluting their monopoly. Boo-hoo about that, but watch out because they've got their claws out, and I expect there are some underhanded moves in store up ahead...
The youth market is no doubt severely affected-- the draw of internet media or video games is dragging the eyeballs away from the dinosaur networks in droves and they're pretty darn scared about it-- or if they aren't, they ought to be. They certainly deserve to be...
A lot of people have missed the point. To compile their list of 29k+ videos, they started when youtube was little and had to keep adding to the list each day. Because piracy has a geometric growth curve, they were unable to catch up until just last week when they adapted a logarithmic search method. And that's why they sent the list now. It had nothing to do with Google'$ money.
Why are women so complicated? Find out how little I know here.
The difference between Youtube and Napster is that Youtube's 'homemade videos' are far more attractive than e.g. the 'homemade music' of Napster. Additionally Youtube features the preview picture combined with the commenting/rating system to judge whether the video is really something you'd like to watch before wasting time on it.
Many homemade videos get tons of hits/high ratings such as Ask a Ninja - hilarious guy. Furthermore there are the 'video-bloggish' entries, i.e. documentaries that wouldn't be aired through mainstream channels or direct coverage of current events, both of which wouldn't be possible on a audio-only medium. So it's possible to find footage of the war in Iraq that due to self-censorship no news channel would broadcast. An example would be a documentary (warning: graphic!) of the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
One good thing Youtube is doing when videos are removed is identifying the copyright holder who requested the removal. This way, we can voice our viewpoint of the removal straight to the copyright owner. Once the copyright owners realize how many eyes were viewing their material for the first time (thus gaining future eyes that may be inclined to purchase goods from their ads), maybe that will halp them rethink their old media model.
I-ras-rob-bai youuuuutoooob.
Yet another faceless organization misses the boat. They see there is a desire for their content but instead of trying to find a way to earn money they decide to restrict access to their content as much as possible. This only leads to people finding alternate ways to get it.
What should they be doing right now? Setting up a web site that for a small monthly fee ($5) will allow you to watch, not download, all the japanese tv shows you want. Most people who care about Anime don't like the dubs so all they would have to do is subtitle them. The game shows are funnier with the bad voice overs, so get some college exchange students and allow them to do the bad voice overs for college credit.
Everybody wins.
That's the famous Japanese comedy tv show Downtown's Gaki no Tsukai ya Arahende!! (This ain't no job for kids). The ref and the last guy in the red are Hamada and Matsumoto of the group Downtown.
The show's kinda like Jackass, only they've been around for much longer and they show a lot of variety (including Abbot and Costello type bits). Very funny indeed.
And George Harrison thought "My Sweet Lord" was an original work of his own until he got sued and lost.
Dang! ... Looks like I'll have to buy liegit Japanese language Naruto,
SAC-GITS and other favs for $$$/YYY the next time I'm in Akihabara,
which will be soon.
At least the exchange rate is in my favor.
Toodles
Oh no! I'll never find out what happened in those other episodes of Samurai Pizza Cats now.
*sigh*.
How will I survive?
Emerald Astrology