YouTube sued for copyright infringement

[Deja Q]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6095736.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/19/youtube_copyright/

It's only going to get worse, especially when the MPAA chimes in.

[idgiehkt]

1. over a freaking 14 year old video

that's rich. Gawd, this is lamer than Metallica.

makes me sick, can't youtube just give ad revenues away?

this sucks, but I've felt for a while something like this would happen.

[HughBeaumont]

2. What is the MPAA going to do?

Sue a site over decades-old VHS-quality video that no one makes money off of and would probably encourage sales and spark interest of said artist?

MTV is even working with YouTube to show WonderShozen and Andy Milonakis clips. The whole "Napster will kill music as we know it" thing never happened. The RIAA killed music with lame signings, bad deals for artists, emphasis on hits over CDs, sleeping in bed with Republipimp control freaks like ClearChannel, TicketMaster and other such corporations and generally being behind the times instead of working in them.

[Orrex]

8. Distribution rights are held by the copyright holder

Distribution without authorization from the copyright holder, even by a well-meaning fan, is a violation of copyright. It doesn't matter if the material is 14 years old, and it doesn't matter if no one was making a profit on it.

[Deja Q]

10. Or if people see it and then buy it... it's not mainstream and therefore

not enough of a profit.

They are just being fascist little snots, who - if they had a functioning brain cell - would realize that a trickle of money is better than none. Some people bend the rules by copying onto cassette or go online, but more often than not it DOES lead to people buying. In 2005, 8% of internet uses buy music online. In 2006, it's up to 23%. (souce: zdnet.com, from an article 07/21/06)) The stats ARE there; the internet does more help than harm. Especially when it's a one-off song and not the whole album people aren't going to care for.

I was about to buy another album, and I might, but if the RIAA and MPAA continue acting like greedy idiots, forget it. I can more effectively timeshare my existing CD collection, which is huge, and not get bored.

[Orrex]

15. Okay, but you're advocating theft

Your zdnet.com statistic, though interesting, doesn't really address the problem. So online music sales are up. Great, but what have brick-and-mortar sales done during that same period? And are these online sales occurring because of online piracy or in addition to it? How in the world would we know, from the cited statistics? I'm not saying that we can't know, but rather that the given stat doesn't shed any light on it.

"Timeshare" is a cute euphemism for piracy, by the way.

[idgiehkt]

16. this kills me

I've done searches on you tube that have led to me buying so much shit online. People I've never heard of and wouldn't know of if it weren't for youtube. Most of the songs I've bought lately have been marked down; without youtube, and people like swag starting these threads on sites and people getting turned onto it by others, this stuff wouldn't even been selling. It's like a free fucking commericial for crying out loud.

I mean, now the record companies are PAYING these school kids money to run around marketing this stuff to their peers, and here we are doing this shit for free. It can only help. It sure as hell may not help the newer artists, but with the shit the industry is churning out (think Lohan and Hilton, who are already millionaires anyway) they deserve to go bust. I don't have any sympathy for the industry when it comes to this because they have kicked ALL of the artists from the 80's and early 90's to the curb, like they always do in search of the 'next big thing' to quote Bruce Springsteen. Look at Joan Osbourne. Besides that stupid God song that album is one of the strongest I've ever heard in my life, yet they dropped her like a stone after mis-promoting her with that retarded song, yet someone like Norah Jones is a mega-star. I say power to the people, let us decide who WE want to promote and to support, and let the industry moguls stumble over their own stupidity because they can't figure out how to keep up with technology to save their lives.

All these artists need to get and keep control of their music rights and start marketing direct to the consumer through sites like youtube so they don't lose profit to these sites; but I wouldn't shed a tear if moguls are the next dinosaours.

I love what Ani DiFranco said about it:

"No I don't prefer obscurity
but I'm an idealistic girl
and I wouldn't work for you
no matter what you paid
and I may not be able
to change the whole fucking world
but I can be the million
that you never made
yeah, you're looking at the million that you never made!"

[Orrex]

17. So, it's okay to steal if you think the owner already has plenty of money?

Now you're advocating different laws for different economic levels. If companies decide to hire people to market their material, that's their choice, and they're able in that case to control the manner and venues in which this target-marketing occurs. And if they decide that they don't want anonymous, unaccountable individuals to market on the company's behalf, then that's the company's choice, too.

