And Here Come The YouTube Copyright Lawsuits
from the had-to-show-up-sooner-or-later dept
Just as some were talking about how YouTube had been able to avoid lawsuits from angry copyright holders (though, they receive plenty of cease-and-desist letters), the EFF is pointing out that a news service in LA is now suing YouTube for copyright infringement. As has been pointed out repeatedly, YouTube has a pretty clear defense against such claims: section 230 of the Communications Decency Act means that a service provider isn't responsible for what its users do with the service. In other words, this guy is going after the wrong target. Rather than suing YouTube, he should be going after whoever uploaded the contested video. It's also unclear from the info available if the guy sent YouTube a takedown notice on the content.However, the lawyers who filed the lawsuit seem to be focusing on two recent, but well known, cases to support their filing. The first is the Grokster ruling, which said companies could be liable if they were found to induce the infringement in some manner. Secondly, the lawyers claim that there's an even stronger case against YouTube than in Grokster because it's a centralized service -- which suggests they're pointing to similarities with the original Napster, which the courts had problems with due to its centralized nature. However, it may be a very difficult case for this news organization to win. YouTube can make a pretty strong case that they don't do anything to "induce" infringement. In fact, YouTube has worked to stop infringement, and generally has a good reputation for taking down infringing content when notified. Also, the sheer number of legitimate uses and content providers embracing YouTube suggests that it just doesn't have the same emotional response that both Napster and Grokster had. While the case may not go back to the "substantial non-infringing uses" of the Betamax case, it's likely that YouTube's lawyers will make a similar case. Either way, it's likely this will be an important case to watch.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Mostly Infringing, except for
Mostly Infringing = Gonna Get Sued. And since they are HOSTING the infringing content (ala Napster), I imagine the dificulties are just going to be piling up against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mostly Infringing, except for
You stated:
"Mostly Infringing = Gonna Get Sued. And since they are HOSTING the infringing content (ala Napster), I imagine the dificulties are just going to be piling up against them."
Napster never ever hosted the material on any servers they were the original Bit Torrent if you will, a person would sign on search for a file and download it using P2P (peer 2 Peer) networking making it so that the person downloading could pool the bandwidth between hosts. It was brilliant. They fell do to the fact they were making money off of doing nothing else but allowing infringement to take place not for actually committing the crime. If Napster would have put free learning files or served another purpose they wouldn't have had to change their ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only a matter of time
1st!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fair use
I stole this quote from another site. Sue me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mostly Infringing, except for
section 230 mentioned above.
Now, about the lawsuit, I'm wondering if YouTube's one big downfall in such a case would be Anonymous posting... as there is no verification of any sort, just IPs (which don't actually point out a specific user as we know from suits that have backfired against the riaa) does this put them at any more of a risk?
Anyways, I don't see this as being anywhere near the extent of Napster... these are small segments we're talking about... not an endless supply of any and practically all music and movies that your heart desires.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have to Agree with YouTuber
I invite you to Google "emoboy youtube" (without quotes) to find one example where videos uploaded by a user became a mini sensation which even hit some mainstream media.
There are many more like emoboy on the site and YouTube stands an excellent chance of proving they are not like Napster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube Lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Youtube Lawsuit
Hmm. First of all, we didn't say anything about the DMCA (you forgot the C), so I'm not sure why you brought it up. However, as for the CDA (again, you missed the C, but replaced it with an F), YouTube clearly does fall under the definition: "provider or user of an interactive computer service" Plenty of other similar sites have been held as protected under the CDA, so it would seem they have a pretty good case that they're covered too. The CDA isn't designed to just protect ISPs -- as in connectivity providers -- but any service provider online who provides some sort of platform for others to do things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Youtube Lawsuit
"knowingly (A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or (B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs."
I really dont see YouTube either violating that and the purpose of the act was to regulate pornagraphy during 1996.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Youtube Lawsuit
Please cite your source for your claim. Sites like eBay and Cafepress claim they have to abide by the DMCA, how is YouTube different? They provide a hosting service for video content. Sounds like an ISP to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to America!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube Lawsuit
Secondly, Youtube KNOWINGLY infringes. Hurley and his partners have admitted in at least a dozen articles that I have read, that they are aware of the copyright infringing activities of their site. That's top-end WILLFUL copyright infringement. Saying they're protected by the DMCA is flat out false. Verizon, and other ISPs have immunity-NOT web sites.
They're in a bad position, due in no small part to, last year's Grokster case, NAPSTER, Los Angeles News Service v Reuters, Los Angeles News Service v KCAL, Los Angeles News Service v AVR, the Sony Betamax case, and numerous other US and 9th Circuit cases.
