Viacom Vs. YouTube, Beyond Privacy

Corrupt writes "As Viacom is granted access to YouTube user records, a bigger threat to user-generated sites emerges: The law is increasingly siding with rights owners."

Comments

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

The "law" is increasingly siding with "rights owners."

So?

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

One page version of the article.

You'd have thought Taco would be linking to the print version whenever possible by now...

Re:Hmm

[Merls the Sneaky]

The "law" is increasingly siding with "rights owners."

So?

So the law should be neutral, it should not side with either party. Thats how you are supposed to get fair rulings.

Re:Hmm

[DiarmuidBourke]

The "law" is increasingly siding with "rights owners."

So?

So the law should be neutral, it should not side with either party. Thats how you are supposed to get fair rulings.

mod parent up. The law should always be neutral.

Re:Hmm

[lazyDog86]

I disagree strongly. The "law" is always picking winners and losers. Often we all agree: muggers should be the losers and their victims should be the "winners," albeit not the best win you'll ever get seeing a guy who robbed you sent to prison. It's the best the legal system can do for you.

But, as you get into more commercial areas, the law is picking winners and losers all of the time in ways that there is not so much general agreement as to who the winners and losers should be, often skewing things in favor of existing players. I meant who writes the law? Politicians. And, as near as I can figure, it's axiomatic here on /. that they're all as corrupt as humanly possible. So the "law" favors whoever gives them the most money.

Now I do tend to agree with you that we still do a pretty good job when it comes to the adjudication of the law that judges should be, and are usually neutral. And they with usually result in fair rulings under the law. But the laws were written by politicians and that is the problem.

Re:Hmm

[strabes]

Perhaps it should have read "the law is more frequently deciding in favor of rights holders."

Re:Hmm

[rbanffy]

How about those who own the right to privacy?

Re:Hmm

[Timothy Brownawell]

The "law" is increasingly siding with "rights owners."

Could be scary... if sites that host other people's speech are liable when that speech isn't allowed (whether for copyright, or libel, or posting classified stuff, or ...) instead of just being required to remove it and possibly ID the poster, it's going to be even more difficult to find online "public" spaces that allow free speech, or maybe just harder to find any sort of online "public" space at all.

Re:Hmm

[Doctor_Jest]

I should think that the law is what it is... it does not choose sides, favor one party over another, nor does it pick "winners and losers." It exists. It provides a baseline, a boundary if you will, from which a blind justice system works its magic.

The court system is set up that (ideally) you are innocent until proven guilty, you have a right to a speedy and public trial, and you are not required to incriminate yourself. (And not taking the stand doesn't admit guilt or innocence... SO many jurors need that hit into their heads with a big hammer.) Yes, things have come to pass that call those things into question, but for the most part, we're _supposed_ to get that regardless of our accusations or status in society.

The cases that we see the most abuse of the built-in legal fairness (that's taken many hundreds of years to get "stuck"... and should not be taken lightly) are when a "vested" interest (i.e. an entity with loads of cash) dictates the "reasonable" tests and information requests that usually precede a case. (We can see examples of this with the MPAA/RIAA, and now Viacom.) We also see this as an issue in terms of criminal cases where the defendant is loaded to the gills with disposable income. So, I'm guessing that "money" (in all its forms) is the factor in our legal system that makes the law "choose", and creates inequality.

What we need is many improvements, but you get the gist of the problem with this case w/r/t Viacom. The only difference here is Google's got a stack of cash that is probably making Viacom have a wicked case penis envy. :)

You are correct, in that the laws are written these days with the built-in bias favoring the last asshole who gave said politician cash (Fritz Hollings was a crystal clear example of appeasing his greatest benefactor, and that sure as shit wasn't the people of South Carolina.)

The court system is supposed to have a built in filter for the abuse, but it appears we are missing the primary component to fix the problem (lawyers need to stop looking at the money and start redeeming themselves for centuries of ass-reaming and start CHALLENGING the unconstitutional and pathetically biased laws that get passed.) Trouble is, they are on the take just as much as those who write the laws. So if we can't get the unfit law _to_ the court, we can't rely on the court to strike it down. And in recent days, obviously unconstitutional laws are a hit and miss affair. (some getting their just desserts, while others are still there and bloody well sanctioned by SCOTUS).

I apologize for the rambling... but I haven't eaten breakfast yet. ;)
     

Re:Hmm

[Toll_Free]

Yeah, I was going to respond with something, pointing out the stupidity of the article.

OMG, the law is siding with existing laws.

And if you pirate something, you should be held accountable. Just as if you steal something from a storeshelf, you should be held accountable.

In other news, the sun rose this morning. Expected to set within the next 24 hours in most parts of the world. Film at 11.

--Toll_Free

Re:Hmm

[Original Replica]

How about those who own the right to privacy?

We have lost that right by failing to practice due diligence in protecting it. It's like a right-of-way footpath in the UK. If you let people walk across your land often enough, they develop a legal right to walk across your land. This is what is happening with our privacy; it is being trodden on but we are failing to take effective action to prevent that, so precedent is being set to allow more corporations and government agencies to walk all over our right to privacy.

Now the courts have spoken in regards to our privacy on YouTube, so that particular video sharing sight should be avoided or we should stop talking about a right to privacy because we will have willingly abdicated that right. No you cannot have it both ways. If you have anything posted on YouTube, I suggest you pull it and post it somewhere else. Because this isn't just giving them a footpath over your privacy be over the marketing possibilities of your video IP. If you stay on YouTube, get used to the idea that Viacom will be pinching your ideas if you get good traffic.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it should indeed side with whoever is in the legal right.

The correct criticism is that these people shouldn't have been granted (yes granted, these aren't natural rights or natural persons) such sweeping legal rights in the first place! And now you know where to properly place the blame: Congress

Re:Hmm

[Trailer Trash]

I meant who writes the law? Politicians. And, as near as I can figure, it's axiomatic here on /. that they're all as corrupt as humanly possible. So the "law" favors whoever gives them the most money.

It's worse than that. The media company lawyers wrote the DMCA, and greased the right politicians to get it passed. It's funny that they're now angry that their own law apparently wasn't enough for them.

Politicians rarely write these big laws. They're written by special interests and given to their own bought & paid for congressmen to pass.

Re:Hmm

[KGIII]

Just a bit of additional information/clarification. Viacom is a member of the MPAA. (Paramount Pictures Viacom.)

Re:Hmm

[AceofSpades19]

copy right infringement != stealing

Re:Hmm

[Tjebbe]

you know, i actually read 'rights owners' in the original line as the users. Where did their rights go?

Re:Hmm

[cunamara]

The law is not neutral. The law is not intended to be neutral. Laws permit or forbid certain forms of conduct according to legal, moral or ethical principles as the case may be. That's not neutral. If the law was neutral and did not side with either party, you would get a ruling based on the proclivity of the judge and not on the law.

The law frequently protects certain people, and one set of such people are the owners of copyrighted content. The law sides with them to prevent the unauthorized duplication of their content. Fair use allows you to make copies for private use, which is the primary exception. Fair use does not and never has provided a right to make copies for others and that includes posting copies of songs, videos, etc. to sites like YouTube. That is illegal and Viacom et al are within their rights to go after that illegal distribution of their content.

Slashdotters, otherwise generally intelligent, have a subset who are unable to see this for what it is and believe that copyright should not be respected. Consider that there are tens of thousands of illegal clips posted to YouTube, the cumulative financial effect of which could conceivably be millions of dollars. Viacom and other content owners are within their rights to get those taken down and to consider pursuing prosecution against the people who posted them.

The interesting thing is the issue of fining YouTube, eBay etc. is whether these Web sites are common carriers or not. The phone company is not held responsible for the content of phone calls nor is the Post Office held responsible for the contents of packages, because they are common carriers. Is eBay a common carrier? If so, they are not responsible for the sale of knockoffs on their Web sites. Ditto YouTube. This could conceivably end up in the Supreme Court for final adjudication because it is a critical, defining issue- and Google and eBay have the money to go there.

To take the case to the absurd and yet logical conclusion, let's imagine Louis Vitton suing the City of New York because it doesn't stop the same of cheap knockoffs in the subway system, or Viacom trying to get the names from the NYCPD of anyone who bought duped DVDs from the same hucksters. Both would be impossible and yet those are the brick-and-mortar equivalents. In these cases it's a matter of shooting at the easy targets because of the nature of the Internets and IP addresses reducing anonymity.

Re:Hmm

[phats garage]

copyright infringement is stealing someone elses exclusive publishing rights. If you publish something without permission, you diminish what the authorized publisher gets by being an authorized publisher, most noticably, their chance at making sales.

Re:Hmm

[Doctor_Jest]

Yes indeed... hence the underlying problem. ;) But that's to be understood, given their distasteful rhetoric...

Re:Hmm

[lazyDog86]

Well, I would say just a couple of things here. First as to the point of view that the law simply exists, I don't believe that is true. My point was that laws are written by men (you may exclude the Ten Commandments if you are so inclined without too much damage to my argument) and men are fundamentally political animals and, as such, are well aware that they are picking winners and losers when they write such laws. Saying the law simply exists denies this dynamic nature of it, particularly dynamic are certainly intellectual property issues surrounding internet technology.

And second, in what I'll grant is a little more of a quibble, there is no presumption of innocence in this sort of commercial claim. The courts (certainly the US courts, and I believe this to be a typical worldwide standard) do not begin with a presumption that the defendant did not steal the plaintiff's property. Each party has any equal barrier to proving his point. Whoever presents a better case wins. Surely that is a fair in this sort of case.

Re:Hmm

[Mr. Slippery]

copyright infringement is stealing someone elses exclusive publishing rights.

You can't steal someones rights. You can only steal property. Copyright is not property (the canard of "intellectual property" notwithstanding).

If you publish something without permission, you diminish what the authorized publisher gets by being an authorized publisher, most noticably, their chance at making sales.

If you set up your widget shop next to mine, you diminish what I get from selling widgets. That doesn't justify my use of force to close you down.

Re:Hmm

[Mr. Slippery]

So the law should be neutral, it should not side with either party. Thats how you are supposed to get fair rulings.

The "law" sides with "rights owners" by creating these "rights" in the first place. There is no natural right to point a gun at me to prevent me from copying a work, it's a completely synthetic right created by government action.

Re:Hmm

[Lunarsight]

Slashdotters, otherwise generally intelligent, have a subset who are unable to see this for what it is and believe that copyright should not be respected.

It's not so much that we believe that copyright shouldn't be respected, but we also see when the legal system is being blatantly manipulated.

In the case of Viacom, one must ask if they truly need all the data they are asking for, or if a more limited data set would have been sufficient. I think the judge here could have done a better job giving Viacom the tools they needed to make their case without blatantly infringing on the privacy of every Youtube user.

I can't speak for others, but I personally don't trust Viacom with the data they are requesting. Regardless of what stipulations the judge may have put on the usage of the data, I think it creates a dangerous precedent letting them have it. The RIAA has historically been known to bend and break the rules to get what they want - what's to stop Viacom from doing the same?

I work in the healthcare industry, and the general rule of thumb is you give the external party the bare minimum amount of data in order to do what they need to do. Any fields that they don't need - you remove them. It's that simple.