"All these artists need to get and keep control of their music rights and start marketing direct to the consumer through sites like youtube so they don't lose profit to these sites; but I wouldn't shed a tear if moguls are the next dinosaurs."

You've hit on it exactly. The problem, for artists, is that the moguls have much broader reach and access than the average individual, so there's a tradeoff of sorts between retention-of-rights and ability-to-market. If an artist retains copyright and can market through youtube or RighteousBabe or wherever, then that's super-duper. But in the meantime, that doesn't excuse unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material.

Your Ani quote is fitting, too, because she has elsewhere given express permission for fans to copy and distribute her music. She is the copyright holder and has exercised it as she sees fit. Another artist (or mogul) might act differently; that's up to the copyright holder.

[idgiehkt]

20. I'm not stealing those songs, because they suck.

The industry has fucked itself by not keeping up with technology. If the artists are getting fucked, that's sad. I really am not convinced that they are; or it may be that they are getting fucked in some ways yet benefitting in others, i.e, they may be getting fucked but at least the are getting off as well. The industy has been fucking them for years, anyway, that's a pretty well known fact. It took Dan Rather announcing on national tv what kind of money the Dixie Chicks had made for their label for them to get their contract renegotiated, for instance

I really like what Courtney Love had to say about it in her speech regarding the RIAA/Napster, etc.

Practically every line of her speech is worth reading, but here is a snippet:

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

"But the music industry is a $40 billion-a-year business. One-third of that revenue comes from the United States. The annual sales of cassettes, CDs and video are larger than the gross national product of 80 countries. Americans have more CD players, radios and VCRs than we have bathtubs.

Story after story gets told about artists -- some of them in their 60s and 70s, some of them authors of huge successful songs that we all enjoy, use and sing -- living in total poverty, never having been paid anything. Not even having access to a union or to basic health care. Artists who have generated billions of dollars for an industry die broke and un-cared for.

And they're not actors or participators. They're the rightful owners, originators and performers of original compositions.

This is piracy."

and later on, this salient point:

"Recording artists have essentially been giving their music away for free under the old system, so new technology that exposes our music to a larger audience can only be a good thing. Why aren't these companies working with us to create some peace?"

I agree with what Courtney is saying here. I'm not the enemy, and no amount of reductio ad absurdum musings will make me believe that. The labels need to deal with what is happening now, not try to twist the clock back to how it could have been if they'd bothered to get off of their asses and get ahead of (or at least keep up with) technology. It's too late for that.

[Orrex]

21. If an artist gives up his or her rights to a work, then that's too bad

But it's not piracy. Not, that is, unless contract law is itself piracy, which is a separate debate.

If the industry has been fucking the artists for years, then one can hardly fault the industry if subsequent artists line up and bend over.

I'm sorry if artists have lost the rights to songs that they wrote or recorded. I don't doubt that there are cases in which racism and sexism have made it impossible for certain artists to negotiate their contracts on a fair footing, but these must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Regardless, the whole industry-fucks-artists idea is irrelevant to the argument at hand, which is that it is theft to distribute copyrighted works without authorization by the copyright owner. That's true whether the owner is that guy in the subway with a banjo or a multinational subsidiary of the Coca Cola company.

[idgiehkt]

23. you sound like an industry lawyer

"Regardless, the whole industry-fucks-artists idea is irrelevant to the argument at hand, which is that it is theft to distribute copyrighted works without authorization by the copyright owner. That's true whether the owner is that guy in the subway with a banjo or a multinational subsidiary of the Coca Cola company."

more Courtney:
"When you look at the legal line on a CD, it says copyright 1976 Atlantic Records or copyright 1996 RCA Records. When you look at a book, though, it'll say something like copyright 1999 Susan Faludi, or David Foster Wallace. Authors own their books and license them to publishers. When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever."

So it sounds like the artist isn't who everyone is concerned about here. The artist is like a scarecrow in the garden; it's really the corporations that are shitting bricks about losing profits. While before they were able to screw both artist and consumer, now the consumer has gotten too big for his britches. Bad consumer.

I think this whole argument is going to be moot soon enough, but it won't be settled with lawsuits, it'll be settled when enough artists market direct to consumers through the internet, and force the giant corporations into another money making scheme. Like buying youtube, perhaps.

Knowing that it is really the industry moguls, not the artists, that are getting screwed by this kind of theft doesn't make it any less appealing; in fact it has the opposite affect.

