youtube employees uploaded unauthorized content to YouTube

[count of monte cristo]

Lawyers working on a $1 billion copyright lawsuit filed by Viacom against Google's YouTube may have uncovered evidence that employees of the video site were among those who uploaded unauthorized content to YouTube.

In addition, internal YouTube e-mails indicate that YouTube managers knew and discussed the existence of unauthorized content on the site with employees but chose not to remove the material, three sources with knowledge of the case told CNET.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10...dStoriesArea.1

[TurboAngel]

[fatfoo]

$1 billion lawsuit. Wow...

There is a lot of unauthorized content on youtube, that's true.

Once, I saw a hardcore porno that was posted on youtube, but I think it was deleted by the youtube's moderators a few days later, or something.

[96ukssob]

Originally Posted by fatfoo

$1 billion lawsuit. Wow...

There is a lot of unauthorized content on youtube, that's true.

Once, I saw a hardcore porno that was posted on youtube, but I think it was deleted by the youtube's moderators a few days later, or something.

I saw a few porno flicks on there for a while. one was a hardcore anal scene that lasted for 3 days and got over 20k views

[Fletch XXX]

its not surprising...

and people wonder why the sliced Kill Bill scenes have been on there for 3+ years, LOL

internal people, internal just like the porn tubes

[Barefootsies]

No surprising.

[Profits of Doom]

I've said this on here a hundred times before. One day a disgruntled ex-Brazzers employee who kept a lot of company e-mails, ICQ's, etc. that proves the employees upload copyrighted videos on their tube sites is going to sell that info to a program owner looking to sue. It is simply a matter of time...

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by Profits of Doom

I've said this on here a hundred times before. One day a disgruntled ex-Brazzers employee who kept a lot of company e-mails, ICQ's, etc. that proves the employees upload copyrighted videos on their tube sites is going to sell that info to a program owner looking to sue. It is simply a matter of time...

From your lips to God ears as the saying goes....

[Profits of Doom]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

From your lips to God ears as the saying goes....

I honestly don't doubt it will happen eventually. No company keeps 100% of their employees, and I doubt the higher ups are spending their days uploading the videos. That means they have some lower level employees doing the uploading, and one of these days one of those lower level employees will get fired, and feel that it is unjust. It might not happen next week, or even next year, but it will happen...

[andrej_NDC]

Those rogue employees again. lol

[glamourmodels]

I am shocked... shocked to find gambling going on here!

[tripleXeffects]

surprised that it did not happen sooner but wow 1 billion

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by Profits of Doom

It might not happen next week, or even next year, but it will happen...

By the time it happens, will there be some one still alive to file a lawsuit?

There must be some other solution to fight piracy, I think content protection is the key.

[dyna mo]

shocker.

[teomaxxx]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

its not surprising...

and people wonder why the sliced Kill Bill scenes have been on there for 3+ years, LOL

internal people, internal just like the porn tubes

no, no, its users, they are even insane to remove watermarks and upload it for free, good porn fans, you rather belive me, my friend

[teomaxxx]

Originally Posted by Profits of Doom

I've said this on here a hundred times before. One day a disgruntled ex-Brazzers employee who kept a lot of company e-mails, ICQ's, etc. that proves the employees upload copyrighted videos on their tube sites is going to sell that info to a program owner looking to sue. It is simply a matter of time...

it would be good to advertise some financial incetive to all ex-brazzers employees who will do that...

[Profits of Doom]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

By the time it happens, will there be some one still alive to file a lawsuit?

There must be some other solution to fight piracy, I think content protection is the key.

Of course people should protect their content, but I still believe the endgame will come when one of those ex-employees that feels jilted blows the whistle. Eventually it will happen.

Originally Posted by teomaxxx

it would be good to advertise some financial incetive to all ex-brazzers employees who will do that...

I would love to see someone do just that. Put it out there that a financial reward is available for a whistle blower...

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Profits of Doom

I would love to see someone do just that. Put it out there that a financial reward is available for a whistle blower...

how crediable would their statement be if they were paid to make it.

[Profits of Doom]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

how crediable would their statement be if they were paid to make it.

if they have credible info they have credible info, they wouldn't be the first person that got something in return for their testimony. That would be for a judge and/or jury to decide, not an armchair attorney like yourself...

[kane]

I have said for a while that this case, if it ever gets to a verdict, could fundamentally change the internet. If it is found that Youtube has manipulated content before it has gotten posted then it could invalidate their DMCA protection. If that happens Viacom will likely win its case and win a huge settlement. If that happens then any other company that has had content on Youtube could and probably would jump in and sue and we will see an enormous change to how Youtube works. We might even see it shut down. If that happens you know many of the other video sites out there will shut down just out of fear.

