Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA

hamtaro writes "Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and outspoken activist on copyright issues, exchanged some words with an EFF lawyer at this year's EFF 'Pioneer Awards'. The awards, held earlier this week, saw a heated discussion ensue about YouTube. Apparently Cuban feels that 'everyone knows' that YouTube is host to tons of infringing content and therefore it should be exempt from DMCA protections. You read that right: the EFF, defending the DMCA against Mark Cuban. 'Cuban is an interesting spokesman for copyright concerns since he has a broad perspective; as the owner of HDNet, he worries about having his content given away for free without his consent, but he's also someone who has funded EFF campaigns in the past, especially when the group defended Grokster's claim to legality. One of the strangest aspects of the debate was seeing an EFF lawyer defend the DMCA, which usually comes in for a drubbing due to its anti-circumvention provision. But von Lohmann told Ars Technica after the debate that the safe harbor section has actually allowed plenty of businesses to flourish that might otherwise have been mired in legal problems, and that it has generally worked well.'"

Comments

Who cares if they host some infringing content

[mjmalone]

That's absolutely ridiculous. YouTube has certainly complied with the guidelines prescribed to qualify for safe harbor (which protects service providers from copyright liability if they follow certain rules). They've even taken down content at the request of content-owners. Wether or not people "know that YouTube hosts infringing material," it doesn't matter. YouTube users post infringing content, YouTube the organization does not. And everyone also knows that there is a plethora of original, non-infringing material on YouTube as well.

The whole point of the safe harbor provision is that service providers should get a warning and be allowed to remove infringing content that users post. If hosting infringing content posted by your users meant you were no longer protected the provision would be worthless!

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube users post infringing content, YouTube the organization does not.

Actually, the users upload content, which is then transcoded to flash video and posted by YouTube.

Unless you own Google stock, it shouldn't be too hard to see how this is different from an ISP hosting a file on their FTP that was uploaded by a user.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[bopo]

Exactly, and that's why the next time around (DMCA II, Son of DMCA?), the content cartels will try to do away with safe harbor provisions, and put the onus of finding and removing copyrighted material on service providers and not content owners.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[bopo]

Please. The transcoding and posting are completely automated, it's not like they have 1,000 people sitting at computers running ffmpeg who get excited each time someone uploads a Daily Show clip. Holding YouTube accountable just because the end-user doesn't perform every single step needed to get the damned video up would be like arresting a mail carrier for delivering somebody else's letterbomb.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[ajs]

YouTube users post infringing content, YouTube the organization does not.

Actually, the users upload content, which is then transcoded to flash video and posted by YouTube.

Unless you own Google stock, it shouldn't be too hard to see how this is different from an ISP hosting a file on their FTP that was uploaded by a user. Actually, all modern FTP servers have the ability to "transcode" into compressed formats on demand, so the argument holds no water. Translating between presentation formats doesn't involve any step at which a human being could reasonably be expected to identify infringement, and that's really what the spirit of the safe harbor provisions are about.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[gad_zuki!]

No its not ridiculous. Cuban is right. Please prove me wrong:

1. Start a youtube clone iwth your person money.

2. let users upload tv and movie clips

3. See how long you stay in business.

Youtube's life is really based on the idea it can make money, thus the big takedown has been delayed. That doesnt mean the DMCA safe harbor is helping it or anyone (regardless of what the nut at the EFF says). There is a real double standard here because of all the money and people involved. A ma-and-pa youtube would be shutdown in a heartbeat. The way napster was shut down, or the rulings against kazaa. The RIAA is much less willing to play ball than the tv companies, which have more or less embraced the web.

The DMCA gives us no protections, what we are seeing here is a gentleman's agreement to keep it afloat because someone in some media company or at google will find a clever way to make millions off it. The EFF's pathetic and cowardly defense of the DMCA just to get Cuban's goat will hopefully translate into a loss of donations. We need a real copyright reform organization, not Kapor's little band of out-of-touch geeks with axes to grind against Cuban, regardless of the damage they are doing by legitimizing the DMCA to the public.

Maybe next week Barlow can tell me how well the PATRIOT act is going because of some trivial subclause that got some PD somewhere in Utah a nice anti-terror RV.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[Score Whore]

So you're saying you'd be ok with my opening up my murder factory? Where you drop the "product" into a shoot at one end and through an automated process the "product" is shot, stabbed, sliced, diced, electrocuted, drowned, whipped, ground, fricasseed, grated, steamed, boiled, broiled, fried and finally spit out the other end in neat little individually wrapped packets. And I can point at legitimate uses of people dropping their cows in there, and whenever the family of any non-cow writes me a letter I'll go ahead and pull the "product" from the line. You're OK with that? It's ridiculous I know, but so is your "it's automated" defense.

You need to ask the question whether Google should be allowed to profit from massive copyright violation just because it is hard or expensive to not do so. We generally don't allow any other industries to get away with "harmful" behaviors just because it's hard or expensive.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[Anonymous Coward]

What you have to remember is...he made his billionz [sic] on media issues. I think it was so fast and there weren't as many landsharks in tune with online copyright issues. I'm not saying he did anything illegal. It cannot be determined as those bodies are dead & buried.

Here in Indiana, where he was when he hit the lottery, you won't hear him mentioned in|on the news media. I'm wagering even those who follow the news on a general basis might know him for being a team owner rather than how he came to own that team.

He has his eyes on online media again. He just wants to make sure no one else beats him to the game or he'll miss out on some more billionz. [sic]

There's nothing like trying to level the playing field when you are thinking about what you want to do but aren't prepared to make it happen (yet).

There's an old saying about people who have money knowing what it's like to have it and wants more of it. The poor, whilst actually wanting it, generally haven't had it and don't realize what they are missing.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[Original Replica]

So you're saying you'd be ok with my opening up my murder factory? Where you drop the "product" into a shoot at one end and through an automated process the "product" is shot, stabbed, sliced, diced, electrocuted, drowned, whipped, ground, fricasseed, grated, steamed, boiled, broiled, fried and finally spit out the other end in neat little individually wrapped packets.

Yes. It is perfectly legal for you to own a wood chipper. It is not legal for you to put people in your wood chipper. The manufactuer of the wood chipper is not responsible for the deaths of anyone you put in the wood chipper.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[Score Whore]

If you're not even going to make an effort to understand the argument why do you participate?

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[cpt kangarooski]

No, he's pretty well on target. Let's remember that prior to the enactment of the 512 safeharbor, there were suits brought by copyright holders against ISPs for copyright infringement committed by the ISPs because they were hosting web sites on which infringing material had been put by users. The ISPs won some and lost some, and the uncertainty of the whole thing prompted them to lobby for the safeharbor lest they have to quit being ISPs due to the legal risk involved.

