god bless google-giving better protection of our rights than our lousy government can manage

First to point out that MTV never reflected the spirit of rock and roll rebellion.

Good job changing "reply" to "answer" in the second paragraph.

Kash, wasn't MTV "the Man" before you were born?

Just so I'm clear....

People are doing illegal things on YouTube. YouTube's policy is that people can do whatever they want, but if the copyright owners report a violation then YouTube will take it down. In other words, now the copyright owners have to become the police and catch the criminals so YouTube can bring them to justice and take the videos down.

Viacom then alleges that this is bullshit, because it is not their job to surf YouTube all day and see if people put up their stuff. YouTube's response is not to deny this but to say, "Yeah, but if you make us do the policing we'll just stop letting people put videos up and that isn't fair to the good users, right"?

In other words, Viacom just wants YouTube to police the content of its website. YouTube says that it is the copyright holders' job to police YouTube and that it will not police itself.

I get the whole "Viacom is big industry, Google/YouTube is freedom, go GooTube!" vibe, but does this make ANY sense to anyone?

It doesn't seemt o make sense, but YouTube apparently isn't going to do anything unless a judge orders it to.

You can't sleep on your rights. If someone is abusing your copyright, it's your job as the copyright owner to find out who is abusing your copyright and to sue them. If you don't and enough people abuse your copyright then it goes into the public domain. It's not google/youtube's job to protect your rights. All they are doing is providing a forum for people to speak.

YouTube polices pr0n, why can't they police other stuff too?

4:44,
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. YouTube says that Viacom is free to send takedown notices, at which point YouTube takes down the video and sends an e-mail to the person who posted it. That person can get the video put back up by allowing YouTube to forward their contact information to Viacom. Viacom can then just sue that specific person.
Viacom is not happy with this solution, and wants YouTube to actively monitor what users post.

Google's lawyers > Viacom's lawyers, by a significant degree.

Based on the respective side's lawyers, I predict Google will win.

4:44

Interesting comment. It seems that Google is taking a position that the law it must follow is similar to that of ISP's. Basically, ISP's will allow a website to exist until they get notice about the possibility of copyright infringement. With notice, the ISP will take down the website awaiting for one party to back down or a court order on the infringement issue. I think that this perhaps is the best way to ensure that legal information can be easily and quickly posted.

Porn is basically policed by the users themselves. They'll flag the video as inappropriate and they get taken off rather quickly. Of course users aren't as vigilante when clips of South Park and the Daily Show are uploaded.

4:47--True, but Googs is saying it doesn't have a legal obligation to monitor YT for violations of someone else's IP.

4:44, I think you're correct about their respective positions, but I do not share your incredulous response. Google does not have a duty to police YouTube for copyright infringement. Their duties are (as 5:01 suggests) similar to those of ISPs. They have to respect takedown notices. That seems right to me.

Google will P3wn Viacom in this lawsuit. Sup fellas!!!

Viacom should just be grateful people want to watch their crappy shows.

go googles

go googles

In a battle between hosts and parasites it is in both side's long term interests that the hosts win. And who the lawyers are doesn't mean shit.

The imbecility on this forum is truly mind-numbing. See 5:12, 5:23 et al. I truly hope that these 'sharp' minds are not actually lawyers at Biglaw shops; however, given the numerous imbeciles masquerading as associates I have regrettably had to encounter at my V5 law firm, I unfortunately cannot dismiss such a possibility.

5;33-Your righting sux.

5:33 writes like a total f'ing d'bag about to be shitcanned from his V5 law firm

This is an extremely interesting subject. I wish it were more popular with commenters.

5:33, a sharp mind can coexist with a sense of humor and whimsy.

Unfortunately, a happy spirit cannot coexist with your attitude, Judge Judy.

Google should just buy Viacom.

"V5 law firm"? Is that 62.5% of a tomato cocktail law firm?

5:00: not true.... Viacom's counsel (Jenner) also represented the music industry against Grokster in the Supreme Court (and won) and also represented similar plaintiffs (and won) against other file sharing sites at the trial level. I predict a favorable settlement for Viacom.

I wish I had copyright to this:

http://bp0.blogger.com/_0Toi8NqJtIQ/SDX2HlRfVJI/AAAAAAAAAGE/XFwtcKQi4pQ/s1600-h/ATL.jpg

My two heroes, and one other person.

7:56 = Jenner troll.

