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."

114 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Forgive me for asking but... by twofidyKidd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does viewing/listening to copyrighted content constitute distribution?

    --


    Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
    1. Re:Forgive me for asking but... by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who the hell knows? Ask 5 lawyers and you'll get 5 different answers.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Forgive me for asking but... by cultrhetor · · Score: 1

      No. Making it available so that others may view/listen constitutes distribution.

      --
      "Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
    3. Re:Forgive me for asking but... by takeya · · Score: 1

      When you get a bottle of prescription medication it says not to distrubte it... I think that consuming it does not count.

    4. Re:Forgive me for asking but... by Firehed · · Score: 1

      How are there five ways to answer a yes-or-no question?

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    5. Re:Forgive me for asking but... by MykeAbner · · Score: 5, Funny

      They're lawyers.

    6. Re:Forgive me for asking but... by bursch-X · · Score: 5, Funny

      1. Yes
      2. No
      3. It depends
      4. Maybe
      5. Profit!

      errr, forget it.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    7. Re:Forgive me for asking but... by agentcdog · · Score: 1

      IANAL.
      The RIAA does NOT sue people for downloading songs illegally. They sue them for distributing them. They look for songs that people are sharing. They download a few in order to prove that they are, indeed, the real thing. Then they sue for distribution. I have never seen news of a lawsuit by the RIAA for downloading.
      If I am incorrect, please point me to where I can read about what is going on.

      --
      If I understand Dirac correctly, his meaning is this: there is no God, and Dirac is his Prophet. -Pauli
    8. Re:Forgive me for asking but... by ricree · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Five different lawyers may give you five different answers, but in all five cases "Profit!" is what they're actually thinking.

    9. Re:Forgive me for asking but... by N+Monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Who the hell knows? Ask 5 lawyers and you'll get 5 different answers.
      They will, however, all agree that their advice just cost you a rather large sum of money....
    10. Re:Forgive me for asking but... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Only if you pay the five bills first.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    11. Re:Forgive me for asking but... by ronanbear · · Score: 1

      In four cases it's profit. Otherwise, it's "I'm too busy to (or not interested) take your case."

      --
      the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
    12. Re:Forgive me for asking but... by lpq · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Who the hell knows? Ask 5 lawyers and you'll get 5 different answers.


      That this is marked "funny" seems odd.
      It is the job of lawyers to come up with interpretations of the law that support their client. It is then the job to convince a judge or jury of the reality of this position by showing their interpretation, is, at the time, "correct".

      There is no absolute right or wrong answer. There is "one correct answer" to the previous poster's question. There is only that, which a lawyer can convince a court of, within the time constraints of the specific court, to be [a] "correct" interpretation of the law.

      "Lawyering" isn't about finding "right" or "wrong". It's about salesmanship.

      -l

  2. in short.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Napster/etc provided no real service apart from allowing users to host pirated music - whereas YouTude adds some real value.

  3. The real reason is.. by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:The real reason is.. by JazzXP · · Score: 1

      I'd say there's a lot of truth in that. Something that is nice and accessible (think VCR's) seem to be ok when it comes to copyright infringement, but when it's something that isn't properly understood (think BitTorrent) by the old fuddy duddy senators, it must be bad. It seems to me that when the majority of the population is breaking a particular law (such as copyright infringement), there is something wrong with that law.

    2. Re:The real reason is.. by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nah. You're being too democratic, ya gotta be more Nietzsche. Laws are created and enforced by the people with the power. If a law isn't in the interest of the ruling class then it will be ignored.. until such time that it actually starts affecting them, then it will be brutally enforced. No matter how much we might care to think so, few of us living in societies where the majority control the power. We pretend that's the case, but unfortunately the majority of us are more than willing to hand the power over to whoever doesn't rock the boat too much.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:The real reason is.. by Infonaut · · Score: 1

      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.

      That's right, because district attorneys and "other rich people" (whatever that means in the context of the law) make decisions on the basis of what their "little princesses" tell them. Doubtless that's how lawyers, judges and "other rich people" decide all kinds of things, like what music to listen to ("Justin Timberlake is, like, *such* a good artist!") and what brokerage firms they should use.

