Is this the Achilles heel for Youtube?
 

http://www.xbiz.com/news/97139

It's always been pretty obvious that someone somewhere in the operation is checking to see what gets through. Might be exciting to see how soon a porn scene gets deleted compared to a pirated TV scene.

Sorry if this has been posted, I've been busy the last few days.

Off to enjoy the weekend with my daughter.

Finally Xbiz writes something worth reading...
I might link this artical from my blog.

Go tube sites!

:upsidedow

videos with porn scenes dissapear really FAST, I'm talking from a matter of minutes to a matter of probably 1 hour the most, then your account receives 6 months strike

veeery interesting......

The users police the site, its easy for a user to recognise porn its gets flagged loads of time and its gone, its not so easy for a user to recognise whats copyrighted or not.

Well ofcourse they can stop content,for example i tried to upload avp2 trailer and they said that content is copyrighted which i didnt know.

That is just utter nonsense. You are telling me it is not easy for a user to recognize a 50-Cent or Justin Timberlake song??? Obviously you don't really believe that just because the Google masters say it. :1orglaugh

Maybe your post was sarcasm? Anyway this is an interesting article. Youtube is just a big illegal tube site just like tube8. If it can go down then perhaps the others will too.

:thumbsup

Partly true, also there are just users flagging porn.

and not flagging comedy channel clips etc....

it's not that they don't recognize copyrighted content, they just don't care.

the network logos are there on the video

maybe we should all spend 10 minutes a day flagging copyrighted content??????


anyways they also might have some sort of algorithm that senses porn in the file somehow.

i know i overlayed some music on a video in my personal youtube account (tom petty)

it was just a video of some dolphins when i was out in my boat. no advertising or anything commercial, just my personal family videos and stuff, all of them.

but somehow a day after i uploaded it youtube sent me an email telling me that i used copyrighted music in that video and that it was ok, because they had permission from TomPetty or whomever to play that music on youtube BUT they had the right to use my video and show certain adds around it.

BV

maybe they have a bot that detects moaning and heavy breathing in the soundtrack is what i am getting at, lol

Ofcourse but that guy breaking his leg on a skateboard could be copyrighted, or that slut singing into her hairbrush could also be. The users cant have the power to decide whats copyrighted because unless they have access to some kind of db its impossible, however it is very easy to say theres a cock going into a pussy thats porn.

Hit the nail on the head.

its not so black and white... some record labels allow music videos to be distributed as well as some tv programs...

pandora's box has been opened and it cant be closed at this point...

if viacom and others were smart, they would figure out how to get some value out of their stolen content...

Obviously they can claim that viewers reported the porn to get it pulled down...BUT that little page that comes up warning you it's adult content and you have to check yes that you are over 18 is what is going to be the deal breaker for YouTube. That shows they 100% KNOW and filter what is being uploaded. They are in trouble.

..............

well that could be triggered by the users, once a video gets so many flagged by users votes, someone live from google probably looks at it and either tags it with that warning or deletes it

I used to flag content on tube sites. Hell,I've been doing that for two years already. But it's like cutting the head of a hydra. You chop off one and the two new videos of the same content appears hours later. Really tiring and annoying after a while.

As someone said, it's user filtered. Copyrighted movies/music, online - aren't illegal in every country and rights are often granted online. Making it very hard to filter out or know what you need to filter out, without the users telling. And clearly, the users report porn more than non-adult copyrighted material.

A wife/mom, is surfing youtube and comes across porn, they will report it. They will call the governor and the feds, followed by burn in hell Christian emails to Google. They probably won't respond the same way when they find the next Jane Fonda work out tape ripped onto youtube.

Google's lawyers are pretty damn good, lots of ways to twist out of this one.

Very true. They don't allow porn but I've noticed when surfing around YouTube that the warning comes up. Well if they don't allow adult content then why the warning? Makes no sense. They won't allow porn but my nephews surf YouTube all the time, he showed me a video faces of death or whatever and there was a video of a guy getting his dick cut off. WTF? Now THAT was disturbing. Makes no fucking sense.

