Slashdot Mirror
Google Video Blasted Over Piracy Claims
Stony Stevenson writes "A US-based copyright watchdog has sunk its teeth into Google by sending a report alleging copyright violations on Google Video to members of Congress. The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) researched the extent of copyrighted material being hosted on Google Video earlier this summer and released a Top 50 list of apparently copyrighted movies.
But, in the latest spot-check of Google Video conducted from 10 to 18 September, the NLPC claims to have discovered 300 additional instances of apparently copyrighted films, including over 60 movies released this year. This is despite Google's claim that it respects the rights of copyright holders, and provides tools to help identify and remove copyrighted intellectual property from the site."
If they did, they'd file DMCA complaints. They're just trying to get some publicity (And thus funding), so good work Slashdot.
...it seems like the tools doing the identifying of copyrighted content are working.
Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.
The only tool needed is a DMCA takedown notice. They're cheap and easy to use, and companies like Google have a policy of always responding in the affirmative to them. Thankfully there's another cheap and easy response to them which is a counter-DMCA notice and it forces companies like Google to put the work back up (or at least allow the person to put it back up). The original company and/or person can do nothing except take the infringer to court, and Google is allowed to continue on as business allows.
With the law so bent towards media companies, you would think they'd stop bitching when companies like Google comply with the draconian laws.
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
Aren't there already laws protecting copyright? Is Congress really responsible for enforcement? This reminds me so much of a child running to mommy every time another kid takes their toy or calls them a name.
I'm pretty sure the DMCA process for removal involves sending the information to the host (Google), not to Congress. Evidentally this watchdog group has gotten a bit confused about the process.
This doesn't seem very fair. Search engines shouldn't have a penalty for simply creating indexes of these videos.
Google says:
We're not doing anything wrong with YouTube, however we're developing technology to remove copyright material *when* we have to do so legally.
not evil huh?
...Google has announced its new copyright search tool, Google Copyright Search Beta (tm). The new tool is designed to allow copyright holders make a Google Video search for terms like "the 40-year-old virgin" in order to file a takedown request. Google will then review the infringing content and remove it if necessary.
[/sarcasm] come on, this "watchdog" could alert copyright holders of infringed content, so that the affected parties can request the takedown of copyrighted content. Think, people, it's not that hard.
Did the National Legal and Policy Center inform Google that they found these copyrighted files, or are they just choosing to complain to Congress about it instead of going through Google's pre-defined channels? It would seem like the real test here would be to see how quickly Google responds to a proper take down request, not a measurement of how many copyrighted files are on the site at any given time.
Please, where's the top50 list? Come on ;-)
... unless it has been explicitly released in public domain or was created before Mickey Mouse was created.
The difference is having permission to distribute copyrighted material.
Does Google Video contain copyrighted material? Of course it does, but is the copyright violated is the important question. That question can only be answered by the copyright holder.
Where can I get the list of videos? (with links please)
I will review and confirm if they are indeed infringing.
liqbase
...bother to tell Google? Automated tools may catch 99% of what they intent to catch, but some content will always slip through (cf: Spam.) Instead of crying to Congress over a very small percentage (300/gazillions) of offending videos. Did they even bother to simply contact Google and say, "Here's a video that violates copyright, please remove it." Instead, it seems that they're doing nothing more than crying foul and escalating this to a level that it really doesn't need to go. Simple intervention on Google's part could have "corrected" this problem in minutes. Now, we have Congress once again distracted by foolishness.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
move on to the next story
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I know I may get blasted but you know, as far as things like viewing video content for free or getting free music and the whole internet piracy thing... If it was not for free then I just wouldn't get it! I had a paper route when I was a kid and I was able to get like a CD a month, well needless to say that is not very much music so I opted not to buy CDs and just listen to the radio, or bought tapes and recorded songs I really liked and then just listened to the tape. So a new mentality forms, buy storage space and fill it with content. I am not one of those guys that will buy a 400 CD case holder and then spends thousands of dollars on CD's where the artist gets a small fraction of the profits, and if iPods (or other generic mp3 or storage devices) did not exist I would be content with the radio and tapes. The thing that irks me is that copyright and freak outs like this are about forcing us to consume, making us pay for something over and over and over again cause it can easily be replicated and the maker can get rich beyond their dreams. Well go for it, all the more power to them, all copyright and pirating headaches do for me is make me not consume the music, movies, or content, Then I might actually go outside again makes no difference to me.
