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.
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.
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
... 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
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
Even worse is their hijacking of the ghost of Paul Douglas, one of the most famous and influential progressive politicians of the postwar period. The "about us" statement says the purpose of the group is to be a watchdog for the Code of Ethics authored by Douglas.
I bet he rolls over in his grave every time someone reads that web page.
If you read their history page, you'll see that their primary targets are Democratic politicians, labor unions, and progressive organizations.
Anyone claiming that the NLPC is "a US-based copyright watchdog," as stated on the Slashdot front page, hasn't done his or her homework.
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..."
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...
Selective enforcement is as bad as no enforcement. In both cases, justice is lacking.
If the parent's claims are true that they target Democratic bodies and ignore infractions by Republicans, then they are not a watchdog, but a political body masquerading as one. You're right to be critical of the author, but you're dismissal is a wonderful example of ignorant belligerence.
Many of the various "think tanks" in Washington D.C. are just that- politically motivated pseudo-scientists, who instead of researching the issues, fabricate research to align with their agenda. It's the same as the "Fox News" Channel and the so-called "MSM"- they're not news, but political machines in sheep suits.
And please stop using straw man arguments. You can't even pull them off right.