The warning doesnt say "warning your about to watch some porn" it says

"This video or group may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community.

By clicking "Confirm", you are agreeing that all videos or groups flagged by the YouTube community will be viewable by this account."

It happens automatically when content is flagged a certain amount of times, and it has no bearing on anything legal and i doubt youtube are getting worried...

accept there are 100's of people who have a right to upload that video

every dancer in that video has a legitimate right to upload it to show case their talent as a dancer.
the same is true for the coregrapher and so on.

porn is easy to identify, i see the naughty bits it a violation
what about the manager, agents, record company, or the artist themselves.
there are many examples of situations where the artist authorized the copying and the organization that represents him asked for it to be taken down
http://torrentfreak.com/travis-defen...hreats-080731/

A very interesting article.

WTF are you smoking?
The dancers have no rights to that video, no more than me or you would have under the "fair use" law.

Just like my talent has no rights to the photographs I take of them. :2 cents:

i seem to remember an article awhile ago about youtube having a piece of software that can detect nudity in the videos automatically.

heh im pretty sure you are wrong about this.

are you saying an extra in a blockbuster movie like say "star wars" has the right to upload the full movie to youtube because they were in it ? i think not

It will be interesting. I think people might be a tad naive to think Google wouldn't have known the law back to front, and known youtube's compliance within it before making a nearly 2 billion dollar purchase. They aren't your regular tube owner, and I am sure every bit of filtering/removal/detection software, etc they have was built and kept with the law, and how it could effect their compliance, in their mind...

Anyone claiming otherwise please look at youtube. A flagged 'adult' video that isn't all out nudity shows this message:

Carefully worded no doubt.

When you click to flag a video a box pops down:

With a list of reasons, including sexual content, with a number of sub categories. 'Graphic sexual content, nudity, suggestive but with out nudity and other sexual content'.

You may think it is unlikely that many people would really bother to flag this stuff, but it certainly does happen, and quickly. Youtube is one of the few tubes with an actual community that really does work to get adult stuff down fast. Copyrighted stuff, well, I don't think anyone in the community actually minds that. Google's on top of it, they have a real legal team that would of advised them quite adequately on how every function of the site should operate in order to be compliant. Google bought the company expecting legal troubles.

You may be right Chief, but just remember...lawyers many times tell clients what they want to hear. I'm sure Mark Gerragos was telling Scott Peterson it was a slam dunk that he would be found innocent...right up until he went to prison lol

Just saying...you may be right, but a big entity like Google doesn't pay as much attention to detail as smaller "mom and pops" do. They get bogged down by bureacracy and paperwork and different divisions. Often the left hand doesn't seem to know what the right hand is doing.

For instance that case where Verizon sued ITSELF! One division sued another. LOL

I think they do have some kind of software in place to detect porn. I was away from my own computer and needed to convert some files to flash so I just uploaded them to youtube, waited till they went on-line, downloaded them with a Firefox Plugin, then deleted the files.

All were set to private so other users could not see them and several were deleted by youtube almost immediately, before I had a chance to grab them.

There is no way they rely solely on community policing. Whether they're using filters, humans, both, whatever - Youtube themselves are also removing what they don't want on there.

And there is your answer. OF COURSE they know what's going up. Plus labor is real cheap in the Phillipines. They could hire half that island and have them manually watch every vid for a couple of grand a month LOL

they could clip the section they were in to showcase their acting talent.

NO THEY COULD NOT!

Not without permission from the owner.

It doesn't matter if it's them in the footage or not. The person that produced the footage owns it. Period

Whether the subjects in the photos are models or say if you took a picture of someone in public. same dealio.

They can not use it in a commercial manner, no more than what fair use states.