      --
      Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    4. Re:The real reason is.. by deesine · · Score: 1

      The majority of the population is breaking copyright law? Says who (link)?

      --
      damaged by dogma
    5. Re:The real reason is.. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      No-one is going to pass (or enforce) a law that puts their own children in jail, end of story.

      And are you trying to suggest that we're not ruled by the rich?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:The real reason is.. by pudro · · Score: 1

      What's with the negative moderation? It was a little silly, but he was making a valid point about something being wrong with a law that a vast amount of Americans (though maybe not the majority) are breaking.

      --
      Freedom is assumed. Then they try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.
    7. Re:The real reason is.. by Danse · · Score: 1
      And are you trying to suggest that we're not ruled by the rich?

      I think you're right that they won't want to enact/enforce any law that would make their kids into criminals, but I don't think he was implying that we aren't ruled by the rich. Probably quite the opposite. The way I took it, he was saying that money thrown their way speaks much much louder than their kids. I think both play a part. Not sure which would win in this case really.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    8. Re:The real reason is.. by TobascoKid · · Score: 1

      Then why are most recreational drugs illegal? If no one is going to pass laws that will put their fellow rich people behind bars, then you would think coke would be legalized.

      --
      At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
    9. Re:The real reason is.. by ssstraub · · Score: 1

      I believe everything you just said is specifically covered by fair use. Now if you copy a CD you *DON'T* own or copy an *entire* book you don't own, then you are breaking copyright.

    10. Re:The real reason is.. by Knetzar · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that when the majority of the population is breaking a particular law (such as copyright infringement), there is something wrong with that law.

      or something wrong with the people

  4. 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 cptgrudge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One thing I've always wondered about. Why wouldn't the RIAA/MPAA just hire a third party to cull IP addresses from the trackers by joining the swarm? They can record the IP addresses that upload data. Why would they need to bother piratebay (or whatever tracker site) to get the IP addresses? I mean, you could get have a bittorrent client log every single IP that uploads data to you. Blow the data away and start again. Leave it on for weeks, and you'll get thousands of IP addresses from the more popular torrents.

      Since they are now part of this method, would the act of their agent joining the download swarm (and consequently uploading the content) be an implicit admission that a torrent is an accepted distribution channel of the copyrighted material? Or is the fact that it's only little chunks of the data from any individual host that poses the problem? Really, who cares about the tracker? You can get the IP addresses of people through much more direct means.

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

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    2. Re:Who's on first? What's on Second? by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      Who's talking about torrents? The summary does, but it says that torrent sites have less protection than Youtube (due to the fact that they don't host copyrighted material).

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    3. Re:Who's on first? What's on Second? by interiot · · Score: 5, Informative

      YouTube has processes in place to receive DMCA takedown notices and remove identified copyright material. Napster didn't have a process in place to do this, and claimed to not be able to do so. The judge disagreed and said Napster had both the ability and duty to remove identified copyrighted material, but did not, so Napster was held liable.

    4. 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.

    5. Re:Who's on first? What's on Second? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      I'd like to point out that all their client would be able to prove is that you had that one packet on your computer, and not the whole file =) Download the whole file, and then you can prove the whole file was there. Technically, I can seed a whole sea of leachers in a swarm with just that one packet, with other seeders in the swarm dishing out the rest of the file.

    6. Re:Who's on first? What's on Second? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Providing torrent files wouldn't be direct infringement, but would rather easily fall under one or more forms of indirect infringement. This is because when you help someone infringe, you're in just as much trouble as the infringer is. There are limits to this: not just anything is sufficient to qualify, and where it is, there may be protections for you. This is why Google (in their main business at least) doesn't get in trouble the way that Napster did; there are enough differences that they don't have to fear being shut down. But your average torrent site isn't particularly different from Napster in any way that counts.

      Actually reading the Napster case and the relevant bits of 17 USC 512 would likely prove informative as to just how it works, and why one site, acting one way, might be treated more favorably than another site, acting another way.

