Slashdot Mirror
Google to Viacom - The Law is Clear, and On Our Side
An anonymous reader writes "Google responded to the opinion piece in the Washington Post by a Viacom Lawyer with a letter to the editor titled 'An End Run on Copyright Law.' Their strong wording sends a very concrete message: 'Viacom is attempting to rewrite established copyright law through a baseless lawsuit. In February, after negotiations broke down, Viacom requested that YouTube take down more than 100,000 videos. We did so immediately, working through a weekend. Viacom later withdrew some of those requests, apparently realizing that those videos were not infringing, after all. Though Viacom seems unable to determine what constitutes infringing content, its lawyers believe that we should have the responsibility and ability to do it for them. Fortunately, the law is clear, and on our side.'"
Well, it looks like Groklaw will now have something to cover after the IBM-SCO lawsuit is done. Hopefully this one won't take 4+ years to be decided.
Seriously, that is ownage like I've never seen between large corporations before.
It looks like Google did in fact know exactly what they were doing when they bought YouTube. Right now Viacom looks pretty much like they just stepped on head of a rake and got whacked in the face.
If there's one thing you can say for Google, they know how to stand up for sane copyright law.
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
And clicked on the "you tube" link from the Mad TV site only to find the content had been pulled from You Tube and Mad TV's account was suspended. (I don't know if this is still the case, as this happened a few days ago). I assume Mad TV had originally posted the material, since the link to You Tube was from the Mad TV official site. Anyway, that's not the only one I've come across where legitimate content, posted by the right hand of one company, was ordered to be pulled by the left hand of the same company. I think that You Tube represents a significant opportunity to get Viacom's content out there for people to watch. It's a shame they can't come to some sort of agreement. (And it's a shame Viacom doesn't like the law they helped pay for).
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
I think Google's response is spot on and equally important highlight's some of the ineptness that exists in the media industry. How is it that Viacom cannot adequately identify their own material? That's just astounding. And just how do they expect someone to know if it is their material? What bunch of buffons. If I were a stockholder of that company, I would be grilling the CEO and boardmembers about just exactly why they are not doing their jobs and keeping track of property the company owns.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
If the feds busted 5,000 people under the No Electronic Theft Act, it would send shockwaves through the file sharing userbase in the United States, far more powerfully than 50,000 lawsuits by the RIAA and MPAA. Giving the people who trade in any forum from Limewire to Youtube a choice: pay restitution or go to prison (possibly an upgrade to the NETA) would change many people's tune about this casual infringement really quickly.
The advantage of having law enforcement take over and bring prosecutions is that it would actually help the little artist, writer or movie producer. It'd be far easier for them to refer a case of mass infringement to the FBI for investigation, and then prosecution, than to make them have to sue the hell out of someone.
... others to do it.
It has already been shown that ifilm contains material which they don't own the copyright. Viacom, can't police that material, why should anybody expect google to do what the originator of the lawsuit is crying about?
And google does have a way to report questionable material, you hit the "flag as innapropiate" and choose "Other terms of use violation". In addition the same button has a link for copyright owners to object to the material. That really seems fair enough to me.
The only technical solution would be to filter words, which is a stupid alternative. As I may want to upload parodies of "Steve Colbert" instead of actual video from his show.
- sigs are for wimps.
Both Google and Viacom desperately want to set the agenda and the precedent for online distribution of media. With the increased importance of digital distribution, the future of both companies may depend on convincing the courts to see things their way. These ploys are merely the skirmishes between forces scouting for good positions; the real battle is yet to come.
Your scenario doesn't show, never mind prove, that copyright is a public good. Picture the mega-publisher skimming Rowling away from the mini-publisher for the second book, just like any other star content producer. Maybe you've seen what happens to truly great software builders? The Dead did just fine giving away their concert music, because they were in the business of _producing_ music, not _protecting_ it.
