Slashdot Mirror
How the DMCA Protects YouTube
bartle writes "Slate is running an article that analyzes the question of how much legal trouble Google may get in having bought YouTube. Not much, according to the author, and thanks seem to go to a provision in the DMCA that may provide more protection for YouTube than torrent services." From the article: "But what about Mark Cuban's copyright argument? Why isn't YouTube in trouble in the same way Napster and Grokster were? The first difference, as indicated, is that Napster simply wasn't covered by the 512 safe-harbor law, and YouTube is. Napster wasn't "hosting" information at the direction of its users, but rather providing a tool for users to find and download predominantly infringing content. It may sound odd that Napster gets in more trouble for helping you find illegal stuff than YouTube does for actually hosting it. But that's the law and why YouTube should really, really thank its friends at Bell."
Does viewing/listening to copyrighted content constitute distribution?
Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
Napster/etc provided no real service apart from allowing users to host pirated music - whereas YouTude adds some real value.
Wouldn't a search engine be considered a tool? Last I checked, YouTube has a search engine.
the daughters of senators and district attorneys and other rich people tell their parents that YouTube is great. Napster was a little too hard for the estemed gentleman's little princess to figure out, but YouTube isn't.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Does youtube really lack a search engine? How about google? No, I'm not going to RTFA because the summary was enough stupid for me today.
You mention Youtube...posts copyright material, safe harbor provison...Grokster, Napster; no Safe Harbor protection, for posting copyright materials and then you mention Torrent sites that post....wait. a Torrent is the copyright material itself? I thought it was merely a seed for a server-less system, that is a table, an index. Now I am confused. Is an index part of someone's copyright material now?
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
It is the law.
But that doesn't make it any less absurd.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
It isn't hard to download from youtube, it is actually quite easy. On top of that, someone can convert to Mpegs and easily distribute. Sounds to me Youtube pretty well resembles Kazza, just a couple more steps involved though.
They give patent like protections to copyright holders. It's bad and wrong. A lot of the DMCA is not too bad and in some cases is good.
--fatboy
does anybody really think that Google didn't spend a lot of time/money/lawyers figuring this stuff out BEFORE shelling out over a billion dollars for youtube? Just because the armchair QBs kept going on about the legal trouble(s) google was going to end up in, it doesn't necessarily make it true.
-- the cake is a lie
In short, if you're going to breach copyright make sure you're very financially successful at it. For everyone else, we'll throw the book at 'em.
When presented with copywright holder's request to remove material, isn't it always granted? Hard to do that when you don't host it.
"a couple more steps" easily locks out the majority of people, whether from lack of understanding or lack of motivation. The general public wants one program to do everything by itself.
Fuck torrents, FTP is back!
the artist/producer of the song of video clip has to actually want to press charges too. Those MPAA and RIAA seem to ahve forgotten that little part.
Is it just me or is it not going to upgrade to Vista in here?
It would resembles a version of Kazaa that would resample audio down to 32 kbps. Seriously, who wants to download fuzzy post-it size videos?
The thing that always hurt Napster was that nobody could go to Napster's system and legitimately say that it was being used for anything other than piracy. There was a handful of legal content on there, burried in a sea of pirated files. On the other hand, YouTube is mostly non-copyrighted material.
Sure we get excerpts of the occasional TV show, clips from Olberman, and Stewart, but it's not wholesale copying and the quality is twelth rate. Nobody's going to decide to not buy a DVD of a film because they watched it on YouTube. So really I don't see YouTube having a problem. They take down content when notified that it infringes copyright and they move on.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The real difference between napster and google. Money. Google can afford better laws and better lawyers.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
So Google [big corp XYZ] gets to take other poeples copyrighted content, and make money off of it without paying, but users cannot even share it for free.
If this wasn't business as usual, I'd be shocked.
.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
If someone hosts a website of songs, and I go to that website and I download them, then the RIAA may very well come after me.
So if I go to a website with videos, and I download those, what's the difference?
What if I watch a video which includes a song? Am I just as guilty of infringement as if I had downloaded the song only?
Actually, there is a difference, in one case you keep a copy of the material locally and in YouTube's case you don't. But if you download a video from YouTube to your hard drive that has a song on it, I can't see how you're any less guilty of infringement than if you had just downloaded the song alone.
paintball
YouTube should really, really thank its friends at Bell."
maybe they should send them a cake.
So the DMCA is now good ... ?
But that doesn't fit the Slashdot groupthink
(brain explodes)
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
OK, so the system works because Comedy Central can tell YouTube to take some infringing work down, and that wasn't the case with Napster. I remember the RIAA wanted Napster to take files down, Napster said they couldn't, then they started filtering searches or something. That makes sense.
But then...
