Topic: Watch or copy your favorite videos off you tube now

[Sarek]

I'd say that You Tube is more like the store which provides the photocopy machine used to make the copies.  They don't directly profit from the videos since the ads aren't on the same page, and they don't know what is being posted.  The question is whether or not they should know.

[GE-Raven]

I'd say that You Tube is more like the store which provides the photocopy machine used to make the copies.  They don't directly profit from the videos since the ads aren't on the same page, and they don't know what is being posted.  The question is whether or not they should know.

If the Copy store let you distribute your copies by using their store front.... then were paid by advertisers to have their ads surrounding the "free" pirated material (I know it isn't all pirated, and I am all for all the Indy stuff that is on there).

As to the ads not being on the same page... not sure what YouTube you are going too... you have never noticed how the adds somehow seem to be "inline" with whatever the tagged content is?  Hell still freaky to me that in G-Mail when I am helping a friend with a Motherboard, I have ads for Motherboards, Ram, and Processors on either side of my e-mail... But they aren't "reading it".   

Google has made a great business knowing what it is their customers are looking at, and targetting ads to that content.  That is why they are the biggest thing out there! 

GE-Raven

[Dash Jones]

More likely it's that you own a storage lot or storefront property and lease it out.  Which should you hold responsible, the land owners from whom the shop holders lease from or the shop holders who are giving out the pirated stuff?

[GE-Raven]

More likely it's that you own a storage lot or storefront property and lease it out.  Which should you hold responsible, the land owners from whom the shop holders lease from or the shop holders who are giving out the pirated stuff?

Under law?  Both... however the landowner is the one directly profiting from the use of the space (with full knowledge) for the distribution of copyrighted material.  The protection of (we don't control content) is obviously not completely true as they have a built-in feature to allow the report of offensive content for removal (porn).  To this end all they would have to do is allow copyright holders the ability to flag (and automatically hide content from the public) to be reviewed by their staff.  However they haven't done this... why?  Because they know they are making a ton of coin by hosting such material.

One big problem... no one leases anything... no user pays to have their stuff hosted... Google does it for free with the expectation of ad space sales.  Therefore the only one making money will be more likely to be charged.

Napster Tried the "we only host it, we don't check it" defense, and lost... I don't see Google with any better excuse.

If you make a space frequented by crack dealers, that may not be your fault.  However if you tailor a space to be used by crack dealers that specifically aids them in circumventing law... then you are complicit in the breaking of that law.

GE-Raven

[Dash Jones]

No, it's still leasing.  They are letting others use their property, but in this case for free. 

[Electric Eye]

More likely it's that you own a storage lot or storefront property and lease it out.  Which should you hold responsible, the land owners from whom the shop holders lease from or the shop holders who are giving out the pirated stuff?

Under law?  Both... however the landowner is the one directly profiting from the use of the space (with full knowledge) for the distribution of copyrighted material.  The protection of (we don't control content) is obviously not completely true as they have a built-in feature to allow the report of offensive content for removal (porn).  To this end all they would have to do is allow copyright holders the ability to flag (and automatically hide content from the public) to be reviewed by their staff.  However they haven't done this... why?  Because they know they are making a ton of coin by hosting such material.

One big problem... no one leases anything... no user pays to have their stuff hosted... Google does it for free with the expectation of ad space sales.  Therefore the only one making money will be more likely to be charged.

Napster Tried the "we only host it, we don't check it" defense, and lost... I don't see Google with any better excuse.

If you make a space frequented by crack dealers, that may not be your fault.  However if you tailor a space to be used by crack dealers that specifically aids them in circumventing law... then you are complicit in the breaking of that law.

GE-Raven

Wow Raven, maybe you and I don't think so different on some things after all.

IMHO, Google should get slammed. YouTube is Napster at it's finest in some ways, and yes, I use it, I'll admit it. It's free, did I say FREE? And there are better quality videos than on the darn tv!

In regards to the airwaves? I agree, I remember if you had a sat dish in the 70's and early 80's you had it made. No decoder boxes, nada was needed, and yet the airwaves were all at the touch of your remote. However, this was a luxury for the rich that could plunk down 2k-5k for a quality dish. The poor and downtrodden had to pay for cable, or worse, go out to the cable box and pirate it.

Now us Americans pay top dollar for dish programming, where in Mexico and Latin America they can program your nice DishNetwork card for 60 bucks, all channels (Porn included) ready to go for at least 3 months. If they zap it within the 3 months, never fear, just take the card back and get it reprogrammed, for free.  !