[Elli]

Originally Posted by kane

I have said for a while that this case, if it ever gets to a verdict, could fundamentally change the internet. If it is found that Youtube has manipulated content before it has gotten posted then it could invalidate their DMCA protection. If that happens Viacom will likely win its case and win a huge settlement. If that happens then any other company that has had content on Youtube could and probably would jump in and sue and we will see an enormous change to how Youtube works. We might even see it shut down. If that happens you know many of the other video sites out there will shut down just out of fear.

Before any of that happens, wouldn't they just offer to settle out of court?

[kane]

Originally Posted by Elli

Before any of that happens, wouldn't they just offer to settle out of court?

I would assume they would. If Youtube saw that they were about to lose the case I would guess they would settle. It would be up to Viacom to determine if they wanted to accept. If they take the money, it might decrease the future lawsuits against Youtube, but if Viacom feels like they are about to win a big victory they might turn the settlement down and take it a jury.

I would assume Youtube would appeal any ruling that goes against them, but I would also guess if they lose while they are appealing they will be hit with a bunch more lawsuits.

[GrouchyAdmin]

Viacom used to provide great cartoons, but now they're just DICs.

Fuck them. Fuck them hard.

[Iron Fist]

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC

Those rogue employees again. lol

No but this time it's TRUE!

[RenegadeCash Mark]

Company policy speaks load, lol

[pornjudge]

I would not be surprise also that youtube employees are behind all that spam postings also;)

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by Profits of Doom

Of course people should protect their content, but I still believe the endgame will come when one of those ex-employees that feels jilted blows the whistle. Eventually it will happen.

Do you believe that if one tube will get sued and looses in court, others will run for cover? I'd wish, but I do not think so. They'll be just more careful covering their traces, like having their grandmas uploading videos instead of employees.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

I have said for a while that this case, if it ever gets to a verdict, could fundamentally change the internet. If it is found that Youtube has manipulated content before it has gotten posted then it could invalidate their DMCA protection. If that happens Viacom will likely win its case and win a huge settlement. If that happens then any other company that has had content on Youtube could and probably would jump in and sue and we will see an enormous change to how Youtube works. We might even see it shut down. If that happens you know many of the other video sites out there will shut down just out of fear.

viacom position is that any clip featuring their content no matter how much commentary, parody or other fair use, is still an infringement. (see the number of false takedown request they filed against youtube)

proving an employee uploaded the content, is a liability automagically for youtube unless you can prove that management authorized it.

conversely if viacom employee uploaded clips, youtube can claim "how can we tell the difference between those uploaded by joe blow 13 who happens to be an employee of viacom and joe blow 23 who isn't"

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

"how can we tell the difference between those uploaded by joe blow 13 who happens to be an employee of viacom and joe blow 23 who isn't"

They should ask Viacom in BOTH cases. That's it, problem solved.

[RayBonga]

google shareholders must be happy

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

They should ask Viacom in BOTH cases. That's it, problem solved.

so you expect youtube to take a submission
send a letter to viacomm
wait weeks/months/years for a response before posting the video.

and if viacom decides they don't like a parody and delay for years getting back to youtube

just live with the censorship that additional rule creates.

[rvincent]

since when do employees follow the guidelines anyway?

[L-Pink]

[QUOTE=gideongallery;16405103]bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ....................[QUOTE]



.

[Scott McD]

Originally Posted by bossku69

I saw a few porno flicks on there for a while. one was a hardcore anal scene that lasted for 3 days and got over 20k views

Only 20k?!?

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

viacom position is that any clip featuring their content no matter how much commentary, parody or other fair use, is still an infringement. (see the number of false takedown request they filed against youtube)

proving an employee uploaded the content, is a liability automagically for youtube unless you can prove that management authorized it.

conversely if viacom employee uploaded clips, youtube can claim "how can we tell the difference between those uploaded by joe blow 13 who happens to be an employee of viacom and joe blow 23 who isn't"

The way I understand DMCA to work is that it allows you to use the defense that your site is "just a host" and that you and your company do not control the content of the site, that the users of the site do that and you only respond to take down request and flagged content. If your employees are uploading content or manipulating content before it is posted on the site it could very well violate the DMCA safe harbor. If they don't have that to hide behind then anyone who has copyrighted material on the site can sue them and there is a decent chance they will win.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

The way I understand DMCA to work is that it allows you to use the defense that your site is "just a host" and that you and your company do not control the content of the site, that the users of the site do that and you only respond to take down request and flagged content. If your employees are uploading content or manipulating content before it is posted on the site it could very well violate the DMCA safe harbor. If they don't have that to hide behind then anyone who has copyrighted material on the site can sue them and there is a decent chance they will win.

but the issue is not as cut and dry as people seem to make it here
first of all what if the employee in question did it on his own,
what if the employee action was fair use


The fact that employee did it for case 1 doesn't make them guilty for case 100-10,000.

if they were acting as just a standard youtube user at the time of the upload (ie uploading videos at lunch/break for what they believed/was the fair use of commentary-- look at quest crews best dance routine)

should that still be covered by DMCA.


there is a huge amount of grey area on youtube side of an employee uploading

conversely there is no similar level of grey area on the viacom side, because as i pointed out youtube could use how can we tell the difference arguement if they find a single authorized upload.

