You think YOU have tube / piracy problems?

[$5 submissions]

ArsTechnica discusses the recently released court documents in Viacom's ONE BILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT against Youtube for copyright infringment. Smoking gun?

Regardless, this lawsuit might shed some light on many of the "gray areas" of the DMCA law which spawned tube sites. This case, if it goes all the way to full court resolution, may settle many of the issues that digitial media currently faces. In essence, the DMCA protects sites from prosecution for merely "storing" user generated content as opposed to being an active participant/beneficiary of copyright infringement. This lawsuit tries to make the case that merely showing ads along with infringing materials takes the site out of the 'storage' protection of the DMCA

But there's a second argument. Viacom also claims that YouTube is not covered by the law for a more fundamental reason: it is not engaged in "storage," as a file locker might be, but is in the business of displaying and broadcasting content, which also includes making numerous back-end copies. This behavior involves YouTube in "direct infringement of copyrights."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...om-filings.ars

did Viacom have "smoking gun" evidence that YouTube was deliberately profiting from 62,637 Viacom clips that were watched more than 507 million times on the site? Was Google aware of the copyright infringement problems when it purchased YouTube in 2006? Were YouTube's own founders involved in uploading unauthorized materials?

On all three counts, Viacom says yes?and it offers up a host of e-mails to prove it:

* "In a July 19, 2005 e-mail to YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim, YouTube co-founder Steve Chen wrote: 'jawed, please stop putting stolen videos on the site. We?re going to have a tough time defending the fact that we?re not liable for the copyrighted material on the site because we didn?t put it up when one of the co-founders is blatantly stealing content from other sites and trying to get everyone to see it.'"
* "Chen twice wrote that 80 percent of user traffic depended on pirated videos. He opposed removing infringing videos on the ground that 'if you remove the potential copyright infringements... site traffic and virality will drop to maybe 20 percent of what it is.' Karim proposed they 'just remove the obviously copyright infringing stuff.' But Chen again insisted that even if they removed only such obviously infringing clips, site traffic would drop at least 80 percent. ('if [we] remove all that content[,] we go from 100,000 views a day down to about 20,000 views or maybe even lower')."
* "In response to YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley?s August 9, 2005 e-mail, YouTube co-founder Steve Chen stated: 'but we should just keep that stuff on the site. I really don?t see what will happen. what? someone from cnn sees it? he happens to be someone with power? he happens to want to take it down right away. he get in touch with cnn legal. 2 weeks later, we get a cease & desist letter. we take the video down.'"
* "A true smoking gun is a memorandum personally distributed by founder Karim to YouTube?s entire board of directors at a March 22, 2006 board meeting. Its words are pointed, powerful, and unambiguous. Karim told the YouTube board point-blank: 'As of today episodes and clips of the following well-known shows can still be found: Family Guy, South Park, MTV Cribs, Daily Show, Reno 911, Dave Chapelle. This content is an easy target for critics who claim that copyrighted content is entirely responsible for YouTube?s popularity. Although YouTube is not legally required to monitor content (as we have explained in the press) and complies with DMCA takedown requests, we would benefit from preemptively removing content that is blatantly illegal and likely to attract criticism.'"
* "A month later, [YouTube manager Maryrose] Dunton told another senior YouTube employee in an instant message that 'the truth of the matter is probably 75-80 percent of our views come from copyrighted material.' She agreed with the other employee that YouTube has some 'good original content' but 'it?s just such a small percentage.'"
* "In a September 1, 2005 email to YouTube co-founder Steve Chen and all YouTube employees, YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim stated, 'well, we SHOULD take down any: 1) movies 2) TV shows. we should KEEP: 1) news clips 2) comedy clips (Conan, Leno, etc) 3) music videos. In the future, I?d also reject these last three but not yet.'"

[andrej_NDC]

This could be interresting, if google loses. But I doubt that, the law would need to be changed first.

[Nautilus]

Go Viacom, I surely hope they win on all counts.

[papill0n]

youtube and google are going to take a massive hit

[$5 submissions]

Originally Posted by papill0n

youtube and google are going to take a massive hit

I'm still in shock that the "carrying cost" of Youtube on Google's established hardware network amount to peanuts. I've posted about this awhile back. Google = TOTAL DOMINATION.

[papill0n]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

I'm still in shock that the "carrying cost" of Youtube on Google's established hardware network amount to peanuts. I've posted about this awhile back. Google = TOTAL DOMINATION.

yeah agreed gene. I was reading that they have the 3rd biggest network infrastructure in the world and it looks as though they will soon be an ISP too

[$5 submissions]

This case, if it goes all the way, might settle a lot of questions.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Go Viacom, I surely hope they win on all counts.