I hope this explains the differences:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Youtube Lawsuit
Internet Service Provider. It's different than a web site. Think telephone company-Think Verizon ISP. A phone company that provides the communication pathway, much the same as Internet Service Providers, can't be held responsible for illegal acts they are not a party or encourage or promote. Youtube is first and foremost, a web site WITH a central server, publishing other people's copyrighted work. Youtube does NOT provide internet service.
I'm afraid you're ignoring both the actual language of the law and past rulings as well. First, it's not about "internet service providers" but "provider or user of an interactive computer service." That's quite different. So far, the courts have read that to mean any provider of an online service that people use -- and, yes, that includes websites (and mailing lists and forums). So, sorry, it does include YouTube.
Secondly, Youtube KNOWINGLY infringes. Hurley and his partners have admitted in at least a dozen articles that I have read, that they are aware of the copyright infringing activities of their site. That's top-end WILLFUL copyright infringement. Saying they're protected by the DMCA is flat out false. Verizon, and other ISPs have immunity-NOT web sites.
Again, this is wrong. YouTube is not the infringing party. 3rd parties may upload infringing content, but YouTube tries to limit that and also takes down any infringing content they're aware of.
Second, it's not about "knowingly" doing anything. It's about inducing -- actively encouraging -- infringement. That's a much tougher bar.
Finally, you bring up the DMCA a second time (which we never did) and focus on the wrong definition of service provider -- which we showed was wrong above.
They're in a bad position, due in no small part to, last year's Grokster case, NAPSTER, Los Angeles News Service v Reuters, Los Angeles News Service v KCAL, Los Angeles News Service v AVR, the Sony Betamax case, and numerous other US and 9th Circuit cases.
Funny, but in the post itself we explain why Grokster probably doesn't apply. Napster also probably does not apply, since there are so many legitimate videos on the site. The Betamax case again supports YouTube. The specific cases involving LA News aren't specifically related to this case, where it's a 3rd party that should be the target.
So, sorry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Youtube Lawsuit
I need a lawyer to sue YouTube, which violates my personal copyright. I cannot pay any money. Can anybody help me find a lawyer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, it just shows how you like to pull "facts" out of your arsenal without citing any actual sources. Thanks for the Truthiness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CDA does not apply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't know the law as others do...
The original incarnation of Napster made the same arguments, and eventually went bye bye...
I guess with the current mickey mouse copyright law, I will never see any material enter into the public domain in my lifetime:-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plus, those moronic losers that make them will thank us when they don't get beaten up between classes for being gayer than the whole band class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get Over It
People have been copying for as long as its been available, taping off the radio with cassettes, movies off of tv with a vcr making copy of cassettes with double cassette recorders and hooking up 2 vcr's to copy tapes it is not like this is a new thing, its just more available with the net.
These rich people with all their stuff and want to take away from us average workers the few pleasures we get out of being their fans, like making a machinima movie to your favorite song or making a fan video to your favorite show, that should be flattery, not warrant a lawsuit, and who can afford the price of things lately CD's are overpriced and its not like they don't have enough money as it is, as I say Boo Hoo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get Over It
I do not agree with selling copyright material nor do I agree with taking something of someones and claiming that it is yours, but if you give proper credit and your not making money off of it, then they should not care, they should feel flattered, I have fell inlove with bands and music that I had never heard until watching like Final Fantasy movies and such, so I definately think it benefits the artist, I have even watched movies that were not that good but was like hey I like that song, or seen fan videos of a show and thought hey I may look into renting that, it looks cool. How is this a bad thing for the entertainment industry, I mean really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get Over It
Sorry man, but this "EAT THE RICH" talk makes me puke. Sure they get a lot of money, but there are poeple out there that work hard on jobs and dont get millions.... wake up!
If you would have been working 330 hours in one month on a project that is available on you tube a week after publishing you´d be pissed too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
Another question that sort of goes along with my above one is: Will other music producers and networks be swayed into making agreements and partnerships with YouTube because of NBC agreement and the music producers? I know none of us can tell for sure, but what is your opinion? You all seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to this subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the Fine Print of CDA
"(e)(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property."
In plain English, that means that the Copyright laws that provide to content creators the right to prevent the copying, distribution, creation of derivative works, or public performance of their works have all the rights of US Copyright law, and International Treaties such as the Berne Convention, to not only SUE THE HELL OUT OF YOUTUBE, but to ask for an injunction against their service. Say goodbye to YouTube!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube lives in cloud couckoo land!
If I opened a bookstore would I be able simply buy books shoplifted from one down the street and claim igonorance because the seller told me they hadn't? If a video has a logo on it then you have no agreement with that company then it has to be dubious.
How can they not know? Have they had their eyes removed?