Re:Hmm

[hedwards]

When's the last time somebody got arrested for "stealing" songs off of a CD?
And when's the last time somebody got arrested for stealing a CD?

If infringement really were stealing, you'd think that people would be getting arrested for it regularly.

The basis upon which the rights are based is in law, rather than how many copies there are. Stealing is crime and "stealing" songs is a civil matter of infringement in most cases.

So, according to your logic politicians would be guilty of "stealing" if they allow copyright law to slide any direction other than towards greater penalties.

Re:Hmm

[ShakaUVM]

Except Viacom is requesting all of Youtube's records, which means they now not only have a record of who accessed the video's that I've uploaded, but also which videos I've watched, both of which are illegal under the VPPA, and have nothing to do with their lawsuit at all.

Re:Hmm

[Intrinsic]

Making a copy of something does not deprive the content holder of anything unless you intend to sell it to undercut their profits. Distributing something on the internet for free gives the content holders free publicity and they still own the copy. Its a win-win situation. So its insanity to think that this is about stealing works, this is about distribution control on the content holders part, nothing more. They want to be the gate keepers to all content on the planet. Sorry to break it to you, but that game is over now. get used to the fact that you dont have primary control over how your work is going to be used or distributed anymore. Laws can be made to try and prevent this, but it will do very little except make things worse for everyone. The whole legal system that revolves around this issue is out of sync with the times. Wake up to that fact and get over your selfs. The rules have changed, time to find away to work with the way things are now.

Re:Hmm

[debatem1]

I think most of your analysis is on point, but let me just address a pet peeve of mine- being within your rights is not the same thing as being right to do something. Appeals to existing law may be fine in the courtroom, but they don't prove that a given behavior is socially, morally, or ethically correct.

Re:Hmm

[debatem1]

No it isn't. You may feel like making a moralistic analogy to stealing, but the law holds a very different view of the matter. That's why copyright infringement is a civil matter, while theft is a criminal one.

Re:Hmm

[debatem1]

Courts should; law shouldn't. If law doesn't respond to more than just itself it is no more than an exercise in political masturbation.

Re:Hmm

[Mr. Slippery]

Slashdotters, otherwise generally intelligent, have a subset who are unable to see this for what it is and believe that copyright should not be respected.

It is entirely possible to agree that the law is as you state it is, and yet also believe that it should not be respected.

The fact that the law says we should or should not do X, has very little (if any) bearing on the ethical question of whether we should or should not do X.

But it is not at all clear that the law is as you state it is:

Fair use does not and never has provided a right to make copies for others and that includes posting copies of songs, videos, etc. to sites like YouTube.

Not accurate. Fair use includes, for example, the right to quote a work, or to use portions or a work in a educational setting, in which case you are making copies for others.

Furthermore, any "law" in contradiction to the Constitution is no law at all. Much of copyright "law" falls outside of Congress's power to "secur[e] for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

Consider that there are tens of thousands of illegal clips posted to YouTube, the cumulative financial effect of which could conceivably be millions of dollars.

If that's true, and if those millions of dollars would represent money unjustly wrung from consumers by bad laws, then yee-haw, go YouTube.

But given the nonsense that is used in placing costs on copyright infringement, I doubt that it's true.

Re:Hmm

[bravecanadian]

Actually the law is not neutral. It is there to specifically prohibit certain behaviours so it obviously isn't neutral.

The application of the laws is what is supposed to be fair.

Re:Hmm

[Keen Anthony]

. Consider that there are tens of thousands of illegal clips posted to YouTube, the cumulative financial effect of which could conceivably be millions of dollars.

I generally agree with you, however given the quality and run time of these clips, Viacom can't accurately and realistically show financial damage. They can show copyright infringement in general, yes, but they can't show they've been negatively impacting by it. Look at the types of content Viacom is angry about: clips from television shows and films, clips taken from DVDs, clips taken from programming which is not available to the public in any other form (old TV shows), and music videos.

The latter is very much a commercial, and it makes no sense to prevent people from seeing music videos unless through MTV, Fuse, or VH-1. Clips from old out print video releases don't impact Viacom financially either because Viacom isn't making money on those products.

There's no telling how many people watched a small portion of a show in very low-rez on YouTube and was motivated to go out and purchase DVDs. As you can tell, my argument is that YouTube actually promotes interest in Viacom's products and can benefit Viacom financially.

I don't believe YouTube can call itself a common carrier anymore. YouTube has taken broad measures to remove infringing videos in the past, and so has created a recognized expectation to safeguard the copyrights of others.

Re:Hmm

[R3d M3rcury]

Making a copy of something does not deprive the content holder of anything unless you intend to sell it to undercut their profits. Distributing something on the internet for free gives the content holders free publicity and they still own the copy.

Well, first, distributing something for free could be considered selling it for $0.00, therefore you are undercutting their profits. But we'll put that aside for a moment.

I don't necessarily disagree with you--distributing free samples via the Internet is a good business strategy, much like giving free copies of songs to radio stations was a good strategy in the past. However, shouldn't the content holder have some say in this?

You go buy my CD with 6 tracks on it. You think tracks 3 and 5 are the best music you have ever heard and you decide that you will let everyone on the Internet download these tracks as a favor to promote my music. Someone else buys my CD and believe tracks 4 and 6 are the best music they have ever heard and do the same as you. Someone else buys my CD and believes tracks 1 and 5 are the best music they have ever heard and do the same as you.

So anyone can get 5/6th of the CD for free. Why buy the CD for that 1 song that, really, nobody seemed to like anyway?

If I create it, I should at least have some say in how it gets distributed. I might agree with distributing some songs for free via the Internet, but I might want to limit it to a couple of tracks. Since I created it, shouldn't I have the right to determine how it gets promoted, etc.?

Re:Hmm

[jedidiah]

Viacom are being granted things that ARE NOT WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS
at all based on the actual law. Some clueless judge is pretty
much just rubber stamping whatever Viacom wants. Discovery is
not supposed to be a big fishing expedition.

Re:Hmm

[Toll_Free]

You forgot your IANAL, and it would have well served you.

Theft of a service can also be considered civil. Go enter a motel room illegally and see what happens if you stay the night.

Or hop in a cab and see where it gets you when you can't pay.

You state that copyright infringment can't be akin to someone stealing, but then explain how outright theft of a service is considered civil as well?

IANAL as well, but theft, criminal theft, is when you deprive someone the item itself. Civil opens up an ENTIRELY different can of worms.

--Toll_Free

Re:Hmm

[cytg.net]

Amen. But really, who will fight the fight? Then only political party here in denmark wich would is also pro-drugs for everyone, retire the army and do 60'ies singalongs for everyone. but im so tired of my privacy being raped. Speaking of(pun), most of my friends are enganged in facebook activities of some sort and while im usually the first to step where non of my friends have steppen' before, facebook just sets off sooo many privacy alarm bells in my head.. i cant bring myself to use it. at all. I could use an alias, sure, but that alias would engage other profiles with true irl credentials, wich again points back to me. Facebook is suspect imo.

Re:Hmm

[Dan541]

But it comes down to who has the most money

Re:Hmm

[Dan541]

It's like a right-of-way footpath in the UK. If you let people walk across your land often enough, they develop a legal right to walk across your land.

What the hell happened to trasspass?

Im going to stop giving to charity I don't like where this could be heading!

Re:Hmm

[bit01]

Perhaps it should have read "the law is more frequently deciding in favor of rights holders."

Perhaps it should have read "the law is more frequently deciding in favor of rights claimers."

As usual copyright fanatics engage in circular reasoning. By definition, ownership (holder) is the right to control.

Problem is, many people don't agree with that self-serving definition of ownership. Many citizens, in fact judging by the amount of piracy going on the vast majority of citizens, think that current copyright law is badly broken.

Despite the incessant, content-free propaganda from entrenched industry tools trying to preserve their privileged position.

---

Paid marketers are the worst zealots.

Re:Hmm

[bit01]

Slashdotters, otherwise generally intelligent, have a subset who are unable to see this for what it is and believe that copyright should not be respected.

Actually you're a typical copyright fanatic who tries to ignore the fact that copyright-law-as-it-is-currently-implemented is just that, a law, and not some natural right and that there are an infinite number of possible alternatives. Viacom et.al. may have bought and are using some "legal rights" but that says nothing about natural, moral, ethical or even artistic rights as your post tries to imply.

Most people these days are ignoring current copyright law because it does not reflect reality, no matter how hard industry propaganda tries to pretend otherwise.

---

It's not piracy, it's sharing. Didn't your parents teach you to share?

Re:Hmm

[randomlynamedguy]

The Law is still balanced however, rulings in society, to have any sort of usefulness, must always shift in a certain direction for similar cases that best reflects and protects society. The line in the article was an observation in the current trend of Law and not, an allusion to something unjust.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

And where, exactly, so you suggest that I move to? Every other video-sharing site (indeed, every other site - including Slashdot) has privacy policies that are just as invasive.

Voting with your feet/wallet only works if there are alternatives to choose from that don't have the faults that you are objecting to. If every other competitor in the market is just as bad as the one you are moving away from, you are effectively screwed.

Re:Hmm

[AmberBlackCat]

That's because it takes a lot of money to fight that fight. That's why the corporations who have billions of dollars are getting their way and the rest of us are just exchanging comments about how bad it is.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotters, otherwise generally intelligent, have a subset who are unable to see this for what it is and believe that copyright should not be respected.

I don't think this is the case at all. At least not as large a subset as you seem to be implying. It is the duty of American citizens to stand up against government when it oversteps its bounds and all fairly recent changes to copyright law and laws that support it indicate that is the case.
I would argue that it is the copyright holders (who are not the creators in too many cases) that do not respect the constitutional intent of copyright. By continually pushing copyright terms past what any reasonable person would consider limited, not in order to "promote useful progress in the arts and sciences" as the US Constitution says, but to protect business models and allow them to completely control the industry, and in bribing government to pass laws to further those aims, they are in fact blocking useful progress in the arts and in the emerging technologies that support the arts.
On a further note, when a law like ACTA gets passed you can bet that if YouTube users do get identified they will be on the list for potential "investigations".

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

The foundation of society is the ability of a man or woman to feed their children so they don't starve to death, but the buck stops there. Criminals create business on all levels. They generate huge incomes for those around them when they are doing bad deeds for money and when they are caught and are trying to remain free wihout conviction to continue their expertise. Victims in society never have enough money, are often damaged on many levels and require directly or indirectly huge sums of money privately or from society at large to keep them afloat. Think of the family, the winner is never the kid who works hard, gets good grades and becomes successful. The kid who has problems on one or many levels is the one who effectly is a catalyst in the family and who on good day gets way more from their parents based on need be he a small time criminal or a peson with physical or mental challenges. Society is no different. So, yes, you have your ipod and a song to play, but to do that the big guys have as much compassion as a street level drug dealer, no money, no goods. Remember alcoholics in a bar never get free drinks no matter how much they spend. It is the peson who enters for the first time or with friends who the establishment offers a free drink to. Same with drug dealers as to who gets a free sample.