[pornpf69]

that sounds like a bad thing... if I were google I would ban every site that had any relation to the owners of the videos... just to see how bad they would get fucked by not being found on the biggest SE in the market...

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by pornpf69

that sounds like a bad thing... if I were google I would ban every site that had any relation to the owners of the videos... just to see how bad they would get fucked by not being found on the biggest SE in the market...

They'd get slaughtered if they do that.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

but the issue is not as cut and dry as people seem to make it here
first of all what if the employee in question did it on his own,
what if the employee action was fair use


The fact that employee did it for case 1 doesn't make them guilty for case 100-10,000.

if they were acting as just a standard youtube user at the time of the upload (ie uploading videos at lunch/break for what they believed/was the fair use of commentary-- look at quest crews best dance routine)

should that still be covered by DMCA.


there is a huge amount of grey area on youtube side of an employee uploading

conversely there is no similar level of grey area on the viacom side, because as i pointed out youtube could use how can we tell the difference arguement if they find a single authorized upload.

sure, there are a million questions. I am just pointing out the simple reality that from what I understand if it is found out that Youtube controls/monitors or manipulates content before it is posted then it could violate the DMCA safe harbor. As it is now they say they are acting as a "host only" and have no control over the content on the site. They say the content is strictly controlled by the users of the site. If it is found out that this isn't true and they do control the content or in some way manipulate the content before it is put up on the site then a person could argue that if they do that for one person or one movie they should be able to do that for everything.

In the end if they are shown to not be "just a host" they then have to be responsible for the content that is on their site. You can't have it both ways. You can't say you are "just a host" and that you have no control over the content of your site, while simultaneously controlling some of the content of your site.

[CyberHustler]

God damn, shit is hittin' the muh fuckin' fan yo!

[BFT3K]

Good stuff! Can't wait until it happens in adult!

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

sure, there are a million questions. I am just pointing out the simple reality that from what I understand if it is found out that Youtube controls/monitors or manipulates content before it is posted then it could violate the DMCA safe harbor. As it is now they say they are acting as a "host only" and have no control over the content on the site. They say the content is strictly controlled by the users of the site. If it is found out that this isn't true and they do control the content or in some way manipulate the content before it is put up on the site then a person could argue that if they do that for one person or one movie they should be able to do that for everything.

In the end if they are shown to not be "just a host" they then have to be responsible for the content that is on their site. You can't have it both ways. You can't say you are "just a host" and that you have no control over the content of your site, while simultaneously controlling some of the content of your site.

it not controls and monitors/manipulate it UPLOAD and only UPLOAD.

you can control and monitor (no porn) you can manipulate (auto watermark) your trying to significantly weaken the safe harbor by misrepresenting it restriction.

Being able to stop porn (i see naughty bits therefore it out of there) is significantly different then being able to tell if it fair use or not especially when viacom own lawyers didn't get it right (all the mistaken takedown requests).

i am just point out that UPLOADing by a employee is not an automagic win for viacom, you still have the uphill battle of proving that employee was UPLOADING as an employee and not as every day user.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

it not controls and monitors/manipulate it UPLOAD and only UPLOAD.

you can control and monitor (no porn) you can manipulate (auto watermark) your trying to significantly weaken the safe harbor by misrepresenting it restriction.

Being able to stop porn (i see naughty bits therefore it out of there) is significantly different then being able to tell if it fair use or not especially when viacom own lawyers didn't get it right (all the mistaken takedown requests).

i am just point out that UPLOADing by a employee is not an automagic win for viacom, you still have the uphill battle of proving that employee was UPLOADING as an employee and not as every day user.

I'm not arguing weather or not it was uploaded by a employee or not. What I am saying is that they are trying to prove that YouTube manipulates/controls the content on the site. If they can prove that there are systems in place that allow Youtube to manipulate/modify/control content on the site it could disqualify them from DMCA safe harbor provisions.

Here is a bunch of good info about that
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html

Here is a summery:

(1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;
(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
(3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
(4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and
(5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

Using these rules you could set forth this example: Youtube has a filter in place that scans videos for colors that are in the skin/flesh tone range. If it hits a certain threshold the video is flagged and looked at to make sure it is not actual porn. If it is not it is approved and put up on the site. I'm not saying that something like this exists, but if it does, then it would be proof that they have something in place that allows them to monitor/edit/approve content. By doing this is violates the DMCA safe harbor since they are no longer just hosting content, they are selecting content and scanning content before it ever posted. A person could then argue that if they are capable of monitoring for porn they could do so for other things. If there is a question about whether or not something falls under fair use or if the poster has permission to post it, then they could ask the poster for proof that they have the rights to post it. Problem solved.