YouTube Scores Huge Victory in Copyright Case

[whitecrowro]

@"users posting clips that infringe on Viacom copyrights"
...similar, then please remind me why "Pirate Bay" was sued (and lost)..?!

 

[LuckyRed]

To all you people wondering why entities like Pirate Bay are successfully sued.

I've never used one of those sites, but from what I understand they exist almost exclusively to share copyrighted material. Yes, you can share your kid's fourth birthday party, but no one does. The lion's share of content on pirate sites is copyrighted material.

YouTube credibly makes the argument that it's purpose is to share users' personal videos and that copyrighted videos are an anomaly. YouTube also expediently complies with requests to take down copyrighted videos, whereas I suspect most pirate sites don't. (Do those sites even have procedures to get copyrighted material removed?)

Most importantly, Google has more money than it knows what to do with. Therefore, they can hire way better lawyers than any of those pirate sites.

 

[princeofdreams]

I really don't get Viacom (well actually I do) They are suing the service that gives them shit loads of free advertising for their products, movie clips, songs ect. nearly all artists have an official page now and upload their own music video's to it.

Viacom are just greed, they know google make money through advertising on Youtube and they are not getting any of it, I really hope that court case cost Viacom Millions, and surely hope tehy get told to FO on appeal...

 

[mdillenbeck]

[citation][nom]skine[/nom]Blaming Youtube for allowing copyright infringement is a bit like blaming WalMart for shoplifting.[/citation]
Not really. After all, Walmart is the holder of the property and the victim of the crime. Youtube does not own the stolen videos, and thus are not suffer a loss when an infringement occurs. Now, make it so all manufacturers have to pay a buy-back credit to missing/stolen merchandise then your analogy might work.

----------------------------------------------------

In general, to those who think this is a victory, we all know there are appeals. If appeals fail, then there will be the RIAA styled alternative - demand Youtube (like ISPs) hand out settlement warning notifiers to all their "suspected" users who have violated to settle out of court for $3000-$5000 else be sued for millions by a well funded corporate legal team with resources that will bury them in court.

In other words, if they can't get the money they feel they would have gotten from Youtube, then they'll have to come after the violators... the users.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

I hold Metallica responsible for increasing my urge to download music. No wait, it's the Internet. I'll sue that! Someone's responsible for my actions! It ain't me, I swear!

 

[DaveUK]

It's a shame that most people seem to have missed what this is about. For example, most parties I go to there is always someone loading up tunes on youtube on request so that everyone is listening to and sharing the latest tracks they're into. 7-8 years ago, it was a TV that was playing the latest songs from the music channels. This is all about organised media gradually losing the ability to spoon-feed us what they want us to hear and rape the advertising revenues because of the strength of youtube. If I want to see a music video, listen to a song, see a videogame trailer - I always head to Youtube and millions of others do too. This is *not* a legitimate legal complaint as (unlike Torrent sites) Youtube is not designed for sharing illegal content and complies quickly to remove it as per the DMCA. This is about seeking to sabotage a competitor to give content control back to media conglomerates like Viacom. Epic Fail Viacom, Epic Fail...

 

[Clintonio]

Fuck you Viacom.

Also, people will imitate each other through any means, be it natural motion, video, music or phrases, no one is immune to being copied, but at least Google respects the will of the authors and removes it on notice.

 

[Djhg2000]

[citation][nom]Pyroflea[/nom]Okay, so YouTube hosting copyright material is legal, yet TPB and MiniNova hosting copyright material is illegal? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.[/citation]

But they're not hosting copyrighted material, just .torrent files related to them.

Therefore it's even more backwards; it's legal to host copyrighted material if you take it down on request, but essentially linking to copyrighted material is always illegal.

That's why some day people will get sued for posting YouTube links, not by YouTube, by the company who thinks it's their copyrighted material somewhere within the linked video.