Re:Hmm

[cineveggie]

It should also be noted that in the USA there is no right to privacy stipulated in the Bill of Rights/Constitution. The Supreme Court has created one based on language from several Amendments that the Court believes *imply* a right to privacy. Obviously, as the healthcare worker above noted, it is a very practical and necessary right to have in certain situations, but those borderlines are still fluctuating with every privacy case brought before the court. Given recent changes in the Court's sitting justices and the particular sensitivity to the potential for changes of the Roe v Wade decision which established much of the basis for our constitutional understanding of privacy, what we know now could easily be significantly modified.

Re:Hmm

[ChipmunkDJE]

Oh, I respect copyrights. They have a purpose and place in protecting IP's. But in many a case its so that others cannot continue to create in that IP (like if people started making knockoff Batman comics or wrote and sold "new" Harry Potter books).

But what is happening here is a technological revolution. Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V has NEVER been illegal. These industries need to adapt to the changing environment, and instead are willing to piss away $$$ to try to continue the status quo.

What is happening in the music industry right now with the RIAA is just now really beginning with TV networks. As the internet grows faster and more powerful, the issue will continue to grow. Technology will evolve with the internet - Quality of streams will get better, bandwidth will start to be a non-issue, and we may reach a day where we never see a loading screen again to watch shows. As TV networks "see more profits go down the drain", it'll just get nastier.

This is just the first fight in a long battle, and I believe the results of the RIAA/MediaSentry cases will have a huge effect on the outcome of TV vs. the Internet as well.

Re:Hmm

[TapeCutter]

"What the hell happened to trasspass?"

Unlike copyright certain common law property rights are not eternal, if you fail to do anything about the tresspass for 25yrs then the legal assumption is you have abandoned the property. The laws were created in a time when nobility owned everything, including villages, roads, paths, etc. Nowadays the laws are mainly used to keep walking tracks through crown estates open to the public, there are clubs in the UK dedicated to systematically walking these tracks to stop them reverting back to the estate under the same laws. Even here in Australia, if I fence off part of my neighbours property and he does nothing about it for 25yrs then the land is mine.

Re:Hmm

[debatem1]

Theft of services is entirely different from copyright infringement. It is, contrary to your repeated statement, a criminal matter except in Florida. Read title 17 and compare it to your state law on theft of services. They operate under entirely different standards. They require different burdens. They have totally different procedures. They operate in different jurisdictions. In short, you are making a moral rather than legal comparison. You're right that IANAL, but even under my admittedly limited understanding of the law you aren't making a great deal of sense.

Re:Hmm

[crosbie]

Yup, "the law is more frequently deciding in favour of the privileged ."

Copyright and patent are privileges, not rights.

Rights are natural and merely need to be recognised, whereas privileges such as copyright and patent are statutorily granted - with the feeble excuse that these incentivise the publication of intellectual works.

Copyright co-incidentally secures the natural exclusive rights of authors, but given those rights naturally terminate upon publication, copyright also grants a privilege of exclusive reproduction of published works.

Given such monopolies are highly lucrative it is not surprising that the legislature is persuaded to assist publishing corporations - even at the expense of persecuting the public.

Re:Hmm

[R-type the unseen]

actually the law is meant to be unbiased , we just tend to view the situations involving legal issues as simple, winner/loser scenario's. the trouble is that while the law should remain unbiased, it often becomes biased and this gets overlooked because the bias ussually leans towards the haves rather than the have nots in the world, and since the haves ussualy have the resources and the prestige to be heard loudest, no one cares about the have not's

Re:Hmm

[symbolic]

Problem is, many people don't agree with that self-serving definition of ownership. Many citizens, in fact judging by the amount of piracy going on the vast majority of citizens, think that current copyright law is badly broken.

I doubt the average person knows much at all about copyright law, much less cares about whether or not they are in violation. What they care about is their perceived entitlement to copyrighted material, and this is where the breakdown occurs. If consumers would learn to treat copyrighted material like any tangible commodity, the problem would solve itself.

Re:Hmm

[The Angry Mick]

Politicians rarely write these big laws. They're written by special interests and given to their own bought & paid for congressmen to pass.

So, come election day, keep this thought in mind and ask yourself do you want to see this sorry state of affairs persist, or do you want change?

I've proposed it before, and I'll do so again. Congress has an approval rating in the single digits. They have demonstrated time and again, by actions both active and passive that they are the real threat to our freedoms. This applies equally to either party.

The solution is simple: Remove the incumbents.

Keep your party affiliations, if that's what's important to you, but clean house all the same. And let it be known that if conditions do not change immediately, the process will repeat until the lesson is learned.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

lawyers need to stop looking at the money and start redeeming themselves for centuries of ass-reaming and start CHALLENGING the unconstitutional and pathetically biased laws that get passed.) Trouble is, they are on the take just as much as those who write the laws.

You are part of the way there, but fail to make the final connection. It's not that the lawyers are "on the take just as much as those who write laws". It's that the lawyers and the people who write the laws are one and the same. And they are all on the take. This is the elephant in the room of US politics, in that no-one is supposed to be able to belong to more than one of the three branches of government due to the separation of powers. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a senator or congressman who wasn't a lawyer.

I'm pretty sure that a lawyer is an "officer of the court" and therefore a member of the judicial branch, and yet they get to write the laws in the legislative branch? You ever wonder why there are so many laws, with so many loopholes, that anyone who isn't a lawyer can't understand, and therefore needs a lawyer to interpret? Because the laws are written by lawyers in order to keep themselves in work/money/power. Get the lawyers out of writing the laws and you'd have a big step towards a saner country.

Re:Hmm

[Doctor_Jest]

Let me be more specific. The application of the law picks the winners and losers... the law itself is ambivalent. The law itself, perhaps crafted to grant one sector more power than another (oh, that's been done to death, even in the "enlightened" 20th and 21st centuries...heh) , the law does not automatically apply itself to a "winner" or loser. Except of course in the cases where the law was purchased outright, and the mere existence of the law already picks a winner (such as Prohibition).

Most laws that are not of the purchased variety are, for all intents and purposes, there until the application of the law through a criminal/civil case produces a resulting precedent that will, in future cases, provide a better lens at viewing who "wins" and "loses" in the matter.

I fully understand your position, but I think for semantics' sake, we'll narrow the "law" to application of the law. Really, until a law is applied, it's anyone's guess who will win or lose.

As for civil matters, proof of innocence is not guaranteed, but supposition of guilt before each party makes their case is left to outside speculators rather than the actual participants in the matter (as best we can do being imperfect and biased humans.) The fact that each party has the equal barrier of proving their point is, for the most part, subjected to the nature of the law being about blind equity and station-less application. Granted, we see little of that in certain segments of our history, and even today we can verify some of the abuses that the lawyers and courts inflict upon those least likely to have the means to challenge the inequity.

Fundamentally though, some laws rise from the desire to prevent polarization and promote equality, that otherwise would, left to its own devices, create a tiered system that promotes a certain kind of group over another. Sure, the Order of the Pickpockets is probably up in arms about laws regarding theft, but we can generally see that (even if such an organization existed) those who operate with a sense of inequity themselves will have it foisted upon them through the application of laws designed to remove such inequity. (Albeit imperfectly.)

Rather than ramble on for more pages, I'll sum it up this way.. we both are on the same page with the law's "winner and loser" choices, we but differ on when in the life-cycle of a law it occurs. :)

Re:Hmm

[Doctor_Jest]

Very true. The congress is full of lawyers. :-) You make an excellent point regarding loopholes and the legalese associated with these laws... a specific class of people has arisen to interpret, write, lobby, and legislate these things into the convenient loop-hole filled nonsense we pass off (as a nation) as laws.

God forbid the lawyers stop being soulless bastards (and bitches) for their tenure as Senator/Congressman, but no.. they amp up the lawyer-vision and we are less free and less secure as a result.

Re:Hmm

[Intrinsic]

I don't necessarily disagree with you--distributing free samples via the Internet is a good business strategy, much like giving free copies of songs to radio stations was a good strategy in the past. However, shouldn't the content holder have some say in this?

The problem is that you released the information onto a place that gives people power over how they are going to use your work. So I have to say, no you dont have a choice. You can ask people to pay for your work. But you can force them do use it in a way you want them to. That defeats the whole purpose. If you want to sell your works, offer samples and then ask people to buy the music. Unfortunately that isnt going to stop people from uploading your music onto the net on their own.

The deal is content holders need to be ok with not having control over how a work is used. its like telling someone about an idea you have and then expecting them not to make use of it. I think its selfish to think that your ideas and your creations are just your own, they also belong to the people that use them or listen to them as well. There is a co-existence between you and and the people that use their work for their own purposes. Trust that people are going to use it how you would like them to by building relationship a with them, but dont try to force your ideology on the people that use your work, it just makes you look selfish. Anyway thats the way i look at it, you dont have to agree, I just think you should work with and not against the people that use your work.

Heard this before

[BeerGood]

Anyone here watch sxephil on YouTube? Now there's an opinion.

Re:Heard this before

[BeerGood]

This not offtopic! Watch the video F*CK VIACOM. Someone was pissed about this a week before it was posted on /.

Re:Heard this before

[Original Replica]

Mod parent back to Ontopic. Here is the YouTube video the parent was referring to. The Viacommie discussion starts at the 2:00 mark.

rights owners?

[v1]

The law is increasingly siding with rights owners."

And he who has the bucks tends to be the owner.

Nothing new here?

Re:rights owners?

[unbug]

And the bucks usually go to the ones the law sides with. Resistance is futile!

Re:rights owners?

[mi]

Awful, is not it? What's next — prosecutors siding with the victims?

Re:rights owners?

[fishbowl]

Because so much of the content on video sites like Youtube is of independent origin, sooner or later the Equal Protection doctrine will become the other edge of the sword. There is a widespread assumption that "production" is strictly a corporate affair, and that the "consumer" never produces anything. This assumption, and litigation based on it, can backfire.

It will be like winning the lottery when some independent producer has his right to his own material challenged in some ham-handed sweep that assumes all content is pirated. Inidividuals have rights and there can be dire consequences for abridging those rights.

Re:rights owners?

[johnlcallaway]

The owner of the site makes the rules for using the site.

Don't like it??? Make your own site and grant unlimited privacy to everyone.

The site that pulls in the most revenue with the lowest operating margin ... wins!!!!

Re:rights owners?

[johnlcallaway]

Ignore prior post .. for some reason I thought Viacom owned part of You Tube.

This is an outrage!!!!! Down with media giants!!!

Re:rights owners?

[Original Replica]

Inidividuals have rights and there can be dire consequences for abridging those rights.

Sadly that is where you are wrong, the consequences would be dire if they happened to a private individual or small business, but a few million dollars punitive damages is just a business expense to the like of Viacom. From an artcle in 2007:Viacom, parent of cable TV's MTV Networks and the Paramount Pictures movie studio, reported quarterly net income of $641.6 million....Reflecting last year's acquisition of the DreamWorks SKG studio, Viacom's filmed entertainment division logged an operating profit of $71.7 million. So if some independent producer wins $10 or $20 million, it would hurt Viacom, but would hardly break them. By contrast if an individual must pay $100K in damages to Viacom, that pretty much breaks that person. They lose their house and car and hope for a decent life. That's why big corporations can fuck with individuals, but not vice versa. The only way individuals can take on a large corporation is to unionize, so if people want to protect privacy in their YouTube usage then there needs to be a YouTube Contributors Union, because a strike that involved every private contributor taking down their postings would break YouTube in less than a month.