Originally Posted by papill0n

youtube and google are going to take a massive hit

That would be very nice.


.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

ArsTechnica discusses the recently released court documents in Viacom's ONE BILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT against Youtube for copyright infringment. Smoking gun?

Regardless, this lawsuit might shed some light on many of the "gray areas" of the DMCA law which spawned tube sites. This case, if it goes all the way to full court resolution, may settle many of the issues that digitial media currently faces. In essence, the DMCA protects sites from prosecution for merely "storing" user generated content as opposed to being an active participant/beneficiary of copyright infringement. This lawsuit tries to make the case that merely showing ads along with infringing materials takes the site out of the 'storage' protection of the DMCA



http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...om-filings.ars

of course by that definition no website host would be covered by the DMCA either.

so it not very likely that arguement is ever going to fly.

however the arguement that "omg check out this quest crew dance routine" as being the protected free speach and fair use act of commentary has at least a reasonable shot of being validated.

if that happens virtually all of the viacom clips become legal under fair use and youtube has nothing to worry about.

[2MuchMark]

While youtube may be profiting from the ads, I wouldn't blame them per se.

Today while searching Youtube I came across an entire 2 hour movie ("DOA"), that proudly displayed a watermark of the person who copied and uploaded the movie.

What you tube should do is force users to properly register with them before they can upload any content, and properly hold responsible the thieves who are stealing the content in the first place. In fact, every tube site should do this. Sure its a lot more work and it would mean the death of many tube sites, but so what? It'll reduce the amount of stolen material found on these sites, and the sites who do things properly and legally will be the ones who prosper.

[$5 submissions]

It's kind of a hardcore line of reasoning: You profit you lose

[Domain Diva]

I posted this in another recent thread ....

What was also interesting though was the fact Viacom was putting up massive amounts of videos in a slightly less than perfect quality(to emulate home user submits) under different user accounts as it noticed the amount of traffic YouTube was producing and saw it as good PR for its programs at the same time complaining of copywrite theft.

Apparantly Viacom put up so much content itself it got to a point that even they couldnt tell what items they had or had not uploaded ....

This case is showing a lot of interesting tactics/pr/game plans that exsist in marketing......a lot more info will come out over the next few months im sure.....

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

of course by that definition no website host would be covered by the DMCA either.

so it not very likely that arguement is ever going to fly.

however the arguement that "omg check out this quest crew dance routine" as being the protected free speach and fair use act of commentary has at least a reasonable shot of being validated.

if that happens virtually all of the viacom clips become legal under fair use and youtube has nothing to worry about.

bla, bla, bla


.

[Jack Sparrow]

My guess is nothing will change.

[Zester]

sometimes it feels like google is the daddy of the internet.

[$5 submissions]

Originally Posted by Zester

sometimes it feels like google is the daddy of the internet.

More like the Godfather of the Internet as it continues to branch out...

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by **********

What you tube should do is force users to properly register with them before they can upload any content, and properly hold responsible the thieves who are stealing the content in the first place. In fact, every tube site should do this. Sure its a lot more work and it would mean the death of many tube sites, but so what? It'll reduce the amount of stolen material found on these sites, and the sites who do things properly and legally will be the ones who prosper.

Exactly. Safe harbor was intended for classic internet service prodivers such as hosting companies, where a client always has a name and a last name. If there's an infringement - subpoena their host, get the identity and sue. That's how it was supposed to work, and that's how it SHOULD work, no matter if their host is free or paid. I really hope that kind of "know your client" policy will be established in courts for ISP companies if they want safe harbor protection. If you know who's your client, than he/she is responsible for infringement. If you don't, than YOU is responsible. It's that simple, and that's how it should work.

If for example the likes of gideon want to upload full WB library in HD quality to some goddamn motherfucking stealing torrent, fine. Do that, just submit your REAL name to the host. And than when sued tell whatever bs excuse you had for that to the judge - fair use parody backup whatever. And than let's see how's that going to fly in REAL court, not GFY court.

I have no problems with real fair use - but to make sure it's real fair use and not the lame bs excuse for stealing, just let them submit their real names before uploading stuff anywhere. People tend to think kinda way more responsibly when they know their real names are on file.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by **********

While youtube may be profiting from the ads, I wouldn't blame them per se.

Today while searching Youtube I came across an entire 2 hour movie ("DOA"), that proudly displayed a watermark of the person who copied and uploaded the movie.