The reason why Youtube has got so far is that companies want to sue them for millions - and have a fair chance of getting them. What is the alternative - trying to sell news clips for money, for example? CNN tried that with partners Realplayer - it didn't work.
Youtube is a break-the-law-and-pay-the-consequences company. That is not what Western law should be about. You make a product you should reap the benefits and control it - not some fly-by-nights who have no artistic skill or have not put a penny in to it.
Youtube is killing enterprise - if I were to make a short film I know the minute it is broadcast it could appear on Youtube and give me no chance of resale on DVD?
Yes - lots of people like getting something for nothing (they would like to get everything for nothing!), but that isn't how the world should turn and it won't. Too many people have too much to loose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube gets sued = SHUT DOWN LIKE NAPSTER!!!!!!!!
They have uploaded 30000 Videos illegally from Sony!!!
30000!!!!!!!!
Basically they employ people to ILLEGALLY upload video and then they sell the company for 1.65 Billion US$!!!
The media companies should SUE THE HELL OUT OF YOU TUBE AND GET THE JUDGES TO SHUT THEM DOWN LIKE NAPSTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright breaches
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright breaches
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube plays the devil (plagiarism)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube.com copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Youtube.com copyright
But I don't think youtube should be sued for what It's users A,K,A customers do.
First off
You sign a LEGAL binding contract stating you and only you are responsible for what you upload on youtube. When you sign up to the site.
Here is an example of why I don't think youtube should be sued:
Let's say you owned a shop full of let's say wine bottles,
and a customer buys a bottle of wine from you. Then goes home gets drunk and kills somebody.
Should the police hold you responsible for selling the wine?
Or should the police hold the person responsible who committed the crime?
Think about it You have No control over what your customer does.
Neither does youtube In fact there is so many users on youtube that the staff is so over whelmed. That there is NO WAY they could police it all.
And no they don't just let people upload anything. There is millions of accounts on youtube. With a staff that is very small compared to this group. They have even hired people to do nothing but find users that upload infringing material and they still can't find them all It's like 1 man trying to wipe all the crime in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
100% copyright violation by Youtube.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship by YOUTUBE.COM - unfair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop whinning, this will never end!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube: You want to sue us? Get in Line...
Yes, it's true that if you took every copyright-violated video down from youtube right now, then there wouldn't be much left to see. At the very least the millions of daily viewers would drop off severely.
But the more I thought about it, the laws of this land were set up to protect the rights of individuals. If you're the first to come up with an idea, then you should own the rights to it.
The bottom line is, I think it's wrong to let a few guys start an internet web site that They-Know will violate several laws but just have the attitude that the bigger we get the more money we will have to "buy off" those who choose to sue us. The more money... we will have to "fight" those who are saying that we violate any laws.
What that says to the world is: You can go start up any website you want. Don't worry about breaking any laws, just get as popular as possible. Then, by the time the legal stuff catches up to you, you will have plenty of money to tie it up in courts for years and years. It's not right.
Youtube, as much as I like hanging out there, should be Shut Down in it's present form just like Napster was. I hope it's just a matter of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Youtube: You want to sue us? Get in Line...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Benefits of infringement
Regardless... in either 1999 OR 2001 (the detail I cannot remember), more movies were illegally downloaded than EVER in the history of this world. However, box offices saw their best sales since the 50's considering inflation.
But... that... does... not... make....... I must be lying.
Either way- outside of 2005, box office sales have been on a steady increase since the early nineties- right about the time the internet was popularized. Again- that's counterintuitive to some of you. Point being, YouTube is a negligible threat, if any at all.
I personally have never downloaded any copyrighted material from YouTube, nor have any of my friends or colleagues suggested I do so. Rather, I have discovered dozens of creative artists that would have stood no chance in this 'bottom line' entertainment industry we have today.
If YouTube is a threat, it is because they are putting the power back into the hands of the artist. Maybe people are tired of the million dollar piece of $h!t products (iRobot... for example) and now favor the fifteen cent closet productions of truly creative people. If I was a multi-millionaire in the entertainment industry, I'd be a little scared too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Benefits of infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In 5 or 10 years you will be able to get high definition material off of the internet in "real-time". Your Television set will likely be hooked up already to the internet. So....even though YouTube isn't doing alot of damage to the sales of copyrighted material right now, what will happen when everybody with a mediocre computer has the ability to distribute material just as well as your cable provider?
