More parties join Google copyright lawsuit

[NashVegas]

Source: Reuters

The Premier League and music publisher Bourne & Co said on Monday that eight more parties have joined their lawsuit charging Google (GOOG.O: Quote, Profile, Research) and its YouTube online service with deliberately encouraging copyright infringement.
...

Video programming owners have teamed up against YouTube, charging the top online video service with encouraging copyright infringement to generate public attention and boost traffic to its site.
Photo

Google has said it is abiding by existing law that protect Internet services from being liable for what is on their networks so long as they respond promptly to complaints.

MTV Networks owner Viacom sued Google and YouTube in May for $1 billion (493 million pounds) for copyright infringement and demanded the removal of hundreds of thousands of Viacom video clips that were uploaded without permission by users.

Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUKN0641084820070807

---

The man who filmed the attack on Reginald Denny is also joining in on the class action suit.

My understanding is that YouTube made a deal with some labels last fall for royalty sharing. If so, this is yet another case where traditional big media is merely attempting to strangle its competitors, for control of distribution. As for Viacom .... http://www.internetoutsider.com/2006/12/youtube_competi.html

[Trillo]

1. What are the limits of copyright of a film, movie, or other series of images?

A movie is nothing more than a series of images or frames. If the entire film is copyrighted, is there not a case that snips that represent only a few frames (and not the entire sequence of all frames) fall under "fair use"?

Any lawyers know?

Why is it okay under "fair use" to quote small amounts of others in writing with attribution, but not with films?

[19jet54]

4. Try here

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Copyright

[Trillo]

10. Thanks. Individual frames of a movie are copyrighted.

Title 17, chapter 1, section 106, paragraph 5.

I still have to wonder why the discrepancy between movies and, say, writing, but that does appear as text of the law on the site you referenced. I suppose the next question under "fair use" is if the individual frame is cropped....

If book authors (for one example) had relatively equal protection within the law versus movie rights owners, there could be no excerpts by others even with attribution in the absence of permission from the rights owner.

To some degree I've got the feeling that this requires a judicial ruling of some kind to insure fairness.

[Meldread]

2. Lame.

They just look at Google's bottom line and hurl themselves at the chance to collect big money. Before Google bought YouTube all these folks weren't around because it wasn't even pulling in a profit.

[mikeytherat]

7. Exactly. Which why I could never understand why Google bought YouTube.

The instant deep pockets were in charge, the lawsuits were ready to be delivered. It was utterly predictable - I am no media or online guru, but rampant copyright infringement + well-heeled owner = lawsuits out the wazoo.

mikey_the_rat

[redqueen]

3. The Premier League?

:grr:

[melody]

5. They're looking for a pay-off

It's a legal hold-up. They see an opportunity for Google to cough up money and then they'll back off.

[19jet54]

6. Same Issue Napster had, and they lost too

... lost revenue will always incur legal action & the law is on the side of the creators of the copyrighted material.

Evem this site "DU" is in violation of the same laws if the authors of these news clips object and sue.

[RogueBandit]

8. Creators?

>>side of the creators of the copyrighted material.<<

Umm, copyrights are often bought and sold either directly or through contract. If only the creator of the material had rights to it I'd have much less concern. The original purpose of patents and copyrights was to encourage creativity...like a lot of laws that one too has been taken over by the corporate/non-corporate body.

[Malidictus Maximus]

11. Give all copyrights, trademarks and patents

6 months. Then public domain.
Intellectual Property is an evil concept. Necessary to allow people to make some profit but NOTHING should be sacrosanct after a few years.

[Solon]

13. I wouldn't go that far...

They should be time limited, probably within the lifetime of the artist/creator in question, but probably around 20 years or so. Also Congress should be forbidden from extending this, for ANY REASON. Mickey Mouse and many other characters should be in the public domain by now, and they aren't, because of extensions.

I agree with you on the intellectual property bullshit, its a made up term to name copyright violations as theft, when it isn't.

[Ian David]

9. I understand the copyright concerns, but I'm tired of giant corporations...

... trying to ruin one of the best (and most important) things to ever happen to the internet.

[zalinda]

12. They are actually doing themselves a dis-service

I have seen many, many messages asking where they got the video clip or song that was used in the video that they watched. It is cheap promotion. If they entire movie was uploaded then I think that there is a problem, otherwise, what's the difference between a utube video and a movie trailer?

zalinda