What you tube should do is force users to properly register with them before they can upload any content, and properly hold responsible the thieves who are stealing the content in the first place. In fact, every tube site should do this. Sure its a lot more work and it would mean the death of many tube sites, but so what? It'll reduce the amount of stolen material found on these sites, and the sites who do things properly and legally will be the ones who prosper.

wrong only those sites which do it the outdated old way will prosper and all the new income streams will be killed.

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Exactly. Safe harbor was intended for classic internet service prodivers such as hosting companies, where a client always has a name and a last name. If there's an infringement - subpoena their host, get the identity and sue. That's how it was supposed to work, and that's how it SHOULD work, no matter if their host is free or paid. I really hope that kind of "know your client" policy will be established in courts for ISP companies if they want safe harbor protection. If you know who's your client, than he/she is responsible for infringement. If you don't, than YOU is responsible. It's that simple, and that's how it should work.

total bullshit

the entire purpose of the safe harbor provision was to prevent the new takedown rules from squashing fair use. The old system required you to prove that it was infringement by getting a COURT ORDER before the content had to be taken down.

If for example the likes of gideon want to upload full WB library in HD quality to some goddamn motherfucking stealing torrent, fine. Do that, just submit your REAL name to the host. And than when sued tell whatever bs excuse you had for that to the judge - fair use parody backup whatever. And than let's see how's that going to fly in REAL court, not GFY court.

i personally have no problem with such a requirement if the copyright holder was forced to pay 3 times their requested damages if i was successful in making the arugement it was fair use.

If they refused then all their content should go into the public domain. the attempt to
extend the conditional copyright monopoly into an absolute sherman anti trust monopoly should be treated with the same anti trust penalities that other monopolies suffer.

IF a copyright holder refuses to pay then all of their copyright should be voided and their content goes into the public domain.

Without such a balance copyright holders would basically blanket any upload, fair use or not with mountains of legal filing and basically create the type of censorship that the safe harbor /dispute policy was designed to handle.

I have no problems with real fair use - but to make sure it's real fair use and not the lame bs excuse for stealing, just let them submit their real names before uploading stuff anywhere. People tend to think kinda way more responsibly when they know their real names are on file.

sure you do, you keep reclasifying real fair use as some sort of fake fair use
you argue points that the supreme court has already ruled against you to try and claim that things that are fair use (like timeshifting using a cloud) are not.

like i said if the responsibility is one sided it will be abused and create a form of censorship so if you truely believe such a change is necessary to stop "fake" fair use.

If you truely believe everyone who is fighting this is not misrepresenting "real" fair use as fake, then you should have no problem paying 3 times what you asked for in damages if the courts rule that you are misrepresenting "real" fair use as fake.

Originally Posted by CyberClaire

I posted this in another recent thread ....

What was also interesting though was the fact Viacom was putting up massive amounts of videos in a slightly less than perfect quality(to emulate home user submits) under different user accounts as it noticed the amount of traffic YouTube was producing and saw it as good PR for its programs at the same time complaining of copywrite theft.

Apparantly Viacom put up so much content itself it got to a point that even they couldnt tell what items they had or had not uploaded ....

This case is showing a lot of interesting tactics/pr/game plans that exsist in marketing......a lot more info will come out over the next few months im sure.....

one of the biggest problem is that viacomm is not the content producer but the distributor of the content, so when the content producer uploads it and therefore gives permission it not really a violation.

[XPays]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

More like the Godfather of the Internet as it continues to branch out...

just like stanfurd's Tiger Woods, Google will run into issues too. the stanfurd connection backfires at some point.

[Tickler]

As far as ViaCom putting up some of their own content, that is a non-issue smokescreen by YouTube/Google. If somebody loads a couple of trailers to a tube site, that does not give the tube site permission to rip their entire library and set it up for free downloads.

Some main issues:
1) They did not have permission to upload all this content(~60,000 for ViaCom) to their site, plus all the other ripped content.

2) There are memos, emails, etc showing that they knew what they were doing was illegal, but still continued anyways

3) Their business plan was exposed in the memos, emails, etc. to create traffic using this stolen content and sell the company in a few years at a high price

3) Google executives also knew that ~80% of the content was stolen but still bought anyways. But some of the executives seem to have amnesia about their biggest ever purchase. Or maybe they simply lost documents in their cloud systems which is really going to be good for marketing efforts.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Tickler

As far as ViaCom putting up some of their own content, that is a non-issue smokescreen by YouTube/Google. If somebody loads a couple of trailers to a tube site, that does not give the tube site permission to rip their entire library and set it up for free downloads.

