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

Fair use?

[caseih]

Will clips from shows like the Simpsons and the Family Guy start disappearing from youtube? I believe they are legal due to fair use. But we all know how copyright holders feel about that these days.

Re:Fair use?

[CRCulver]

The definition of "fair use" depends entirely on the type of media in question. Sure, with a lot of text, from academic or journalism sources, one is able to quote small snippets fairly freely for scholarly purposes. With literature, the vise tightens; publishers feel unsafe if their authors quote more than a single line from a work of poetry without permission from the poet or estate. With music scores, you'd best not even try quoting, because even a single barline copied without the publisher's permission will get you sued--the RIAA gets a lot of bad press on Slashdot, but I think music publishers are even more vicious.

With a television program, you'd probably only get away with making use of stills, not an entire animated sequence, let alone one that encapsulates an entire joke.

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:Fair use?

[suv4x4]

With a television program, you'd probably only get away with making use of stills, not an entire animated sequence, let alone one that encapsulates an entire joke.

Pitty isn't it. I didn't have a clue about Family guy until I saw a clip of it on the Internet on some site, somewhere. Now I own all complete seasons on DVD.

Re:Fair use?

[sgtrock]

I remember reading someplace that the makers of a documentary about a traveling opera troupe wanted to show a scene of the crew backstage while the performance was underway. Apparently, there were 3 or 4 guys sitting around playing cards while a TV showing the Simpsons was playing in the background. It was a very short scene, about 8 seconds or so, but the lawyers for the documentary company felt that even that short segment was liable to be challenged by Fox. The documentary's director eventually, reluctantly, decided to drop the scene rather than approach Fox to see if they would have a problem with its use.

This is completely asinine. If ever there were a fair use case to be made, that was it. Yet everyone is running scared because the cost of defending an action just isn't worth it.

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.

Re:Fair use?

[stinerman]

It was in the book "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig. Apparently Fox wanted a very large sum of money (I thought it was over $50,000) for a license to use that clip in the documentary.

You speak of obvious fair use. In many ways fair use is just like the problem with patents. The patent might be obvious or have prior art, but you can't invalidate it since it would take a small army of lawyers and a few suitcases of cash to do so. Similarly, the use of a clip may be obvious fair use, but if the copyright holder decides he wants to go after you, you're toast. A trial will most likely be more expensive than the licensing fee. The cheap option in both cases is to either not use the patented technique or not use the clip.

Re:Fair use?

[ArizonaJer]

To be more precise about the definition of "fair use" under US law, ask these four questions about the use being made (summarized in a Wired article from 2003):

1. Is the use transformative?
2. What's the nature of the copyrighted work?
3. How much did you change?
4. What's the effect on the market?

The full, but short, Wired piece is here:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/start.htm l?pg=13

More fair-use links are here:

http://www.screensite.org/index.php?option=com_boo kmarks&Itemid=28&mode=0&catid=5&navstart=0&search= *

Of course, I Am Not A Lawyer--even though my father and brother are.

And now they're fucked.

[Spazntwich]

There's nothing special about YouTube to keep people there and away from their competitors. Once they earn a reputation like this, I think we'll quickly see a mass migration to more "people friendly" sites. Whether they want it or not, the anti-establishment teens are going to see them as corporate shills and take their eyeballs elsewhere.

Re:And now they're fucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright, Spazntwich, lets chopper to Sealand and co-create VideoHaven. We'll have that Simpsons clip on the front page, the one where Homer says: "There are no laws here: We can do anything we want!"

Although bandwidth might be a problem...

Re:And now they're fucked.

[suv4x4]

Re:And now they're fucked.

There's nothing special about YouTube to keep people there and away from their competitors. Once they earn a reputation like this, I think we'll quickly see a mass migration to more "people friendly" sites. Whether they want it or not, the anti-establishment teens are going to see them as corporate shills and take their eyeballs elsewhere.

1.65 billion. BILLION.

1 650 000 000 USD

Maybe Google was f*cked with YouTube, but damn... I think the founders achieved all they could ever want:

- Get a HUGE LOAD OF CASH (in google stock IIRC but anyway, they can cash it anytime)
- Avoid the whole entertainment business suing them for infirngements
- Leave YouTube in good hands (Google).

Now, of course Google will sort things out on the copyright front, but Google already has this image of "anti-establishment" and "cool". So as long as YouTube is associated with them, and they don't change it too much to displease the fans, it'll keep running for some years to come.

A major threat?

[elronxenu]

Because of course I like to watch my hollywood movies on a tiny screen, transcoded and fuzzy.

Re:A major threat?

[aymanh]

Add to this the fact that sound goes out of sync with the Linux Flash plugin, and you are gold :)

Re:A major threat?

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

Because of course I like to watch my hollywood movies on a tiny screen, transcoded and fuzzy.

Hollywood movies aren't the sort of thing that bothers the copyright holders so much as losing control over things like this.

Those three clips have been up and down like a yo-yo, you bet Fox would like to see them gone so they can run "edited highlights".

Re:A major threat?

[aarku]

Well, you can click the fullscreen button, wait for your movie to reload, then watch it sorta fullscreen, transcoded, and really really fuzzy.

It's a joke. Laugh.

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:A major threat?

[ocelotbob]

The facts are public domain, but a particular presentation is not. While you're perfectly within your rights to produce a copy of, say, "A Midsummer's Night Dream," you cannot record a theatre's version and publish it freely.

posting agreement

[TheSHAD0W]

When these people posted the videos, they affirmed that they had the right to do so. That certainly opens them up to legal trouble if they did not. I don't know how long the concept of intellectual property will hold out, but until that point everyone needs to be careful about what they upload.

google, destroyer of worlds

[Anonymous Coward]

this is going to destroy youtube. If people are afraid to post anything with copyrighted material, whether it's the music in the background or clips from a show, then the whole thing is going to fall apart. I know I'm just repeating what's already been said a million times over, but why the hell did google buy youtube in the first place if they were just going to turn around and do this?

Re:google, destroyer of worlds

[Paradise Pete]

I know I'm just repeating what's already been said a million times over, but why the hell did google buy youtube in the first place if they were just going to turn around and do this?

Ya got me. But I never understand this stuff. Years ago, before there were any, I was approached to develop a live online poker site. I declined, saying it will never work because you can't stop people from cheating. And you can't, but it turned out not to matter. Then a few years ago I was approached to develop an site similar to youtube, and I said it would never work because people will always post copyrighted material and you'll get sued into oblivion.

How's that for business acumen? ;-)

Re:google, destroyer of worlds

[ocelotbob]

Could you let me know next time you're presented with another unworkable idea you want to turn down? I'd kinda like to become rich and famous.

Inaccurate

[Henry V .009]

Music downloaders were never sued. Music uploaders were sued. The same will happen with Youtube, because Google isn't interested in getting sued to hell themselves. This will kill Youtube, of course, and Google will have wasted a lot of money on nothing.

Re:Inaccurate

[AKAImBatman]

This will kill Youtube, of course, and Google will have wasted a lot of money on nothing.

You're making the presumption that Google intended to keep Youtube as it was when they bought it.

Seriously, Youtube kicked Google Video's butt in the market. Google realized that if you can't beat 'em, you should join them. So they bought off Youtube, and now their major competitor is themselves. They can do whatever they want with Youtube because it can only be positive for Google Video.

Being Google, I don't expect them to shut the doors like Oracle & PeopleSoft. Rather, I expect that Google will aim to take whatever it is that makes Youtube successful, and merge it with the Google Video backend. In theory, this fusion would improve both services. In practice... well.... (*rocks open hand*) eh, we'll see.

Re:Inaccurate

[gg3po]

This will kill Youtube, of course, and Google will have wasted a lot of money on nothing.

Paying to see to it that your competition is destroyed is not a waste of money.

Re:Inaccurate

[ZombieRoboNinja]

An animated demonstration of the principle, provided quasi-legally via YouTube:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=54LcZbig8fY

Fair use and congress

[viking80]

YouTube probably should follow the law. They are quite exposed as it is. In the US today, consumers have lost almost all fair use rights, and and copyright law have gotten quite draconical and exclusively favoring the copyrightholder aganst the common good. Both democrats and republicans are receiving generous financial support from companies like Disney, and are *solidly* on the side of copyright holders against consumers and fair use.

So battle must be fought in Washington by supporting and electing officials that will turn the tide in favor of consumers and the common good.

There seems, however, to be almost NIL interest in this issue in the general population, so dont expect this to change in the near future.

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.

How Is The Use Fair?

[CheeseburgerBrown]

IANAL or other IP professional, but how would excerpting copyright materials for public display fall under fair use? The audience is undifferentiated (this ain't "education") and advertizers (depending on where the clip is embedded) are potentially reaping the rewards of the traffic generated without license or authorization.

Or did you mean "fair" in the sense of actual fairness? This, sadly, is only a distant cousin of "fair use" fair.

Gotta hand it to them

[Bertie]

These guys are scam merchants of unparalleled skill.

Invite the world to post whatever they like on your site, take the massive bandwidth costs on the chin thanks to the venture capital money. Gain countless users virtually overnight due to your easy-to-use site and cavalier attitude to copyright law. Sell the site to a competitor keen to see you out of the market so they can have it to themselves, get yourself a ridiculous amount of Google shares. Days after selling the site, turn on the users that have just made you mind-bogglingly rich, and watch them desert in their millions while you laugh all the way to the bank, leaving the people that have just bought your site with a worthless asset.

Google: you've been mugged.

Re:Gotta hand it to them

[daigu]

Ever consider that the change in attitude might be due to the new Google ownership?

Re:Gotta hand it to them

[roman_mir]

take the massive bandwidth costs on the chin thanks to the venture capital money - are you sure the entire thing was not the actual business plan? After all, the sale will make the VCs all the money back and then some.

Google/YouTube want to change Business preception

[peripatetic_bum]

I've got some google stock and it has done nothing but go up (when it hasn't been going down) and I was wondering what exactly they were thinking. Well. I've noticed that many news sites including slate.com are using YouTube as sort of repository for things they dare not touch but like to have the reader look at. take for instance the recent article on Weird Al (http://www.slate.com/id/2151657/?nav=tap3). It's a great article and is made immensely better by the ability to look at the videos the guy is talking about. If this doesn't sell more stuff for Weird Al and his corporate company than I don't understand advertising (if I don't get it, please explain, because I will be impressed if you can).

What I am trying to say is that I think (and this has been said before) that Google and YouTube are betting on the fact that there is no such thing as bad press, i.e., anything that gets you out in the public is a good thing and that media companies will in the long run benefit: Think of comedy central and all the clips of The Daily Show that seem to be there. Don't tell me that doesn't turn on more viewers to the real show or tell me and then explain why it wouldn't.

Ie. Media companies benefit from exposure which gains them sells. This is called advertising. YouTube is the best advertising vehicle I've seen in a long time and because of this, Business perception will change. Or we can hope. :)

Here's what a random blogger had to say:

[maynard]

Caught this deep down in the bowels of reddit:

It's About the Copyright, Stupid

[...]

So let's summarise so far. Luminaries like Robert Scoble cannot make video on the web work economically, even with their advertising and audience pull. The economics are against him.

YouTube is assumed to be worth $1.65 billion yet it relies on pirated content to a degree we cannot ascertain. What we can conjecture is that it is not viable without pirated content.

Raising this theft issue invites ridicule -- something here doesn't add up.

Copyright also emerged this week as an issue for top flight talent like the Beatles and in actions taken by the music industry against 8,000 illegal filesharers.

The other side of the coin is that many media enterprises don't respect authors' copyright. Copyright abuse by newspapers in Europe is not uncommon. When it applies to freelance writers there is a wrongful assumption that a newspaper can sell and resell in the print and onlline syndication market without reverting to the content producer.

[...]

We tend to take the "technology first" view of this -- we have the technology to share files so we should; likewise newspapers can exploit the technology of databases to continually resell content, so they should. But rights are trampled on in the process. There's no point in ignoring that. It's like assuming vidcasting is viable. It seems to be until you try it without a loss maker called YouTube.

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.

You heard it here first, folks!

[Fyz]

YouTube just jumped the shark!

My own little slashback

[xirtap]

I guess we can now forget things like this? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/22/031424 8&from=rss

Re:It would be stupid..

[nurb432]

In the world where typos are common and people dont proof read. That world.

Google isn't stupid

[xtal]

They buy YouTube, and with a little tightening of the noose, they're removed as a threat and they've been made an example of for anyone else who thinks to follow - for example, Microsoft.

Google can then move into this market at will. I'm all for draconian copyright enforcement, because it will lead to widespread civil disobedience and ultimately, a changing of the laws in what the public deems it's interest. It needs to get a little worse still, but the seeds are already there.

Is Youtube about copyright infringement?

[the_raptor]

Seriously is the only reason that people go to YouTube about viewing copyrighted material? Thats why I first went, but now I mostly watch the user created content. I actually think what makes YouTube popular is not all the copyrighted material (though it does increase popularity), because normally the format is only good for small clips or cartoons (most of the non-user content I have watched was Robot Chicken). If you really want to watch movies and TV series in decent quality you will use traditional P2P methods to obtain them.

So I don't actually think that YouTube cracking down harder on people who post copyright material will matter. They have been removing any copyrighted materials reported to them for a long time. This is not a new thing.

If YouTube is popular only because of the copyright material it will die, otherwise there won't be much of a change. Personally I think it is popular because of the community it has encouraged and help build, and the free content that community creates.

Got torrents?

[seanvaandering]

Now I own all complete seasons on DVD. Got a .torrent?

Why are you assuming you are smarter than Google?

[aeschenkarnos]

Google's directors know very well that they have provoked a fight. My guess (I don't think I'm smarter than them, so I stress that this is a guess) is that their intention is:

1. Acquire YouTube.

2. Do a merge-and-sort operation on YouTube with GoogleVideo.

3. Heavily promote the new service.

4. Publicize attacks from copyright-holders, while staving them off with court delays, offers of settlements, etc.

5. Repeat 3. and 4. until the great unwashed masses wake up to the annoying disconnect between what they want to do and what some rich bastards will let them do, and because Google has been telling them a lot lately, they realize that this is due to those rich bastards having bought copyright laws.

6. Use the popular momentum to get the parts of copyright law that are bothersome to Google's business--and probably, also those parts that the removal of which wouldn't harm Google's business--carved out.