      Plus, courts do have some leeway, and on the whole they don't like people with unclean hands. They'll still treat them fairly, but they needn't be friendly, and sometimes that can be serious trouble. Napster tended to run afoul of this sort of thing too.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    7. Re:Who's on first? What's on Second? by Alef · · Score: 1
      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.

      But is this enough? All they can really prove is that you have distributed that particular piece, which in itself probably is completely worthless.

    8. Re:Who's on first? What's on Second? by Typhon100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While that's true from a technical perspective, I would be surprised if that held up in court. While you may not be sharing the entire file yourself, you are at the very least taking part in the "scheme". A smart judge (and most of them ARE smart) would cut through the technical crap that he probably didn't totally understand (or care about), and go after the heart of the matter - which is that you're sharing copyrighted content.

    9. Re:Who's on first? What's on Second? by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Well, aside from how insanely easy it is to spoof an IP log (not that they did, but rather that you can't know beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn't), I think a single packet, or even a single block might actually fall within fair use - you'll be uploading maybe six seconds worth of the show. I doubt it, but I suppose it would be worth a try. Though in honesty, I'd be much more likely to respond as desired to a cease and desist letter than a lawsuit - the former would probably get me to stop seeding (thanks for using your manners!), the latter would result in a "fuck you!" and me making up some logs showing the plaintiff doing some seeding of child porn or something, just to prove how easy said spoofing is such that their so-called evidence clearly has no value (and in any case, if they were seeding to me, it would be legal for me to download since they're the copyright holder and have authorized the distribution).

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    10. Re:Who's on first? What's on Second? by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In fact, precident for this is well established. Way before digital media, people tried to get around copyright law by distributing films divided by a new intermission, films that had a minute here and there trimmed, films where some wide angle shots were re-edited for close ups, audio tapes with one song missing from a whole album, etc. and claiming these weren't violations. The last such arguements got shot dowm by about 1955. The 1978 Berne treaty on copyrights has specific clauses where they define civil violations as including "either all, or any substantial part of" the item, probably just to reinforce this principle. I'm not sure about what''s actually spelled out in the 1998 treaty, but it references Berne enough that the details probably don't really matter.
            Applying this would simply take a judge looking at these precedents and deciding that any part big enough to help another person get the whole work counted as a substantial part. With existing decisions against a group of infringers who duplicated each reel of a 10 real film in separate film labs in multiple countries, before shiping the reels individually into India, where they were finally put together, as precidents, that's likely to be a no-brainer for any half-way competent judge.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    11. Re:Who's on first? What's on Second? by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      Actually... THere is a defense against this caused by the same people.

      Ever notices there are fake files released into the channels? Like file that contain static noise, or have wrong file names, only contain a trailer?

      You cannot determine if you got the file you actually wanted until you downloaded it. Specially porn get retagged a lot! (not that i download that 0-) ). So you cannot determine as a user you are sharing a particular file until you have completed downlaoded it, validated the hash and the filename. So having a not complete file copyrighted can be caused by other reasons.

      guess now who is in the end responsible for the fake files?

    12. Re:Who's on first? What's on Second? by bigpat · · Score: 1

      YouTube has processes in place to receive DMCA takedown notices and remove identified copyright material. Napster didn't have a process in place to do this, and claimed to not be able to do so. The judge disagreed and said Napster had both the ability and duty to remove identified copyrighted material, but did not, so Napster was held liable.

      Bingo!

      Why do people find this so hard to understand? Napster was held liable for not following the DMCA, Youtube and google are following the DMCA so they are not liable for the copyrighted content that is posted by others. That doesn't mean that individuals are not still liable for illegal copying and distribution on youtube, just that the service provider doesn't share it as long as they respond when they are notified that one of their users has posted something that they didn't have a right to.

      This is actually a good provision of the DMCA which should be preserved. Otherwise every messageboard on the internet gets shutdown, every anonymous or even unmanaged file server has its plug pulled, because no Internet Web site or service provider can bear the brunt of infinite liability just for offering a service that its users could potentially abuse. Really if you can't be certain that people's expression is legally copied, then without this provision of the DMCA and a presumption of burden on the copyright holder to actively protect their copyright, then you are left with society which leaves expression to the licensed and verified few.

  5. Yes by cshark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is the law.
    But that doesn't make it any less absurd.

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

    1. 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.

    2. Re:Yes by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      society doesn't. Society considers it a good compromise to allow creators a limited monopoly on the distribution of their works so as to encourage greater creation of those works. It's just unfortunate that society has no means to test and monitor the effectiveness of this deal.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Yes by interiot · · Score: 1

      * Copyright is de jure limited, but is de facto unlimited

    4. Re:Yes by crosbie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ahem. Society never had anything to do with it.

      PUBLISHERS thought monopolistic privileges were a good idea, and governments were happy to oblige.

      However, we don't need publishers for digital art, so there's no point creating artificial monopolies on its reproduction.

      The traditional publishers don't like this.

      The new publishers (all Internet users) may sympathise, but it's a very big leap to conclude that society supports copyright on digital works.

      Q1) Given it helps struggling artists pay their bills and save up to start a family, do you support copyright?
      A1) Oh yes.

      Q2) Have you ever lent a copyrighted work to a friend without tracking down the poor artist concerned to ask for their permission?
      A2) Er....

      Q3) Have you ever borrowed a copyrighted work from a friend without tracking down the poor artist concerned to ask for their permission?
      A3) Er....

      Q4) Have you ever made a copy of a copyrighted work without tracking down the poor artist concerned to ask for their permission?
      A4) Er....

      Q5) Have you ever downloaded a copyrighted work without tracking down the poor artist concerned to ask for their permission?
      A5) Er....

      Q6) Have you ever used BitTorrent to obtain a copyrighted work without tracking down the poor artist concerned to ask for their permission?
      A6) Er....

      Q7) Have you ever used a file sharing program and left a copyrighted work in your share folder without tracking down the poor artist concerned to ask for their permission?
      A7) Er....

      Q8) Have you ever modified a copyrighted work without tracking down the poor artist concerned to ask for their permission?
      A8) Er....

      Q9) Have you ever published a modified copyrighted work without tracking down the poor artist concerned to ask for their permission?
      A9) Er....

      Q10) Do you persist in declaring your support for copyright?
      A10) Er....yes?

    5. Re:Yes by jvkjvk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not quite. Society, at least a large portion of it, does not seem to consider it wrong to download copyrighted material illegally. Nor do we seem to consider it wrong to share copyrighted material with others. So therefore, they cannot consider it a good compromise to allow a limited monopoly. If We did, people wouldn't infringe, right?

      When the laws and Society have a parting of ways, it can be particularly painful, especially for those on the leading edge of change.

    6. Re:Yes by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not quite. Society, at least a large portion of it, does not seem to consider it wrong to download copyrighted material illegally. Nor do we seem to consider it wrong to share copyrighted material with others. So therefore, they cannot consider it a good compromise to allow a limited monopoly. If We did, people wouldn't infringe, right?

      Your point, just because a lot of people have no qualms about stealing, murder or hard drug use with no restrictions doesn't mean that everyone does. If you only hear about 0.5% of events and all of them are about people doing X is doesn't mean that everyone does X.

      When the laws and Society have a parting of ways, it can be particularly painful, especially for those on the leading edge of change.

      What charge? Your delusions of grandeur while hilarious are but also a bit frightening. If society really wanted to abolish copyrights they could, most people either don't care or think it's a good system. Most of the rest are such poor bums that they need something to legitimize their own moral shortcomings other than their own lack of morals.

    7. Re:Yes by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Your argument is rather retarded, something like "do you still beat your wife?" style stuff. Your questions are something like:

      Q1) Given that a legal system improves the lives of those involved, do you try to abide by the law?
      A1) Oh yes.

      Q2) Have you ever driven a car at a speed greater than the posted legal speed limit?
      A2) Err...

      Q3) Have you ever been a passenger in a car driven at a speed greater than the posted legal speed limit?
      A3) Err...

      Q4) Have you ever nibbled on fruit or candy for sale at the local supermarket?
      A4) Err...

      Q5) Have you ever seen a friend or partner nibble on fruit or candy for sale at the local supermarket, and not stopped them?
      A5) Err...

      Q6) Have you ever parked your car in a metered parking spot and not put money in the meter because you would be "just a minute"?
      A6) Err...

      Q7) Have you ever driven a car after drinking without first confirming that your blood alcohol was not above the legal limit?
      A7) Err...

      Q8) Have you ever spit on the sidewalk, or performed any form of defacement of public property?
      A8) Err...

      Q9) Have you ever claimed a deduction as a business expense that wasn't strictly a business expense, in order to reduce your tax bill?
      A9) Err...

      Q10) Do you still insist that you really try to abide by the law?
      A10) Err... Yes?

      Nobody is perfect, and everybody has done SOMETHING wrong, somewhere. What you should be asking are questions indication what people have done right. For example:

      Q11) Have you ever purchased a copyrighted work from a store?
      A11) Yeah!

      Q12) Have you ever purchased a copyrighted work from a store, even though the same material could be gotten for free by violating the copyrights?
      A12) Sure have!

      Q13) If given the choice between copyrighted products available for free, and similar copyrighted products available with similar ease for a reasonable fee, would you purchase the copyrighted material?
      A13) Yes!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    8. Re:Yes by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, are you actually trying to argue in favour of speed limits, "no sampling" and parking fees? Are you crazy? All three are arbitary laws introduced by people who 1) don't know when to stay out of other people's business 2) are greedy SOBs trying to make unfair revenue. The point of "no sampling" is to force people to "buy before you try". It's much like the "no refunds" policy that typically follows it. The purpose of speed limits and parking fees is to make money off motorists much like toll bridges. But I suppose you're a fan of toll bridges. Explains why you don't mind copyright,, it's basically a toll on culture.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    9. Re:Yes by chefren · · Score: 1

      Another purpose of parking fees is to discourage people to take their car when they can use public transport instead.

    10. Re:Yes by Danse · · Score: 1
      Another purpose of parking fees is to discourage people to take their car when they can use public transport instead.

      Umm.. maybe in some places, but there are parking fees in lots of places that have little or no public transportation.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    11. Re:Yes by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Not in Europe. Maybe parking fees are used badly in the US, but Europe would stand still without parking fees, since there are far too many cars, and not enough parks.

      Speeding fines are necessary everywhere, only a fool would think overwise. I have no wish to be killed by some maniac who can't control his/her car.

  6. ACtually, it is possible to download from Youtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  7. DMCA access controls provision is my gripe by fatboy · · Score: 1

    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
  8. Re:WTF? by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think its the "predominantly" bit that makes the difference. Most of the stuff on Youtube is legitimate. Most of the stuff on napster was infringing copyright.

    The other part is that the search engine is just a small aspect of the entire site,whereas it was a key part of Napster.

  9. well, no wonder... by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. 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
    2. Re:well, no wonder... by kill-1 · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I think. Really, this is +5 Insightful, not funny.

    3. Re:well, no wonder... by dabraun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because many (mostly TV shows) videos on YouTube are partial snippets at low quality it, in all likelihood, drives new viewers to programs. Despite the fact that the common belief here is that "content owners are completely oblivious" I think they actually realize this. When shows are posted in full, over and over, they are going to complain. When snippets of shows are posted they are basically ads and the content owners, in large part, probably LIKE this.

      The difference with the music sharing sites of old was the the content was, at the heyday, complete and good quality. For those willing to wade the waters and fix the metadata it completely replaced any interest in purchasing the material. In some cases it may have made people more aware of bands and resulted in album sales but, honestly, this was NOT how the majority of P2P users viewed the system.

  10. Infringement removal by Itsallmyfault · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's a totally bogus argument, someone searching for infringing content will find "predominantly infringing content". All I get out of this is that the Napster ruling was wrong and that yougoog have a PR agency at work trying to put some distance between the 2 in themselves and Napster in the eyes of potential litigants.

  12. Re:ACtually, it is possible to download from Youtu by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

    "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.

  13. Re:Wrong... follow the money by Zerth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >Except that we have about 15 years of precedent that includes busting FTP warez servers.

    Except that history is all pre-DMCA. The DMCA gives an out for those who demonstrate good faith attempts to prevent infringement and remove all reported violations.

  14. True by sterno · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:True by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

      On the other hand, YouTube is mostly non-copyrighted material.

      Attack of the pedant: YouTube is mostly copyrighted (since in the U.S. everything is copyrighted automagically) material hosted and distributed with permission of the author (implied by them uploading it to YouTube). But I know what you meant, non-infringing material.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:True by Boogaroo · · Score: 1

      Honestly, what I see on YouTube IS mostly infringing works.

      Seriously, having a thousand Dragonball Z montages with Coldplay or some other band is simply creative copyright infringement. Funny commercials, yeah, copyright infringement, if they weren't put there by the ad company.

      Even half of the user generated content probably wasn't put up by the copyright holders. It was put up by someone who thought that it was a cool video. They didn't ask if they could put it up. Sure, it's not commercial, but it's still copyright infringement.

  15. difference by lubricated · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:difference by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it will play havoc with their share prices. They wouldn't want lawyers running amock with all the money they earn.
      RIAA/MPAA will look smug if the lawyers start fighting it out in court. After all they ARE lawyers and they know where it will lead.
      As quotes in "Red Storm Rising: If they want to fight under our airspace under our radar cover, that's fine by me."

      After a looong battle after wasting much more millions, google and RIAA/MPAA will settle for an undisclosed sum. After that google's share prices will tank so far south that ....

      No, NEVER fight your enemies in a turf they are hard: Fight them on the turf they are weak.
      Fight MPAA like Jobs fought RIAA: On the public opinion front: calling them greedy shook them to core and made them back off.
      Google should bring out the PR stuff and hammer MPAA with it, by preventing young kids having fun and allowing them to grow up.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    2. Re:difference by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      Google can't be treated the same way as an individual consumer for the simple reason that Google has the ultimate nuclear weapon. It's like that old joke, "Woman, if you don't shut your yapping, I will REMOVE the fucking toilet seat!"

      If all the big players are 800 lbs gorillas, Google is a 5-ton elephant.

  16. Shocked... by Duncan3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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/
    1. Re:Shocked... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you surprised? They've been doing this with people's Usenet posts (Google Groups) and web sites (Google Cache) for years, and they're planning to do it with books as well.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  17. Sure about that? by raehl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Sure about that? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Instead of arguing the merits of this particular case, we should be using this opportunity to write our representatives and tell them it's stupid shit like this that makes the DMCA a joke and why it should, at the very least, be re-written.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:Sure about that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Maybe. But, the problem is that you are trying to apply human logic to law.
      It doesn't work like that. Law is about power (people with guns) telling you
      (the little people) what you can and cannot do. All this talk about what is best
      for "society" is merely the smoke and mirrors that lends an air of legitimacy to
      the psychopathic agenda.

      Don't try and rationalise with lawyers, you will do no better than Alice in Wonderland.
      The lawyers will beat you every time because they define the rules of the game
      as they go.

      This is the 21st Century. Everything you do is now either illegal or potentially illegal
      and you are deliberately kept in the dark about exactly what the law is. Nobody
      knows anymore. It's whatever your great Emprorer Bush wishes it to be that day.
      The "peoples rule of law" is exhausted, the courts and judges have proved themselves
      corrupt and unworthy of respect. Democracy is finished. The only way you will ever know
      fairness and justice again is when you have the balls to rise up and take back what is yours.

    3. Re:Sure about that? by gregleimbeck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, yes, Slashdot. Where a discussion of internet copyright issues invariably ends up in a call for coup d'etat.

      --

      P.S.,

      This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.

    4. Re:Sure about that? by Typhon100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Huh? After reading TFA, I like section 512. Sounds to me like this one of the few GOOD things that the DMCA has in it. If hosting companies were held responsible for everything on users uploaded, it would stifle virtually all the creativity the web has given birth to.

    5. Re:Sure about that? by tajmorton · · Score: 1
      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.

      No, IIRC, they have never sued someone for downloading songs, only for distributing them/making them available on a P2P network. They will, however, sue the owner of the site which you downloaded them from.

      Of course, when you "download" over a P2P network, you are always distributing them to other people (that's what makes the network tick).

      Now, though, I'm sure I'll get a million replies with links to articles about how the RIAA sued someone for downloading from an FTP server...

      --
      Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
    6. Re:Sure about that? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      Of course, when you "download" over a P2P network, you are always distributing them to other people (that's what makes the network tick).
      Um, no, that's not true. On P2P networks, its often quite possible to download something without distributing it. Doing this exclusively, of course, is considered bad form.
    7. Re:Sure about that? by cultrhetor · · Score: 1

      The question was about "distribution." Distribution is not "retrieving," or "downloading." The site owner is distributing copyrighted material, you are stealing it.

      --
      "Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
    8. Re:Sure about that? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      I hate to defend the DMCA, but all laws have grey areas, which is why we have courts. You could say that about somebody who was fined for speeding and given parking tickets, while taking there wife to the hospital to have a baby. Should this invalidate speeding and parking laws?

    9. Re:Sure about that? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Ah, yes, Slashdot. Where a discussion of internet copyright issues invariably ends up in a call for coup d'etat.
      And the fearless revolutionary posts anonymously, yes that's always inspiring.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  18. Re:WTF? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    if a user makes and uploads a video, it's not infringing for youtube to make that video available.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  19. Cake by ZlatanZ++ · · Score: 5, Funny

    YouTube should really, really thank its friends at Bell."

    maybe they should send them a cake.

  20. DMCA ... Good ... Does not compute by sparkz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So the DMCA is now good ... ? But that doesn't fit the Slashdot groupthink (brain explodes)

    --
    Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
    1. Re:DMCA ... Good ... Does not compute by NewWorldDan · · Score: 1

      The DMCA is a big bundle of laws and regulations. The takedown provision is one of the few areas that actually mostly works. Most of it is still bad, such as the anti-circumvention provision. It's part of the lawmaker idiocy that thinks that new and special laws are required for the Internet. The reality is that in 99.9% of cases, existing law already (more than) adequately adresses the activities in question.

  21. Re:Wrong... follow the money by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
    The DMCA gives an out for those who demonstrate good faith attempts to prevent infringement
    Does it?

    I thought the DMCA penalized you if you made some attempt to 'prevent' infringement but didn't succeed.

    My understanding is that you're better off not screening anything. Right?
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  22. Unclear article? Precedent? by The+Amazing+Fish+Boy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    FTFA:
    Thanks to the Bells, all these companies [YouTube, etc.] are now protected by a "notice and take down" system when they host user content. That means that if Jon Stewart notices an infringing copy of The Daily Show on YouTube, Comedy Central can write a letter to YouTube and demand it be taken down.

    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...
    Why isn't YouTube is 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.

    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.
  23. Re:WTF? by kill-1 · · Score: 1

    No, you don't have a copyright on anything you create. There's always a certain threshold of originality

  24. Re:ACtually, it is possible to download from Youtu by kill-1 · · Score: 1

    Especially using Firfox plugins like this one. Personally, I only use about 5 Firefox plugins, and this is one of them.

  25. Covered in TWiL by MaceyHW · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  26. you know what'd be hilarious? by gargletheape · · Score: 3, Funny

    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 :)

    1. Re:you know what'd be hilarious? by KZigurs · · Score: 1

      Why not? Unless the requester can clearly identify the offending material (and we should define identifying - supplying exact content and sequence of visual material found liable or questionable) in the request, there is no basis for action (why would you risk with a legal action about illegal removal unless you are clearly and beyond any doubt convicted that the (rights to) material in question really belongs to the entity requesting the removal).

