Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

whooleytoo

macrumors 604
Aug 2, 2002
6,607
716
Cork, Ireland.
yes, that's right $1 Billion Dollars

$$$$$

Wouldn't Dr. Evil be pleased?

-Corran Horn

Bound to happen eventually.

The enormous amount of money paid for YouTube made little sense, considering it's biggest (only?) asset was the large number of users/amount of content. Unfortunately many of those users/much of that content are infringing on copyright.

Expect a fairly hefty settlement.
 

zephead

macrumors 68000
Apr 27, 2006
1,574
9
in your pants
I don't see how it's Google's fault that their users are uploading copyrighted content onto YouTube. They explicitly state that copyrighted stuff is not to be uploaded, and they remove copyrighted stuff and delete the infringing users on sight. YouTube IS a user-driven community, after all.

I see how Dr. Evil would disagree with me though. :D
 

mattscott306

macrumors 68040
Jan 16, 2007
3,769
0
Meh, I forsee large settlement payments, and Youtube having to hire a larger monitoring staff, or possibly preview all videos before they post.
 

motulist

macrumors 601
Dec 2, 2003
4,234
611
There's no merit to this case, it's just the result of the stupid copyright laws in this country. According to the law, if you don't vigorously go after people that might be violating your copyright, then you could lose your ownership of those properties. The only people that'll get paid from this lawsuit are the lawyers.
 

dejo

Moderator emeritus
Sep 2, 2004
15,982
452
The Centennial State
...and they remove copyrighted stuff and delete the infringing users on sight....
Pretty much, they leave it up to the copyright owner to submit a complaint and then will remove the video. But if you think they are deleting infringing users on sight, you are not paying attention to the rampant amount of copyright violation that is taking place on YouTube.
 

whooleytoo

macrumors 604
Aug 2, 2002
6,607
716
Cork, Ireland.
I don't see how it's Google's fault that their users are uploading copyrighted content onto YouTube. They explicitly state that copyrighted stuff is not to be uploaded, and they remove copyrighted stuff and delete the infringing users on sight. YouTube IS a user-driven community, after all.

I see how Dr. Evil would disagree with me though. :D

Google bought the site in full knowledge its value is largely due to the huge amount of copyrighted content on it (or, the large number of users uploading or viewing copyrighted content).

There's no way they'll get away with claiming ignorance or lack of culpability.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,776
15
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
I agree that Google has not acted in good faith and that what was allowed to continue on YouTube was clearly wrong, but...I think the longer term impact of this is the sea change. Just like Napster changed the way people looked for music and iTunes and the other legitimate services (heh, okay, iTunes period) have had to come back and offer a legal alternative... YouTube changed the way we look for video. Even though it's 99.99% crap, I still use it as my first source when someone says "hey, did you see that commercial?" etc. So ultimately the end of this has to be that consumers want a service like this. Google just has to figure out how to make it work within the confines of the law.

And if not Google... Joost is on their tail, as is Microsoft SoapBox. Developers, developers, developers, developers.
 

weldon

macrumors 6502a
May 22, 2004
642
0
Denver, CO
According to the law, if you don't vigorously go after people that might be violating your copyright, then you could lose your ownership of those properties. The only people that'll get paid from this lawsuit are the lawyers.
You're thinking of trademark law. If you don't defend the trademarks you use in commerce, you could lose your right to those trademarks. You can register trademarks to help protect them for your use.

You never lose your copyright to works that you create. They don't have to be registered or anything - your copyrights exist as soon as you create the work.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
22,995
9,971
CT
This is the reason why CBS pulled out of the deal with YouTube. Now they can go back in and sue for some money.
 

GFLPraxis

macrumors 604
Mar 17, 2004
7,152
460
I don't get it though. What can YouTube do?

That's like suing the city because drug dealers sell drugs while standing on city-owned sidewalks.

YouTube users are abusing the system to post pirated content. YouTube shuts them down as soon as it becomes aware of it. YouTube tells users not to. But there's no way they can prevent it, it's impossible.
 

mustard

macrumors 6502a
Dec 28, 2005
509
0
NJ
I don't get it though. What can YouTube do?