Re:rights owners?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That's why big corporations can fuck with individuals, but not vice versa.

That's why there is FightClub.

Re:rights owners?

[hedwards]

Nifong would probably be a more fair analogy. What the copyright holders tend to do these days is spend months defaming the accused and then might bring the matter to trial and win.

People wouldn't be as worked up if it were just a matter of protecting the work in a reasonable manner. The fact that in so many cases the "protections" go far beyond what is reasonable for protection and into areas that look more like extortion is the main reason people get so angry about it.

Re:rights owners?

[mi]

What the copyright holders tend to do these days is spend months defaming the accused and then might bring the matter to trial and win.

That's just what the copyright-violators are doing — or are you not reading slashdot?

Re:rights owners?

[westlake]

And he who has the bucks tends to be the owner.
.

He who owns the buck also tends to be the creator. The big budget movie - WALL-E or The Dark Knight - doesn't happen until somesone finds the $100 or $200 million needed to make it happen.

Re:rights owners?

[easyTree]

almost-undetectable u-turn. nice :)

Re:rights owners?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if there's hyperinflation. Then everyone gets ot become a billionnaire!

Re:rights owners?

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about the people that are viewing the clips on YouTube? Or did I read the summary wrong? They won't be protected by a YouTube Contributor's Union.

It's the golden rule...

[Anonymous Coward]

The one with the gold makes the rules... or rulings in this matter.

Re:It's the golden rule...

[DrEldarion]

Thanks for the insight, Jafar.

Re:It's the golden rule...

[cunamara]

Who the hell modded this as "insightful?"

Huh?

[ScrewMaster]

What do you mean, "increasingly siding"? Most of this fuss is because of the DMCA, and that was only the latest in a long line of copyright "adjustments" that Congress made in favor if big copyright owners. Congress has been siding with rightsholders for a long time.

Re:Huh?

[Sen.NullProcPntr]

This isn't about Congress and it's not limited to the US.
From TFA;

Increasingly, however, the courts are siding with rights owners and ruling that Web sites are responsible for illegal submissions.

And;

A French judge ordered eBay to pay Louis Vuitton handbag manufacturer LVMH (LVMH.PA) $61 million in damages. In doing so, the judge rejected eBay's argument that it is not responsible for illegal items sold by users because it provides tools to request removal of infringing goods and takes them down once notified.

Re:Huh?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

As TFA points out, the DMCA -- as unlikely as this seems -- is actually on the side of the angels in this one. It's a bad law, but one of the few good things it does is provide a measure of immunity to content-hosting sites, as long as those sites comply immediately with takedown requests. Viacom et al., having managed to get pretty much everything they wanted written into the DMCA a while back, are now arguing against the immunity provisions therein. These bastards just never quit.

Re:Huh?

[peragrin]

well ebay put themselves there once you start down the path of policing your own system you have to be responsible for it as well.

ISP need to stay neutral or else they too will become responsible for the content going over their networks. Of course their favorite point of not being neutral is the fact that they might become responsible for said content. thus pushing them further out of reality.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheap +5 Insightful: just say "All Americans suck because {insert generalization here}"

Okay, I'll bite. All Americans suck because they expect the world to kiss their asses, and when we don't they feel persecuted.
Now where's my +5 insightful, bitch?

Re:Huh?

[BronsCon]

I'm a rightsholder. I hold all the rights The Constitution of the United States of America enumerates, in addition to many, many more, which it does not.

I haven't seen any court rulings in favor of those rights in a while.

Re:Huh?

[ScrewMaster]

My presumption in coming up with that sig was that any +n insightful that resulted wouldn't be completely and irrevocably ignorant.

Re:Huh?

[ScrewMaster]

As TFA points out, the DMCA -- as unlikely as this seems -- is actually on the side of the angels in this one.

Not at all. Congress knew what it was doing when it put that provision in there, and knew that it could be used as a method of suppressing, well, pretty much anything. And that kind of abuse is exactly what has been happening. They effectively gave Joe Blow the power to remove anything he doesn't like, and when Joe Blow is a big boy with the power to issue thousands of takedowns regardless of merit ... well. The results have been entirely predictable.

A court order should have been required in order to take anything down.

Re:Huh?

[Klaus_1250]

It is just another landgrab on the net. The content-industry is just trying to get back the control and dominance they had in pre-internet times. And in doing so, they discovered that they can even go back to pre-VHS and pre-Cassette tape times and turn the internet into one large corporate controlled money-making machine (which sounds pretty good if you are a stockholder). And so far, they are doing a pretty good job.

Re:Huh?

[Junior J. Junior III]

It's a bad law, but one of the few good things it does is provide a measure of immunity to content-hosting sites, as long as those sites comply immediately with takedown requests.

This "comply immediately" clause is not good. It necessarily presumes guilt on the part of the host/content poster. There's no due process here, to determine: A) if the takedown request originates from the legitimate copyright holder or a duly appointed agent thereof, B) if the posting is in fact a violation of copyright, and not, say, fair use (an excerpt quoted for criticism, parody, a derivative work, etc).

No due process here, just take down immediately or you're in violation of the law. Not in MY Constitution, they don't.

Re:Huh?

[ScrewMaster]

This isn't about Congress and it's not limited to the US.

From exactly where do you think countries like France are getting their equally bad ideas? The United States has been pushing our skewed ideas of Intellectual Property on most of the civilized world, and that is Congress' fault.

Re:Huh?

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, where do you think we're getting a lot of our bad ideas? France has long been a source of terrible copyright laws, and the modern method used to push bad copyright laws through the US without serious debate has been to make treaties that Congress feels pressured to comply with by enacting the laws required by the treaty. Again, look to Europe for complicity in this.

The best thing we could do for ourselves and for others is to drop out of all of the copyright treaties, and just worry about our laws, while letting the rest of the world take care of itself. That's our tradition, and it would be best if we got back to it.

Re:Huh?

[MSZ]

This isn't about Congress and it's not limited to the US.

This is about US Congress and govt, while it is not limited to US.
It was US Cogress that applied wrong and evil modifications to copyright laws, which then US government pushes onto the other countries as condition of trade agreements. So, YOU Americans started this plague and YOU spread it all over the world.

Re:Huh?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The takedown spam is indeed a problem, but it's not the problem in this particular case. I'll say it again: the DMCA sucks, but one of the few ways it mitigates the suckage is by providing a method for content hosting sites to immunize themselves (even if the method itself is pretty crappy.) The problem here is that the MAFIAA wants to take even that measure of protection away.

Re:Huh?

[maxume]

Isn't there some thing about the fool that follows and the fool that leads?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

A court order should have been required in order to take anything down.

The problem with that is that it requires a significant amount of time for Joe Average to obtain such an order, and when we're talking about something like copyright infringement that potentially happens on a large scale in very little time on the Internet, such a delay dramatically reduces the effectiveness of the protections the law affords to copyright holders.

I look at it this way. It cannot be right to appoint a distribution service judge, jury and executioner in a dispute. However, if the presumption prior to a proper court decision is that material may be freely distributed, then a lot of damage can potentially be done very quickly, and never undone regardless of the court's decision. If the presumption prior to a proper court decision is that material may not be distributed, then the most that will happen if the court subsequently decides distribution is permissible is that the distribution will be delayed somewhat. The consequences just aren't balanced, and requiring a court order to take anything down is the option that does far more damage if it turns out to be the wrong call.

Courts issue temporary injunctions all the time to maintain as close as possible to status quo pending the outcome of a proper trial, and that's probably as fair a compromise as is possible to achieve in the real world, but to make this work in the case of on-line copyright infringement, you really need a system where such an injunction can be obtained in near real time.

Re:Huh?

[hedwards]

Remind me again who the leading exporter of copyrighted materials is? Last time I checked that was the US.

Seems to me that we should have some say about how that material is handled in other countries. I mean we aren't required to export the materials.

Re:Huh?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

"Innocence" and "guilt" don't really enter into it at the takedown-notice stage; at that point it's just one private individual or organization sending a letter to another private individual or organization. Due process, the presumption of innocence, etc. only become an issue when the matter goes to court. If I think you stole something from me, and I say, "Give it back or I'll press charges," I'm not obligated to consider your due process rights -- that's for the cops to worry about if I call them after you don't give back the item.

Please note: I'm not equating copyright infringement with theft, and I'm not happy about the MAFIAA propaganda that does. But given that the law increasingly equates the two, we should at least fight for those protections which this view of copyright disputes offers.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I look at it this way. It cannot be right to appoint a distribution service judge, jury and executioner in a dispute. However, if the presumption prior to a proper court decision is that material may be freely distributed, then a lot of damage can potentially be done very quickly, and never undone regardless of the court's decision.

The fact is that the same is true in reverse: If someone is posting some time-sensitive information, such as that relevant to an upcoming election, allowing just any fool to have it removed and only put back up after it's too late (ie the election is over) is a substantial infringement on speech. When copyright conflicts with speech, speech has to win.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

As the world's largest exporter of "content", the US isn't about to forfeit copyright protection throughout the developed world by abandoning the Berne convention.

Re:Huh?

[cpt kangarooski]

Who said anything about that? We were not members of Berne until 1989 and yet American authors were still able to acquire copyrights in other countries just fine. It's not difficult, and not an obstacle. Maybe if other countries also abandoned Berne, it might become a tad trickier for us, but I would not be upset. No matter what, Berne has got to go.

Re:Huh?

[easyTree]

Again, look to Europe for complicity in this.

Yah. Like we were complicit in the iraq invasion. Who can say what threats were made against the UK by the US powermongers for non-compliance? Had to be fairly serious I'd say.

Re:Huh?

[easyTree]

Isn't there some thing about the fool that follows and the fool that leads?

It's not a matter of us following; it's a matter of your government telling our government that if we don't follow, a shit-load of farm boys are gonna stomp all over our country (or equivalent). It seems that your country is full to the brim with people who will go where they're told and kill who they're told to.. Let me tell you, large retarded people with state of-the-art technology under the control of evil powermad texans can be extremely worrying..

Re:Huh?

[maxume]

Wow. Just. WOW.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

When copyright conflicts with speech, speech has to win.

Copyright always conflicts with freedom of expression for anyone who is not the copyright holder. That is what it is for, so the law currently disagrees with you in most first-world countries.

But this does not make your example any less valid. It seems the moral of the story is that in a world where information can be shared fast and cheaply, but the law provides for limitations on sharing information under certain circumstances, then the legal machinery must be present to make fast decisions on at least a sensible default pending a full court hearing. Otherwise, whatever the default you choose, some good guys are going to be subject to unfair restriction by some bad guys some of the time.

Re:Huh?

[amper]

It amazes me that a comment like this can get rated +5, Insightful, such a short time after the release of the D.C. v. Heller and Boumediene v. Bush opinions. Perhaps the parent poster doesn't pay much attention to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright always conflicts with freedom of expression for anyone who is not the copyright holder.