Honestly I feel about as bad about watching videos on youtube as I did about performing oral sex on my girlfriend before the supreme court overturned the sodomy laws. Which is, frankly, not bad.

[Orrex]

26. Yeah, but how did your girlfriend feel about it?

Your analogy between copyright and sodomy laws, though colorful, is off-base. One has to do with sexuality between consenting individuals, while the other is a pretty straightforward contract between parties.

The comparison to an industry lawyer strikes me as an oblique insult--again, colorful, but irrelevant. I wish I were compensated as well as they are.

Frankly, I'm not specifically concerned about the artist or the mogul--I'm concerned that the law is being broken. Any rationalization for why the individual thinks that he or she is justified in breaking the law is exactly that--a rationalization. I don't think that I should have to pay for this six-pack, so I'll just walk out of the store. Is that any different? Not really, because I'm taking something without the permission of its rightful owner.

If it happens that artists gain greater control over profits and distribution, then that'll be great. But the copyright owner will still retain copyright--not the user who manufactures some excuse as to why he or she is right to steal.

[idgiehkt]

27. She enjoyed it even more than I did, needless to say.

I wouldn't go down the road you are going down with this argument. It's counterproductive. You want to generate sympathy for the people getting screwed over by this, and when people find out those folks are already mega-millionaire label heads, no one is going to care. I think it's great I've found stuff on youtube that I wouldn't otherwise. I just downloaded a bunch of stuff by Desmond Dekker, The Maytals, and The Slickers the other day off of the internet after searching for 'ska' on youtube and watching some videos. Then I bought some Rita Marley and Marcia Griffiths as well. I'd only heard one song by Desmond Dekker before that point. In the end this is going to lead to more profits for the artists and more exposure for artists that were getting little or no exposure before. It might end up being a Peter Pan type of thing, which I think is great. One thing that is terribly wrong with these corporations is that THEY, of all people, get to decide what they public does and doesn't see and who gets exposure and who doesn't. THEY decide to market violent gangsta rap instead of hip-hop artists that are more philosophical and socially-oriented in their themes. THEY kick all the post-riot grrr/lilith fair artists to the curb in favor of pop tarts like Lohan/Duff/Hilton/Ritchie/whoever else has connections/thinks she can sing/whatever. Something like youtube is much more democratic. All the artists there are on equal footing, nobody gets promoted over another.

I see a real ground-swell going on here, especially with regards to artists from 70's/80's/early 90's that have been completely abandoned by the labels. Debbie Harry, for one, is someone who has been brought back into popular view because FANS of hers want to see her performing and making music. The industry throws artists like this out the back door like day old soup. The industry sucks, and at least stuff like youtube gives people a voice in what they want to see, and access to it. Perhaps the industry should sit up and LISTEN to what people are saying, and what they want, instead of shoving pretty plastic pubescent princesses down our throats every other month

[Orrex]

28. Not attempting to generate sympathy

Nor am I advocating for the industry--I'm advocating for the law. All arguments about "artists get fucked" or the like are irrelevant. As are arguments about new-found visibility for otherwise forgotten artists.

Attempting to frame the argument as "corporations vs. the people" are lacking in precision, because it's actually "copyright owner vs. those who would violate that copyright."

[idgiehkt]

30. maybe the copyright owner needs to be violated

there is such a thing as karma. Ask all those blues artists that died in poverty. I don't know. I think it's more of an ends vs. means thing, and I think the ends may be justified if it brings more exposure to better artists and makes the industry listen to the consumer more instead of churning out pre-fab crap for a quick buck.

[Orrex]

31. Actually, I've seen no evidence that there's anything like karma

But that's likewise irrelevant. Although music is an art, the music business is and has always been a business. All other considerations need to be filtered through that reality first. I feel bad for artists who've died in poverty, especially (as I mentioned) when sexism or racism made fair negotiations impossible for them. These need to be addressed case-by-case.

And if you really believe that it's and ends vs. means thing, then you're explicitly accepting responsibility for your breach of copyright. When the industry slaps you with a $250K fine, you will have allowed yourself no defense other than "I accept the consequences of my actions."

[idgiehkt]

32. damn, I just heard a car pull up. is that you coming to get me?

just kidding.

