Viacom's New Argument Against YouTube: Embedding Videos Removes Safe Harbors

from the active-vs.-passive dept

While we already discussed Google's latest response to Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube, Cynthia Brumfeld has picked up on an interesting point that's been overlooked: Viacom's amended complaint includes a slightly different argument as to why Google/YouTube are not protected by the DMCA's safe harbors, effectively claiming that YouTube takes an active role in transmitting the content. This is somewhat similar to an earlier argument that some made that YouTube is disqualified from the safe harbors because it transforms video from its original format into flash, but stretches it even further.

Even worse, Viacom brings up the issue of embedding videos. Of course, YouTube's embedding feature that allows anyone to easily embed a video in any webpage was one of its big selling points. Last year, we had raised the question (that still hasn't been answered) whether or not it was copyright infringement to embed an infringing video into your own site (even though you don't host the content at all). Viacom seems to be claiming that by enabling this act of embedding is infringing. Why? Because it's YouTube serving up the video, rather than the original uploader.

That's a huge stretch by any imagination and hopefully the court will toss it out. Otherwise, it effectively nullifies the entire safe harbor provision of the DMCA. The point of the safe harbors are to protect the platform provider for the infringement of its users. If the court accepts Viacom's claim here, then it completely throws out that clear meaning of the safe harbor provision. It basically says that any service provider who "hosts" content that is accessed via another site is now guilty of copyright infringement, even if the company is never alerted that the content infringes. That goes against the clear meaning and purpose of the safe harbor provisions.

Filed Under: dmca, embedding, safe harbors, youtube
Companies: google, viacom, youtube

City Council Tells 'Dumbest Criminal' To Stop Posting So Much Evidence To YouTube

from the give-the-cops-a-challenge,-man dept

We've been mocking various attempts to get laws passed that would make it illegal for criminals to post evidence of their crimes on YouTube. This makes absolutely no sense -- as you're basically telling criminals "stop giving us the evidence we need to convict you." If the criminals are so dumb as to hand over such evidence, shouldn't the police and gov't officials be happy about it? Now, in a rather extreme example of this, the city council for Leeds, in the UK, has banned a man they refer to as one of the city's "dumbest criminals" from posting any more evidence to YouTube. In fact, the City Council even seems to recognize how helpful the guy has been: "He has handed us the evidence against him on a plate. In the last three years, we have seen a 32 per cent reduction in crime in Leeds. If more criminals were as obliging, the city would be even safer." So why would you ban him from uploading such evidence?

Filed Under: bans, criminals, evidence, leeds, uk, videos, youtube

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

Hulu Realizes That YouTube's Audience Matters; Puts Its Own Videos Back On YouTube

from the didn't-see-that-coming dept

We've covered the bizarre love/hate affair that NBC Universal has had with YouTube. It actually helped get YouTube its first burst of serious publicity in demanding the SNL "Lazy Sunday" clip be taken down off the site. It then went back (setting up its own YouTube channel) and forth (blaming YouTube for company problems) on whether or not it liked YouTube, before eventually announcing its own competing offering (in partnership with News Corp.) called Hulu. Soon after doing so, it pulled the official NBC channel on YouTube, which made little sense. Even if Hulu were fantastic, the actual eyeballs were at YouTube. It had built up a huge community. NBC Universal was making the classic content owner's mistake of overvaluing the content, and undervaluing the platform. It figured that if it hosted the content itself, the crowds would come.

Apparently, that's not what has happened. While Hulu surprised many critics with a well-designed site, it appears that Hulu hasn't been able to generate the type of traffic executives expected. So, despite it being a YouTube competitor, Hulu has tucked its tail between its legs and set up its own channel on YouTube. Apparently, the "build it and they will come" philosophy of NBC Universal's execs didn't work quite as well as planned.

Filed Under: audience, youtube
Companies: google, hulu, nbc universal, 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

Videos Of Tibetan Protest Get YouTube Banned In China

from the onto-the-list-it-goes dept

We can now add China to the axis of NoTube as it has blocked all of YouTube after videos from news reports concerning the protests in Tibet began to show up on the video hosting site. What's interesting is that this comes just a few months after new rules went into place in China, demanding that all video hosting sites be approved by the government (and also be state-owned or controlled). However, given the uproar from a number of local video hosting sites, the government decided to ignore its own rules for the time being. However, given the itchy trigger finger on taking down any site or content that the government deems questionable, it's no surprise that this has happened again.

Filed Under: ban, censorship, china, protests, tibet, youtube
Companies: google, youtube

Court Explains Copyright Law To Viacom (Perhaps Not For The Last Time)

from the punitive-damages-don't-exist-in-copyright-law dept

It's been a year since Viacom sued YouTube for $1 billion dollars, and it appears that the company is still learning the very basics about copyright law. A quick legal analysis (and understanding of the safe harbors in the DMCA that protect service providers from the actions of their users) would suggest that YouTube is not liable for the infringement that occurs on the site. But that didn't stop Viacom from suing. In fact, it tried to go much further than just the $1 billion in claiming that YouTube/Google actually owed it additional punitive damages as well. It appears the judge is having none of that, pointing out to Viacom's lawyers that the Copyright Act does not have any provision for punitive damages. This isn't a deep legal question, it's a question of reading the basic statute, as the judge makes pretty clear in the ruling. Hopefully, the judge will also notice that Viacom doesn't seem to have read the safe harbor provision of the DMCA either.

Filed Under: copyright, punitive damages, youtube
Companies: google, viacom, youtube