Very well, let me rephrase: When copyright enforcement conflicts with speech, speech has to win. The only harm that can come from copyright infringement is financial harm, and that harm can be made fully right even after the fact through an appropriate damage award. The restriction of speech, by contrast, can easily result in harm that can never be repaired.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The only harm that can come from copyright infringement is financial harm, and that harm can be made fully right even after the fact through an appropriate damage award.

Only if the infringer has enough money to pay for the damages. This is highly unlikely in the event of a private individual sharing popular copyright material with half the Internet via a mass distribution service.

The restriction of speech, by contrast, can easily result in harm that can never be repaired.

Restricting freedom of expression is certainly not to be done lightly, but "easily" doing harm that can "never" be repaired? That sounds a lot like scare-mongering to me. We're presumably talking about the default state of affairs pending a preliminary court hearing that court issue an injunction if necessary. It's not unreasonable to aim for such a hearing to be held within 24 hours. What devastating, irreparable damage do you think is going to be caused by a web site not being able to host certain information for less than 24 hours?

Re:Huh?

[Junior J. Junior III]

"Innocence" and "guilt" don't really enter into it at the takedown-notice stage; at that point it's just one private individual or organization sending a letter to another private individual or organization.

Right, I get that. But what I mean is that the spirit of the law is to assume that the takedown request is always legitimate, and to stay "safe" you have to immediately comply. There's no due process because the courts are avoided entirely -- you don't get a chance to defend your use of the material, therefore there's no due process happening.

Due process, the presumption of innocence, etc. only become an issue when the matter goes to court.

Right, which, if that never happens, you never get due process. If the law says you're only protected as a content host if you always immediately take down material upon request of an alleged complaint, then how the hell are you ever going to get to due process in the courts?

If you do, you're opening yourself for liability and a stripping of immunity. If the system was fair, you could contest a complaint in court if it didn't seem clearly legitimate. If it was, you'd then have to comply with the takedown request, no damages would be awarded, the courts would simply interpret that yes, this was a violation of copyright and the complaintant had a legitimate right to request the takedown, and the matter would be settled, and the host would be obligated to take down the offending content. If they still refused, then they'd be liable for damages.

I'm not saying that every takedown complaint should result in a court case, either, but if the case is not clear cut, testing the law in the courts should not result in opening the door to liability.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

hey bonehead - try to understand things before you
argue. 1st some send a takedown notice, hoster complies and is therefore not liable. 2nd submitter can send a letter (still don't need lawyers or courts) to hoster sating, nope I this is completely legal so put it back. At this point the original party needs to go sue and get teh courts involved, but the case is between the 2 parties and the hosting company is NOT involved.

Re:Huh?

[Junior J. Junior III]

hey bonehead - try to understand things before you
argue.

Fuck you. Don't talk to me if you're not going to be polite. I may be a moron, ignorant, misinformed, or just plain wrong, but there's no need to be rude.

1st some send a takedown notice, hoster complies and is therefore not liable. 2nd submitter can send a letter (still don't need lawyers or courts) to hoster sating, nope I this is completely legal so put it back. At this point the original party needs to go sue and get teh courts involved, but the case is between the 2 parties and the hosting company is NOT involved.

Then how is this any different from any other situation where someone is asked to do something by someone else, complies, and then *surprise* there's no follow-up action in the courts? This isn't some special goodness that got packed into the DMCA, is it?

If someone's trespassing on my property, and I tell them to leave, or I'll call the cops, and they get off, and then I don't call the cops, is this some special feature of trespassing laws that makes our country the best in the world? No.

Are you saying the DMCA grants immunity to hosts as long as no one tries to take them to court? Whoop dee freakin doo. That's some kind of immunity, let me tell you.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The best thing we could do for ourselves and for others is to drop out of all of the copyright treaties, and just worry about our laws, while letting the rest of the world take care of itself.

I couldn't agree more, and while you're (speaking in general terms here, not directed at you, personally, for obvious reasons) at it, please extend the dropping out to not only copyright treaties, but everything else as well. That would be great. The world would be (much) better off.

Re:Huh?

[cduffy]

Are you saying the DMCA grants immunity to hosts as long as no one tries to take them to court? Whoop dee freakin doo. That's some kind of immunity, let me tell you.

The DMCA grants immunity to hosts as long as they follow the procedure it lays out. It's a very real and legitimate (and useful) thing.

That procedure lays out a takedown notice and counter-notice process; the individual who put the content up (not the host) can counter-notify the host to the effect that they're asserting that their content is legal (and willing to be on the line if it's not), at which point the host can put it back up; if it's not legal, that individual (not the host) is on the hook. The point is that as long as they follow procedure, the host is never on the hook... but yes, that requires that they take things down immediately when requested, though they can put them up again given a counternotice (and can't be asked to take the same thing down again that they've already been given a counternotice for).

There are also penalties (specified, again, by the DMCA) for those who send takedown notices without good will -- and the EFF has prosecuted a few of those successfully.

Re:Huh?

[BronsCon]

And a comment like this sees no moderation at all. Amazing.

Opinion - A judge's written explanation of a decision of the court or of a majority of judges.

Ruling - Any decision a judge makes during the course of a lawsuit.

My original comment still stands. Pedants 1, Trolls 0.

Re:Huh?

[MSZ]

Yeah, you should send gunboats too, to teach those heathen filthy foreigners the respect for American Imaginary Property.

But wait, you aren't required... That's a solution then! Just keep it to yourself. I can live without it. If that's the price to bring down the evil, I'm ready to pay. I'll just watch "Torchwood" instead of "Battlestar Galactica", it's better anyway.

"rights owners"?

[speedtux]

For user-generated content, the users are the "rights owners". So it's wrong to say that the law is increasingly siding with rights owners.

What the article is perhaps trying to say is that the law is increasingly (?) siding with big business to keep smaller competitors out of the market.

Note, however, that the Viacom decision really has nothing to do with that. The Viacom decision is about determining what viewers actually view, and whether big business content is more (or less) popular than other content.

Re:"rights owners"?

[sadgoblin]

Are you saying that the monkey throwing poop is not the most popular video on YouTube? Im shocked!

Re:"rights owners"?

[SirLurksAlot]

For user-generated content, the users are the "rights owners".

It depends on what the content is. If it is content which a user has created on their own, then sure, they're the right owners. If we're talking about a clip (of something that wasn't created by the user) that has been uploaded to youtube or a similar site then no, the user is not the rights owner, but it could be fair use. Just because you upload something to the Internet doesn't mean you own it.

The Viacom decision is about determining what viewers actually view, and whether big business content is more (or less) popular than other content.

No, it's not. It's about Viacom believing that Google/Youtube is making money by allowing users to upload content which they consider to be theirs.

Re:"rights owners"?

[Acapulco]

TFA is not talking about user-generated content when saying "rights owners". It's referring to copyright owners, "...by posting copyrighted video of Viacom's Comedy Central shows on YouTube, for example..." As opposed to "the Web company", "...the Web company is not liable."
So, in that particular context, "the law is increasingly sliding with rights owners" is correctly stated, me believes.

Re:"rights owners"?

[E IS mC(Square)]

But Viacom has problem with that video too. According to them, throwing poop is their copyright.

Re:"rights owners"?

[FritzTheCat1030]

Are you saying that the monkey throwing poop is not the most popular video on YouTube? Im shocked!

Given what seems to be popular these days, I'm more shocked that it isn't

Re:"rights owners"?

[nine-times]

The Viacom decision is about determining what viewers actually view, and whether big business content is more (or less) popular than other content.

I really see two big problems with the decision. For YouTube users, it's a bit of a violation of privacy. But just as screwed up, IMO, is that it could just be a really sleezy move to get access to Google's records. They got a record of every viewing of every YouTube movie, IIRC with IP addresses and perhaps user names associated. It's a data-miner's dream for marketing purposes, especially for someone running TV networks.

Do we really trust that Viacom is just going to tally what videos are viewed most often to see whether pirated content is popular? That this data won't find its way to other places within Viacom?

Re:"rights owners"?

[Anonymous Coward]

For user-generated content, the users are the "rights owners".

Content is always created by individuals, who have the rights and voluntarily give them up. The crux of the matter is this: we must stop giving rights away to businesses whose only interest is to exploit said rights in the name of profit. We no longer need them!

You're an artist - you make movies, music, video games - whatever. The internet is such a wonderful distribution medium that these middle-men are now obsolete. If only more people who created art came together and posted in central locations, it would be easy to charge nominal fees for access. If the price is low enough, artists will be duly compensated, and at the same time most consumers will not be inconvenienced enough to bother with tracking down free stuff, rather than pay a small fee.

Sure, we'd kill crappy summer blockbusters and mega-pop stars, or rather just leave those to the big corporations. That can be their domain, let legitimate works be the domain of individuals. Creators - stop working with corporations!

Re:"rights owners"?

[jdunlevy]

Exactly. And as with the music industry, where the major record labels are increasingly competing against an increasing number of independent, internet-distributed artists, video content created by the major studios is increasingly having to compete against "user-generated" video, primarily (I'd guess) distributed on sites like youtube.

In essence, the viacom decision hands viacom a huge amount of data that gives them an unfair advantage over their competition. Viacom is handed data on the viewing habits of a huge number of people of a huge quantity of content from a huge number of producers (individuals users, small independents, and the other majors). Undoubtedly Viacom will be able to derive at least aggregate demographic information from this dataset, which will give them a(n unfair) competitive advantage in the marketplace.

bad precedent

[v1]

A French judge ordered eBay to pay Louis Vuitton handbag manufacturer LVMH (LVMH.PA) $61 million in damages. In doing so, the judge rejected eBay's argument that it is not responsible for illegal items sold by users because it provides tools to request removal of infringing goods and takes them down once notified.

Sounds like eBay was trying to work on the same level as the DMCA crap, where as long as they offer the tools to get things removed (takedown notices) and don't try to police it themselves, it's a bit network-neutralics/safe harbor/etc. Either let it police itself and be held harmless, or police it yourself but don't screw up because you're now responsible.

Sounds like they want it both ways now? Police it yourself and miss one, lawsuit. Let them police it and issue takedowns, lawsuit. Just lovely. Doesn't leave them with much for options eh? But then I suppose the plaintifs would just suggest "you could always close your business". That's probably their end goal. eBay is bad for business in those markets, and there's no 'fix" for that besides getting rid of eBay.

Gets us back to the idea that if you have an outdated business model that doesn't work in today's world, you can either adapt, or try to warp the world to operate in a way you can still make a profit the old way. And of course we know what they always seem to pick... hah, silly picture enters my mind, a bunch of dinosaurs gathering wood to start fires, to combat the oncoming ice age.

Interesting comments on TFA

[MRe_nl]

by the author, in response to comments;
"In the end, this lawsuit is all about money. That's somewhat fair. As Web advertising revenue grows, more companies are likely to want to partner with sites like YouTube than sue to have content removed. Thus, ultimately, the greatest impact of Viacom's lawsuit may be the amount of money Google feels compelled to share with content creators. If Viacom shows much of YouTube's traffic shows up to watch copyrighted content, at least initially, then Viacom may be able to successfully argue outside of court that Google owes creators like themselves more money. Incidentally, News Corp, head of the Fox network, owns MySpace."

and this should be funny in a sane world, but alas:
"Maybe youtube needs to do what the government always does when they are forced to turn over information. Delete all of the relevant information or make it unreadable. Print it out in text format then have someone go over every other line with a black marker."

also, somewhat offtopic (or is it?);
If you want to stop Google from building a complete profile of your browsing outside of *.google.com, just add this line to the bottom of c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts in notepad: 127.0.0.1 www.googleanalytics.com -- then visit the creepy google.com/history and turn that off.