I don't really understand how I can be fined for watching youtube. I'm thinking the only people they may have a case against are the folks that upload video onto that site (I don't), since it's already been stated that the site has immunity from responsibility for the actions of the people that use it.

I'm not downloading music illegally either; I believe in paying for it and I do. I had an opportunity to download the entire Dixie Chicks album for free when it came out and I didn't do it, I bought it from the real store instead, along with some stuff off of their old albums, all of which I have on cassette. In fact, I've downloaded a hell of alot of music online that I used to have on cassette, as I'm sure a lot of people have, so in effect I've bought plenty of music twice, which is double the profits to both artist and label. Hey, I never thought about that before; even more reason to feel okay about watching youtube, lol. Thanks.

[Orrex]

33. Well, if you're not violating copyright, then there's no problem

But you're right--those who upload copyrighted material to youtube are in violation and risk litigation.

I'm pleased to learn that you don't download music illegally, either.

[idgiehkt]

34. yay for me!!!

but am I violating copyright by watching it? you've got me curious about that. Am I a voyeur of some sort?

[Orrex]

35. Good question

Downloading it may be something like trafficking in stolen goods, but I honestly don't know.

As for being a voyeur, well, who isn't?

[idgiehkt]

37. do people steal off of youtube?

I read a post earlier about 'capturing the stream'...is it possible to do that?
I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to that; plus I can't imagine why you would do use up disc space for something available online.

[1monster]

36. From what the article says, it seems that YouTube is in the clear as

copyright infringement is involved.

As for the lawsuit involving the journalist helicopter/pilot, how often does anyone ask for that particular footage? I would guess that the most request that come for it are from those who are doing serious pieces on historic events, race relations. Those folks would have to get permission before using it in any video piece.

Mr. Tur's lawsuit is without merit," YouTube said in a statement. "YouTube is a service provider that complies with all the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and therefore is entitled to the full protections of the safe harbor provisions of the Act."

Passed in 1998 to protect copyright holders from technology that facilitated piracy, the DMCA also offered protection to Web service providers by limiting their liability in cases where their customers were found guilty of copyright violation.

[WCGreen]

3. So if I rent a movie....

And have friends over to watch...

Does that mean I infringe on the owner of the movie, the studios, right to their product...

It really is the same logic...

[asthmaticeog]

19. A few years ago, I saw a trailer at the movie theater.

It was one of those MPAA anti-piracy spots that had the sheer temerity to strongly implicate file-sharers in the deaths of stuntmen. No, I'm not kidding. I wondered, then, if seeing a movie without paying for it literally kills, why can I borrow unlimited numbers of DVDs at no cost from the library?

[HughBeaumont]

38. Exactly. And CDs as well.

Someone PLEASE justify that YouTube is "theft", to put it so hyperbolically, when libraries who only paid for the DVD or VHS or whatever once like millions of others out there who upload videos to the site are pretty much doing the same thing with their content. It's compliant with Fair Use and the DMCA. You get to watch first-run DVDs for free at the library and invite your friends over, yet YouTube, which you need a high-speed connection to view (which costs money), is now deemed the illegal one between the two?

I don't know, is there a law against WATCHING something; something, by the way, I'm paying MONEY for? I'm not seeing an entire movie on YouTube. I'm merely watching an advertisement for the artist in the form of a music video. I can't keep it like I can a free song. The picture is not of great quality. Sometimes the artists themselves put their videos online.

The whole pay issue? I pay 42 dollars a month for this internet connection, and $60 a month for cable. That money trickles down, however microscopic in form, to the networks and labels that have distribution rights. Should I just not WATCH it? Last I checked, there's no law against watching something I'm paying good money for. Why does it MATTER WHERE I see it, whether it's on Cable TV or YouTube? I'm paying for it either way, it isn't like I can go to work and watch YouTube because the site is blocked.

[Deep13]

4. Copyright and trademark infringement...

...is the biggest threat to free speech in this country.

[Orrex]

5. If only that were true

If a copyright is owned, then unauthorized reproduction or distribution of the copyrighted material is theft.

[Deep13]

7. Yes, I know what copyright means.

:eyes:

[Orrex]

9. Then I guess I don't understand your OP

How is the protection of copyright a threat to free speech?