To see a few of my Android apps goto: www.hartwired.com
NLPC was founded by Reaganite Republicans, and basically exists to further corporate agendas, and to assist in slamming Democrats. Their major funding is from large corporations.
Rush 'Oxycontin' Limbaugh licks their ankle on a regular basis.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
So, despite Google fufilling their obligations to respond to DMCA takedown notices, they're supposed to be doing more? What, do you want them to read your fscking mind or something?
The thing that irks me is that copyright and freak outs like this are about forcing us to consume, making us pay for something over and over and over again cause it can easily be replicated and the maker can get rich beyond their dreams. Well go for it, all the more power to them, all copyright and pirating headaches do for me is make me not consume the music, movies, or content, Then I might actually go outside again makes no difference to me.
Consumers do not have an innate right to consume music/movies/etc. That is one part of the equation many people miss. While I do feel the MPAA/RIAA are overbearing and abusive, this does not counter the first statement. We as consumers have no inherant right to their product.
To that point, I have not purchased a CD since high school, since I feel the cost to benefit ratio is high. Nor have I pirated one in 5+ years. I can count the number of movies I've rented this year on one hand, and the number of moves I've been to a theatre for this year? 1.
I bet I could find 10,000 copyrighted movies! I would go as far as to say that almost every single video on Google video is copyrighted (> 99%). The catch is that most of the copyright holders of the hosted videos have given permission for Google to host the video.
For example, this post is copyrighted by me, but by submitting it here I am giving Slashdot permission to host it. Big business isn't the only copyright holder out there. Copyright is automatic.
Either the writer of the article is confused or the watchdog group is confused. Or, if you are wearing your tinfoil hat, maybe they are intentionally being misleading to hide the facts?
I don't see how these findings in any way cast doubt on Google's claim that "it respects the rights of copyright holders, and provides tools to help identify and remove copyrighted intellectual property". There's a difference between complying with notices to remove copyrighted content and helping copyright holders identify it, and removing 100% of infringing content from the site at all times, by magic.
No matter how good their tools are, with probably thousands (if not tens of thousands) of video submissions per day, it's going to be close to impossible to check them all for potentially copyright infringing material.
Besides, we all know the NLPC must be evil, since their acronym clearly stands for No Laptops Per Child.
From the NLPC's website,
This seems to be an organization that focuses on politics more than anything else: its list of accomplishments seems to be targeted at Democrats more than Republicans, although there are a few Republican politicians named.A quick Google turned up this page about the chairman of the NLPC's affiliations.
So why would a Republican-leaning group be aiming at Google?
"For every right, an equal responsibility..."
I just searched for a selection of "movies" that are recent, including those listed by the NLPC. The longest clip I could find was 10 min long and didn't look like it was part of the movie. Most of the rest were under 4m, with many under 2m.
So, is that really a copyright violation or Fair Use?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
You have no right to make money off your speculative work.
If you DRM it up the wazoo, I won't buy. Won't steal it either (how would I know it's available? whether it's worth looking for on P2P nets? after all, I'd need to see OTHER content and get the ads, which content is DRMd too).
You also have no innate right to tell me what I can do with my property. If you sell me a CD, I'll use it any damn way I want. No innate right lets you deny me ripping and selling on a copy of my music.
Copyright (not an innate right) DOES give you the right to tell me what to do with my property TO A LIMITED EXTENT. I.e. you CAN tell me not to sell copies of my CD, since that CD doesn't contain the copyrights so I never bought them. Copyright doesn't let you tell me I cannot rip to a more convenient form, though.
Eventually they will ask for protection on the desktop. Before everyone starts calling me a dunce or troll, I understand how impossible that will be. I'm just saying that they will eventually ask for some sort of legal remedy to suppress peoples ability to circumvent their copyrights. I'm pretty sure that the congress will give it to them.
If it can happen in Germany, sigh...
but NLPC makes me think of "No Laptops Per Child."
If the short clips posted on google/youtube constitute copyright violation, then there is something wrong with copyright law, not something wrong with google. These lobby groups are like crazy cults of the greedy. Maybe they can do us all a favour, and organise a mass suicide for themselves.