But in the cases where the ISPs won, they generally won on the argument that they provided a means for users to do things, but that they didn't police those means. The common analogy was that of a photocopier which was made available for the public to use without supervision; the courts didn't feel that it would be right to hold the owner responsible there, and thus, not to hold an ISP responsible in the ordinary case. Probably the leading case is Religious Technology Center v. Netcom.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[Score Whore]

He's not on target at all. First, he'd have to skip from the manufacturer of the woodchipper to the owner of the woodchipper. Then he'd have to hypothesize a wood chipper that had a million feed hoppers hidden in the dark. Specifically setup so that there is no way to tell who is putting what into the machine. And the owner of the wood chipper somehow made money off of intestines and brains spraying from the outlet. And even after someone coming along and pointing out that "Inside that sack right there, that's Bob." So they pull Bob from the machine. And then they calmly watch and collect money as someone else chucks Bob right back into the machine. And when someone says "Gosh, this is terrible. The way all these people are dying in your wood chipper." They answer with "Not our fault. We've got a sign right there that says 'Don't put people in the machine.' and whenever anyone asks us to we take people out of the machine. It would cut into our profit margin if we had to actually look at what was being put into the machine before we started making money off it." Then he'd be on target.

Youtube built a system that facilitates copyright infringment. They cannot identify who uploads a particular clip. They do not prevent reuploading of the exact same file that has been legally removed. They are nothing like an ISP.

The real question is will Google be able to make their billion dollars back before the law is amended to eliminate this particular situation. My guess is that the second they have to screen each video clip or that they must be able to identify the exact person (ie. real name and address) who uploaded a particular clip, Youtube will grind to a halt.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[Original Replica]

Youtube built a system that facilitates copyright infringment.

And Ferrari builds cars that facilitate wreckless driving, and SpyderCo builds knives that facilitate stabbings, and Harmon Kardon builds speakers that facilitate listening to pirated MP3's. YouTube is a tool. Yes it can be used for something illegal, but so can most tools. It is the responsiblity of the user to obey the applicable laws.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[cpt kangarooski]

First, he'd have to skip from the manufacturer of the woodchipper to the owner of the woodchipper.

No, it doesn't matter. The manufacturer of a xerox machine either does or does not get sued on the same basis as the owner of the machine, where in both cases neither the manufacturer or the owner are the ones engaging in direct infringement. Depending on the facts, it's entirely possible for one, or both, or neither, to be indirectly infringing. But merely providing a means for infringement does not guarantee that they are infringing.

Then he'd have to hypothesize a wood chipper that had a million feed hoppers hidden in the dark. Specifically setup so that there is no way to tell who is putting what into the machine.

Still irrelevant. There's no duty to be aware. There can be constructive knowledge, but that's not the same thing.

And the owner of the wood chipper somehow made money off of intestines and brains spraying from the outlet.

Still irrelevant, if the safe harbor holds.

Youtube built a system that facilitates copyright infringment. They cannot identify who uploads a particular clip. They do not prevent reuploading of the exact same file that has been legally removed.

Yes, but that's all legal.

They are nothing like an ISP.

Wrong. Here is the relevant definition of an ISP from the law:

the term "service provider" means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes [an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received].

Google provides YouTube, which is an online service. So as far as anyone cares, it is an ISP.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[WozNZ]

Actually, YouTube in this situation is EXACTLY the same as an ISPs, hosting company or other companies or sites that make money by providing webspace (in all its shapes and forms) as a service. Where end users has the control over their space.

As long as YouTube meet the Safe Harbour rules they are protected by it. The fight will be on how the rules are interpreted.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[maop]

If someone is using your wood chipper to chop humans on your front porch are you liable to do something about it? Half of Youtube's front page is infringing material. They blatantly ignore it.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[sheimers]

That murder factory already exists, it's called army.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[70Bang]

Providing they explicitly state where the violations are.

I can see Viacom saying something to this tune: "please remove all Viacom-owned materials."

I believe this is something which will be invoked and things will go downhill from there, no matter how cooperative Google|YouTube would like to be.

But it does remind me of the days where the FBI would permit you to ensure the information they had on someone was accurate: "You send what you think is the information which you believe might be incorrect (and what it should be)." And if they didn't have the information you sent them, they'd have something (new) to add to their files.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[Danse]

It is absolutely and totally under the control of Google and Google's employees. You, as a user of youtube, can do nothing with it that they do not explicitly allow you to do. How hard is that to comprehend?

YouTube cannot determine what is and is not copyrighted, and not just copyrighted, but also posted without the permission of the copyright holder. Hell, even the companies sending takedown notices can't always seem to figure out whether something infringes on their copyright or not. So when you come up with some super-accurate method of doing all this, I suggest you patent it immediately and sell it to YouTube and others for a tidy profit. Right now YouTube provides a method for viewers to notify them of an infringing video. They have removed a ton of videos from the site for copyright violations. I don't see how they could seriously do any more really.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[Original Replica]

Yes YoutTube has more active continous maintaince than most "products", but a "service" requires much more manpower and individual attention than YouTube could possibly provide and still remain free and open to the masses. If they were to start charging to post content, or only allowed content from a limited number of approved providers, they would cease to be YouTube and just be bad television. EBay doesn't scan local police reports for stolen goods when something is posted for auction, but Christie's auction house will take the time to verify the authenticity of a Picasso up for bid. They are both auctioneers, but one is a tool for everybody and the other is a service for the elite.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[Score Whore]

Yes YoutTube has more active continous maintaince than most "products", but a "service" requires much more manpower and individual attention than YouTube could possibly provide and still remain free and open to the masses.

And?

If the masses want to have this type of capability, they either need to develop the technical capability and build out the infrastructure on their own dime or pay someone else to do it. Having some third party do it for them for free while ripping off content producers is a losers game.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[gordo3000]

I'm not trying to troll, but just to throw it out there:

  I thought the GP was trying to say that the safe harbor shouldn't hold in this case. if the argument is about whether or not the safe harbor provision should be applied, you can't really argue points by saying they are currently legal due to the safe harbor provision, can you?

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[gordo3000]

with people dying, depends if there is a good Samaritan law in your state.... I think. I'm not sure if there are other laws which could apply.

granted, I just looked at youtube's front page for probably my first time ever and nothing jumped out as infringing. the most watched video page is most likely automatically generated so it falls under the auspices of the rest of the website.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

There is no fight. The law is clear. It definitely applies to YouTube. I predict the case will be dismissed.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, having reviewed the earlier posts by that person, I think that he was saying both that under the current law, YouTube is infringing, and that if he was wrong on that, then the law should be changed so that YouTube would be infringing.