[Deep13]

12. It's the idea that parts of our culture can be owned, traded, sold...

...and kept from the public. It may pertain more to trademarks than to copyright, but as matters of intellectual property, they are related concepts. Owning parts of the English language stifles free speech because it prevents others from making similar expressions however they got them. Try opening a Scottish food restaurant and calling it MacDonald's and you will see what I mean. These corporations program the popular culture and then make sure no one but them can use what are essentially cultural references.

[Orrex]

13. I'm not sure that I can agree with that, at least not entirely

If a trademark is applied to a new and unique formulation of words that, in the aggregate, didn't previously exist in the culture (such as, for example the Quacko Zappo Machine), then it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the developer of that phrase should be able to secure the rights to its use.

No one is saying that Mr. MacDonald can't use his name. They're saying that he can't give his restaurant a name that is likely to cause confusion with an existing trademarked name. "Ford" is a name, too, but if Joe Ford wanted to sell automobiles of his own devising, he'd have a hard time trying to call himself the Ford Motor Company."

What's the alternative? Do we deny trademark protection, so that Isaac, Betty, and Marvin can team up and sell market IBM computers of their own devising?

If a trademarked product or product-name becomes a cultural reference, then that's just a sign of successful marketing. I don't believe that trademarks are allowed on existing cultural elements, or am I wrong in that regard?

When was that Scottish guy's restaurant started? Did it predate McDonalds? If so, then he should have been allowed to go forward with it. If not, then too bad for him.

A trademark isn't ownership of a part of the English language, either. It's the right to ensure that no one else profits from a phrase or word for which you have secured the trademark. You and I are free to say anything we want. But if we try to use the phrase "You Deserve a Break Today" in our own marketing literature, then we are attempting to profit from someone else's trademark.

[Deja Q]

11. Our society is owned.

So much is copyrighted that no one else can learn from it without having to pay royalties.

So much for sharing.

But then, we are an ownership society.

[Orrex]

14. A little over the top, don't you think?

Copyright doesn't prevent people from viewing a work, nor even from learning from it. It simply means that no one but the owner of the copyright can distribute the work without authorization. The copyright owner can freely share his or her material, or he or she can charge for it. Copyrighted books are available at the library, and copyrighted films are available for rental, and copyrighted music is licensed for download.

If you wrote a novel and owned the copyright, are you telling me that you wouldn't mind if someone scanned it and put it online, so that everyone who wanted to read your book could do so for free?

Generally (that is, not referring here specifically to you) the objection seems to be that people don't want to pay for their use of copyrighted material, and they want to decide what is to be shared and when.

[Robb]

22. I'll chime in here

Generally (that is, not referring here specifically to you) the objection seems to be that people don't want to pay for their use of copyrighted material, and they want to decide what is to be shared and when.


That's because only large corporations decide when copyright laws are going to be enforced. It's a one-sided argument that doesn't include the user groups.

It's the only kind of law I'm aware of that's purely complaint-driven by the industry. Why have no music listeners ever, ever complained about violations of copyright law being responsible for a problem in their music experience? The end-product, says the industry, is going to hurt their consumers. But no one has ever felt that effect from the user end. Is my experience of listening to Metallica less fulfilling because people are bootlegging their stuff in Fiji?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. No, it's copyright violation.

Copyright violation isn't theft anymore than embezzlement is murder.

Allegations to the contrary are propaganda, pure and simple.

[Hugin]

6. "Somewhere, Somehow, Someone is happy."

Can't have that...

:eyes:

[xmas74]

18. I saw you posted a comment.

[GumboYaYa]

24. As a content producer who struggles to fund his work, I can tell you

that if someone took clips of my work without asking and starting broadcasting it and selling ads around the broadcast; I would sue them in a heartbeat.

Taking an artists work without their consent is theft. It is that simple. I don't care how you guys try to justify it, it is theft. It is already hard enough to make a profit on media content without compounding it by having it diluted by people stealing it on the web.

[Orrex]

29. Clearly, you're attempting to generate sympathy for fatcat moguls

What are you, a plant for the industry?

:sarcasm:

[Monk06]

40. Why don't phone up Tom Fogery and ask his opinion of copy right?

[Rabrrrrrr]

39. As an artist, I support copyright law.

Plain and simple, not paying for copyrighted material is THEFT. It steals money from the one who created the art; it steals their livelihood.

Artists don't work on salary from some company somewhere - every copied CD, DVD, movie, painting, book, article, whatever, is taking money out of the hands of the artists who made them.

As simple as that.