Some main issues:
1) They did not have permission to upload all this content(~60,000 for ViaCom) to their site, plus all the other ripped content.

2) There are memos, emails, etc showing that they knew what they were doing was illegal, but still continued anyways

3) Their business plan was exposed in the memos, emails, etc. to create traffic using this stolen content and sell the company in a few years at a high price

3) Google executives also knew that ~80% of the content was stolen but still bought anyways. But some of the executives seem to have amnesia about their biggest ever purchase. Or maybe they simply lost documents in their cloud systems which is really going to be good for marketing efforts.

1. but it does make it hard to claim that youtube can tell the difference between licienced and unliciened content
2. lookup the word "potential" before you misquote the meaning of their statements
3. again misrepesenting a quote doesn't make it true

[amvcdotcom]

anyone know of any good tube scripts?

(just kidding)

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by Tickler

As far as ViaCom putting up some of their own content, that is a non-issue smokescreen by YouTube/Google. If somebody loads a couple of trailers to a tube site, that does not give the tube site permission to rip their entire library and set it up for free downloads.

Some main issues:
1) They did not have permission to upload all this content(~60,000 for ViaCom) to their site, plus all the other ripped content.

2) There are memos, emails, etc showing that they knew what they were doing was illegal, but still continued anyways

3) Their business plan was exposed in the memos, emails, etc. to create traffic using this stolen content and sell the company in a few years at a high price

3) Google executives also knew that ~80% of the content was stolen but still bought anyways. But some of the executives seem to have amnesia about their biggest ever purchase. Or maybe they simply lost documents in their cloud systems which is really going to be good for marketing efforts.

Excellent points.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Exactly. Safe harbor was intended for classic internet service prodivers such as hosting companies, where a client always has a name and a last name. If there's an infringement - subpoena their host, get the identity and sue. That's how it was supposed to work, and that's how it SHOULD work, no matter if their host is free or paid. I really hope that kind of "know your client" policy will be established in courts for ISP companies if they want safe harbor protection. If you know who's your client, than he/she is responsible for infringement. If you don't, than YOU is responsible. It's that simple, and that's how it should work.

If for example the likes of gideon want to upload full WB library in HD quality to some goddamn motherfucking stealing torrent, fine. Do that, just submit your REAL name to the host. And than when sued tell whatever bs excuse you had for that to the judge - fair use parody backup whatever. And than let's see how's that going to fly in REAL court, not GFY court.

I have no problems with real fair use - but to make sure it's real fair use and not the lame bs excuse for stealing, just let them submit their real names before uploading stuff anywhere. People tend to think kinda way more responsibly when they know their real names are on file.

Great post. As for Gideon he's a non entity who could not afford the bus fare to court.

And as for Viacom uploading their own content on Youtube, that's there right to do as they OWN the copyright.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Great post. As for Gideon he's a non entity who could not afford the bus fare to court.

And as for Viacom uploading their own content on Youtube, that's there right to do as they OWN the copyright.

ok paul then explain how can youtube tell the difference between content uploaded by the distributor (viacom) the original producer (randy jackson productions), an authorized publicist (hey yah promotions) or just a fan of quest crew (what you claim is unauthorized but may be covered by the fair use of commentary).


Especially when promotion companies will make fake accounts to make it appear as if the submission is organic publishing of fans.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Exactly. Safe harbor was intended for classic internet service prodivers such as hosting companies, where a client always has a name and a last name. If there's an infringement - subpoena their host, get the identity and sue. That's how it was supposed to work, and that's how it SHOULD work, no matter if their host is free or paid. I really hope that kind of "know your client" policy will be established in courts for ISP companies if they want safe harbor protection. If you know who's your client, than he/she is responsible for infringement. If you don't, than YOU is responsible. It's that simple, and that's how it should work.

and what happens if the "client" lies on the registration form
should the host be liable for that or should they simply get off scott free.

if they get off you are no better off then what you are currently living with

if you want them to be responsible would you feel the same way if the rules were extended to your credit card billing.

if little john steals his dad credit card should you be found guilty of distributing porn to minors.

[$5 submissions]

Regarding adult tubes: here's one KEY solution http://gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=960155

[$5 submissions]

Originally Posted by XPays

just like stanfurd's Tiger Woods, Google will run into issues too. the stanfurd connection backfires at some point.

True dat, player, true dat. I'm also damned happy some Bears stole the Stanford Tree mascot's costume a while back.