Is Watching An Infringing YouTube Video Copyright Infringement?

from the these-days,-what-isn't-infringement? dept

Last year we pointed to a report where a law professor tallied up how much he "infringed" on copyright in a regular day, coming out with a multi-million dollar total. Now Tom writes in to alert us to an article by Chris Soghoian questioning whether or not watching an infringing video on YouTube counts as infringement as well. The summary is that it's hardly a clearcut issue -- which should be seen as a problem. A copyright holder could conceivably make an argument that it's infringement, though it's not clear that it would hold up in court (and the backlash against anyone stupid enough to make such an argument would be overwhelming). What this really highlights, though, is how poorly our copyright laws are structured for the internet age, where anyone can create, distribute and consume tons and tons of content (all covered by copyright, thanks to Congress granting automatic copyrights).

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, videos, youtube
Companies: youtube

New York Wants To Punish Criminals For Incriminating Selves On YouTube

from the if-you-confess,-we-punish-you-more dept

We've been seeing plenty of stories lately that incorrectly place the blame when people film themselves doing something illegal and put that video online. This should be something where politicians and the police should be thrilled. After all, it makes it that much easier for the police to find them, arrest them and convict them of a crime. If people are so stupid to post evidence of their crime in public, then isn't that a good thing? Yet, politicians who incorrectly like to put the blame for the crime on the video of the crime, come up with harebrained proposals like a new one in New York that will make putting a video of yourself committing a violent crime online a felony in itself (above and beyond whatever charges you might face for the violence). Think about that for a second. New York politicians are basically telling people that they'll get charged with even greater crimes if they decide to incriminate themselves by posting evidence online. This makes no sense.

The reasoning behind the bill is that politicians believe people are committing these kinds of crimes for the publicity in the first place. The thinking is that such crimes wouldn't happen at all if they couldn't be put online. However, that's rather meaningless. If someone is going to commit a violent crime -- punish the violence itself. Not the fact that the idiots handed over the evidence as part of a publicity stunt. If the (small number) of idiots who commit violent crimes and post the videos online are getting caught and arrested for the violence itself, shouldn't that act as enough disincentive?

Filed Under: blame, crimes, evidence, incriminating, new york, videos, youtube
Companies: youtube

If You're Going To Put Up Fake Grassroots Videos On YouTube, Shouldn't You At Least Pretend To Be Real People?

from the just-a-thought dept

A political reporter for the Star Telegram in Texas noticed something rather interesting after a Republican National Committee spokesperson sent over some YouTube videos, combining some news clips with snippets of comments from presidential candidates: none of the videos said who they were made by and all of them were put up under odd usernames that looked like someone had just typed randomly on a keyboard -- and all of which only had a single video uploaded. Usernames like skdjhfjhse, asdlkfjasdlk and skfhsdfsd don't exactly look like real people posting user-generated content -- and they're not. When asked about it, the RNC admitted that it had made the videos itself and posted them online. Why not post them under the RNC's official YouTube channel? Well, the RNC claims that it's because these weren't television ads, which is also the excuse it gives for not including a "the RNC is responsible for this ad" disclaimer in the videos. However, it seems pretty clear that the idea was to get these videos up for more viral purposes, suggesting something of a "grassroots" support to the production. However, if you're going to do some astroturfing, you might as well at least have the fake "grassroots" supporters look real. Merely typing in a bunch of characters from the central row of your keyboard is a pretty immediate tipoff that these aren't real people.

Filed Under: astroturf, grassroots, politics, republicans, rnc, videos, youtube
Companies: rnc, youtube

Shockingly, YouTube NOT Blamed For Teen Web Attack

from the really? dept

Last week, there was plenty of news about a group of eight Florida teenagers who purposely lured another teen into someone's home and then beat her while filming the attack -- which they specifically planned to put on YouTube in an attempt to "get famous." While there have been some attempts to point a finger of blame at YouTube and MySpace, it looks like the press isn't jumping on that bandwagon as quickly as you might expect. Rose M. Welch writes in to point to an Associated Press article that quotes a bunch of people pointing out that YouTube is not to blame and has nothing to do with this attack. Some point out that those sites gave us a record of the attack to make it easier to capture and prosecute those responsible -- while others point out that "the public" is equally as responsible for wanting to watch that kind of attack in the first place. Either way, it's nice to see the AP quickly come out with a clear defense of why YouTube isn't the problem here.