Personally, I think he's foolish. Particularly as there is no way for YouTube, or any other ISP of any kind whatsoever to actually know whether any given clip is legitimately being submitted or not. The Internet as a whole would come to a screeching halt -- or at least the US involvement in it would, while other countries kept going merrily along. Congress considered this issue back in the 90's and decided that the Internet was more important than protecting copyright holders. But, since they didn't want to entirely screw over the copyright holders (and since copyright holders wanted something better than unenforceable C&D's and the gigantic pain of getting an injunction from a court), they put into place a takedown system that is more responsive. One of the important and good features of it is that it puts the burden on the copyright holder to find infringements. This is good because 1) no one in the world is in a better position to know when something is infringing than the copyright holder. Google does not know who the copyright holder has licensed; the copyright holder does. 2) It allows for resources to be allocated to the works the copyright holder considers most important. Google does not know whether a movie studio is more concerned over an old silent movie clip with Russian dialog cards, or a huge blockbuster from a few years back. The studio does, and can allocate resources according to its own preferences. (Which in my hypothetical, since it's my hypothetical, is the silent movie, since it has contractual obligations which force its hand, but views the clips from the blockbuster as user-generated viral marketing that it is willing to leave there until it changes its mind)

Plus, of course, all Google can possibly ever do is trust the word of the people doing the uploading. What else is it going to do? Checksums are so defeatable that they'd be pointless. (Plus if they're simple, collisions become likely, but if they're complicated, the overhead becomes significant, given the scale at which they operate) Having human beings view each thing, then consult a database -- imprecisely, of course, since people could have differing opinions, e.g. is that a horizontal bungee cord, or a human slingshot -- would be an Internet-stopping 'solution.' Having humans sign off on each and every bit of content on the Internet would be worse than if you needed an operator to put every phone call through. There aren't that many humans able to do that work, and it's utterly stupid work.

The current method is flawed, sure, but it's better than anything the moron from before was suggesting. If he doesn't like the Internet so much, why the hell is he using it, that's what I want to know. Especially since we cannot trust his word that he is the copyright holder of his posts, and thus they shouldn't be appearing unless we laboriously verify that they're on the level.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[gordo3000]

one thing you don't mention that I only recently started thinking about was video and image searches(actually searching in the video or image for key words or maybe in time, actual video clips).

if it becomes a process that can be automated through a search algorithm, though time consuming and computationally expensive, would people start to feel that it is reasonable for Google to do a search through youtube of possible infringement and require any video that gets uploaded to be compared against such a database? I bring up google because I had heard they were attempting to make this technology a reality.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[cpt kangarooski]

It's not that easy. Google cannot know 1) what works are copyrighted, 2) whether there has been an infringing act, and 3) whether that act is in fact infringing or whether there is some other factor that makes it non-infringing (e.g. an implied non-exclusive license). The courts certainly disagree all the time, as do learned commentators, legal scholars, and copyright lawyers. Not to mention that the laws vary worldwide. There are no bright line tests for humans to follow, much less which could be adapted for mere machines. And the facts are often completely outside of Google's ability to determine, because they are not contained within the work itself. And even facts which are contained within the work might be beyond the abilities of a machine (e.g. a copyright notice within a video, if it's just blurry pixels, might be recognizable to a human, but machines aren't that good at recognizing these things yet. God help you if it's an audio copyright notice, as might be appended to a radio broadcast; speech recognition is way beyond where it is supposed to be, to say nothing of flying cars and atomic-powered kill-bots.

It's still more reasonable for the burden to be on the copyright holder. He knows these things, and he can recognize his work, and he has a strong motivation to look so he can be trusted to do a thorough job. Plus, it's less paternalistic this way.

Re:Who cares if they host some infringing content

[maop]

The front page only has featured videos so there would be no problem there. The most viewed page had at least five infringing videos. It doesn't matter if it is automatically generated. Youtube makes money off of it and if they hired a single employee to look at it they could stop a million viewers a day from streaming the the infringing material.

For those of you keeping count...

[Skyshadow]

For those of you keeping count, that's reason 2.02x10^63 + 1 to dislike Cuban.

Seriously, I wonder if he wakes up each day and says to himself, "You know, a lot of people hate my guts, but gosh darnit I'm still only the second-most hated owner of a sports team in Texas. What to do, what to do..."

Re:For those of you keeping count...

[Reality Master 101]

For those of you keeping count, that's reason 2.02x10^63 + 1 to dislike Cuban.

Anyone high-profile who expresses opinions is going to be hated by half the people. I respect the fact that he doesn't care what you think to muzzle himself, unlike most people. Also unlike most people, he can actually back up what he thinks with reasoning. One can certainly disagree with his conclusions, but at least it's thought out.

Re:For those of you keeping count...

[dharbee]

Also unlike most people, he can actually back up what he thinks with vast amounts of cash, allowing him to buy as much face time as he needs.

Fixed that for you.

Cuban says what he says and does what he does because he has "fuck you" money. Otherwise he'd just be another guy ranting that no one gave a flip about.

It's difficult to pin Cuban down as to where he

[zappepcs]

stands on various arguments, but overall, I like him. I don't think that he is the best example of how to be a businessman, but he does have character. I think that he is just savvy enough to pull the truth out into the light for people to look at it while he is making money off of it somewhere else.

YouTube definitely has the benefit of the safe harbor provision of the DMCA and a well versed bunch of lawyers.

WRT to Cuban, well, everyone knows that cars are used to deliver drugs, both locally and across state and international borders... we should ban all cars! His argument is pretty weak for someone that seems to be as intelligent as he does.

Re:It's difficult to pin Cuban down as to where he

[capt.Hij]

I think that you are confusing "has character" with "is a character." In some ways he seems like a class A jerk, but I respect him for funding EFF even if he does not always agree with him. I also like the idea of a nerd owning jocks (except for the racial overtones).

Re:It's difficult to pin Cuban down as to where he

[zappepcs]

I think that you are confusing "has character" with "is a character." In some ways he seems like a class A jerk, but I respect him for funding EFF even if he does not always agree with him. I agree

I also like the idea of a nerd owning jocks (except for the racial overtones). I hope you get modded funny for that!

Re:It's difficult to pin Cuban down as to where he

[garcia]

but he does have character.

No, he is a character. There's a difference and IMHO, in his case, it's not a good thing.

Re:It's difficult to pin Cuban down as to where he

[Stanistani]

Well, ya know, opinions are like nostrils... everybody has at least two, even if they do tend to be kinda snotty.

Re:It's difficult to pin Cuban down as to where he

[shigelojoe]

Also, when given a choice most people pick their own instead of someone else's.

Um... yay?

[Rob T Firefly]

Hooray! Go EFF! You tell him about the wonderful DMC -- no, wait.
Yay! Go Mark Cuban! You tell that EFF son of a -- no, that's not right either.

Umm... screw it, I'm going back to bed.

Must be Law 2.0

[snowwrestler]

I've never heard of the "everybody knows" legal standards of evidence or applicability. Must be that new Law 2.0 I keep hearing about.

Re:Must be Law 2.0

[Dachannien]

I'm a slightly published author of a couple of academic papers. Everybody knows that there is infringing content posted by the users of a variety of free web hosts, where the web hosts get revenue from advertising alongside that content. Ergo, according to CubanLogic(tm) 2.0, I should be able to sue Geocities if I discover my papers published there without permission, safe-harbor-be-damned.

Re:Must be Law 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an example: everyone "knew" that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA... "Everybody knows" is a staple of American Politics. Go USA! Bush macht frei!

Re:Must be Law 2.0

[Dachannien]

Personally, I don't think it's useful when discussing this topic to ponder analogies that aren't under the umbrella of copyright law.

Re:Must be Law 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

"Law 2.0" is in reference specifically to copyright law? Who knew.

My image password is "humors". Oh the irony.

