Illegal Stuff On Youtube

[ginginca 0]

I keep asking myself how they get away with this.

If my post sounds like a bit of a rant .... yes it is. And please comment all you want to about this. Here's the deal:

Youtube has terms & conditions. You can't post material that you don't own the copyright for. And as you post a new video, TWICE you have to say that you are not posting anything that you don't own the copyright to.

But why is it then ... that people post music videos (let's say Michael Jackson), and TV commmercials, and so forth where they clearly don't own the copyrights to?

And if Youtube monitors the content for "adult or unsuitable" content, then why is it that copywritten material is still on their site?

If it hasn't happened yet, I'm sure that people will start suing google. Especially since google has such deep pockets!

BTW ... one of my own Youtube videos:

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[ethergeek 0]

This happens because the burden is on the copyright holder. You can post south park episodes on youtube all you want, and they'll stay there until youtube gets a cease & desist from braniff or viacom over it. Youtube doesn't actually monitor what goes on their site, they just comply with requests to take it down. Same goes with every other piece of copyrighted content posted there.Youtube doesn't really have a problem with adult content, they just don't want blatant pornography. I've seen videos on youtube that utilize barely artistic nudity (read: borderline porno) and it's still up there, it's just flagged as explicit by the youtube community.

[yordan 10]

And if Youtube monitors the content for "adult or unsuitable" content, then why is it that copywritten material is still on their site?

They think that putting a copyright protect themselves. they probably don't know that they are responsible of the content of their site. Even if their copyright says 'don't do that', htey are fully responsible of things having been done, so they should carefully monitor the content of their site if they don't want to experience legal problems.

[ethergeek 0]

They think that putting a copyright protect themselves. they probably don't know that they are responsible of the content of their site. Even if their copyright says 'don't do that', htey are fully responsible of things having been done, so they should carefully monitor the content of their site if they don't want to experience legal problems.

Not really. The "service provider" clause of the DMCA and similar legislation indemnifies them against copyright infringement so long as they agree they will promptly remove the content upon notification of said infringement.

[ginginca 0]

Not really. The "service provider" clause of the DMCA and similar legislation indemnifies them against copyright infringement so long as they agree they will promptly remove the content upon notification of said infringement.

It's surprising that they aren't liable.

But here's what their site says:
To file a copyright infringement notification with us, you will need to send a written communication that includes substantially the following (please consult your legal counsel or see Section 512Š(3) of the Copyright Act to confirm these requirements):

1. A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
2. Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
3. Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material. Providing URLs in the body of an email is the best way to help us locate content quickly.
4. Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
5. A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
6. A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

[unimatrix 0]

The law is one thing: policing it is another topic. I'm in law school for IP, so this stuff is up my ally. I believe that youtube.com and now Google has been named in an infringement suite, so...Anyway, what a lot of copyright holders have to ask is whether or not it impacts their bottomline? In many cases, since postings are often of reduced quality, it might be better from a marketing position to let, say, a music video be posted to you tube especially from a new group. It is likely that the video might generate buzz and lead to better music sales. Even if they don't post it themselves, having that or several copies on youtube really doesn't effect their overall bottomline. Another example was with the initial season of Battlestar Galactica (the new series). It aired in the UK about 6 months before it began in the US. A lot of people downloaded the episodes via torrents and P2P networs and Sci-Fi wondered what it would do to ratings. If nothing else, it helped boost the ratings because people wanted to see the episodes in full quality on TV. Since then the show, really the first, has embraced the internet with podcast commentaries, being one of the first on iTunes, and now offering their video maker's tool kit. Further more, they havn't gone after the Beyond the Red Line fan made game game based on the Freespace 2 engine. (now opensource)Again the BTRL folks are not making a profit and that is really what might be at stake. If one views YouTube/Google PROFITING from their IP, then I can see the case for damages, etc.. But while it may violate a TORT, it's up to the owner to persue legal challenges. And a lot of that depends on whether or not it's worth it.Something I've learned in law school is that sometimes you may be legally in the right, but it's cheaper to settle or not make a big deal of it.

[kgd2006 0]

Yea I noticed a lot of copyright material on there too. Although it is very much illegal, there are times when you missed a show or episode that wanted to watch because of work or other circumstances, and the last resort would be youtube. I mean, its not like people are downloading it, they are just watching it. There are times when I miss my favorite shows such as Heroes, Smallville, or others and have to resort to catch the episode that was missed for that day. I think in terms of public television I think it should be okay, because its no different from the official sites themsevles hosting their episodes online. As long as its local television and people cannot download it directly should be legal enough for people to keep on posting it online for the many people out there like me that didnt catch the episode.But when we speak in terms of movies that only appears in theatres and such than I could say its very illegal. Because its intended for a pay-per viewing. And to have the movie uploaded on youtube can cause a lost in the sales of the movie production which they spent so much to make. Youtube is definitely a great source for viewing things on tv and other sources of entertainment. And I hope that all the copyright laws that are floating around doesnt eliminate the youtube features altogether because I would than have no other reason to go to youtube to watch or use the youtube service.