My bank just called me and told me my credit card was used at itunes, bestbuy, and qvc.. online. I am in the process of getting this sorted out... and it started on the 25th... It was all confirmed fraud... and i think everything will be ok. The bank stopped the transaction before they could go through. coencidence?
All this antiGoogle stuff... when I heard about Microsoft hiring PR people to fight
Google's Doubleclick buy, I decided to ignore all the antiGoogle articles from that
day forward. When is Slashdot going to do the same? This is the new Get the Facts
campaign as far as I'm concerned.
Some of the best music ever created was created before it was put under copyright.
That music is know as 'rock and roll'. It wasn't until around the mid 70's that music was under copyright.
That all changed now, and people have been able to retroactively get copyright.
But really, where is the innovative music any more?
Rap, while entertaining, is usually a form of meter and rhyme.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's really strange that a copyright watchdog group wouldn't understand that under US law every video on Google Video (or ever created for that matter) is copyrighted. The question is whether the copyright holders want the videos on Google Video. It's a copyright watchdog that doesn't even understand the most basic concept of copyright law.
Who is John Galt?
How many video's get uploaded to Google Video (or YouTube) every day? Well, there are a whole lot of people that are potentially uploading. Lots and lots. Let's put the number at 1,000 a day even though I think that is far, far too low.
Now we have a company that owns the copyright on a popular movie. They might be able to justify 4 people to look at video sharing sites for infringement so they can then request the hosting site to remove it. Let's assume there are no more than 10 such video sharing sites, each with an average of no more than 1,000 posters each day. I suspect these numbers are way, way too low but even so this means there are 10,000 new video uploads that must be reviewed each day, seven days a week, or you fall behind.
This is the situation that the DMCA has created. It was originally envisioned that there would be a small number of "web site maintainers" and there would be only a limited amount of new material. We now have user contribution web sites and the full force of the tsunami of such contributions. This wasn't what the originators of DMCA envisioned at all.
Face it, there is no way to keep up. The video sharing sites aren't going to police the content because it would make contributions more difficult. The copyright owners can't check everything every day without a lot more people being involved and getting paid for it. And nobody has any respect for copyright or copyright owners so it could never be a "community policing" effort. Almost everyone wants to see copyright infringment continue on and on, unabated.
User contributions which can be infringing encourage this sort of thing. There would not seem to be any solution to the problem other than just giving up. I fully expect to see people starting to get the message soon, and that will mean no more digitial distribution. If you don't have the DVD to rip, you can't redistribute it. If you have a movie that is a big hit why would you throw it all away by making a DVD so it can be pirated? The other alternative is just saying "bag it" and not bothering to make the movie in the first place because you know you aren't going to get a fraction of the revenue you would have pre-piracy days.
I also think you will start seeing wider commercial distribution of less professional movies. They are cheaper and could be put on TV for next to nothing. If you can't get 100 million dollars for a movie, maybe you will want to show one on late-night TV that only cost $5000 to make.
Google = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
YouTube = ??????
In fact, ISP are allowed to do this as long as they pull videos when they get a notice. That was the POINT of the DMCA -- To protect ISPs from getting sued or be held legally liable for what other people do.
No different then a public billboard.
If you own a public billboard, and someone pins a nasty letter, or picture, the billboard owner shouldn't be held liable if he makes an effort to remove it when asked.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They identified 350 videos as "apparently copyrighted". I just identified approximately 20 million "apparently copyrighted" videos. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the
They're implying that since its copyrighted google must be doing something wrong. However the vast majority of copyrighted videos are placed there by the copyright holders. If they want to blast google for handling copyrighted material produce statements from the copyright owners saying that its not authorized.
I'm expecting much speechifying and self-righteous anger before Congress gets down to the business of mollifying its paying customers. (No silly, I don't mean taxpayers.)
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
The "politicians" will take this one out of our hands so don't worry about it. I can't think of a better excuse to start taxing internet usage than a "copyright infringement tax". Like a tax on media (tapes, cd's, vcr's) the government will simply throw its hands up and say something like... "The CIT tax will pay the copyright holder for estimated lost revenue due to infringement and an efficient but small new gov't dept to manage it all..."
Attention consumers, bend over, here it comes again!
In stead of just blasting Google, why doesn't the watchdog work with it to help remove the illegal content?