Re:Must be Law 2.0

[cdrguru]

Maybe you should be allowed to sue Geocities if they (a) allow your content to be uploaded by anonymous parties without restriction or review, and (b) have 1,000 people individually making sure that every time you complain and it is taken down it is reposted five minutes later.

The problem is not one of dealing with individual owners of a web site (as was envisioned at the time) but public forums where anonymous contributors can completely outstrip the ability of the infringed party to do anything about it.

Face it, the YouTube user community at large can ensure that any small number of videos simple continue to be reposted and there is nothing that can be done about it within the framework of the DMCA. For every temp Viacom hires to look at YouTube content, 10 more YouTube users can repost whatever is taken down.

And all the time in the background Google is raking in money from page views and ads.

Re:Must be Law 2.0

[Dachannien]

Are you saying that that's what Congress should change the law to? Because that's certainly not the law now, and the courts would be overstepping their bounds to offer Viacom and other holders of copyrights on numerous popular works greater protection than I get for my very few not-so-popular works.

And if Congress were to change the law, what should the cutoff of infringements be? A thousand? A hundred? Viacom would get par value for the infringements against their works if they sued the people who posted those works to YouTube in the first place, the same as I would get for suing someone who posted one of my papers to their website. How many times does my work have to be infringed before I also get the bonus that Viacom demands in their lawsuit?

Re:Must be Law 2.0

[tkinnun0]

AINAL, but I don't think they need to change the law. The court would just need to interpret the case where a group of people are posting the same clip again and again as a single, ongoing infringement. Then Viacom would only need to issue one takedown notice per copyrighted work and YouTube would need to take down an infringing clip permanently.

I like Mark.

[owlnation]

Mark Cuban certainly is a controversial figure. However, he's a smart guy and has done a great deal for independent film-making.

I agree with his views on this, I think the EFF is wrong. The DMCA belongs to an old business model, one that Mark and others are moving away from.

Still, I do understand that the EFF needs to appear reasonable and can't push extreme or radical agendas, moderation probably helps them win friends. Mark doesn't need to do that, and it's great that he can add a maverick voice to the mix - in the long run this may help the EFF ideas seem more practical.

Re:I like Mark.

[Sciros]

LOL @ "add a maverick voice to the mix" I like the pun :-) Go Suns! (yes it's offtopic)

Re:I like Mark.

[GiovanniZero]

You're probably right, service providers should be held accountable for what their users post.

Everytime some slashdot user makes a libelous post someone should sue Slashdot in a libel suit. We also need better controls on e-mail because people could be sending copyrighted images to their friends. If e-mail providers can't get this under control they should be sued for allowing people to move that traffic on their network.

Lets not leave out ISP's, lots of them allow their pipes to be used by people stealing content!! Sue them too!!

Good idea!

Re:I like Mark.

[Volante3192]

I agree with his views on this, I think the EFF is wrong. The DMCA belongs to an old business model, one that Mark and others are moving away from.

Whether or not the DMCA belongs to an old business model is irrelivant (1998 is outdated?) The media companies pushed for it, got it, and now have to deal with the simple fact that Sec 202, Title 512(c)(1) is US Law. That gives YouTube safe harbour provisions.

If the media companies want to change the DMCA, they should take it up with their friends in Congress, not hope Viacom wins this lawsuit. (Well...ideally...)

Shortly there after...

[GiovanniZero]

Steve Jobs argued with Bill Gates that vista had a better interface while Bill Gates tried to convince Jobs that Microsoft was just following his lead.

Then Castro praised the value of capatalism for the room it left him to be communist.

Finally Bill Gates entered the room again to talk about how the new apple machine is the greatest leap in computing that has ever been made...oh wait, no that last one was 20 years go.

Re:Shortly there after...

[ajs]

I don't get it. Why is it shocking that the EFF would defend the provisions of the DMCA that make it even vaguely similar to something that's only mostly unreasonable? They still want to see the law removed on Constitutional grounds, but what it's the law of the land they at least want to see that its teeth not get any sharper.

worried about what?

[mastershake_phd]

as the owner of HDNet, he worries about having his content given away for free without his consent

What is he worried about? HDnet content is, you guessed it HD. Youtube is well, not.

Re:worried about what?

[jaymzru]

Word on the street is that there are other sites, and means, to share video online.

Re:worried about what?

[Anonymous Coward]

So should I not be concerned if a bunch of Nazis are beating up Jews because I'm not a Jew?

Watch the man's stocks

[Infonaut]

So has Cuban shorted Google? ;-)

However

[Bullfish]

Immediately afterward the lawyer burst into flames, cats and dogs paired off and headed for the Super 8 down the road while a nearby brewery exploded and showered the town with fresh lager.

Somebody needs to explain legal procedure to Mark.

[Chas]

"Everybody knows" isn't a valid legal argument.

It's a shame Mark has to make such an ass of himself simply to take a swipe at Google.

Message to Cuban: Learn from history

[bigwavejas]

The same damn thing happened when people started sharing music over the internet... you can't stop technology, but you can adapt like many successful companies have. Now stop bitching and crying about it and find a solution!

Re:Message to Cuban: Learn from history

[cdrguru]

The solution is simple: it is all free for everyone and anyone trying to make money still is just a greedy capitalist!

Now go down the hall and tell your boss that they should be giving away everything and you will work for free from now on. No?

Unfortunately, there isn't much of a middle ground between "free" and "not free" when it comes to money. If people insist that they want stuff for free, they better expect to be paid in kind as most jobs today rely on somebody paying for someting that is in digital form and can be pirated.

Everyone knows what?

[davidwr]

'everyone knows' that YouTube is host to tons of infringing content <deadpan>I did not know that.</deadpan>

Re:Everyone knows what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought youtube was just there to show ATI owners what Beryl/Compiz look like.

Dragnet time.

[Applekid]

Like it or not, DMCA is US law. While the EFF touches on the fringes of the literal interpretations of the law and thus raises questions (and provides reasonable answers to those questions, in my opinion), should the EFF openly support breaking the law?

As the EFF gains power and finances from increasing numbers of donations, would it be wise to trade that lots of "street cred"? How did the political party behind The Pirate Bay fare on that one?

Re:Dragnet time.

[geekoid]

The point is, Youtube is NOT breaking the law. In fact they have always complied with the law.

Safe harbor is there for a reason. To say YouTube is exempt from safe harbor is unfair, short sighted, and preposterious.

Everybody knows that sidewalks are used to commit crimes, lets repeal the right against unwarrented search and seizure on sidewalks.

Re:Dragnet time.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

At last. A voice speaking in favor of the rule of law.

Thank you.

I don't appreciate voices, including Mr. Cuban's, which pretends the law isn't there, or doesn't mean exactly what it says.

The richness and diversity of the internet is exactly what Congress and the President were intending to protect.

YouTube's entire business model was based upon the existence of the DMCA, and it wouldn't have been created were the safe harbor not there to protect it.

civil disobediance can be good, bad

[davidwr]

Sometimes encouraging people to break the law is the right thing to do.
The American Revolution. The Underground Railroad. Rosa Parks. Need I go on?

Sometimes it's counter-productive.