I don't know what will happen in this court case... but I HOPE that it shuts down YouTube and ANY imitators....otherwise the ONLY programing that will be around in 5 or 10 years will be that crap that YouTube distributes legally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
youtube is not the same as..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The BS defense
For instance, if Joe Blow records a band and then wants to post the music on-line to be sold. Who makes money? The person that posts the content and the site hosting the content. Then, I believe, BOTH parties should be held liable, since both parties are making a profit.
there is supposed to be a $150,000 fine for copyright violation. In the entertainment industry, musicians, actors, etc. MUST sign a release form to allow their performances to be sold, distributed, etc. ANY legitimate record label or movie label has lawyers on staff or retainer that drafts and reviews these release forms and they ensure that the musicians/actors, etc. sign them BEFORE they can release that content.
However, in the Independent market, most people either don't hire an entertainment lawyer because they don't have the money or don't want to spend the money, or are simply ignorant. However, this is part of the industry for it to be legitimate.
These sites should be scrutinizing content BEFORE it gets posted to ensure that if there is an independent person posting content of video or music that there be signed release forms.
These sites only have these defenses against the person posting, but anyone who's copyrights they violate should be able to have the content removed without question and the statutory fine be issued immediately.
There are too many violations out there because these sites don't care about people's copyrights as they just care about posting tons of content not be held liable.
With YouTube, things get posted, but they are not sold, however YouTube is trying to sell advertising and get as many people to constantly go to their site. Well, they should tell people if they post content of people that aren't the actual poster that they need to get a signed release form from the people in these videos.
Some people like to have some control over their video, likeness, music tracks, etc.
yeah, I know a lot of content will be removed in the process, but things are getting out of control. How many videos are on YouTube where the same content is posted by several different people? Doesn't that waste of lot of time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube Mystery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The YouTube Copyright Lawsuits for the hanging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's practically the same story now with another person, and YouTube staff hasn't lifted a finger against them in the past two months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward is an asshole
It's practically the same story now with another person, and YouTube staff hasn't lifted a finger against them in the past two months.
Youre an asshole...were the movies yours, or were your just jealous? I hate people who just love to cause trouble for another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh the Drama!
It's free advertisement for celebrities, authors and musicians. The quality isn't near as good as what you get on DVD, you can't watch a complete movie from it. If someone wants to purchase a movie or music, they're not going to settle for the piss poor quality on YouTube. They're going to go out and buy it. And how many of those amateur artists who upload videos are doing it for a profit? I'd venture to say next to nada. Most do it for no other purpose than entertainment or to show their friends what they can do with material of different venues.
Chat rooms all over the net sport icons and avatars with celebrity photos. Is there a big boo hoo about that? As long as the uploaders aren't making a profit from the videos, who cares? I pay a good price for my DVD's and my CD's. As long as I'm not using it with malicious intent or trying to make profit from them, it's no one's damn business what I do with them.
These people suing YouTube need to get over themselves and so do the people bashing YouTube. Here's a novel idea...if you don't like....don't watch it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go AvidMovieWatcher!!!
In addition, for people like me who have no life other than school and children, watching and making fanvideos is sometimes an essential outlet for creative expression. I mean, really, as long as no one is being harmed, credit is being given, and no money is being made, what is the big deal???
Please big corporations, be kind to your fans - or you might lose them!!! (I for one am extremely vindictive)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hrmph.
Most of the Sarcasm Aside.
I use Youtube to see if I like certain songs on montages to video games I enjoy before I go out and spend the money on the CD's so I can try to make my own or just place them on my MP3.
I look to Youtube for video games that are out, take a look at first hand gameplay, watch old movies to see if their worth buying to view on a larger screen, AND to simply entertain myself by watching hard to see episodes to shows that no longer air in the first place. Its bascialy 'TV' for us Computer Geeks (and Jocks) who use the tube more and more as a dusty paper-weight when we're not playing a Console or watching a DvD.
All in all, the Lawyer's Employers are worrying about the money they're still getting, just not as fast so they can lord over the people even faster with the "We're Rich, So We're Special," attutide. And if it squashes on the creativity of certain folk (like the guys who like to do montages or people who hand-draw flash animations and cartoons; forgot about them, didn't we?) who have more natural talent then the fifteen morons they hired half a million dollars each to film a commerical we either flip through or don't care to watch because the product doesn't fit our cup of tea, who are they to care? >_>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What ever
Stella, won't you take me home?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leave youtube alone!!!
youtube is great :)
To: 'Zachary Miletich': Noone cares what you think. Stop wasting everyone's time!
Angry Fox is right;; Just because YOU might not like youtube doesn't mean OTHER people can't like it.
Think of Youtube as cammomile tea. Some people prefer black or green or Chai or whatever, just coz you don't like cammomile tea, doesn't mean you have to ruin some one else's favourite flavour.
Seriously, if you have such big oppinions, waste your time telling a real person, instead of a website.
Honestly, GET OVER YOURSELF!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leave youtube alone!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Albuquerque Lawyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]