More YouTube Money Grab Lawsuits
from the this-again? dept
It really doesn't seem that difficult to understand how YouTube works, but plenty of people keep acting confused and blaming YouTube for things it has no responsibility over. Of course, the cynical take is that these people know exactly how YouTube works, but see this as an easy money grab. Take, for example, the case of a country music publisher that has decided to sue Google/YouTube over the fact that some videos on YouTube contain music they hold a copyright on. They don't seem to acknowledge the fact that there isn't any revenue at risk here. No one is listening to their music in a video on YouTube and deciding not to go buy it. In fact, it's likely the opposite is happening. Second, they're blaming YouTube, rather than the individuals who are actually doing the infringing. Finally (and most amusingly), they're complaining that it's difficult for them to find those who infringe on their copyrights, but don't acknowledge that it's equally difficult for Google to monitor the videos for the exact same reason. The law still remains pretty clear here that Google is well within DMCA safe harbors, but in paying off a few record labels the morning they purchased YouTube, Google opened the door for exactly these kinds of lawsuits.
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
No Suprise...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seems very normal
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I was watching a funny video youTube today while
I think I have grounds for a lawsuit.
youTube should have better warnings.
Honda should make cars better able to avoid spill driving.
Starbucks should 'know' that their coffee is dangerous.
I am outraged over this egregious corporate behavior; outraged I say!
and someone should pay, pay, pay!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
According to Plan?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Suprise...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hosting Content
Now, the point is valid that the actual loss of revenue is effectively zero, so YouTube probably shouldn't be liable for anything.
but isn't illegal to HOST the copyrighted content? If so, what about videos that have copyrighted music in the background?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hosting Content
[ link to this | view in thread ]
YouTube is providing a venue which some people use to distribute copyrighted material in a manner which the copyright owner doesn't approve of.
As far as there not being a "risk" to revenue, Google paid $1.6B for something of value - and some percentage of that value was generated by copyrighted material, none of which went to the owners of the content
Regardless of the compensation issue maybe the owners should have some say over how their content is delivered. Perhaps they don't want their work distributed in a grainy, 4-square inch frame with wobbly sound because they think this inherently degrades the work's quality.
I don't believe dismissing these suits out-of-hand is justified.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I was watching a funny video youTube today whi
:)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
-Dog done died
-Music being distributed without royalty payments on Google and YouTube
If Hank Williams' no talent namesake grandson doesn't have him spinning in his grave, this would.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
YouTube is providing a venue which some people use to distribute copyrighted material in a manner which the copyright owner doesn't approve of.
But they are not the ones doing the infringement. Please read section 230 of the CDA.
As far as there not being a "risk" to revenue, Google paid $1.6B for something of value - and some percentage of that value was generated by copyrighted material, none of which went to the owners of the content
The value is the service of hosting videos for free. It's not the content, since Google doesn't own the content.
If you think Google is at fault here, then every web hosting company is now guilty of copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And perhaps they don't want their work's perceived quality degraded by being viewed by those with poor eyesight. Or maybe they don't want their work viewed by person's of certain colors or religions or genders either. Luckily, they can't always get what they want.
It's not only justified, it's exactly what should happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
YouTube: Free Advertising
However, YouTube, and every other video site, must know that when someone uploads an episode of Scrubs that the odds are they don't have the legal right to do so. It's a legal loophole.
As for the lawsuit, I thought you had to prove damages in court to get a monetary award. I'm no lawyer, obviously.
The real problem is that these media companies are still doing business the old way. They should look to YouTube as a free vehicle to market their products instead of trying to shut down something that really does no economic damage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hosting Content
Under the safe harbor provision of the DMCA, it is not illegal to host infringing material, as long as you provide a means for copyright holders to notify you of infringing material and then act on that notification if it is legitimate. The host is not held directly responsible for material that it hosts - the person who uploaded it is the rightful person to bear that responsibility.
To give an example, let's say you have a personal home page hosted by some third party host, like yahoo or some other hosting service, and you upload a video of some infringing content, say pirates of the caribbean. Then, if somebody at disney finds the video, they should notify your host that they are hosting infringing material. Now, if they are good hosts, they will in turn notify you and allow you to remedy it or defend it as fair use. If they are bad hosts, they may take down the video or your whole site and not even tell you. (which means it's time to pray you have a back-up of your site, and go find a new host ;)) In either case, as long as they act upon the notification, your host bears no responsibility for the infringement under the law - you do.
If hosts were directly responsible for the material they hosted, it would basically cripple third-party hosting companies, search engines, discussion boards, and lots of other things that make the internet worth using.
[ link to this | view in thread ]