[Sarek]

As to the ads not being on the same page... not sure what YouTube you are going too... you have never noticed how the adds somehow seem to be "inline" with whatever the tagged content is?  Hell still freaky to me that in G-Mail when I am helping a friend with a Motherboard, I have ads for Motherboards, Ram, and Processors on either side of my e-mail... But they aren't "reading it".   

Interesting, I get absolutely no ads, just links to other videos on the right side of the page and comments below the video.

To this end all they would have to do is allow copyright holders the ability to flag (and automatically hide content from the public) to be reviewed by their staff.

Yikes!  We already have enough problems with copyright holders using the DMCA to shut down websites with bogus claims of copyright violation.  Goodbye fair use.

[Electric Eye]

I like the phrase that is on your nick.

Sometimes I wish I could have traded places with my dear ole stepdad, now the baby boomers had it made!

[KBF MalaK]

I heard this morning that NBC just sighned a deal with google to put content (old shows and such) on  the internet. My guess is they're abandoning youtube.

Could be the final nail in youtubes coffin.

stay tuned.

[GE-Raven]

Pretty Sure You Tube IS Google.  Or vice versa... Google bought em.

GE-Raven

[Sarek]

I heard this morning that NBC just sighned a deal with google to put content (old shows and such) on  the internet. My guess is they're abandoning youtube.

Could be the final nail in youtubes coffin.

stay tuned.

And that's what this lawsuit is really about, to pressure You Tube into a more favorable agreement with Viacom.  Neither wants to roll the dice and go to court.

[Electric Eye]

Pretty Sure You Tube IS Google.  Or vice versa... Google bought em.

GE-Raven

Exactly, Google did buy YouTube already, so NBC surrendered already.

[Electric Eye]

I will miss this video, even though I have the song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwDRBZ3yhFc

[Electric Eye]

You Tube killed the TV garbage stars!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe9FMoElCoU

[KBF MalaK]

Pretty Sure You Tube IS Google.  Or vice versa... Google bought em.

GE-Raven

Exactly, Google did buy YouTube already, so NBC surrendered already.

The news report didn't specify who initiated the deal, so maybe it was youTube who signed the deal. In either case YouTube (Google) will be paying Viacom (NBC) for content.

[Sarek]

When a corporation can get me to agree with MoveOn.org, you know that they are truly evil. 

http://www.hollywoodreporteresq.com/thresq/litigation/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003561980

Suit Alleges Viacom 'Colbert' Letter Abused DMCA
March 23, 2007

By Eriq Gardner

NEW YORK -- Two liberal activist groups have asked a federal court to declare that Viacom Inc. improperly requested that YouTube Inc. remove a parody of Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" from its Web site.

MoveOn.org and Brave New Films allege that on Aug. 4 the latter posted "Stop the Falsiness," a mock news report that purports to challenge the popular television host's claims to "truth."

Five days later, "Colbert" producer Richard Dahm viewed the video and learned that MoveOn would be publicizing the video to its members. On March 13, the same day Viacom sued Google and YouTube alleging massive copyright infringement, Viacom delivered a takedown notice to YouTube concerning "Stop the Falsiness."

"Our clients' video is an act of free speech and a fair use of 'Colbert Report' clips," Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Corynne McSherry said. "Viacom knows this -- it's the same kind of fair use that 'The Colbert Report' and 'The Daily Show' rely upon every night as they parody other channels' news coverage."

Representing the plaintiffs along with EFF is Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig and a team from the school's Center for Internet and Society. Lessig wrote a New York Times op-ed column that appeared Sunday criticizing Viacom's use of the courts to settle copyright problems.

In the complaint, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the plaintiffs argue that "Stop the Falsiness" is "self-evident fair use" and asks the court to impose injunctive relief and damages under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for Viacom's misrepresentation of copyright infringement.

Mel Avanzado, a partner at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro in Los Angeles, said he believes Viacom may have mistakenly included the "Falsiness" clip on their list of offending copyrighted works appearing on YouTube.

"The most interesting thing about the MoveOn complaint is their allegation that a media conglomerate, which obviously places a high value on free speech under the First Amendment, has effectively blocked another organization from exercising those same rights," Avanzado said.

Mark Kesslen of Lowenstein Sandler in New Jersey questioned whether the complaint alleges a sufficient "actual controversy" for a declaratory relief action to be proper.

"I don't see how the plaintiffs can assert there is an actual controversy when Viacom never threatened the plaintiffs with a suit or even communicated with them," Kesslen said. "The complaint, on its face, indicates that Viacom only contacted YouTube."

The case is MoveOn.org Civic Action v. Viacom Int'l., no case number.