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.
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 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.
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 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
In what bizarro universe did this happen?
Just wait youtube will go the way of p2p
You mean it will make up more than 50% of internet traffic at any given time? Not bad for a start.
Global warming is a cube.
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
...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
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
to look after someone else's copyrighted works?
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.
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.
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
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!"
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.
You realize that the vast majority of files on Napster were not legal, and did indeed have copyright issues, don't you? It wasn't this free love hippy utopia, it was the grimy streets of Tortuga, and we were all dirty pirates.
Arr.
Shinma
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.
Um, because the US is not the center of the universe?
The "licensed in the US" argument is irrelevant. These items infringe the copyrights of legitimate rights holders in another country that's also a member of WIPO. International treaties signed by the US have the force of law in the US.
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."
Yes, I would - if only for lack of imagination.
The "small, specialist outfits" are precisely the ones who could benefit most from the huge, free exposure that a YouTube provides - they should be embracing this opportunity. Instead, however, they band together (as the JASRAC group in the TFA) and use the same jackboot tactics as their big corporate brethren.
The draconion copyright statutes instituted by the megacorps certainly aren't there to help the little guys - they're there to maintain the status quo. The small outfits should be clamoring for new advertising and distribution channels like YouTube and P2P, but they're not. In their silence they are complicit with the RIAA and MPAA thugs.
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?
There are two absurd extremes when it comes to perceived value and the internet.
On one end you have people who thing everything should be free and anything is fair game.
And at the other extreme you have companies spending hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars for something that's at its core immaterial.
A bigger problem, to me, is how intrusive internet advertising has become, and that's to say nothing about the general crap quality of that advertising. These sites sell for so much money not because they actually offer anything of real substance but simply because they've hit on enough of a hook that they've managed to lure millions of visitors. The more visitors the more people exposed to advertising.
The Internet is in a big way driven by ad supported models, much like television. These sites exist for advertising which means that whoever is running the site must be responsible for content.
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
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'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.
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!!!
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!
...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...
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.