[ginginca 0]

Youtube is definitely a great source for viewing things on tv and other sources of entertainment.

I would imagine they're broken into segments? YouTube generally has 10 minute maximum per clip.

Some TV stations are starting to broadcast episodes the day after the show was aired, from their web site, for those that missed it.

[Vue 0]

I would think that a lot (or most) of the content in YouTube is copyright material. To be honest, a lot of the things that aren't copyright material aren't worth watching. With the exception of "Kiwi".

 

Looking at your topic title, I though of other things. There have been many headlines on television of Sydney about teenage fights and so on on YouTube. Damn. It's always YouTube.

 

I don't think that commercials should be declared illegal because, after all, the person is doing them a favour, right? But yeah - what you said about copyright.

 

Hmm...everything about copyright seems so fuzzy for YouTube, doesn't it?

[sparkx 0]

They get away with it easiely. Just like Limewire, it says not to post copyrighted material but 90% of all the content is copyright. The webmasters can't stop it because its a lot easier for the poster to just re-upload the file then it is for them to deleat it. You really can't expect them to go through every single file and find if it is copyright. That would be like looking up and making sure all the stuff on wikipedia is correct. Now the copyright holder however often looks through these websites for copyrighted material then ask to have it taken off and withen a few days the page if off the web. I have seen this a lot (I don't look for movies but I like watching videos of people playing games like warrock and apparintly warrock doesn't allow this).Thanks,Sparkx

[Arbitrary 0]

Yeah, I agree with sparkx. There's just no way that Youtube staffers can keep up with the amount of people uploading materials that they don't own the copyright to. Uploading of illegal videos will have to continue if Youtube intends to continue making business--after all, I have a feeling that much of Youtube's audience comes from illegal video viewers.

 

Most of the non-copyrighted content on there is just a bunch of crap that no one is interested in viewing. So, technically, Youtube gains business from having illegal, copyrighted content on their site--they gain traffic. Without it, most of their traffic is gone. That's a pretty good reason for Youtube to not fight extra hard against this whole copyright ordeal unless someone brings it right in their face.

 

Anyway, what a lot of copyright holders have to ask is whether or not it impacts their bottomline? In many cases, since postings are often of reduced quality, it might be better from a marketing position to let, say, a music video be posted to you tube especially from a new group. It is likely that the video might generate buzz and lead to better music sales. Even if they don't post it themselves, having that or several copies on youtube really doesn't effect their overall bottomline.

Frankly, I think it does affect sales. I know many friends of mine who have watched numerous animes on Youtube that would've caused them a good amount of cash to buy. And I also know that (1) they will never buy the animes as long as they can get them for free and (2) they never learned about the titles from Youtube, so the music videos there don't really count as advertising. Now, perhaps if they were absolutely fanatical about a series they'd go and buy it, but that has never happened. They all prefer nabbing things for free than spending money (especially since it is very costly).

 

And looking at most of the music videos, they almost all suck as advertisements. They're more likely to direct an audience away from a certain show than direct them toward it. The few gems in the music video section is hidden by the overflowing amount of trash. [sigh]

[Vue 0]

They get away with it easiely. Just like Limewire, it says not to post copyrighted material but 90% of all the content is copyright. The webmasters can't stop it because its a lot easier for the poster to just re-upload the file then it is for them to deleat it. You really can't expect them to go through every single file and find if it is copyright. That would be like looking up and making sure all the stuff on wikipedia is correct. Now the copyright holder however often looks through these websites for copyrighted material then ask to have it taken off and withen a few days the page if off the web. I have seen this a lot (I don't look for movies but I like watching videos of people playing games like warrock and apparintly warrock doesn't allow this).

Thanks,

Sparkx

Ahh I agree with you about how it's often the copyright holder's responsibility to take things off the web. But I find it that when the copyright holder does report the stolen material to the site owner, in this case YouTube, then it is removed pretty quickly.

 

But, honestly, I think that most of the copyright owners wouldn't be bothered.

[ginginca 0]

But, honestly, I think that most of the copyright owners wouldn't be bothered.

Yep.

Better off spending your time on productive things rather than destructive things if you want to make money.

[threesix 0]

i think you argument is stupid how is putting a commercial on youtube going to harm the company? or a nusic video? we can watch music videos on tv. they play music on the radio. the only truly good things on youtube i find are illegal. i mean i don't want to watch a bunch of 12 year old girls at a sleepover lin syncing to britney spears and thinking tha they're all that or a buynch of little boys sininging foreign song such as dragostea din te and think that they are suddenly internet superstars youtube is like a library it's usefull harmless and nobody really cares if the useres break the rules. besides youtube has millions of dollars aswell as millions of people who have their own smalkl fortunes backing them if you tried to get the site shut down then it would be very very very very very very hard because so many people approve of it and there is the argument thata most people use it fairly. and if you tried to shut down the users who were using it illegally then it would be pointless. why? beacause people on the internet can create new accounts and if they're ip banned there is always proxies and library computers. people will always be stupid deal with it.

[Mandi 0]

Youtubeand google are getting suede by Viacom