Ummmm no. Dancing in a video does not automatically confer copyright rights. The blatant copyright violations on Youtube are just as obvious and just as illegal as the blatant copyright violations on the illegal adult tube sites. Why must everyone pretend otherwise? :disgust

first of all the person uploading it is not using it in a commercial manner, they are not getting paid when that video is being viewed so fair use applies. The fact that youtube is making money doesn't matter because just like sony in the betamax case they are not making money directly from the infringement, but indirectly from the advertising surrounding the service for the fair use right (like the 1k purchase price for the vcr)

Second every copyright holder who claims the copyrights is "accidentally" liciencing fair use when they register/claim copyrights. So yes those people do have such a right.

Yes the owner does not have sole rights to the content.

Porn should be illegal. Oh wait.. I mean religion. Or maybe swear words.

One of those things anyway.

dude, you are so fucked up in the head it's not even funny.

I knew you would start with the Betamax shit.

You are dead wrong and I feel sorry for anyone that is ignorant enough to believe your drivel.

Don't worry BV, nobody on GFY that is in any real position in this or any other line of work believes what he says. He's just talking to himself so he can look himself in the mirror and try not to see a thief.

You people are all idiots. Don't you know that tube sites are the wave of the future and that youtube is the mother of all tube sites?
You need to just quit with your whining and learn how to adapt and survive in a business environment where your intellectual property that is your biggest asset and biggest expense is stolen from you and given away freely to all of your potential customers in order to earn a few cents in ad revenue.
If you can't figure out how to do that then Darwin says it's time for you to go.

</sarcasm>

your making the same arguement that the court have already said is invalid, that making money automatically means it not fair use.
dozens of case say that but the betamax case said it it explictly and i quoted the passage more than 50 times.

i would not have to keep bringing up the same "Betamax shit" if you would stop making the same bogus arguement.

there is a clear difference between making money by selling access to copyrighted material (selling copies of copyrighted material) and making money off of service that provides a POTENTIAL functional ability to infringe copyright material.

i suggest you actually read the betamax case or at least the supreme court ruling

i have no bias, i make no additional money if tube sites disappear, nor do i make money if they are allowed to continue. As a result i tell only the truth.

You are the one who wants to apply a test for ciminality that is dependent on transfer of ownership to an economic model with no transfer of ownership.

if copyright infringement was theft everyone would be guilty including everyone who explicitly licienced it for use on their tube site.

you are the only person in here who explicitly declare an anology to be wrong and then keep using it yourself. Most people would be smart enough to realize that it can't be wrong and right at the same time.

who wants to see my you tubeeee videos??????????

No I didn't and no I haven't I've already proven that you are a liar and not very observant. Plus I've owned you like my bitch. So please stay out of GFY with your blathering. As I said...NOBODY who is really in any kind of business listens to your armchair lawyering.
Just leave gideongallery. You are wasting your time and every post you make just shows more people who you really are and what your agenda is.

No more Gideon Gallery stuff in here please..

For me the case is pretty simple. If it is found out that Youtube "filters" its content in any way before it is uploaded (other than for length of filesize) than they are no longer just a host and they most likely be able to hide behind DMCA. Also many Youtube users now have partner accounts and make money off of what they post on the site so if it is found that a copyrighted material is being used by others for profit they could be in trouble.

The first one is really the big one. Without DMCA they are like any other site out there that is posting content and they would then become responsible for that content. They would most likely lose the case with viacom and end up either having to shut the site down or make drastic changes to it in order to keep it open. If Viacom wins people will have to wait in line to sue them because media companies will come out of the woodwork to get a piece of the google pie.

?[YouTube will be] sued into oblivion,? Cuban said. ?They are just breaking the law. The only reason it hasn't been sued yet is because there is nobody with big money to sue.?

smart man - and this industry could do the same but nobody with the money is willing to do it.

i don't believe Viacom will be backing down in this fight.

This story is about 6 months old.

It's not utter nonsense. YouTube's users do in fact police the site. They just don't see anything wrong with mainstream copyrighted material being on there, but do have a problem with porn.

Back in the day Geocities had a way to identify nudity in photos being uploaded. They would look for photos that contained a certain % of skintones and they were flagged for review.