Kings and serfs

[StreetStealth]

More than that, this is about big business interests always trumping the rights of the individual.

From Jammie Thomas having to spend the rest of her life in debt for depriving the recording industry of $20 worth of revenue, to the EU's three-strikes-you're-out rule where the mere accusation of copyright violation can result in your ejection from modern society and being forced to live your life decades in the past before consumer internet access, this makes perfect sense. In fact, it's nothing.

The confidentiality of your viewing records? Your personal privacy? Meaningless as long as it conflicts with Viacom's interests.

Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

In the past, YouTube and Google could make a "fair use" legal argument because YouTube typically shows clips--not whole episodes. But now, content creators are trying to make money from appending ads to roughly the same clips and distributing them on their own online networks.

OK, so now the copyright holders want to package their content in a new form. They're free to do so, but how can that invalidate the fair use defense? If use of the clips was legally defensible before, then it still is.

Sorry, Viacom. You'll have to buy some more legislation to expand your monopoly. It doesn't extend to competing with YouTube online.

Re:Fair use

[cduffy]

It's a legitimate argument: One of the factors in weighing whether something is fair use is whether it impacts the commercial market for that product. If Viacom creates a commercial market for such clips, that's a strike against folks making fair use of clips in that same way.

Of course, there are other factors as well (if one is using the clips for social commentary and taking only as much as they need for that purpose, for instance, that's a strong factor in favor of fair use... but reducing demand for the commercial version does indeed factor in).

Oh no, the owners

[Henry V .009]

As opposed to siding with the "rights violators?"

Re:Oh no, the owners

[aplusjimages]

But not everyone on Youtube is a violator, but everyone is being treated like one. Why should those who don't violate copyright laws have their records and data shuffled around to a third party?

I understand that Viacom is trying to take a stand to protect the future of copyright, but does that mean they have more rights than Youtube users who are abiding the copyright laws?

Re:Oh no, the owners

[Henry V .009]

not everyone on Youtube is a violator, but everyone is being treated like one

Don't be a drama queen. If everyone were being treated like a violator, they'd all be receiving lawsuit notices in the mail.

Re:Oh no, the owners

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations! You win the "Highest Logical Fallacy Density in a Post" award for this article!

Re:Oh no, the owners

[Adambomb]

Well, keep in mind there is no "rights violators" label until conviction. Before that they are the innocent-until-proven-guilty defendant. There should be no sides involved in a judge or juries heads, only the facts evidence and law.

Personally, i think its the laws part thats the problem, not the courts or the rights holders (even if some rights holders are the impetus for these legislations).
There's serious overhaul work to be done on the US copyright and patent systems, but it'll take a long time for the sleeping-dragon-now-awake to lumber in a new direction...especially with the number of "oooh look at the kitty" moments bound to be providing distraction.

Re:Oh no, the owners

[noidentity]

There are no rights involved here, just temporary monopoly privileges granted by the government.

Re:Oh no, the owners

[cineveggie]

I am in agreement that copyright owners should be able to protect their materials, but I also agree with the general sentiment that Viacom and large interests have had too much influence. If we're lucky, both sides will prevail. According to the US courts, copyrighted and trademarked material may be reused and repurposed for satire and in other ways. Everything from Southpark to the Church of Satan (which Apple filed a complaint against for the reuse of the "Think Different" campaign language and iconography), have taken advantage of this important exception. Given that much of the YouTube material is not a direct pirating and often does involve the use of the material in some new way, I will be interested to see how much Viacom would actually be able to make stick. If Viacom isn't careful, it may have to prosecute on a case-by-case basis, which could become very costly in more ways than simply financial.

Grossly exaggerated

[John Hasler]

> As Viacom is granted access to YouTube user records...

Viacom has not been granted access to YouTube user records. Experts to be hired by their outside attorneys have. They are under court order not to disclose any user identifying information to any one, including Viacom. They, the lawyers, and Viacom are also under court order not to use any of the information for any purpose other than that specified in the order (which excludes using it to identify people to sue).

Re:Grossly exaggerated

[John Hasler]

I see I was not entirely clear. What I mean is that Viacom is excluded from using any of the log data handed over to their lawyers to identify targets for infringement suits.

A question to think about: what if the court order was exactly the same but the data was being requested by an unemployed single mother defending herself against a copyright infringement suit brought by Viacom? Would you be equally outraged by the irfringement of your privacy?

Re:Grossly exaggerated

[yakumo.unr]

Wish I had mod points today..
TFA did seem a little behind what has actually happened with Viacom/YouTube, veering on the side of inflammation.

It is also unaware of the recent rulings on on the legality of mashup web sites, MediaSentry getting into trouble, the FCC vs Comcast case and several others all beginning to properly protect consumer fair user rights and more.

If anything in the last couple of weeks I've been pleasantly surprised that more and more sensible, rational decisions seem to be being made by the courts, researching the matter properly rather than simply bowing to the case as pushed by those with the most financial power, and vested PR interests.

Maybe it's a late coming karmic shift to fairly balance things again, Jack Thompson's disbarment trial should not be overlooked either.

Re:Grossly exaggerated

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, technically speaking, but I find your stack of faith disturbing.

Re:Grossly exaggerated

[phorm]

Most probably wouldn't, but I'll bet that they would be really *really* *REALLY* fricking surprised, because the likelyhood that the courts would grant such a motion to anyone but a powerful corp (or somebody with a lot of clout+money) is probably about 1/1000000%

I do feel somewhat better to have this clarified though, but I would like to know whom these *experts* are (if the name mediasentry pops up I'll be rather ill).

There is nothing more enjoyable...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

There is nothing more enjoyable than watching cbs tv shows on youtube. I mean i get to sit back in my comfortable couch and squint at my monitor, as i watch a tiny window displaying heavily compressed, often out of sync audio, and let me tell you, there is nothing more enjoyable then having to load up "part2" "part3" "part4" "part5" of the single episode. I find that i completely enjoy watching my CBS tv shows this way, at 5 minute clips at a time... It entertaining and relaxing.... That is until i need to get up to refresh my browser. You see, my keyboard is over at the desk along with the input device known as a mouse. Oh i could buy a wireless keyboard, after all i already have a wireless mouse.... but i enjoy the hell that i call the youtube viewing experience because i know, i can say "FUCK YOU VIACOM"... as i watch the latest stupid fucking reality tv show clip. It makes me feel good to know that i'm sticking it to the man, and ripping him off.

What would else would they expect me to do? Sit back on my comfortable couch and simply DVR their shitty reality show and watch it on my giant LCD TV as i fast forward through commercials for "Bullshit at eleven" news? Ah you gotta love the remote control. Its not nearly as painful as getting up to use the keyboard and mouse (which is on my desk if you remember). Oh i'm quite sure i will be youtubing today... You can bet your ass on it. Ted Kopple has an incredible 4 part series report on China and our economic relations, and its impact on the economy... and i cant wait to watch it in 5 minute segments on youtube. There must be at least thousands of "parts" that i'll have to watch just to see Ted's year long report. Thats right... Mr Kopple did a year long report on China. None of that 5 minute sound bite bullshit here... Ted actually did some reporting... yes it is possible, even if no one else does it (on TV...) I mean Youtube.

There's one thing that got lost somewhere

[Enleth]

Lawsuits, court orders, bazillions of dollars in damages, ruined lifes, bizarre legal actions, etc, etc.

Sounds like it was about something damn important.

Well, it's about DAMN ENTERTAINMENT. And it's getting more and more, er, entertaining every day. Or maybe not. What the hell is going on and why no one is able to see the biggest absurdity in there?

Re:There's one thing that got lost somewhere

[nurb432]

According to congress, the media industry is the most important industry we have in this country. ( i forget who actually said the words however )

That statement is sad, no matter how you look at it.

Re:There's one thing that got lost somewhere

[stuckinarut]

I agree with your sentiment entirely but I think this is really about $$$MONEY$$$

Re:There's one thing that got lost somewhere

[ScrewMaster]

My guess would be Orrin Hatch, or maybe Berman or Coble. And given the way these assholes have been treating American manufacturing and industry, when the dust settles the media industry may end up being our only industry. Although, when you get right down to it all the big media conglomerates aren't U.S.-based organizations anyway. They're all foreign-owned, so for these Congressmen to make that claim is more than a little disingenuous.

Re:There's one thing that got lost somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

When people stop shelling out billions of dollars a year for entertainment, *then* you can call it absurd.

Even if you disregard the idea that people are voting with their wallets (and thus entertainment is de facto important), you have to at least admit that the money *itself* is something to keep an eye on and worry about.

Re:There's one thing that got lost somewhere

[Compholio]

Then do you part to change the industry and stop consuming (or start copying) entertainment "goods".

Re:There's one thing that got lost somewhere

[nurb432]

Been doing my part for years.

I also avoid non US manufactured products, when practical.

Re:There's one thing that got lost somewhere

[John Hasler]

> My guess would be Orrin Hatch, or maybe Berman or Coble.

Or one of the two senators from Hollywood.

> They're all foreign-owned...

It doesn't matter who owns them. It matters where most of their employees are and which celebrities have common interests with them. Celebrity and union endorsements are worth far more than PAC contributions.

Re:There's one thing that got lost somewhere

[You are not listenin]

They're all foreign-owned, so for these Congressmen to make that claim is more than a little disingenuous.

It also makes their protection at the expense of the welfare of American citizens a bit treasonous.

Re:There's one thing that got lost somewhere

[Richard W.M. Jones]

Lawsuits, court orders, bazillions of dollars in damages, ruined lifes, bizarre legal actions, etc, etc.

Sounds like the 'War' on Drugs ...

Rich.

Re:There's one thing that got lost somewhere

[rastoboy29]

It's entertainment today, it's all speech, tomorrow.

Don't you realize that if they can keep you from uploading files they don't approve of, they can also prevent you uploading your opinions?  The principle is that we cannot let powerful people police the bytes that we exchange between us.

And if we cannot _speak_ freely, we cannot properly solve any other problem.

International precedent should be ignored

[schwit1]

"lawyers with cases in U.S. courts are likely to argue the international precedents should, at least, influence the thinking of American judges faced with their own cases challenging whether takedown rules are sufficient to protect sites against liability."

And if the international precedents are coming out of China or Muslim countries where some YouTube videos might get you a bullet or beheaded ... that's all we need. US law should be the only influence on decisions.

"increasingly" WHAT increasingly ?

[unity100]

it was a stupid over 80 year old old coot, residing over a court while he should have retired and gone to florida long ago, that has given that stupid, idiotic, 1930s verdict over the case. and what he said about youtube's objections regarding privacy was "a bunch of speculation".

thats what happens when you let senile individuals still work on key positions in the society.

people go senile after some late age. you CANT prevent it. it happens sooner or latter. letting people run such key positions past that point is WAY stupid and dangerous. can you imagine that old coot as secretary of defense, hell, even president ?

Re:"increasingly" WHAT increasingly ?

[ScrewMaster]

can you imagine that old coot as secretary of defense, hell, even president ?

How would that be worse than what we have now?

Re:"increasingly" WHAT increasingly ?

[Toll_Free]

Yeah, design a foolproof test for showing that they are incompetent.

2. Instant millionaire.

I agree completely. I have family that started out in different agencies, before they went 3 letter. Watching the mental faculties fail over the years made me wonder wtf was really going on with other people.

Luckily (for us?) my family members "involved" left and chased the real estate dollar (in as much as you can ever leave, the rest of the family always wondered about grandmas side business she ran for years) before the mental faculties went completely down the road, so to speak.

The main problem with "testing" or otherwise showing people that they aren't able to contribute as much as they used to is... That's the path to Euthenasia. And we won't allow us to go there, too many politicians would be "completed".

--Toll_Free

Re:"increasingly" WHAT increasingly ?

[unity100]

we dont need to kill people. we just need to ensure senile people do not take mission critical positions in society, like this 80 year old judge who have gone as far to call concerns of privacy 'speculation'. get a load of that.

Re:"increasingly" WHAT increasingly ?

[unity100]

can you imagine that old coot as secretary of defense, hell, even president ? How would that be worse than what we have now?

well, current one is an alcoholic. he at least has connection with reality, although it is blurred. an old coot would still be living back in 1930s, and would try to make the world like it was back then.

The importance of YouTube to society

[jmcbain]

YouTube is increasingly important in daily society. This video documentary, ironically enough hosted on YouTube, demonstrates the impact of YouTube [youtube.com].

Re:The importance of YouTube to society

[easyTree]

That was obscene. Couldn't you have just posted a link to goatse like everyone else?

Re:The importance of YouTube to society

[Dan541]

The problem with YouTube is that it exists in the United States, a country that cannot be trusted with freespeech.

Why shouldn't the law protect rights owners?

[amper]

It seems to me that a default assumption has grown up that purports to demonstrate that protecting the rights of content creators is somehow immoral.

The laws and the legal system *should* lean toward the side of rights owners, as long as it doesn't go so far as to trample on the rights of the people. After all, in the modern, digital age, the power clearly rests with the public, not the creators, and one job of the law is to be a normative guide.

Granted, the media conglomerates can, have, and will continue to abuse their positions, but what we need to do here is to challenge the *bad* parts of our current IP jurisprudence and legislation without throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

Re:Why shouldn't the law protect rights owners?

[bit01]

The laws and the legal system *should* lean toward the side of rights owners, as long as it doesn't go so far as to trample on the rights of the people.

As is usual with copyright fanatics your reasoning is circular. Ownership by definition is the right to control and various laws try to force that control.

Guess what? A lot of people do not agree with the definition of ownership that many fraudulent industry astroturfers push.

As just one example many people think that sharing of media is entirely appropriate and right. Maybe the law should be protecting that right, and not those who've parasitized the rest of society for generations with payola and the like.

It's the prohibition all over again. Please start using your brain and recognize that copyright-as-it-is-currently-implemented, because it is a creation of the mind, is only one of a huge number of possibilities. Industries and middlemen trying to preserve their privileged position at the expense of the wider society need to go.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Re:Why shouldn't the law protect rights owners?

[iminplaya]

...without throwing the baby out with the bath water...

The water stays a lot cleaner when the baby isn't constantly crapping in it. I say keep the water and throw out the baby.

user-generated sites?

[Animaether]

"As Viacom is granted access to YouTube user records, a bigger threat to user-generated sites emerges: The law is increasingly siding with rights owners."

The site in this case being YouTube... the site-generation is entirely YouTube's. The user-generated content are the videos, descriptions, tags, comments, etc. Let's limit ourselves to the videos. Viacom and rights holders couldn't give less of a shit about your user-generated content - where that be your laughing baby or your cat saying "hello" or, heck, Star Trek parody. What they care about is the content that isn't user-generated at all - the content that at... worst is just a straight capture of one of their productions uploaded verbatim and at best is things like an MP3 set to a still image or a slideshow. That is not user-generated content no matter which way you want to twist the laws that existed even way before the DMCA.

The law isn't 'increasingly siding with rights owners', it's increasingly applying pre-existing laws. Just because we've all enjoyed being free from those laws for so long due to inattention from rights holders doesn't mean those laws magically went away. Sucks for us - but then we should get the existing laws changed.

That said.. Viacom et al blundered when they left the safe harbor provisions in as they are, instead of stipulating that all content that matches the infringing content's description (probably more technically detailed as being done via audio/video recognition algorithms) to be removed and future content being provided to the site being blocked. Then they wouldn't have to go completely overboard and try to find out what percentage of views go to unlicensed content to... to what, anyway? Declare YouTube a 'pirate haven'?

Re:user-generated sites?

[david_thornley]

You're right that Viacom doesn't care about user-generated content, and they're perfectly willing to shut down any place that'll host user-generated content. That's the problem here.

Viacom is, basically, trying to hold YouTube responsible for any videos on it that have Viacom-represented copyrights. What that means, in practice, is that YouTube cannot continue to operate. In a site that permits users to post anything, be it videos, pictures, or text, it is impossible for the site owners to screen everything successfully. Therefore, any site that hosts any user-provided copyrightable material will be sued to oblivion when they slip up.

The DMCA safe harbor provision, as long as it is enforced, allows sites like YouTube, or, for that matter, website providers, to continue without disastrous legal consequences. Heck, what's Sourceforge supposed to do, if somebody claims some project contains code they copyrighted? Get sued into oblivion, most likely.

In other words, litigation like this, if successful, will devastate the internet as a source for anything not provided by large corporations.

The law isn't 'increasingly siding with rights owners', it's increasingly applying pre-existing laws.

Except for that part of the DMCA that allows sites like YouTube to function. Viacom wants to enforce every law it likes, and ignore every law it doesn't.

That said.. Viacom et al blundered when they left the safe harbor provisions in as they are,

Last I looked, Congress had some responsibility for making laws, and Congress put the safe harbor provision in there. It's there, for all the complaining Viacom does, and it does apply to Viacom's materials.

Seriously, the proper organization to monitor copyright infringement here is Viacom. YouTube presumably doesn't have a complete list of Viacom's copyrights, and can't tell if something from that list was posted legitimately or not.

Re:user-generated sites?

[bravecanadian]

The DMCA safe harbor provision, as long as it is enforced, allows sites like YouTube, or, for that matter, website providers, to continue without disastrous legal consequences.

Which is all fine and dandy until Youtube starts generating money using content that doesn't belong to Youtube OR the user that uploaded it.

In other words, litigation like this, if successful, will devastate the internet as a source for anything not provided by large corporations.

Uh.. no it won't. You can still upload your videos of your cat doing something funny wherever you like..

The media companies are catching on and starting their own sites. They have some that are based on fees and some that are based on ad revenue. They can't let Youtube use their content for nothing and compete against them in these ventures because, and I know this is a shock, it takes money to make stuff.

Re:user-generated sites?

[Keen Anthony]

They can't let Youtube use their content for nothing and compete against them in these ventures because, and I know this is a shock, it takes money to make stuff.

Sure they can. The quality on YouTube is pretty poor, and the runtimes on the videos are such that the vast majority of Viacom's properties couldn't be completely fit within YouTube's time restraints. NBC and ABC both have their own video sites where I can watch NBC and ABC properties at a higher quality and to completion. If want to see a 30 sec clip of the Facts of Life or Streethawk, or Automan, I can go to YouTube. It doesn't hurt the property holder, and if I want to watch a full episode of Lost, I can go to ABC. They can co-exist.

Re:user-generated sites?

[david_thornley]

Uh.. no it won't. You can still upload your videos of your cat doing something funny wherever you like..

Where, pray tell? If YouTube is legally responsible for policing copyright violations, YouTube is going down fast, since they don't make nearly enough money to cover the possible legal liabilities. Therefore, no YouTube. Any similar service is going to be sued into oblivion.

So, where is that "wherever you like" that you speak of?

What place on the Web should I use to post videos of a cat with his face in a coffee cup?

In order to prevent any possible gain from unauthorized use of copyrighted works, Viacom is proposing to destroy any place where individuals can gather to post cat videos or pictures.

Re:user-generated sites?

[bravecanadian]

So, where is that "wherever you like" that you speak of?

What place on the Web should I use to post videos of a cat with his face in a coffee cup?

In order to prevent any possible gain from unauthorized use of copyrighted works, Viacom is proposing to destroy any place where individuals can gather to post cat videos or pictures.

How about your own site? Or your section of a site that allows you the responsibility for your own content?

Stop with the sky is falling hyperbole.

Re:user-generated sites?

[bravecanadian]

They can co-exist.

That might be true in a technical sense.. but at the end of the day the decision is going to rest with the people who OWN the content. What is the incentive for ABC/NBC etc. to allow Google to make money from their content for nothing? Despite what you think, that *does* hurt the property holder because basically they are giving Google money for nothing.

If the networks have a plan to introduce their content on their own sites, and they have slowly started making more and more available as you said, it makes no sense at all to allow a competitor to use their unique content without the associated costs from developing it. After all it does cost a lot of money to produce tv shows and movies.

If they want to use their own sites, of course they want to drive traffic to them instead of Youtube. It is a no brainer.

Re:user-generated sites?

[david_thornley]

My own site would work. Provided, of course, that nobody goes after ISPs. Of course, there's not all that much of an audience for my site.

However, Viacom's position doesn't seem to allow for sites that allow me the responsibility for my own content. If they did, they wouldn't be going after YouTube like that.

If you would like to tell me how YouTube or a similar business is supposed to function while accepting liability for copyright infringement, with no safe harbor provision, I'll stop with the "sky is falling" analysis. Bear in mind that YouTube can't be making much money per video, and statutory damages for one infringement are an absolute minimum of $750. Figure that, on any such site, at least one percent of the submissions will be copyright infringements, minimum. Tell me how this is to work.

Re:user-generated sites?

[Animaether]

"Seriously, the proper organization to monitor copyright infringement here is Viacom. YouTube presumably doesn't have a complete list of Viacom's copyrights, and can't tell if something from that list was posted legitimately or not."

You completely ignored the section about using audio/video-identification techniques.

Yes, some of those rights holders would like YouTube to pre-screen all uploaded content and find out whether somebody else holds the rights to it, etc. Those rights holders are utterly stupid and I will side with YouTube/Google on that *immediately*.

But if somebody uploads video "ABC", and the rights holder says "Oi, that's ours, and only we have the right to distribute that, so please remove it", then YouTube/Google are just being pricks when they laugh and point at the DMCA provisions when the rights holder goes "Say, didn't I ask you to remove video 'ABC' just yesterday? It's back up again." or "I told you nobody but us has the rights to distribute that, so why is 'ABC' still available under users X, Y and Z as well?".

