Google Taking Down Private Videos For Copyright Infringement?
from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept
Sure, with a $1 billion lawsuit hanging over its head concerning copyright issues on YouTube (even if Google is confident that it's on the right side of the law), you might understand why Google would be a bit aggressive in its ramped up efforts to police content hosted on YouTube. However, should that aggressive effort apply to videos that aren't public? Chris O'Donnell had posted a personal Christmas video of his family to YouTube using a couple of popular songs as background music -- but he set the video to private, rather than public, and only sent it to a few family friends. A grand total of 3 or 4 people had seen the video. Yet, the video is now gone, as Google sent a notice saying that its automated content checker believed the video contained "unauthorized content."There's clearly no way that the copyright holders in question would have complained about the video, as there was no way for them to see it. This wasn't a public display or public performance of the content at all, and there may be some questions about fair use -- which, as a court recently reminded folks, needs to be taken into account before DMCA takedowns are sent). Of course, technically there's no DMCA takedown here -- as Google was just doing some self-policing, but it seems like a pretty good question as to why the company is policing private videos that aren't for public consumption.
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
Filed Under: copyright, copyright infringement, fair use, private videos
Companies: google, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sometimes they don't SCREW you!
This makes sense, as the content owner of the songs may sell a few more CDs when people hear music they might not have known about. More media companies should do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The whole point
YouTube is Dead!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The whole point
To put it another way, YouTube is tool. And as a tool it can be used for bad things and good things. And merely because a tool can be used for bad things does not necessarily mean it should not being used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The whole point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The whole point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The whole point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The whole point
That's a trick question. Technically, every video on YouTube (or Google Video, in this case) is copyrighted.
I'm pretty sure what Ima Fish meant was, these services are for sharing material for which you own the copyrights or for which you have been given permission to share/display to the general public. There are tons of those videos available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The whole point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The whole point
Whoa, what?? What do you use YOUR crowbars for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The whole point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The whole point
In general we don't go there to see the musings of someone that thinks they're funny wearing an ape mask or drinking Coke and eating Mentos or discussing why they think Pokemon is great. There are a few things that I've found entertaining by every day people but it's mostly music and considering some of it's covers they'll probably be yanked down. I also tend to think (as the story kind of points out) that Google will over compensate and remove a lot more than needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The whole point
B) How is a low-bit-rate copyrighted song playing in the background of a home video causing any economic harm to a record company? Do they really think people are going to go load that video instead of buying it (or downloading it in other ways)? Frankly, I think most of these legal matters should be thrown out simply for failing to show damages.
Go look through any random sampling of YouTube videos, and there will be a bunch with some obscure techno music playing. Almost invariably, in the comments, somebody will ask what song it is (speaking for dozens more who didn't ask), and somebody else will answer (promoting the artist to hundreds or thousands who watched the video). Granted, in the majority of these cases, the interested people will likely download the song without paying, but if even one person buys it legally, isn't that a better outcome than suppressing the music completely? It's like they WANT to keep the lid on their product.
There is only one answer to why this keeps happening:
The music industry sees the writing on the wall. They think the settlements from a series of lawsuits are a better way to monetize their "properties" than selling them. Obviously nobody likes patent hoarding trolls, but the RIAA is doing the exact same thing with copyright. Put a bunch of content into the ecosystem, then sue to make money off it.
They are not defending a failed business model, they invented a new one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The whole point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The whole point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this the exact thing you DON'T want to do, so you can maintain clean hands?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope. There is nothing in the safe harbor provisions that says you lose them if you police. In fact, courts have ruled the opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
private?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW, this is Google Video, not YouTube.
I followed the complaint procedures listed on Google but have heard nothing to date.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, I have no idea when it happened, it could have been over the weekend. Google didn't notify me when they unblocked the video. Clearly, I should make it public and share it with the world now :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate the new world order...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't that interesting...
Sometimes it seems like we have nothing better to do than overreact to every microscopic decision or mistake these companies make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't this self policing kind of hurt that argument? If Google can do it, why can't YouTube? Why wouldn't Viacom take this and go into court and tell the judge "look, they can stop it if they want to, but the choose not to?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope. The law does not REQUIRE you to self-police, but doesn't punish you if you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point
1. Google's AUTOMATED content checker scanned Mr. O'Donnell's video, found music it knew to be copyrighted and pulled the video as well as flagging it to be reviewed for content.
2. Once the vid was reviewed by a real live human, it was found to be A.) A low-bit-rate sampling (as pointed out by a previous poster) of copyrighted material that was simply used to accompany someone's home video and B.) Marked private and therefore could not possibly be infringing because it is specifically not a public performance nor used in any sort of advertising vehicle.
3. Once the material was confirmed to be non-infringing, it was made available again. No harm, no foul.
We gotta remember that Google is a big company with deep pockets and as such, is a target for every lazy conniver who would rather sue than work for a living. If we're going to lambast them for covering their big, cash-filled arse, then maybe they also deserve kudos for actually looking into the matter and not only coming to the correct conclusion but acting correctly on it as well.
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many millions of blatantly infringing videos exist on Google and YouTube at this very instant? Something isn't working right with Google's efforts to police the sites. They shouldn't even be bothering with unlisted videos. Moving a video from unlisted to public might be a very good reason to check it out. An unlisted video with excessive traffic might be worth checking out. But an unlisted video with zero views seems sort of pointless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
were the judge ruled that the hosting site is doing enough to stop copyrighted material using automated checkers, black listing users who have history of posting copyrighted material and taking down material when its alerted about them (basically following the DMCA to the letter) it should be no surprise google/ youtube has to prove that its legit at 100% and needs to show its not interested in making money off illegal material.
perhaps as you suggested this might be taking it a bit too far but you can bet that wasn't the 1st video (with similar "attributes) removed from the youtube servers and you can bet the google lawyers will name them or provide a list with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes it was. It was a public display of content to 3 or 4 of his friends. The fact that it was viewed by anyone makes it a public display. It doesn't matter if they were family or friends.
If I seed a private torrent of a copyrighted movie, it's still a copyrighted movie even if the only people who download it are my friends and family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
public performance
U R Stupid
please look up what legally defines a "public performance" before you post ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uhh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uhh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
removed numa numa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]