TV Networks Don't Want DMCA Protection For YouTube 197
Posted
by
CmdrTaco
from the well-of-course-they-don't dept.
from the well-of-course-they-don't dept.
sburch79 writes "A brief filed in the Viacom v. Google case asserts that the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions were never meant to apply to sites like YouTube. It also goes on to say the if safe harbor were given to these sites, it would put too big a burden on networks to police their own material."
Re:Throw em a bone (Score:1, Interesting)
And bill Viacom at $500/hr (times, say, the 100+ people checking videos) for "copyright enforcement".
Re:With great power comes great responsibility (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't even about copyright infringement. Hell, much of the copyrighted content on YouTube was uploaded by the copyright owner on purpose, to get people to watch it. As for the other stuff that was uploaded without authorization, as TFA says, Google has gone above and beyond by scanning through their archives with sophisticated software that automatically sends notices to the copyright holder, asking them if they want to A) take it down or B) make money off of it.
Google has gone out of their way to get along with content owners. All Viacom is trying to do is eliminate their competititon. People visit sites like YouTube often in lieu of watching television or Hula, or whatever. YouTube is the most popular video site on the Web, and Viacom would rather have people watch their stuff than go to YouTube.
IOW, litigation is cheaper and easier than innovation.
Re:With great power comes great responsibility (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Uh, yes it was... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re-posting because I forgot to log in and I didn't want to say this as AC:
The record industry and the film industry are two sides of the same coin - hell, in many cases they're different arms of the same company. What we see now with the MPAA is an almost exact action-replay of what we've seen with the RIAA over the last 10 years.
The first thing the record industry did was ignore the existence of the Internet, MP3s and other such things. Then came Napster and suddenly ignoring it wasn't an option.
The second thing the record industry did was sue Napster into the ground and attempt to force ISPs to block file sharing (they're still doing this to a certain extent, though I'm not sure how much is being driven by the MPAA and how much is being driven by the RIAA these days).
Next up, we've got "refuse to license songs for distribution over the Internet, put draconian DRM on CDs which doesn't really achieve the desired aim and just hacks off your customers". Erm... anyone see any parallels with DVDs and BluRay?
After that, we had "License songs on condition that DRM is used to 'protect' them". iTunes used to apply DRM, and there didn't used to be any such thing as a company selling plain unencumbered MP3s unless you count dubious Russian site allofmp3.com. I would say we're somewhere between this and the "refuse to license for Internet distribution" stage for movies and TV shows.
Today we have "License songs without the DRM conditions", and several companies are selling plain unencumbered MP3s quite legitimately without having to set up shop in some part of the world where copyright is considered broadly optional. Despite all the screams of how MP3s would kill the music industry, I know of no major record label which has gone out of business, and alas it seems we still have squeaky-clean teenage Britney Fucking Spears (seriously, "Fucking"'s her middle name) clones churning out dross. I don't think we've entirely moved on from the record-exec induced hysteria, but for the most part it seems that we can at least have a sensible adult discussion as to how the Internet can be used to help a band, which is more than we could 10 years ago.
My prediction is that in 5 years time, the movie industry will have gone in much the same direction, and in 10 years time most of us will have forgotten all of this. Until the next thing that forces them to re-think their business comes up.
Re:With great power comes great responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
Audio being removed from tons of videos (such as the background music of an arcade game in japan my gf filmed). Accounts deleted, a bass player (MarloweDK) giving free online lessons had over a million views on many videos, banned because some of the music he taught was copyrighted. All of the 'not available in your country' BS. Going above and beyond what is remotely required of them by law to stop any form of piracy. And claims abuses where anyone with contraversial views gets banned every once in a while because their enemies got together and reported them for infringement. Putting the onus on the uploader often to proove he was the creator of the content rather than the one with the takedown claim.
I realize that Google is mostly just following the law but... It is one that they should be trying to subvert whenever they can (like restricted-speech in China, or net-neut breaking ISPs everywhere). If not for the people, then do it for the business, one day youtube will have a decent competitor and it will drop like a stone (likely though Google search will take over (ie everyone takes over) as it should have from the start rather than centralizing in youtube).
Re:With great power comes great responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
...car dealership using a movie clip with their dealership's name pasted over it in a crappy font for an advertisement that I'm pretty sure they did not license....
there's your problem.
Since you don't know anything, mind your own business.
Re:tough shit (Score:5, Interesting)