I don't know how much more clear I can make this... but essentially.. once 1 (one, a single, etc.) video has been slapped at with a DMCA takedown, then loop over *all* videos on YouTube to find videos that are essentially the same, and automatically drop those as well. In addition, for every new upload, check if it matches the magic code for taken down videos, and prevent those. Drop a line to the account holders saying the video was automatically removed and how they can contest that removal, etc.
That's technically feasible and would make plenty of rights holders perfectly happy as they don't keep having to shell out $$$ to their legal department to adjust the DMCA takedown notices with the correct account name, URL, etc. and have that mailed off to Google.

If you honestly believe that that means YouTube is 'going down', you haven't seen the majority of videos on YouTube. Most -are- the 'cat doing silly things' and 'laughing baby' and whatnot bits. Others are official channels. Other videos are wholly endorsed by the rights holders; see for example Daft Punk's endorsement of all the Daft Hands/Bodies/etc. videos, even requesting that they be allowed to put some of them under their own YouTube channel. Not every rights holder is a Viacom, and not even Viacom is looking to bring down YouTube. Au contraire - they know that if they take down YouTube they'll have a much less centralized place to try and make act according to their ideals.

Re:user-generated sites?

[bravecanadian]

However, Viacom's position doesn't seem to allow for sites that allow me the responsibility for my own content. If they did, they wouldn't be going after YouTube like that.

Viacom's position is that Youtube is knowingly using Viacom's content to drive traffic to the site and collect ad revenue. And they are going to get the data that the Google-borg collects about everyone to prove it.

If you would like to tell me how YouTube or a similar business is supposed to function while accepting liability for copyright infringement, with no safe harbor provision, I'll stop with the "sky is falling" analysis. Bear in mind that YouTube can't be making much money per video, and statutory damages for one infringement are an absolute minimum of $750. Figure that, on any such site, at least one percent of the submissions will be copyright infringements, minimum. Tell me how this is to work.

Off the top of my head: Create a system that allows users to moderate their peers postings to take out the copyrighted content if you want to do it on the cheap, or hire people to screen the content before it is posted. Google has deep pockets and all those brains everyone is always talking about.. surely they can figure something out.

I am positive if Youtube was a Microsoft-run site everyone would suddenly have a different perspective on all this..

Sign the Viacom/YouTube petition!!!

[AnonStar3001]

Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/privacy9/petition.html Btw, this petition is full of interesting comments, go read it! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

Re:Sign the Viacom/YouTube petition!!!

[Toll_Free]

Online petitions have a GREAT history of working, don't they?

--Toll_Free

Re:Sign the Viacom/YouTube petition!!!

[AnonStar3001]

The more things people do, the more this judge and Viacom will see that people don't agree at all with what's going on. Like I said, the comments in this petition are very interesting, some show some points of view that we don't hear a lot here. If you don't sign it, at least read it.

They know know everything you have seen

[pancakegeels]

which for them is worth millions in marketing research. Even if you have never watched a single bit of their intellectual property - they still get to know. This is a gross infringement of everyones privacy. If anything they should be allowed to see who watched particular videos (that viacom can prove infringed) - not the whole damn lot.

Not surprising...

[Registered Coward v2]

Sites that aggregate user supplied material may find that they are held to a higher standard of care simply because of their business model. It should have become apparent that some percentage of users upload copyrighted material and that it is done on a routine basis; so to try to hide behind safe harbor provisions is disingenuous.

Specifically, the DMCA provides safe harbor if, among other things, the OSP:

# not be aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent (512(c)(1)(A)(2)).

Given the nature of many files and having received takedown notices the companies should be aware that such activity occurs and have ways to recognize that it is occurring; for example filenames of popular TV shows or sports clips.

# not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity

Given that they get significant ad revenue from the site; and that it depends on material people want to see, I'd say it is not a stretch to say they are profiting from the infringement.

For them to claim that they are innocent is a bit of a stretch. They need to work out an agreement with copyright owners to stay in business; can you say revenue sharing?

Re:Not surprising...

[Anonymous Coward]

The larger issue for Viacom is the youtube usage points out a hole in their thinking. Viacom is not making their material available in a medium of people's choosing. If they did so, they would get viewers and could sell advertising. Viacom is attempting to squelch use in general. Same ol same old. Use it the way we intended or don't use it at all. That is the problem with all media today. They are not satisfying their customer's needs.

Re:Not surprising...

[Registered Coward v2]

The larger issue for Viacom is the youtube usage points out a hole in their thinking. Viacom is not making their material available in a medium of people's choosing. If they did so, they would get viewers and could sell advertising. Viacom is attempting to squelch use in general. Same ol same old. Use it the way we intended or don't use it at all. That is the problem with all media today. They are not satisfying their customer's needs.

While I agree with you; it's still their content to use as stupidly as they want. If I were advising them I'd say cut a deal with Youtube et.el. since it is better to get a slice of the pie than try to scrape all the filling out and put it back in the can.

The problem they have is how to get a revenue stream that exceeds what they'd lose if they made material available that people would buy on DVD.

Sad geek reality...

[Anonymous Coward]

FreeNet, I2P, Tor, sing along...!

When will social networks evolve with OpenID, OpenPrivacy, etc to create a distributed, user controlled, profile... that with distributed virtual world and what not. It's time we kill the server as something special, we're all servers or we're all nothing.

Screw centralization, come on, when will we wake up... oh yes, when it's called InternetTV.

Clearance center

[RevWaldo]

Big media could set up a clearance center where users could upload videos of non-fair-use copyrighted material and identify where they want to post it (youtube, etc.) A small army of interns goes through the videos, determines if it steps on the toes of any of their other offerings (their own sites, DVDs, etc.) and if not, let's it go through.

Oh, and big media would get a cut of the ad revenue, as prearranged with the video hosting sites.

There's already precedence for this with the Copyright Clearance Center

Companies Viacom ownes

[coolsnowmen]

There seemed to be some misunderstanding so:
According to http://www.cjr.org/resources/
Viacom ownes:
Cable
        MTV
        MTV2
        mtvU
        Nickelodeon
        BET
        Nick at Nite
        TV Land
        NOGGIN
        VH1
        Spike TV
        CMT
        Comedy Central
        Showtime
        The Movie Channel
        Flix
        Sundance Channel
Film
        Paramount Pictures
        Paramount Home Entertainment
Other
        Famous Music

tagged: Bye-Bye Internet

[plasmacutter]

I predict a victory for youtube in this circuit court, and an appeal to the USSC, where the same activist judges who passed the "induce act" via court ruling will kill youtube 8-1.

After this, hollywood will quickly swoop in like those dragons from reign of fire, reducing pretty much the entire internet as we know it to fine ash.

Thanks to the new innovation of gaming the system via "outrage politics", the governments of the western world will simply cover it up by immediately acting even more egregiously in a new direction.

If I were google

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be like, here you go viacom, all 10TB of user information and logs on 36,000,000 low density 5 1/4 inch floppies. Have fun...

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could someone explain why they need to know who watched which videos? Watching isn't a violation of copyright law. Uploading copyrighted material is.

The law should protect ALL rights owners...

[argent]

It seems to me that a default assumption has grown up that purports to demonstrate that protecting the rights of content creators is somehow immoral.

The rights of copyright owners are to enforce a limited monopoly for a limited period of time for the purpose of advancing the art. One of the ways that the art is advanced is by the works of amateurs. Many, in fact I would suspect most, actors, producers and directors, musicians, and other creators of copyrighted works started out as amateurs.

The creators of user-generated content are also copyright owners, and have the same rights. If some copyright owners are using the law to shut down the sites that other copyright-owners use, then it is no longer a matter of the law being "for" or "against" copyright owners, it's a matter of copyright owners against copyright owners. It is, in fact, a matter of established copyright owners against the next generation of creative artists.

It's impossible to anonymize the logs, READ THIS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like someone said on another site :"I am a computer expert and I can tell you this. Even if they remove all the IP/username infos, it's still easy to find who watched what.

This is how to do it :

Everybody watch their own videos from time to time and most people have a lot of non-popular videos.

You go on Youtube and scan the site to get usernames and what videos they posted. Save that list in a BD,comments/names etc. can be put in it too but not required.

You take, let's say a single user from that BD and match all the videos from the Viacom/Google BD. You then take a look at the whole collection that has been watched by only an unique "anonymous" ID. If no one else watched the whole collection, you already have quite a match. If someone else/more people did, you look at who watched it the most since most people are the ones who watch the most their own videos.

That's just one way to do it.

I don't need to tell you that with IP/username, it just make things easier.

I'm 100% certain that Google are about to appeal this case since it's impossible to anonymize the logs, and believe me, they know it."

So you wanna be a rap superstar,

[MRe_nl]

and live large
a big house, 5 cars, you're in charge
comin' up in the world, don't trust no body
gotta look over your shoulder constantly

Cypress Hill FYI

Mod article -1 troll

[DynaSoar]

"a bigger threat to user-generated sites emerges: The law is increasingly siding with rights owners."

The law *exists* to protect the rights of the owners. Intellectual property is still property. Got a problem with that? Then if I take your car, don't call the cops.

Misconception

[Diddlbiker]

There's a misconception that the law is increasingly siding with copyright holders. The "orphan works" act is all about stripping copyrights away from small copyright holders by large companies, providing the smallest penalties (if any) for their infringements possible. The real statement should be: "the law is increasingly siding with large corporations". Oh wait. That wouldn't be a new development either.

Re:Hmm?

[daemonburrito]

United States Bill of Rights = First ten amendments to the Constitution

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Possibilities

[Anonymous Coward]

> The company says it has no plans to go after people who watched a few episodes of The Daily Show or The Colbert Report.

Who cares about the # of people who watched the Daily Show when you could conceivably sue everyone who got rickrolled?

AFAIK there's nothing in a YouTube URL that tells you whether a video might not be fully free to do anything you want to before going there, so there's no shortage of ways to con people into being "violators".

For those who have noted the two-faced treatment of mix tape makers in the past (both sued and paid) this should have been expected. I wouldn't be surprised if a few people were encouraged (w/o contracts) to do so for "publicity" purposes in hopes of suing those who would view the videos and possibly later those who put them up.

Outside of YouTube and this case however, you shouldn't post clips from shows without permission under the theory of, "what if the RIAA or MPAA up and BOUGHT this site, inheriting all their records".

Thankfully there's enough cool, random things on the net that you don't have to look for what came from Viacom etc.

What might worry me if I were YouTube is the argument "Why would a generic user post a copyrighted video, what's in it for them? We don't believe an end user would subject themself to that sort of risk for no reward, so we think you must be indirectly responsible for the initial posting."

Looking at MixTapes one more time, I can see the RIAA or MPAA paying people to put such videos on YouTube's site so they can turn around and make that argument, which may be why they promise not to sue anyone this uncovers. (Maybe it will uncover them directly and we'll have a News of the Weird story where the RIAA sues YouTube for not preventing an RIAA address from posting videos...)

As morally bankrupt as we've seen the RIAA become, anything could happen. This'll be interesting. But a scary thought. The RIAA has no problem suing those it knows are innocent. What's to stop them from spoofing IPs and suing who they spoof?

We need a hue and outcry on IP law, that the stronger the laws against infringement get, the stronger the laws against abuse get. The RIAA is only so bold because the penalties for being caught red-handed are so low.