Every day you, me, and everyone else has to look himself in the mirror and ask, "Can I better serve society by staying within the law, or by breaking it."

Uhh, it's not like "DMCA GOOD" or "DMCA BAD"...

[TheDarkener]

C'mon, we're smart people, right? You can't just blanket the DMCA and say "BAD!!" or "GOOD!!" - things like this are HUGE in content, with many sections, etc... there are probably some things that the EFF can agree with, as well as some that they don't agree with.

Just like YouTube hosts some infringing content, and some non-infringing content. Take a look at the vloggers, independent directors, etc... It's stupid to try and cover an entire media distribution medium like YouTube like that.

Or the DMCA.

good DMCA vs bad DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

There's "bad" DMCA and "good" DMCA.

Bad is what everyone here probably thinks of - anti-circumvention rules, etc. Section 1201 and so on.

Good is a series of safe harbors for things like network caching, webhosting, and other situations where copying occurs but we don't there to be copyright infringement for policy reasons. section 512 and such.

Re:good DMCA vs bad DMCA

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, the 'good' DMCA isn't that good, in that it still allows for copyright holders to issue takedowns left and right without carefully verifying them, and those takedowns can be quite broad (IIRC, there was at least one case where an ISP had to delete an entire usenet group from its newsserver), and there's no reason for them to act differently. Also, most of the safeharbor requires registration by the safeharbor claimant, which they might not have realized they should do, since it's not all that clear.

There are good parts to the idea of a safeharbor, but it could be improved quite a lot. Let's not forget that.

Don't throw me in that briar patch, br'er MAFIAA!

[Tackhead]

> The whole point of the safe harbor provision is that service providers should get a warning and be allowed to remove infringing content that users post. If hosting infringing content posted by your users meant you were no longer protected the provision would be worthless!

What's really interesting is that if Google wins and sets a precedent, the floodgates are open for "YouTune.com". Anyone can upload any MP3 they like. Anyone can download any MP3 they like. Any MP3 that infringes on a copyright can be removed with a well-formed DMCA-compliant takedown request. It'll be like Napster, except that it'll have the speed of centralized server storage.

Once upon a time, web hosting cost a small fortune in setup and bandwidth charges, and having one's website nuked by a DMCAgram was a considerable financial disincentive...

Today, Google makes more millipennies off the banner ads on YouTube.com than the micropennies it costs to stream, repeatedly, the same 6-7-megabyte .flv Flash video file, to the same person, every time the user wants to watch it.

Imagine how many trillions of millipennies Google could make by letting millions of users upload their MP3 collections. Sure, each one might cost a few millipennies to remove when the DMCAgrams come in, but as long as the DMCAgrams cost a few dollars each for the MAFIAA (Music And Film Associations of America) to produce, Google will handily win the battle of attrition.

That's the short run. In the long run, MAFIAA will of course attempt to purchase new laws to protect its obsolete business model, but with their coffers drained from filing millions of DMCAgrams, and Google's coffers bursting with fresh ad revenue (from hosting content uploaded by YouTube and YouTune users during the day or two between its upload and DMCA-compliant removal), Google will finally have a fighting chance to purchase its own laws.

Sure, MAFIAA has an advantage in that your average Senator or Congressman (or even Slashdotter!) would rather snort a line of cocaine from between Titney's Pears than from Sergei's Brim, but ultimately it's all about the money. With the kind of money Google could offer them, a politician could simply buy Titney outright, and have enough left over for a whole fracking cocaine plantation.

Utter bullshit

[iamacat]

Youtube hosts a plenty of home video, independent and fair use content. The site was also instrumental in exposing a number of crimes, including by law enforcement, and unprofessional conduct. As a site with user-maintained content, it ends up with a variety with legal and illegal material, just like web hosting providers. Any provider of a neutral public forum can not be responsible for actions of others. The same transparency that makes it attractive to pirates also makes it attractive to others exercising their free speech rights.

Re:Utter bullshit

[Score Whore]

And yet we still shut down crack houses....

No, they can't always be popular or 'moderate'

[geekotourist]

(Disclosure: I know people at the EFF and think they're amazing people)

To be what the EFF is, they have to take positions on issues that might not seem moderate or be popular.

First- they have to start working on issues long before most people even know that a technology exists- things that are obscure, not popular, so less likely to bring in vast numbers of new members.
Second- they'll work on the civil liberties implications of what might seem like fine technology- this certainly can make them unpopular.
Third- they sue corporations, which obviously isn't going to help with corporate donations. (which is why the EFF needs memberships, they're a small, non-profit, member-based organization, even though all their cases might make them seem much larger. Grants like the one that got them into the secret EU TV DRM meetings are the exception.)
Fourth- the defendants they get aren't necessarily going to be angelic posterboys. Governments or corporations (think RIAA) will always try to set precedents with the ugliest and least sympathetic cases first. i.e.The RIAA didn't start with grandmas and orphans, they started with rowdy-seeming college students.

If you look at the ten major areas where they work:

• Privacy
• IP
• Fair Use and DRM
• FLAG project (foia- freedom of information act)
• Innovation [eff.org]
• File Sharing
• Free Speech and Censorship
• Bloggers' Rights
• International
• E-Voting

How likely is it that a techie (or anyone) will agree with 100% of all 10 areas? (Pretty unlikely, because I don't think you'd get 100% agreement even by the EFF's people themselves.) As one example, Hamidi v Intel can't be called a crowd pleaser here. And that the EFF focuses on the collateral damage to free speech caused by some anti-spam technologies isn't popular- it's probably their Skokie march- but it follows from their core work.

Mark Cuban ... again?

[jon3k]

Why does anyone listen to this twit? He got lucky and cashed in during the dotcom boot. Since then he's bought some obviously good ideas from other people with his mountain of money. Who cares about the latest round of Mark Cuban verbal diarrhea?

Cuban's POV

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody who follows Cuban's opinions close enough, whether it be about YouTube or the NBA Officials, will soon realize that he is only looking out for himself. He can support the EFF one day and challenge them the next because before the EFF served to help him, and now it serves to hurt him. Just like with the NBA, he says he is trying to "improve" NBA officiating, but he's actually just trying to change it in a way that helps him the most. Don't fall for the idea that Cuban wants to support innovation, or promote a fair marketplace, he wants to make more money for himself. That's it.

As someone else pointed out, the only reason we pay attention to what Cuban says is because he sold his Yahoo stock at the peak of the tech bubble. Good for him. If he'd held onto his stock, or even if he'd never sold his company to Yahoo for way more than it was worth, would we care what he had to say? He's a semi-bright guy, I suppose, but is he brilliant enough that anybody would listen to him were it not for his money? I don't think so. He's not an innovator. He's not even a real tech guy. If he'd held onto broadcast.com, he'd maybe have a hundred million dollars, or so, which is impressive, but hardly enough to qualify him as an expert on matters such as these.

Solution

[Greyfox]

Give Cuban and the EFF Lawyer both a brick and lock them in a room. Survivor wins the case. Post the footage on Youtube.

Really the system is much too complex today. We need more brick-based justice!