That's like suing the city because drug dealers sell drugs while standing on city-owned sidewalks.

YouTube users are abusing the system to post pirated content. YouTube shuts them down as soon as it becomes aware of it. YouTube tells users not to. But there's no way they can prevent it, it's impossible.

Great Analogy - totally agree
 

sushi

Moderator emeritus
Jul 19, 2002
15,639
3
キャンプスワ&#
I don't get it though. What can YouTube do?

That's like suing the city because drug dealers sell drugs while standing on city-owned sidewalks.

YouTube users are abusing the system to post pirated content. YouTube shuts them down as soon as it becomes aware of it. YouTube tells users not to. But there's no way they can prevent it, it's impossible.
Your analogy is good.

I do not understand how YouTube can be held accountable.

This will be an interesting case to follow.
 

motulist

macrumors 601
Dec 2, 2003
4,234
611
You're thinking of trademark law. If you don't defend the trademarks you use in commerce, you could lose your right to those trademarks. You can register trademarks to help protect them for your use.

You never lose your copyright to works that you create. They don't have to be registered or anything - your copyrights exist as soon as you create the work.

You're right, I was thinking of trademark, not copyright. I always mix those two up.
 

zephead

macrumors 68000
Apr 27, 2006
1,574
9
in your pants
I don't get it though. What can YouTube do?

That's like suing the city because drug dealers sell drugs while standing on city-owned sidewalks.

YouTube users are abusing the system to post pirated content. YouTube shuts them down as soon as it becomes aware of it. YouTube tells users not to. But there's no way they can prevent it, it's impossible.

Exactly what I was trying to say, except you worded it a bit better. :D
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
Your analogy is good.

I do not understand how YouTube can be held accountable.

Because Google/YouTube is profiting from the copyright infringements, which is why the analogy doesn't work. Google understood the risks when they bought YouTube. It's difficult to say how the suit would play out if it went to a verdict (the mostly untested DMCA being a critical factor), but I'll venture a guess that Viacom and Google come to an agreement to license and share revenue before it gets that far.
 

weldon

macrumors 6502a
May 22, 2004
642
0
Denver, CO
Because Google/YouTube is profiting from the copyright infringements, which is why the analogy doesn't work.
But they don't profit. GooTube doesn't place advertising on pages with content unless they have a specific licensing agreement in place with the content owner.

Google is going to rely on the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA for service providers. They will argue that they have no control or knowledge of what is posted on their site and that they act with all due haste when presented with a DMCA violation notice. Viacom will try to show that Google is aware of the copyright violations and that they are trying to obfuscate or hinder the ability of content providers to notify them of DMCA violations.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
But they don't profit. GooTube doesn't place advertising on pages with content unless they have a specific licensing agreement in place with the content owner.

Google is going to rely on the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA for service providers. They will argue that they have no control or knowledge of what is posted on their site and that they act with all due haste when presented with a DMCA violation notice. Viacom will try to show that Google is aware of the copyright violations and that they are trying to obfuscate or hinder the ability of content providers to notify them of DMCA violations.

Advertising along with the videos is the default. If YouTube could, and did, prevent copyrighted material from being uploaded by non-owners, then Viacom would not have case against them. Any licensing agreed to by the content uploader isn't valid if they don't actually own the content. Even Google/YouTube acknowledges that they only remove infringing content at the request of the owner, meaning, from the time it's uploaded until the time it's deleted, YouTube is collecting advertising revenue from it. This is the basis of Viacom's suit. Of course Google has a counter-argument, but in the end, I don't think either side really wants to test any of the provisions of the DMCA.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
22,995
9,971
CT
Your analogy is good.

I do not understand how YouTube can be held accountable.

This will be an interesting case to follow.
Well Napster was just hosting the content too and that got shut down. The difference is Google is much bigger then Napster and will be able to fight it better.

To be honest I think this is a money grab by Viacom, Didn't they pull out of a deal with YouTube. Now they are going to claim that YouTube is stealing and they want a big pay out. I think this was a planned attack by Viacom.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.