Hey troll, how is a "favorable settlement" different from "a settlement?" Neither company is getting everything it wants, but given all the circumstances, each finds an agreed compromise favorable to proceeding. That is why it is called "settlement" and not "dismissal with prejudice."

When was the last time you saw a press release that said, "We have agreed to a settlement that sticks it to us. We really got our asses handed to us this time, and we are just glad that the raping of us has ended."

4:44, I suggest you review 17 USC 512(c)

4:44 here

I completely disagree with the assertion that Google's rights are similar to those of ISPs. ISPs provide the means to access the internet, not the content. Google provides the content. You can't regulate the people who give access and the people who provide the content under a broad blanket because they have different roles - one is giving you access to everything in exchange for money, one is giving you specific content in exchange for money.

My big issue here is that GooTube makes money off Viacom's copyrights but will not police them because doing that would hurt their own bottom line. How many hundreds of thousands of hits does GooTube get by showing copyrighted videos? You better believe that they're making money off of the videos. Is it really fair that they can profit off of other people's content that has not been authorized to be used in this manner?

Let's try a real-world example to show how ridiculous YouTube's policy is. Let's say a movie theater offers to let anyone show any home video of theirs that they want, as long as the theater sells tickets at $5 a person. Someone buys a bootleg copy of the new Indiana Jones movie and shows that. Suddenly, everyone is going to the theater to see it. Is it up to George Lucas to stop the people from showing the movie or is there some responsibility for the theater to do this? If the theater said they weren't watching the movies, just showing them, would that absolve them of all fault? Would the people at fault be the people paying for the tickets? Would the people showing the movie get off with nothing more than a harsh letter? Absolutely not. However, since this is the internet, we can change the rules and suddenly it's ok.

I am all for freedom of speech and net neutrality but I believe that people's intellectual property should be protected. It is not GooTube's job to go out of its way to hunt down copyright infringers but if they are going to make money off of videos, they need to make sure the videos are acceptable and legally available for them to use.

It really is a dangerous precedent to allow GooTube to do this. How many thousands of video sites can and have popped up that can now follow the GooTube method and basically infringe on any copyrights they want as long as they agree to take the stuff down if asked? Is it really reasonable to accept that copyright owners must now scour the internet at their own cost every day to make sure their rights are not being infringed on?

It would be one thing if GooTube made a good faith effort to regulate itself and saw honest mistakes get through the gaps but their current policy is beyond ridiculous. "We won't proactively stop people from stealing from you and we'll absolutely profit from their stealing, but we'll make them stop if you ask us to".

To 4:44/9:10 -

Your posts make some interesting points, but there are some details you missed.

First, YouTube is not a content provider in the strict sense - they are a content platform. Think of the difference between Warner Brothers Studios (provider) vs. Warner Brothers RoadRunner internet service (platform). Because YouTube simply provides the method, it can be argued that YouTube should be treated like an ISP. Warner Bros. and other similarly diversified companies would certainly not welcome precedent that would prove otherwise.

Also, if you take a look at the videos with the most views, nearly all of the top videos are NOT pirated content. In fact, the video with the most views of all time is actually some lame comedian doing a stage show about the history of dance. Many content PROVIDERS (such as cable networks and music labels) have YouTube channels where they legitimately post their IP.

Other commenters are correct in their assertion that IP owners must vigorously protect their own rights, especially in regard to Trademark/Trade Dress and logomarks. It is not anyone else's job to do so. Public libraries would not provide copy machines if it were their job to enforce IP rights.

Your movie theater argument makes some sense, but the answer is YES, we have to treat the internet differently. The internet is a system that no one owns, and no one completely controls. The physical movie theater can decide who can come in its doors, what you can bring into the theater, and what you can take out. YouTube's capacity is nearly infinite, and there is more than "one door," so to speak - if they ban a user, the user can get a new name, IP address, etc.

Viacom is asking YouTube to redirect resources at its own cost to protect things that it doesn't own and has no responsibility for. YouTube is asking Viacom to notifiy it of infringements so they can be dealt with - which is something Viacom should be doing anyway, since it's their legal responsibility, and has been their responsibility long before the internet was in common use.

10:05, your points...