      And once you have a legal request, it is, by definition, publishable for public knowledge. Unless DOD steps in. But then, of course, it would be an absolutely different level of entertainment. ;)

  27. You don't say! by quakeroatz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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"

    1. Re:You don't say! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Youtube's founders aren't lawyers.

      Could you provide a link showing that they knew the DMCA would shield them or is it idle speculation?

  28. Oh, Sweet Irony! by thedbp · · Score: 1

    TSIA

  29. Re:Unclear article? Precedent? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  30. Re:WTF? by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    'infringes'

    "I do not think that word means what you think it means." - Inego Montoya

    Everything on YouTube has a copyright.* Since most of it was posted by the copyright holder, that holder has in effect given permission to distribute, so there is no infringement.

    * even this is a maybe - there may just possibly be a few film clips so old their copyright's have expired.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  31. No more free advertising! by LividBlivet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No more free advertising! by CowsAnonymous · · Score: 1
      I would be very surprised if Comedy Central ever sends a takedown notice to YouTube.

      Consider yourself surprised.

      --
      CowsAnonymous: We're here to help moo.
    2. Re:No more free advertising! by LividBlivet · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I read about it a few hours after posting.

      I guess all good things must come to an end when lawyers get involved.

      A decision they will regret though.

  32. What a pity... by Snaller · · Score: 1

    . 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
  33. Re:and there's another factor too by LordLucless · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, the copyright holder has to want to press charges. Who do you think owns those songs? I'll give you a hint, it's not the artist.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  34. Re:Unclear article? Precedent? by Snaller · · Score: 1

    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
  35. Youtube is better than google video by pjbaldes · · Score: 1

    google had no choice, they had to buy youtube just because it is so much better.

  36. You must be new here... by afaik_ianal · · Score: 1
    Actually reading the Napster case and the relevant bits of 17 USC 512 would likely prove informative as to just how it works, and why one site, acting one way, might be treated more favorably than another site, acting another way.

    Most Slashdotters don't bother to RTFA, let alone the relevant legislation and case law.
  37. Idiocy of commentators by PlasticArmyMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:Idiocy of commentators by cadience · · Score: 1

      "I hate people making comments on things that they know nothing about..."

      You must hate politicians then!

  38. Re:Missing Key Part of DMCA by David+Off · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, I've read through the DMCA and it looks like YouTube falls down on a few points. As a poster above says on these grounds someone you set up a:

    YouWarez.com

    site allowing people to share software charging for downloads and so long as it responds to take down notices it would be legal. Yeah right.

    As for the argument that "YouTube wouldn't work if it moderated uploads"... well boohoohoo, isn't it usually up to businesses to ensure they operate within the law.

    It seems pretty far fetched that YouTube is just some innocent "common carrier".

  39. Speed reader by gungh0 · · Score: 1

    & I thought this was an article about "The Village People", perhaps I ought to read the headlines a bit slower ... ;)

    --
    No, really !
  40. It's just commonsense (but then, IAAL) by john-da-luthrun · · Score: 3, Informative

    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).

  41. Re:Unclear article? Precedent? by The+Amazing+Fish+Boy · · Score: 1
    Well that's the impression I got at the start of the article, but around the middle he seemed to jump to some other idea.
    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.

    So, if I understand his argument correctly:
    1. YouTube is protected because if a copyright holder complains they can remove the offending video (OK)
    2. Because Napster didn't have the ability to remove the offending MP3s, they weren't protected. (OK)
    3. If Napster had've hosted the MP3s they could have removed them (OK)
    4. Therefore, because YouTube hosts the files and Napster didn't, YouTube is protected and Napster wasn't. If you host files you're safe. (What?)

    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.
  42. Re:ACtually, it is possible to download from Youtu by dhasenan · · Score: 1

    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?

  43. Common carrier status by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

    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?

  44. Re:Missing Key Part of DMCA by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    YouWarez = TuCows.

    Okay, it's not exact, but it does exist. Upload your own stuff, it's ok. Upload somebody elses, and they can make you take it down.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  45. Oversimplifying by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    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
  46. Bullshit by RecycledElectrons · · Score: 1

    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!