Re:Solution

[zolaar]

Give Cuban and the EFF Lawyer both a brick...

Nope. The Free Masons have a powerful lobby. The guild is paid a hefty sum for each depiction of their intellectual property : bricks. There's a loophole, however, stating an exemption for depictions only featuring a single brick.

Coincidentally, the end result is a win-win-win for everyone. One brick makes it much more interesting for me to watch. Interesting content brings more eyeballs to Youtube's site, which displays ads based on the content being viewed. The video, as well as the accompanying AdSense links, advertises Genuine Free Mason Bricks as useful, effective policy tools. Trifecta!

Wake Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a non us citizen (alien? hah!), I find this dmca stuff all so boring.

You have draconian laws instigated by ugly controlling types which you seem to feel the need to "obey" lest you spend your eternity in hell. Wake up, you are already there.

Look at the second article after this one, "Private File Sharing to Remain/Become legal in EU".

It has always been this way under English law and many other countries (oz to be exact), and was in the us prior to the dmca I believe.

The dmca was a land grab that would never have happened if not for 9/11, and couldn't happen in most other countries where the views of the people count.

No judge in oz is ever going to entertain riaa type prosecutions unless there was evidence of financial gain. And that would have to be more than some little punk making $50 selling ripped cds at the local market every weekend.

You argue the point back and forth without ever achieving anything, while the fat bastards laugh at you and watch the meter run.

You are led to believe that your version of democracy is the greatest freedom, yet you are "controlled" at least as much as those under the average dictatorship.

Your politicians wont change until you change.

Get a life.

Get over it.

Move on.

AC.

Re:Wake Up!

[Khaed]

The dmca was a land grab that would never have happened if not for 9/11, and couldn't happen in most other countries where the views of the people count.

Uh.

The DMCA was passed in 1998.

Are you implying Bush has a time machine and went back in time to talk Clinton into signing it?

It's easy to be a critic until your ox is gored

[postbigbang]

Cuban has a long history of rights protection motives, first with Broadcast.Com, which he sold to Yahoo (and used the proceeds to finance buying the Mavs) and now with HDNet and the movies owned by it. He's a transparent IP-protecting capitalist, which is not to criticize him, rather that he's part of the problem, and not the cure to the concerns of content problems and content distribution methodologies.

Everybody Knows --lyrics by Mark Cuban

[Jherek Carnelian]

Everybody knows that Google is loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the DMCA is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows that copyright is leaking
Everybody knows that hollywood lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died

Everybody talking to their pockets
Everybody wants a box of chocolates
And a long stem rose
Everybody knows

Everybody knows that you love youtube baby
Everybody knows that you really do
Everybody knows that you've been faithful
Ah give or take a night or two
Everybody knows youve been discreet
But there were so many videos you just had to see
only with downloads
And everybody knows

Everybody knows, everybody knows
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows, everybody knows
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

And everybody knows that its now or never
Everybody knows that its me or you
And everybody knows that movies live forever
Ah when you've done a line or two
Everybody knows the deal is rotten
Old black joes still pickin cotton
For your ribbons and bows
And everybody knows

And everybody knows that the MPAA is coming
Everybody knows that its moving fast
Everybody knows that the happy man and woman
Are just a shining artifact of the past
Everybody knows the scene is dead
But theres gonna be a meter on your tv set
That will disclose
What everybody knows

And everybody knows that you're in trouble
Everybody knows what you've been through
From the bloody sign on top of Hollywood
To the beach of Malibu
Everybody knows its coming apart
Take one last look at this movie backlot
Before it blows
And everybody knows

Everybody knows, everybody knows
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

Oh everybody knows, everybody knows
Thats how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX LYRICS LINE FILLER LYRICS LINE FILLER SUPER LINE FILLER FILTER FUCKER

If the DMCA does ever get revisited...

[Belial6]

If the DMCA does ever get revisited, there really needs to be something in there to prevent piracy of IP. You know, when you've put your property out on the sea of the internet, and along comes some pirate like Viacom with their boat load of lawyers, who demand that your ISP surrender your property to them. Thus depriving you of the use of your property and blocking the shipping lanes between the owner of the IP and the consumer.

Basically if we are going to claim that IP is so valuable, and give someone the right to deprive you of the use of your own creations on just their say so, the person depriving you of your IP should be liable if they take something from you that does not belong to them.

Why stop at suing them?

[vinn01]

Why stop at suing them?

Make them share the posts/e-mail/network traffic with The House Un-American Activities Committee ^H^H^H^H The Department of HomeLand Security! There could be communist ^H^H^H^H terrorist posting - sending e-mail - using the networks...

bad analogy time!

[Animaether]

I'm a service provider... the service I provide is to make my hands do things (no, not that... you pervs).

A user comes along, and uses my hand to slap you in the face anytime somebody says "Hello".

Somebody comes along, says "Hello", and through the user's directive I slap you.

You tell me to cut it out and I say "Ok.", and the next time somebody says "Hello"...

I slap you again. You tell me to fqn cut it out already, like you told me last time. I say "Ok." again. Somebody comes along again, says "Hello"...

And I slap you again. Now you're thinking "whatthefuck mate? STOP IT!". I say "Ok.".. again. Somebody says "Hello"...

And once more, I slap you. Now you might be thinking "what gives?" and instead of telling me to stop it, you check into why I slapped you. And you realize that the first time I slapped you because User A told me to do so whenever somebody said "Hello". The second time it was User B. The third time it was User C. The fourth time it was User A again. And then you realize - no matter how often you tell me to stop slapping you in the face, somebody else will just tell me to do do it all over again anyway.

Bad analogies aside, that's what the provision is allowing YouTube. Yes, you can ask them to remove a video (actually, it's not as simple as an e-mail saying "Hi, I'm Viacom - that's our material, please remove." It involves legal paperwork and all that stuff costing a small amount of money (well, small to Viacom)). But that same video (bit-for-bit) may be re-uploaded and YouTube can wash its hands in innocence pointing to the provision and saying they complied completely.

I.e. they comply with the letter of the law(directive/thing/whatever), but I think we all know it's not quite within the spirit of it. Any more than people complying with GPLv2 using the code to build server-side applications/etc. and ticking off a bunch of people are complying with the letter of the GPLv2, but not the spirit. Hence (and for other readsons) GPLv3. Same reason why the DMCA should be revisited as well - and while they do so, they can get rid of the utterly bad parts (stuff about not being allowed to break decryption/etc.).

Re:bad analogy time!

[multisync]

Let's see if we can fix this analogy up for you.

I'm the "service provider," and the service I am providing is space. Say it's a rooming house, for example.

I am providing space to you. In that space that I provide, you receive guests, and when they say "hello" to you, you slap them.

Now, what exactly does you slapping people have to do with me, other than the fact that you did it in a space that I provided to you?

To paraphrase a comment I read somewhere else in this thread, is it Slashdot's fault if I libel you in a comment I make here? Is it Verizon's fault if I slander you in a phone call I make to a third party? If I assault you in a McDonald's parking lot, should you be successful in your lawsuit against the restaurant?

The point of the "Safe Harbour" aspect of the DMCA is that service providers cannot reasonably be expected to monitor all of the actions of all of their users, and their users would not (should not) stand for the invasion of privacy if they did.

If you are a copyright holder and feel your copyright has been violated by something one of my users has posted, you can notify me of the alleged infringement and I am compelled to take it down, notify the user and let them file a counterclaim if they feel the take-down notice was illegitimate. This places the burden of proof where it should be: on the party alleging infringement. The notion that "everybody knows youtube is full of infringing content, so let's just shut down youtube" is a bit of a slippery slope. If we are going to deny ourselves anything that could be abused by someone motivated to do so, we are going to end up giving up a lot more than content hosting services.

Re:bad analogy time!

[Animaether]

Your point stands without question - but it does nothing to reduce my point. I'm not saying that YouTube should check every single upload to see if the user has consent from the copyright holder to do so; which is what it comes down to - they don't necessarily have to check with their own lawyers whether it would be considered fair use or not. Leave that to the copyright holder.

However... once a copyright owner has identified a specific piece as violating their copyright, and pointed this out to YouTube, and YouTube takes it down... that exact same piece, bit-for-bit, can be put online again by the same user or another user. And -that- is where YouTube should indeed take their own responsibility. They already *know* that specific content was illegal as they've already been through this.

I'm not saying that's the law - clearly, it isn't. I'm saying that maybe it should be. And I'm guessing that Viacom is definitely thinking this, and is thus suing.

Re:bad analogy time!

[multisync]

I don't spend much time on youtube, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about. You're point about the bit-for-bit copy kind of troubles me. I've clicked Submit twice on Slashdot and gotten the message about the message being identical to one that was already posted. So, sure, technically it's doable. But I don't think it checks everything ever posted (there was the "I know you hate the RIAA" troll about the supposed Christian record store owner for example, recently re-posted here, not to mention making numerous appearances at K5 & who-knows-where else). So, okay, every time you receive a takedown notice you remove the alleged infringing content, advise the person who posted it so they have the opportunity to file a counter-claim, and make a checksum on the file to compare against everything someone submits after that. So you will prevent someone else from uploading the exact same file.

But if I upload last night's Survivor episode made by my myth box an hour after Youtube takes down the one you uploaded, made by your myth box, we're back to the same infringing content being uploaded multiple times. Except now, youtube has taken steps to vet the content their users upload, and I think once you let that genie out of the bottle there is no turning back. Isn't that the reason for Safe Harbour laws in the first place: to protect common carriers from the potentially illegal actions of their users?

Also, it may be within the means of a big company like Google to maintain such a system, but what about the small start-up youtube once was? Can they afford to not only maintain the database, but also to assume liability and eat the legal costs for their mitakes?

Re:Don't throw me in that briar patch, br'er MAFIA

[TheSeer2]

I'm not sure YouTube is profitable yet.

The flaw with your analogy

[DeadCatX2]

The service of slapping people would be considered assault. Every case of a slap would be assault.

Not every video on YouTube is infringing.

For the nth time. Copyright law states that it is the copyright owner's responsibility to enforce copyright, and no one else's. That's because it's impossible to check every piece of content against every copyright owner, and this becomes exponentially more complicated when you factor in fair use/parody/etc.

For the nth time. Viacom shouldn't be suing YouTube for allowing any video to be hosted, because people will inevitably use it to share copyrighted video. That the service is capable of infringement does not mean it lacks substantial non-infringing use. Viacom should be suing the people who upload the videos - you know, the people who actually broke the law, directly.

Re:The flaw with your analogy

[Animaether]

The service of slapping people would be considered assault. Every case of a slap would be assault.

Did I say it was a bad analogy yet? That said - hey, both are illegal.. go figure :D

Not every video on YouTube is infringing. Nor would everything people did with my hand. They could say that whenever anybody says "Hello", I would shake your hand. My (bad) analogy holds :P

For the nth time. Copyright law states that it is the copyright owner's responsibility to enforce copyright, and no one else's. That's because it's impossible to check every piece of content against every copyright owner, and this becomes exponentially more complicated when you factor in fair use/parody/etc.

As explained to the other commenter...
The burden of proving copyright lays with the copyright holder - YouTube is under no obligation to check if every new video may be under copyright with somebody else, whether they consented the uploading of the material - and if not, whether it falls under 'fair use', etc. - that is absolutely the task of the copyright holder.. i.e. Viacom.

That said.. "for the nth time".. once a specific piece has been identified, it is well within the technical abilities of YouTube to prevent it from being entered into the system again... both bit-for-bit (duh) as well as using a different compression mechanism, 1 pixel shaved off the top, etc. etc. In fact, they offer this service.. as long as you - the copyright holder - are willing to pay for it.
To continue the bad analogy - to stop me from slapping you, you'll just have to pay me. Well yes, I could ignore any requests for slapping you for free... but I don't have to by law, so "Hello!" *slap*

For the nth time. Viacom shouldn't be suing YouTube for allowing any video to be hosted, because people will inevitably use it to share copyrighted video. That the service is capable of infringement does not mean it lacks substantial non-infringing use. Viacom should be suing the people who upload the videos - you know, the people who actually broke the law, directly.

I fully agree. Now where was it that I entered my real information at YouTube? And even if I did - how was it again that a copyright holder would get a hold of that information from YouTube?
Answers: nowhere, and you can't. If I got a court order I, at best, could get an IP address which resolves to an IP address which resolves to an IP address.. etc. My cost to find the user would be X, the damages I could sue the user for would be Y, X would be much greater than Y and in the mean time it doesn't stop a hundred different users from doing the exact same thing as the first user.

"For the nth time" - I'm not saying YouTube -has- to 'police' the uploads - but they can certainly do a very basic filter (hell, they blanket-filter for pr0n - that's more difficult than filtering against a hash of a file or a fingerprint of a video), and within the spirit of the law they very well know they probably should be.

That said - if they did, they'd shoot themselves in the foot, because despite the significant non-infringing uses of YouTube, there's a substantial infringing use of YouTube that makes people go there in the first place.

And *that* said - I fully agree that media companies / etc. should look into ways to leverage YouTube - rather than fight it.

Re:The flaw with your analogy

[martin-boundary]

That said.. "for the nth time".. once a specific piece has been identified, it is well within the technical abilities of YouTube to prevent it from being entered into the system again... both bit-for-bit (duh) as well as using a different compression mechanism, 1 pixel shaved off the top, etc. etc.

No, no and no. There is no mathematical way to compare binary blobs in all possible ways that can be used to make them just slightly different.

Moreover if there was, it could (and would already) be used for other problems like spam filtering for a start.

It's muddled thinking to imagine that the problem of identifying an infringing post is well posed. It's just not an engineering problem, notwithstanding simplistic "solutions" like bit-for-bit checking, compression checking, 1 pixel shaved off checking and anything else you might think up in the five minutes before you become bored of it and realize like others before you that it's hopeless.

There's exactly one qualified authority to decide if a Youtube post is a copyright violation, and that's a court of law, on a case by case basis. It sucks for anyonw who believes in simple solutions, but that's because the real world is messy.

Instead of giving away for free

[Nom du Keyboard]

Instead of giving content away for free, why not make it easier to link to content? Provide a way for YouTube to link to Cuban's site instead of hosting the video itself, in a manner that benefits both. This could help YouTube not only avoid copyright problems, but cut their server storage and bandwidth load in the process. YouTube could show Cuban's page inside a YouTube frame giving exposure to both sites. It would also drive business to Cuban's site that he obviously wasn't getting directly.

Of course this makes too much sense. Everyone wants their own little fiefdom that nobody else has any part of. But share and play nice, and just maybe everyone would be much better off.

Re:Instead of giving away for free

[conteXXt]

Sounds to me like you are suggesting that Cuban should pay for his own bandwidth with Google's ads on the referring page.

Works for me.

all this crap is the setup

[kaizokuace]

for the star trek universe. In the future it seems that there aren't movies and entertainment like it is today. I remember some eps of TNG having like plays on the ship but thats about it. So I guess the entertainment industry dies in the future. Especially so now with everything thats going on. Everyone is suing everyone and DRM killed the movie star.

Business doomed w/o DMCA

[oddmake]

I can remember Japanese example.

Many Japanese geeks & suits think if DMCA-styled "notice & takedown" safe harbor existed in Japan,File Rogue service could escape from devouring JASRAC.

Cuban sells; Youtube Facilitates

[Anonymous Coward]

Cuban wants to sell content to people.
Gootube wants make money facilitating people.

The trouble with freedom is people don't always do what you want.

On the re-uploading issue say Youtube started checking the MD5 Hash of the uploaded files to see if they were the same ones taken down.

Get an army of screeners at Youtube watching videos before they go up then maybe people will make files with a "Have the new viewers gone yet" or "Encrypted Video" or Only 1 in 50 frames is copyfringe with a special hacked client...or just put vids on hacked servers or whatever.

But whatever happens all the useful important non infringing uses will suffer.

Trouble is people would get round it. People really really want to share things. This is not the problem and it can't be stopped without turning off the net.

Smashing Youtube won't stop anything.

The problem is to develop a business model where you make money / generate awareness / advertising revenue from the popularity of things.

Tying to crackdown on what people really want to do doesn't help anyone but legislators and enforcement agencies.

This is the undeclared war on filesharing and it will probably work out as well for anyone as all the others wars on things.

Howsabout product placement instead of advertising. Bigmacs with Lonelygirl playtoys. Hold back extra scenes so repeats will always be a little bit fresh.

Maybe Cuban sold too many GooTube shares short as he keeps advising others to do on his blog so he has to keep up the FUD.

Video of debate?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been trying to track down video of the exchange between von Lohmann and Cuban. Does it exist?

It is called YOUtube, you know...

[gillbates]

The impression I get from YouTube is that it is more about sharing home videos than infringing content. Everything about the site seems to indicate their intention was to encourage amateur filmmaking:

• The movies are transcoded into a lossy, low resolution format. Someone wanting a high-quality pirated copy of Star Wars knows to look elsewhere.
• The plethora of bad home videos seems to suggest that it is more about information sharing than copyright infringement.
• They have taken down videos upon request from the studios, and in some cases, (think: Viacom) even took down content that wasn't infringing.

I really don't want to live in a society where public debate can be effectively stifled by the mere accusation of copyright infringement. I understand that media companies want to maintain their profits, but there comes a point at which the restriction of distribution has no marginal commercial value . YouTube is that point - their format is low res, low framerate, and generally unsuitable for anything but public discussion.

I think we'd all be better off if copyright infringement was restricted to only to cases where the plaintiff could prove substantial monetary damages. After all, (to quote Mark Cuban) everybody knows that nobody is losing money over clips on YouTube, so it shouldn't matter what gets posted.

** Yes, I know some people watch tv episodes via YouTube, but quite frankly, these folks wouldn't buy cable anyway. I mean, why would someone pay $50 a month for broadband internet so they can watch YouTube at 1/4 the resolution and 1/2 the framerate of regular tv? They'd be better off buying cable because at least they'd get to watch their shows without squinting.

Re:It is called YOUtube, you know...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Cable isn't available.
2. Show is aired during work/busy hours
3. Show is unavailable in country
4. Cable can't be archived (without video in)

Etc.

Boohoo Viacom - thats the deal - we cant mod stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA was a trade off.

They stopped security research and tech innnovation and the ability for consumers to mod their own devices - really heavy heavy price to pay.

They got instant no proof take downs.

We the people all we got is Safe Harbour and now they say thats unfair - the whole stinkin deal was unfair on us the people and the innovators even with that one clause.

Boohoo Viacom, remove the safe harbour and then the DMCA should be REAL fair.

That is what Cuban is asking for: no Safe Harbour but an unknowable grey law based on the level of people who know so no business can know if will be safe to make a service or not.

Kinda like the Grokster overturning Betamax thing: substantial non infringing use and innovation vs Trusted Hardware, unopenable Black Boxes.

The Cuban Amendment will usher in Trusted Providers like Yahoo China who'll help gulag their customers and let you watch only sanitised non advertiser offending crap (N.B. I mean trusted in the sense of Treacharous Computing.)

Forget the internet it'll all just like MSN or AOL.

Cuban is wither mindboggling evil or stupid.

Re:Um... yay? No just Safe Harbour

[Anonymous Coward]

The EFF are NOT standing up for the DCMA but are suggesting that it would be foolish to abandon its one virtue that allows a chink for innovation to shine through - Safe Harbour.

It is odd because Cuban funded the opposite side in EXACTLY THE SAME argument with Grokster:

Should innovation be allowed because it has non-infringing use or should it be stopped it has infringing use.

Grokster was decided for the Dark Side because Grokster seemed to have promoted the service by Advertising Infringing uses - even though this was no different from Betamax where Sony advertised Home Taped Film Libraries (infringing) as well as Time Shifting (non- infringing).

Now Cuban wants to extend this by the 'everybody knows' argument despite having argued for allowing innovation because of substantial non infringing uses.

I guess we know what side his bread is buttered on *sigh* no everyone is going to make it through this paradigm shift.
P.S. Cuban has shares in box.net a filesharing service.

DMCA in Oz post FTA ? Re:Wake Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Australia change a bunch of copright law in order to sign up for a Free Trade Agreement?

I know they extended the copyright period to death+70 rather than death+50 (bad deal) - but did they make other changes people might not be aware of?

I thought he was Cuban. Not Cuban.

[WetCat]

And discussions were about Linux and Open Source in Cuba. Actually, bad title...

A bit of a stretch..

[grimJester]

The parts referred to as "good" DMCA are literally the exceptions. If caches and such used for infringement by third parties were illegal, the law would quickly be changed. This is a case where the exception reinforces the rule.

I predict Complaint Will be Dismissed

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Regardless of what Mr. Cuban thinks about the DMCA, or whether it should apply to YouTube, it is clear that it DOES apply. YouTube has scrupulously adhered to the DMCA safe harbor rules, and the case, I predict, will be thrown out for that reason.

Having read the complaint, I think it's a frivolous pleading.