First, YouTube actually is a Content Provider. The videos that are uploaded to YouTube become property of YouTube, not the user. Users upload their videos to share with people, but the videos become property of YouTube. They are hosted on YouTube servers, they are owned by YouTube and they are YouTube's content. The difference between them and Warner is the creation - WB Studios creates their own content, whereas YouTube relies on other people to do the creation and then exchanges distribution and availability for ownership rights. If you are distributing content that you own, which is what YouTube does, you are a provider. YouTube does not simply provide the method, they own the videos and distribute them. Think of it like Warner Brothers Studios buying independent movies and distributing them, only on a much more massive scale with smaller movies. Second, there is a difference between an ISP, which provides access, and a service or content provider. The ISP only enables people to get onto the internet, whereas the websites allow people to actually do or use things. YouTube is NOT the same as an ISP - providing access to the internet and providing access to content are two completely different things. Website =/= internet access.

Second point is completely true. That does not change the fact that YouTube makes a profit showing IP that they do not have a right to show.

I absolutely agree with your third point. I also think it is unreasonable to ask a company to do YouTube's work for them. Viacom has made it clear to YouTube that they want all of their content taken down and have made specific requests to have their stuff taken down. The reason things are different with YouTube as opposed to your copy machine example is that YouTube owns the content of its site, whereas the product of a copy machine is owned by the user. The main issue arises because YouTube claims ownership of the content but tries to pass off responsibility to the users. If YouTube wants to own the videos and has been asked to take down all Viacom content, it is there requirement to do so. It is not the content owner's job to search their inventory to find all of the IP that has been stolen or infringed on.

The internet is the medium, not the owner. YouTube is owned by Google. Google is a company - it has a CEO and a President and shareholders and all of that good stuff. It is very much a system that someone owns and someone has responsibility for. The rules for websites, in terms of access, are absolutely different, I agree, but that does not absolve them of the duties of businesses. YouTube is a website - it is completely controlled by Google. The rules for access, for viewing and other things change, but at the end of the day it is very much company property.

Your final point is the key to the flaws in your argument. YouTube owns every video that is uploaded on its website. It also hosts this content on its servers. Viacom has notified YouTube that there are infringements, given specific examples and made it clear that YouTube must police itself and take responsibility for the videos that it owns.

To clarify - yes, YouTube owns every video hosted on YouTube. Every video put up on YouTube becomes property of YouTube. Read the upload agreement if you don't believe me.

And finally, you still haven't touched on what happens to the money YouTube earns from advertisements on pages where IP is used. Lazy Sunday from Saturday Night Live got millions of views on YouTube - at 1 cent per page view (just a guess, it could easily be half or double that), that's tens of thousands of dollars. Does it really cost that much to have one person delete a few videos? Where does that money go?

It's fairly common for producers of TV shows and movies to release clips to create a "viral buzz." By putting it on Youtube aren't they then giving up their property rights.

I'm not a member of YouTube, so I've never read their agreement. If there is a clause in their user agreement stating transfer of ownership, then on this point YouTube may have screwed themselves with boilerplate legal nonsense. Ownership does change the picture somewhat.

This still doesn't negate the fact that Viacom must be vigilant over its own IP (which it is doing by suing, admittedly).

Another analogy to this situation is the local pawn shop. Stolen items get pawned all the time, and the shop owners sell them for profit. But if notified that they are in possession of stolen goods, they must return them to the original owners, or the police. Part of YouTube's problem is that unlike the pawn shop, the website can have millions of transactions per day. It might sound like an excuse, but it is particularly difficult to monitor millions of transactions for even one variable (say, one episode of south park.) Now try monitoring for an ever-expanding number of variables (i.e. every movie, TV program and song ever recorded). It's nigh impossible to do this with a computer without potentially blocking legitimate traffic. Asking a team of humans to do it is impossible. It would shift YouTube's entire business from content "providing" to content "monitoring."

Not only is it Viacom's responsibility to monitor and protect its own IP, it's also easier for them to do it than it would be for YouTube. Viacom presumably knows what it has produced and what it owns, so it would know what to look for.

11:16 - I read this awhile ago so it may have changed, but it's my understanding that youtube doesn't own your videos, but when you upload a video them a license is granted for youtube to use the video as they please (featured videos etc). Once you remove the video from the site, the license is no longer valid and youtube cannot do anything with it. Not sure how this fits into the whole uploading of copyrighted content though.

I guess I should clarify - 11:45 is 10:05's response to 11:16/4:44.

It's untrue that YouTube owns all videos uploaded to it. From the YouTube terms of service:

C. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable.