Its the end of the net as we know it?

[TheAnimus]

BBC NEWS | Technology | YouTube law fight 'threatens net'

A one billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube threatens internet freedom, according to its owner Google.

So an understandably piss off viacom is really putting the screws on google if their going to press like the beeb.

Personally i find it hard not to understand viacom's angst, they've spent a lot of money producing the content, only to find google profiting from its display. Yet at the same time, what can they hope to do? For the net to functino you need a safeharbour rule.

What do you lot think? Are we going to see youtube somehow stamp out all pirate content? Will they just take the fine and pay it with some cash they found propping up a table leg?

[kalniel]

Oh and I thought you were going to talk about IPv4

I'm not sure I understand why suing someone like YouTube for previously hosting copyright content is going to end the net though. Google should just tighten up their legal restrictions on use of the site and pass on any fines to the users who've commited the offenses.

[Fraz]

I think that Viacom is pretty much in the right.

I don't see any problem with short clips of original content on YouTube, etc, as it's essentially free advertising. However it's very easy to find complete episodes/seasons of TV shows on websites like YouTube. And 1.5 billion viewings of An Inconvenient Truth is pretty damning, even if it's probably a very good thing that so many people have seen it

[Saracen]

I think that Viacom is pretty much in the right.

I don't see any problem with short clips of original content on YouTube, etc, as it's essentially free advertising. However it's very easy to find complete episodes/seasons of TV shows on websites like YouTube. And 1.5 billion viewings of An Inconvenient Truth is pretty damning, even if it's probably a very good thing that so many people have seen it

It's free advertising all right - for YouTube. It's YouTube using other people's intellectual property to provide the foundations for a business on which they make money from advertising, and it isn't their content to use in that way. If the case it upheld, and on the surface of things it looks to me like it should be, then Google deserve what they get, which could well be a very large award against them.

But "the end of the net as we know it?" Not hardly. So far as I'm concerned, they could pull YouTube and similar services off the net this instant and I wouldn't lose a nanosecond's sleep over it ..... or, in all probability, notice.

[TheAnimus]

The argument goes, google aren't doing anything wrong by hosting content, they do not know if its copyrighted or not, they've been supplied it in good faith. Why should google have to go through great expense determining what is legal and what isn't?

[kalniel]

Until they provide full and accurate contact details for the people uploading content alongside all content then they are the only people contactable about breaches of law.

[Saracen]

The argument goes, google aren't doing anything wrong by hosting content, they do not know if its copyrighted or not, they've been supplied it in good faith. Why should google have to go through great expense determining what is legal and what isn't?

But, as I understand it, under US law copyright infringement is a strict liability act. And if so, it doesn't matter whether Google knew it was copyright or not. Moreover, if you view that material via YouTube, you'd be liable too, and it doesn't matter if you knew either. And you'd be liable to the tune of up to $750 per instance.

Strict liability offences are things like speeding. The general case, even in the UK, is that if you're breaking the speed limit, you're committing the offence, regardless of whether you intended to or not, or even know what the speed limit was or not.

And in some jurisdictions, including the US, that's how copyright infringement works. Or a least, that's how a literal interpretation seems to work. And if that view of the law was upheld, and presumably in a battle that likely would (as Google stated) go all the way to the Supreme Court) losing would cost Google a lot of money and probably put operations like YouTube out of business permanently.

The same logic, TheAnimus, applies to any publisher. Publishers go to considerable lengths to try to ensure that they don't accidentally infringe someone's copyright, because they can be held liable for it if they do.

And so they should.

The lengths that publishers go to usually includes anyone submitting work for publication signing an affirmation that the work is their own and/or they own and are able to assign copyright or a licence, and they often try to get those making submissions to indemnify them against the cost of any legal implications, including paying the publisher's legal bills. I've given up working for more than one publisher because of that clause.

Think about it this way. I write a book (or magazine article, poem, paint a picture, whatever) and I sell it to a publisher with FBSR (First British Serial Rights). Someone sees that article, copies it, submits it to a publisher in the US who prints it. That removes MY ability to sell it into the lucrative US market, certainly on a "first" basis. I therefore am deprived the ability to earn in that market from my efforts, because of the actions of that publisher. That publisher is therefore liable, because if they aren't liable and don't have any obligation placed on them to CHECK, they can just hold their hands up and say "Oh, we didn't know. Oops. Sorry. Now go away and don't pester us". There's no incentive for them to be careful, if there's no comeback on them if they aren't.

Hence, strict liability.

And, I might point out, I have been in exactly that position - a major publisher using MY work in countries it had NOT paid for the rights for. They bought British (first) rights, then published (accidentally, they claimed) abroad. Nonetheless, they paid up when I screeched.

[zetsurin]

This is wrong. Basically evolution went like this: mankind evolved, until we learnt to litigate. It's just a bad joke now.

[Lucio]

This is wrong. Basically evolution went like this: mankind evolved, until we learnt to litigate. It's just a bad joke now.

Why do you think it's wrong though? After all, YouTube really does contain a vast amount of copyrighted material. I realised how bad it has gotten when I was planning out the songs for my wedding DVD and discovered I could listen to any track I thought of via YouTube.

Kinda made me wonder why on earth I paid for all those MP3's from iTunes.

[TooNice]

It may not be totally enforceable (the removing -all- copyrighted material part), but somehow, I think they are doing the 'minimum necessary' at the moment. I don't think that I have seen prawn posted on YouTube before - and I doubt it is because no one has tried to upload those. So I presume that YouTube are much faster to crack down on those.

To be fair though, when it comes to music, I don't think that YT is a particularly good substitute. You have to wait for it to load, if you do download it the format of the file won't work on MP3 players less you convert it yourself (and accept a loss of quality etc.). But I think that rather than trying to remove all copyrighted content on sight, they could work out a system that benefits most.

For instance, someone could use YT to 'sample' a tune with the intent of buying it if s/he likes it. Now suppose that rather than remove those material on YT, copyrighted material can be viewed on 'limited basis'. Say three times (per material - this mean they will need to find a way to identify 'duplicate' material) per account, as an example - more than enough to get a good taste. After that, the person would be linked to iTune, gTune etc, where they can obtain a high quality legal copy, paying with GoogleCheckout. As a perk, they could also view the link from YT if they want. Sure there is nothing stopping from someone re-re-registering another account, but at least it will take them more efforts and cost them a bit of time.

The alternatives would not benefits the copyright holder any more than it would benefit YT or the public. Generally speaking, I do not believe that copyright holders should just bend over to all piracy (though there are gaps between what I consider morally correct and what is legally right - I do take issue with the lack of right for ripping something I have purchased for instance - and this is just one of several issues I have with current copyright related legislations). But the reality of it is that they have, at this point, limited bargaining power over every individuals sitting behind a computer. So it is in their benefits to seek new stream of income. It is also in their benefits not to be seen as 'oppressive' too.

Suing YT is not going to get them much public sympathy.

[dontasciime]

Since when did Viacom make porn

[mediaboy]

Since when do you use google videos and youtube for watching porn