Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How the DMCA Protects YouTube

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the that's-gootube dept.

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."

4 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Who's on first? What's on Second? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Who's on first? What's on Second? by bartle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Please, someone tell me why you can't use this method.

      HBO did use this method not too long ago. In my opinion it's a lot more effective than just about any other. HBO doesn't even have to upload anything - they just use custom peers to download a packet from each client they come across in a popular swarm. Then they can just show in court how that piece can be mathematically proven to be part of an episode of their show.

      I should point out, to HBO's credit, they haven't yet gone sue happy even though their technique seems much more likely to stand up in court. They're just firing a lot of warning shots.

  2. Re:Yes by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, what would you suggest th law should be, assuming that society considers anauthorised sharing of other people's content to be harmful.

  3. Re:well, no wonder... by raehl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just because the armchair QBs kept going on about the legal trouble(s) google was going to end up in

    That's not what the armchair QB's kept going on about. That YouTube isn't liable for posting the infringing content doesn't change the fact that SOMEONE is liable for posting the infringing content. 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 and file those RIAA-style $150,000-per-download lawsuits, then people stop posting content to YouTube, and with a lot of YouTube's content gone, YouTube's value decreases substantially.

    Think about it. Those 'hey' clip girls are liable for TRILLIONS* in damages!

    *TRILLIONS computed using RIAA math. 1 song * 10 million downloads * $300,000 = $3 billion. Your results may vary.

    --
    paintball