Filed Under: blame, videos, violence, youtube
Companies: google, youtube

Congress Makes YouTube Promise To Host Representatives' Videos Sans Ads

from the following-the-rules dept

Apparently Congressman Kevin McCarthy happened to be one of a very small number of folks in Congress who actually bothered to read some of the rules that Congress is supposed to abide by. In doing so, he realized that all those Congressional Representatives putting videos on YouTube are probably breaking the rules, which say that Representatives can't be doing stuff on commercial sites. When he first brought this to the attention of other Reps, they basically told him to ignore it, since everyone else did -- but eventually Congress decided to fix the problem. Of course, they didn't fix it by changing the rules... but by putting out a request for a webhosting site to host their videos in a non-commercial manner. YouTube was the only site to agree to do so, so now your Congresscritters can continue posting to YouTube, and (apparently) you won't see ads on their YouTube pages. I can't decide if I'm happy that Congress decided to actually follow its own rules, or worried about them spending time on something as silly as this.

Filed Under: congress, online, videos, youtube
Companies: google, youtube

Dear Wal-Mart Executives: You're On Candid Camera... And There's A Big Market For Those Videos

from the oops dept

Allen Funt, the creator of the famed Candid Camera TV show eventually donated the archives of the show to Cornell University, where it could be used for psychology research -- and to entertain the nearly 2,000 students in each year's psych 101 class. Now another long running set of "candid" videos is getting released, but not for academic purposes. A small company named Flagler Productions has, since the 1970s, filmed Wal-Mart's internal meetings for archival purposes. Wal-Mart was, effectively, Flagler's only client (it had a few others, but Wal-Mart represented 95% of the company's business). In 2006, Wal-Mart fired Flagler, basically taking away nearly all of its revenue. Rather than shut down or find new clients, Flagler realized it possessed an asset and started selling access to the behind-the-scenes videos of Wal-Mart executive meetings. Apparently it's been of tremendous interest to folks involved in all sorts of lawsuits against Wal-Mart -- especially for the clips showing execs mocking women (for a sexual discrimination case).

Of course, some might immediately question whether or not Flagler owns the rights to these videos, but no contract was signed between the parties and no transfer of rights was made -- and copyright law basically says whoever recorded it owns the copyright. Of course, the simplest solution would be for Wal-Mart to pay Flagler for the rights -- but it would appear there's something of a gap between asking prices. Wal-Mart has offered $500,000. Flagler wants $145 million. Apparently Flagler realized the best way to bridge the gap was to start selling access to the videos. Wal-Mart hasn't started any legal proceedings (it's probably trying to figure out if it has any case at all), but in quite the understatement, noted: "Needless to say, we did not pay Flagler Productions to tape internal meetings with this aftermarket in mind." Indeed.

Filed Under: candid camera, contracts, copyright, videos
Companies: wal-mart

Preventing Your Employees From Watching Videos Won't Prevent Them From Procrastinating

from the it'll-just-annoy-them dept

We've been saying for years that the notion that employee web surfing at work constitutes "lost profits" is nonsense. There is an infinite number of ways employees can waste time at work, from chatting with coworkers, reading magazines, or even taking a nap. Monitoring and restricting web surfing isn't likely to make employees procrastinate less, it'll just make them procrastinate in ways that are harder to monitor, and annoy them in the process. The Wall Street Journal has the latest example of surfing-at-work hysteria. Apparently the latest crisis is the time-wasting potential of Internet video sites. The funny thing about the article is that it inadvertently does a pretty good job of illustrating why blocking web-based video isn't a very good plan. One employee actually looked at clients' videos as part of his job, so he had to waste his own and the IT department's time seeking an exception every time he had a video he needed to watch in order to do his job. In an even more ridiculous case, an office had a mass shooting occur in a nearby mall, and all of the employees in the office apparently spent time complaining to the boss for permission to watch the news about it. Here, it was clear that the employees were already sitting around reading stories about the shooting, so they obviously weren't getting much work done. Yet for some reason the boss still seems proud of himself for preventing his employees from watching videos of the event. The article also cites bandwidth limitations as a reason for blocking online videos, but that seems like overkill. If upgrading bandwidth isn't an option (and bandwidth is getting cheaper every year) it seems like a much more straightforward approach would be to simply monitor total bandwidth consumption and warn the heaviest users to keep their consumption down. That would keep the network humming without treating employees like they're children.

Filed Under: employees, employers, procrastination, productivity, videos

Utah Law Proposed To Hide Police Misconduct So It Doesn't Get On YouTube

from the blame-the-victim dept

It's really fairly amazing to see how people react when bad activities are brought to light. A few times now, we've seen stories of students who were able to film inappropriate activity from teachers or principals with their mobile phones. Rather than recognizing the activity as whistleblowing, the schools in question responded by banning mobile phones. In other words, rather than fix the problem, the schools chose to cover it up so future problems wouldn't get exposed. It appears something along those lines may be happening on a larger scale in the state of Utah. After a video showing questionable police activity involving a taser showed up on YouTube, state senator Chris Buttars has introduced legislation that would allow police to withhold any reports concerning police misconduct from the public (found via Digg). That's because the whole reason the taser video made it to YouTube was because the victim filed a Freedom of Information Act request for it. So now, rather than deal with stopping police misconduct, it appears supporters of this legislation would simply prefer that no one knows about it. It might be worth noting that this comes at about the same time as new reports of a police officer suspended for inappropriate activity -- which was brought to light via YouTube.

Filed Under: police misconduct, utah, videos, youtube

Humorless Guitarists Take Down Amusing YouTube Mashup Video

from the not-the-intended-use dept

About a month ago, there was an amusing viral video getting passed around that showed various famous heavy metal guitarists, where the filmmaker dubbed over the films really, really bad guitar playing. It was incredibly well done, as the bad guitar playing was perfectly timed to the actions of the guitarists. It was clearly amusing satire -- yet at least one of the guitarists in question was a bit too sensitive about it. The video has been forced offline, and the creator has had his account cut off. The video was pretty clearly a satire on the way these guitar players play -- and it's difficult to see how the video would hurt the artists in any way. Yes, some might claim that people would think they really played that bad, but the videos seemed to be pretty clearly labeled as dubbed. Of course, like so many other efforts to make some kind of content disappear, it wouldn't be surprising to find this video showing up on other sites (and potentially getting even more attention).

Filed Under: copyright, guitar, music, online, satire, videos

Prince Takes Down Another Video With His Music Playing In The Background

from the hasn't-quite-learned-his-lesson dept

Over the summer, there was a flurry of press coverage over the fact that, with the help of the EFF, a mother was suing Universal Music for forcing a short video she had made offline. The 29-second video was of her kid dancing to some Prince music that was playing in the background. We were a bit surprised by this, due to plenty of stories around that time about how Prince really "got" the internet. We had thought that maybe this was just a move by Universal Music, rather than having anything to do with Prince himself. Since then, of course, Prince has been much more aggressive in forcing fan sites to take down content -- though, it still seems pretty clear that the original video was fair use. You would think that all of the negative publicity surrounding that case would have made it over to the UK, but apparently not. The Agitator points us to a story that Prince's representatives have forced a UK taxi driver to take some videos off of YouTube. The taxi driver had filmed a few short videos while he was driving his cab and uploaded them to YouTube. During at least one of the videos, there was some Prince music playing in the background on the cab's radio. And, that, apparently, is enough for Prince's representatives to claim copyright infringement and get the video taken offline. Can anyone explain how a short clip like this, with the music playing on the radio in the background on an amateur film with no commercial connection at all, is not fair use? But, more importantly, can anyone explain how (even if it is Prince's right), this makes sense for Prince? He's clearly not losing any money from this video being online. The only thing that might happen is more people hear that song and perhaps get them interested in Prince's music.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, prince, videos