Huh? It sounds to me like everyone's covered by this 512, but Napster couldn't hold up their end of the agreement. Nothing to do with "hosting" from what I understand, other than because they weren't hosting the files they couldn't remove offending files.
Could someone with more information clarify this?
Also, if this precedent is set, what would stop someone from setting up a "company" that hosts MP3s on a website, same as YouTube hosts videos? The RIAA would swamp the company with requests to take down specific songs, and the community could respond to it.
Since that's the only way to keep the site up, it would be in the community's best interest to take down the files within a reasonable time limit. I'm sure the files would be uploaded again, anyway. There could even be some points system for taking down offending files.
What would this achieve? Files would be shared, for one, but I'm not especially concerned with that. It would bleed the RIAA since they would have to have people request every file be removed, individually. Since they'd probably try to use software to find all files made by their artists, a CAPTCHA could be used to ensure a real person is making the requests.
Except the XXAA don't give a fuck. The simple fact that someone can download it is all that they look at.
Especially using Firfox plugins like this one. Personally, I only use about 5 Firefox plugins, and this is one of them.
This exact issue was the focus of discussion in the first episode of the This Week in Law Podcast.
The panelists seemed to agree that is is an issue which the DMCA handles well. These letters are just a system of notice; failing to comply with the letter requesting that you take down the contested content doesn't have any bearing on a subsequent legal dispute over that content. It provides a mechanism to correct copyright problems without litigation.
/.ers love to complain about these letters as a tool of oppression, and certainly there's some chilling effect because most small operations are likely to take down the contested content, however there was at least a good intention behind this system.
I'd love for youtube to start responding to DMCA takedown notices the way google does:
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 videos(s) from this page. If you wish, you may view the video that the DMCA complaint was registered against here
Think about it...how could I possibly know *which* video infringes a copyright unless I can see it for myself, for educational purposes?
Of course it wouldn't be legal, but you can always dream :)
All they would have to do is have a nerd they know download it for them and they can copy it millions of times. That is what the XXAA will look at, especially Ol' Universal. If they knew this bit of information, they would sue youtube out of business like they did mp3.com.
But that's the law and why YouTube should really, really thank its friends at Bell.
Thank them for what? It's not like the YouTube concept was a shot in the dark that just, luckily happened to have its ass saved at a critical moment by the DMCA?
It is, as it was planned.
The YouTube founders (lawyers) thought of all of these contingencies long before these journalists actually did some research into the DMCA.
News at 10:
"20 000 Liquor Stores Lucky Prohibition Over, Reporter Finds"
"GM and Ford Surprised to Find Existence of Roads All of World, Makes Business Model Possible"
"Mozilla Foundation Happy To Find Compatible Network Exists for New Browser, "Internet" Apparently Worldwide"
"Linux Founder Finds Millions Of Computers Compatible With Operating System, Coincidence Drives Growing Userbase"
TSIA
Also, if this precedent is set, what would stop someone from setting up a "company" that hosts MP3s on a website, same as YouTube hosts videos? The RIAA would swamp the company with requests to take down specific songs, and the community could respond to it.
I think you just described Usenet. However, watch out for ALS v. Remarq.
I like that you can download from YouTube. It lets me watch things at all. Flashplugin does not work on my system. (Please don't tell me about the plugin for Linux/i386. That is not my system.) So I'm glad that this hole exists.
Things that limit users do exactly just that... limit users.. Even those who want to use it for nothing more than its intended purpose. That's why copy protection is dumb.
What the authors of the DMCA didn't realize is that you enforce copyright at your own peril in todays world.
The RIAA pissed away a $10B+ opportunity by not blanket licensing the original Napster. Now they're on their last lap around the bowl. The MPAA will suffer a similar fate if they try and push their bought and paid for copyright nonsense too much further. Google knows exactly what its doing and exposing the absurdity of DMCA is a great first step.
I think Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert and the execs at Comedy Central are smart enough to realize that having short low quality clips of their shows is really free advertising and viral marketing. They get a larger audience, more exposure and sell more DVD's/whatever because YouTube exposes their product to many people who wouldn't otherwise have watched. Nobody is selling YouTube clips on DVD-R's at the flea market or on the street.
In fact one of the most valuable services GooTube could offer us is a list of companies who, in their "piracy is theft, we lost $100B, the world is coming to an end, waaaaaaaaaaah" paranoia, actually send takedown notices.
It would let us know who the clueless idiots (most of MPAA/RIAA) are.
I would be very surprised if Comedy Central ever sends a takedown notice to YouTube. They strike me as a reasonable bunch. (Funny too.)
The rest of the asshats can shoot themselves in the foot all they want as far as I'm concerned.
. When the content owners start sending subpeonas to YouTube for the IPs of the people posting the content and then the ISP's of those users to get names and addresses
....that Google didn't log that information.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Nothing to do with "hosting" from what I understand, other than because they weren't hosting the files they couldn't remove offending files.
That was his point.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
google had no choice, they had to buy youtube just because it is so much better.
Most Slashdotters don't bother to RTFA, let alone the relevant legislation and case law.
What I love is in the BBC News this morning a completely uneducated politician says that YouTube basically doesn't police the videos that come in. My point is how can they? They get an absolute deluge of videos in every single day. Do they expect an entire warehouse of people checking it? The fact is with the number of videos they get every single day the ONLY option is to have it community moderated and quite obviously, the community likes what they're getting so unless you want a small selection of videos policed by a number of YouTube stuff you're always going to get "copyright infringement". I hate people making comments on things that they know nothing about...
Sorry, YouTube seems pretty illegal to me, permanent storage on their server seems like "a longer period than is reasonably necessary."
...no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period
s c_sec_17_00000512----000-.html
17 USC 512
(a) TRANSITORY DIGITAL NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS.--A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief...if...
(4)
than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
& I thought this was an article about "The Village People", perhaps I ought to read the headlines a bit slower ... ;)
No, really !
A similar legal exemption applies in Europe, where you are exempt from liability for material in respect of which you are the "host", a "mere conduit" (which would cover your ISP). There's also an exemption for "caching", but that only covers caching for the purpose of improving performance, rather than, say, Google's website cache (which would infringe copyright if hosted in Europe).
The hosting exemption is subject to "notice and take down" provisions, which I gather also apply in the US. Ironically, the wording of the EU law means YouTube would increase its liability were it to monitor content for copyright violations - because you only need to look at YouTube for 15 seconds to come across material that self-evidently infringes copyright, and the moment YouTube is aware of infringing material then (under the EU law) it would be required to take it down "expeditiously" even if it has not received any complaint from a copyright owner. One of those areas where ignorance can be bliss.
But the bottom line is that, without these exemptions, the internet would be unworkable. No ISP or website host could remain in business for five minutes if it was potentially liable for material it hosted or transmitted. And without these laws, the ISP or host would be liable in many cases (eg for hosting child pr0n).
So, if I understand his argument correctly:
There seems to be a logical jump between 3 and 4. Right, if Napster hosted the files they certainly could have removed them. But if they maintained an index (I'm not entirely clear how Napster worked), couldn't they remove the songs from the index? There seem to be other ways than hosting a file to guarantee you can "remove" it in a timely manner. Maybe I should re-read the article, though.
It only takes one nerd to defeat the CSS encryption on a DVD and upload it to a torrent site.
Does this mean that DVDs aid infringement and should be banned?
By trying to be a common carrier - ie they make no pre-determination on the content they accept & distribute - they are exempted from a lot of the laws reguarding assisting copyright infringement. The cavieat is that in order to comply with the rest of the rules, they have to have & use a plan to remove infringing material when they are notified about it.
If a copyright holder come to them & says "Hey bubba0001 is displaying crap of the week and it's infringing on my copyright, please remove it." UTube is only responsible to remove bubba0001's copy of crap of the week, they don't have to go filter every copy out of the system.
As long as they don't censor the material coming in, they get common carrier, as long as they respond to requests to remove - they get DMCA protection. The question comes - when someone makes a parody (permissible fair use in the US) and the copyright owner requests it be taken down - what happens?
Try telling that to the MPAA. Then again they might just do exactly that. Fuck, if they had their way, we would be watching all movies at the theaters, and if we want to watch the movie again go to the theater and watch it again in their timeframe. There would be no second run theaters that show the movies at $2 a ticket. Also, movies like the Blair Witch project would have been made by one of the MPAA members, and not some independent film maker. None of this technology would exist.
And are you trying to suggest that we're not ruled by the rich?
That wasn't the thrust of my point.
Big Media has been winning for a long time now, in the halls of Congress and in the courts. The (supposed) fact that Senators' daughters like YouTube isn't going to affect that one bit. If YouTube prevails, it will be because the law, which has become progressively more well-defined regarding digital media, is on YouTube's side. The DMCA, for all its faults, gives hosting companies a big out in the form of the takedown provision. There is no inducement to infringe. YouTube has obviously learned from the arrogant stupidty of Grokster. Big Media also wants to profit from YouTube and similar sites. They're starting to learn that bashing their customers isn't a smart business model.
Your suggestion that all of these legal, political, and economic factors are less important than an unsubstantiated claim that the children of the rich and powerful love YouTube strikes me as being far too simplistic.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The claim that the DMCA protects Google is BULLSHIT.
Google has more money that did Napster, so when they are both subjected to trial by pockect book, Google is better protected.
Andy Out!