It's good to see we do stand a chance against copyright fueled companies, but apparently it takes another big company to do it. Let's face it, the legal system is becoming nothing but a pet to large companies.

 

[swamprat]

Wasn't there a published email chain showing some of the people behind youtube actively seeking to get material covered by copyright onto the site? I can't remember exactly, but that's where any complaint should be targetted if it's true. E.g. if there was a push to disregard legal rights of others in order to boost the price the original owners could sell their shares for then those people should be targetted - the company in general being liable should be less likely if they've got some 'reasonable' measure in place, which it sounds like they do.

 

[swamprat]

But they're not hosting copyrighted material, just .torrent files related to them.

Therefore it's even more backwards; it's legal to host copyrighted material if you take it down on request, but essentially linking to copyrighted material is always illegal.

If the purpose of hosting the links is to facilitate an illegal action then that sounds likely to breach some law or other - you've got a good slab of mens rea if nothing else.
If you're providing a service that just happens to allow some people to breach the law, but you take all reasonable precautions to prevent them doing so / to undo the ill, that seems less wrong.
To me at least, maybe I just think backwards and you're right(?)

 

[awood28211]

As I recall, there was more than enough evidence being put forth in this case that showed that not only was viacom totally blind about the facts of their own case but their companies were even using youtube to promote their "copyrighted" material in the form of video clips and partial (maybe full) episodes.

There is a double standard. It's only infringement when the poster isn't the owner yet there are plenty of posts by the owner and neither path providing proof of copyright or a release to rebroadcast but then expecting youtube to know the difference between what's legit and what's not.

I don't buy the "service for infringement" rule. A law is broken by the lawbreaker and no one else. Providing a service that has legitimate and legal use doesn't break any law even if the use of that service become mostly illegal use. The legal issues are still on the shoulders (or at least should be) on those who do the actual crime. If suddenly no one bought Ford trucks except those who transport drugs, is Ford suddenly a criminal corporation? No.

As for you doofs that always complain "it's U.S. law, not .." Try reading up on "International Copyright Law". Ever read the warning at the beginning/end of a movie?

Try this: http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#International_copyright_law

So, while it may be that U.S. law isn't your law, there are still laws that apply equally to the U.S. and a lot of other countries too.

Personally I'm a believer, as I am a software developer, that infringement is between the owner and the infringer.

I have a saying "It's not an issue until it's an issue." In this case, if the copyright owner doesn't sue, then no one else cares about it... It's not an issue for anyone until it's an issue for them. Then you have to duck and cover. Until then, everyone else couldn't care less about it.

 

[mattclary]

[citation][nom]lifelesspoet[/nom]I still hold a grudge with viacom for bringing us MTV.[/citation]

You mean "screwing up" MTV.

 

[Guest]

If there was no copyrighted material on youtube, the money google makes through advertising would also be less.

 

[aethm]

Finally a win against this type of BS. Not that it matters. If history is any judge, even if viacom had won, it wouldn't have stopped people from uploading.

P.S. You tube is actually pretty good at auto catching copyrighted material. It has blocked several cover songs, recorded and performed by me, simply because I did not have the right to play someones copyrighted music.

 

[r0x0r]

[citation][nom]mattclary[/nom]You mean "screwing up" MTV.[/citation]

MT/b/, er, V was never good.

 

[geossj5]

awesome! go youtube/google

 

[quantum mask]

[citation][nom]lifelesspoet[/nom]I still hold a grudge with viacom for bringing us MTV.[/citation]
Awe. MTV used to be good when they played music videos ALL DAY.

 

[quantum mask]

Will someone please ban kiki009? Hello? Toms?

 

[dark_knight33]

[citation][nom]Pyroflea[/nom]Okay, so YouTube hosting copyright material is legal, yet TPB and MiniNova hosting copyright material is illegal? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.[/citation]

You clearly don't understand the internets. You failed, turn your computer off and go stand in the corner.

 

[failboat]

I think someones out for a pay day.