_ lawyer/issues/73/Property.html is an interesting article, tho. Another is http://www.jstor.org/view/00472530/sp030004/03x003 8l/0?frame=noframe&userID=81531f02@mitre.org/01cc9 9331f00501bacefb&dpi=3&config=jstor
Copyright was originally created to protect content from those who would change it and resell it as the original content, so when you bought a book allegedly by Rowling, it actually had Rowling's words in it and not someone else's edited version.
If there's a serious economic analysis of the public costs and benefits of copyright with such a clear result, I'm not aware of it. I've only heard bald claims and anecdotal handwaving. http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/stanford
but again, no strong result.
As I suggested elsewhere on this thread, why should any corporation be allowed to own the creative work of real people for decades into the future? Why can't they simply be limited to first use rights or first year rights or some such limiting factor and the rights then automatically reverting to the creators of the work? This would allow the corporations to make money and at the same time preserve the rights of the *real* creative artists the law is *supposed* to be protecting.
I'd like to point out that the greatest works of art of all time were produced in an era where there were no such things as copyright laws. It's called patronage, and it worked for thousands of years.
You go ahead and try to make an exact copy of Jackson Pollock's 'One: Number 31' in 10s, 10m, 10h, 10d or 10y. Go ahead, start now. Let me know when you are finished and you can have your juice box.
You're wrong here. It was absolutely necessary for Google to make a public stand on this issue. Google's reputation was sullied in the public eye by the news coverage of the pending litigation. By writing the open editorial piece, Google is taking a firm and purposed position in defense of its reputation. You can't believe that the average citizen is going to be following this via Slashdot, much less by looking at the public record of the legal precedings.
Besides, such editorial comments have been a part of journalistic history in the United States. They are often one of the few things that keep traditional media outlets mildly interesting.
As a citizen, it is important for me to know when a corporation is trying to hose me through its actions against other companies. IANAL, but I do have experience as an educator, and copyright has a tremendous impact in that arena. Google's arguments are spot-on when it comes to who is responsible for identifying infringing material. Perhaps Google's letter will inspire some citizens (those targeted by the RIAA, for example), to challenge the settlement offers and legal threats that they currently swallow without a second thought. The fact is this: unless you stand up to a bully (preferably in front of witnesses and the bully's lackeys), the bully will continue to steal your lunch money.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
You failed to take into account the effect that repealing copyright would have on large publishers, and the way they interact with authors. It wouldn't be small publishers that would pick up books, followed by big publishers. That is the model that is followed now.
More likely, the author would publish the book online, and rake in revenue from advertising. Sure, someone could leach the content, but the official site would always have the book out first, so everyone would go there instead of stealing it.
There would be no big publishing houses. Period. If there is enough demand, the author could simply accept preorders, and publish a small run.
This would actually lower the barrier to entry, leading to a greater diversity of stuff, rather than the current system, which is completely controlled by large publishing houses. Of course, it would probably be a good bit harder to make a living off ad revenue, making life difficult for professional creators. But then again, most of the stuff right now is crap anyway, so it's a toss-up.
Back in the early days of America, the founders struggled with the concept of patents and copyrights. It was noted that more side innovations would occur if we had neither. But of course, patents and copyrights encourage the ability to come up with ideas and to get them into "production" (be it a book or an item). The ultimate solution was to give limited time on both. Never in their wildest dream did they imagine that some virtual entity would have damn near as many rights and far fewer responsibilities than do individuals. It seems that it is time to start changing the laws to limit what Incs can do, since it is obvious that they can operate really on the edge. As it is, all of the Texas-style accounting that occurred at Qwest, WorldCom, etc, or even MS's actions over the last few decades, shows that Incs need a different set of laws.
Bear in mind, that I set an INC different from llc or partnerships as ppl are held responsible for their actions.
There are vague similarities, but some pretty key differences.
Napster was sued by the RIAA for facilitating the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials. The central issue with Napster was that Napster ran a centralized database of each user's music collection, while the actual sharing was done by the user.
YouTube, by contrast, is being accused by Viacom of actually hosting copyrighted material.
This may make YouTube seem like it has a bigger problem, but under the DMCA it doesn't. The DMCA provides for electronic services - just as you can't charge the postal service with copyright infringement because they transport infringing material, you can't charge an online service with infringement.
Napster wasn't a host. It was a search service. While copyright was a central issue in both cases, the cases really are quite different.
"I'd like to point out that the greatest works of art of all time were produced in an era where there were no such things as copyright laws."
I'd like to point out that there was no such thing as effective copying. Patronage worked great when directly hiring a creator to make something was the only way to get it, because there wasn't any technical capability to make a copy.
Does the "mindless crap" you're inundated with include the output of all programmers, architects, authors (non-fiction and fiction), engineers, etc. etc. ? Pop musicians are not very representative of the rather significant segment of our society who currently depend on copyright.
I'm a big proponent of copyright reform, but the implication that simple abolition is a no-brainer doesn't fly in my book.
For one, you are confusing patents and copyrights
No, I'm not. I'm speaking in general terms about intellectual property - both patents and copyrights (throw in service marks and trademarks if you like, but I think those are kind of a different idea). Patents and copyrights, however, are essentially the same thing. You work hard to create something intangible. I said "idea". You could substitute "invention" for patent "work" for copyright: but the principle is the same. Provide a temporary monopoly so that the creator can recoup costs and make a profit. For copyright on a song or patent on a new drug it's the same general concept.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the general law. In fact, I'd suggest that a philosopher is probably better at the generalities.
Copyright law is not a matter of ethics
On the contrary, all law is ultimately a matter of ethics. I encourage you to try and show me otherwise. But if you don't believe me (and I'm sure you don't) try answering the question "why should we have laws" without recourse to ethical values: implicitly or explicitly.
Tragedy of the commons is actually based on scarcity.
You are correct. I referenced the wrong economic concept. My mistake. The actual problem I referred to, however, is dead on. The example is more clear with patents, but the idea is the same. It takes a lot of money to research new drugs. It's extremely cheap to actually manufacture a lot of them. So if companies A, B, and C are pondering whether or not to design drug X, each has to weigh whether or not they can recoup their investment.
In a world with no patent law each benefits the most if someone else does the research, and loses the most if they do the research and everyone else copies. So it's more like the prisoner's dilemma than the tragedy of the commons. (Again, my mistake for citing the wrong example.) So less research would get done.
Does this work for music, novels, and other works of art that can be digitally reproduced as well? Of course it does. You incur a cost to create the work - anyone else can copy the work for free.
You see that's the flaw in your counterexample. Everyone in your hypothetical scenario is an artist or a listener. You've got the Beatles, and you've got other artists who might want to use their stuff to make more art, and you've got listeners. So you're not really talking about the possibility that someone might take every single song the Beatles published, stick it on a CD, and sell it themselves.
Of course the Beatles would probably be immune to such an attack, but any smaller musician who wants to make money by distributing their work is vulnerable to a larger company with far greater resources swooping in and making exact and entire copies of the music.
So there are only two possibilities. Either no one makes any money from music (in which case there's no motivation for such predatory copying) or the only people who make money from music are not creators of music but distributors who now have to incur no cost to copy and sell music from artists.
If you really think a world where artists can get by on donations and charity is a good idea, I can't argue against you. I just don't think putting all artists on public welfare is a good idea. Failing that, copyright law of some sort is essential to enable them to recoup costs from creating these works. And these rights must be transferable in order to have genuine worth.
Keep in mind that I'm not arguing in favor of current copyright law. It's too strict. We need to allow for more reuse in the form of sampling to create new works. And I'm *certainly* not arguing in favor of DRM. There's a distinction between saying "we should have some copyright law" and saying "we can use DRM to enforce that copyright law". How you enforce a law is not the same question as what law to have.
Also as most musicians know, your money comes from touring - which isn't about copyright
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.