YouTube No Friend of Copyright Violators

ncstockguy writes "YouTube appears to be fully aware of their copyright vulnerability and is now actively moving to head that problem off. They're now taking active steps to aid copyright holders in pursuing litigation against violators." From the article: "Its prompt legal capitulation suggests that YouTube users who post copyrighted material should not expect the company to protect them from media-business lawsuits, said Colton, whose firm wasn't involved in the Paramount subpoena or lawsuit and who learned of them from a MarketWatch reporter. The 'Twin Towers' episode is reminiscent of the way the entertainment industry vanquished the first version of Napster Inc. and other digital-music sites that made it easy to download copyrighted songs over the Internet. Music company lawyers first warned and then sued individual users who downloaded their songs. Now it looks like piracy hunters for the movie studios are using the same technique against YouTube users."

Comments

Re:Fair use?

[Dachannien]

Posting short clips from TV shows alone (i.e., not in any context other than simply to allow others to view the clips) is probably not fair use. But it would be stupid of the TV networks to remove such clips from sites like YouTube. It's free advertising for their shows, though that's never stopped a media executive from having said free advertising taken down anyway.

Re:How?

[nwbvt]

"By their IP address (what if they used tor, a public library computer, or an open access point)? "

I doubt thats very common from most YouTube users. We are not exactly talking about master criminals here. I'm failry positive the vast majority will be kids using a computer in their parent's basement.

"Shouldn't the copyright holders be going after youtube since they are a clearly identifiable hoster of material that they do not have the rights to archive and/or distribute?"

They could, which is why YouTube is doing this. As long as they cooperate fully, they are protected from such lawsuits by the DMCA.

"I suspect that the corporate media companies are just spreading FUD to scare people away from using youtube."

You say that as its some sort of revelation. Of course it is their goal to scare people away from violating their copyrights, and I'm sure if you asked them they would say the same thing.

Re:Fair use and congress

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube probably should follow the law. They are quite exposed as it is.

Actually, YouTube is following the law - they're complying with DMCA to the letter.

Title II limits their liability if they follow the conditions for safe harbor, namely that they warn users in their terms of service, and promptly take down content if it infringes copyrights. This they are doing.

Re:A major threat?

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Try the Flash 9 beta. Finally I can watch flash videos under Linux and have sound that actually works properly.

Re:Fair use?

[Artifakt]

Up through about 1970, there was a general rule of thumb, that you could not be sure of remaining within the law if you quoted more than 1/4 of a work under fair use. This was invoked re. purposes such as criticism or teaching that were themselves basic to fair use, and I personally heard it used by both legal departments and judges in copyright cases.
      Since that time, it's dropped out of use. That's one way laws become draconian - unofficial guidelines that worked get dropped in favor of 'rigorous interpretations' that benefit only one party. All your examples are quite accurate under current law (to my admittedly limited knowledge - read my sig goldarnit). All of them are also enormously, almost mind-numbingly less than the old 1/4 guideline would imply they should be.
      This happened at the start of the 'war on drugs', back in the first decades of the 20th century with the anti-opium laws - the laws included not too rigorous guidelines about some quite practical exceptions, such as doctor's perscriptions. Then the courts just started ultra-narrowly interpreting everything that wasn't spelled out in detail, saying for example that Doctors couldn't perscribe just to treat addiction itself, couldn't treat the pain from disease "X" because "X" wasn't painful enough, couldn't specialize in treating addiction, etc., and as it gathered momentum; 10,000 doctors lost their liscences or were actually jailed within the next few years.
          According to some pretty reputable historians, you could add: the nation tried a costly experiment with prohibition of alcohol based on the opiate law model, we had Doctor shortages that lasted, in some once well served areas, for more than a generation, medical prices began their still ongoing rise at rates much faster than general inflation, and the average addict had virtually no chance of getting treatment rather than incarceration for the next 35-40 years, until we had to deal with a huge influx of addicted veterans from WW2 burn wards, and the general reluctance to just jail them forced a few changes on the system.
        I don't know if an IP issue can screw the whole country up as bad as that did, but I'm pretty sure the current policies will do the maximum damage possible within their sphere. Personally, I think it will be blamed for at least a literary dark age, when we lost a lot of media before they became common culture.