 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Makes perfect sense If you think about it, why would they want to defend their users? Users aren't footing the bill for the service, nor are they paying for the legal fees when one of the companies comes after them.
And in this day and age, being right doesn't have anything to do with court cases. Few of them actually make it to a verdict, because they are so damn expensive to fight. So I can see YouTube not wanting to spend millions defending a users right to post a given video.
--
AMD X2 4800+ @2700Mhz/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 4x 1024Mb Corsair XMS PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
|  | ke4pym
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
 ·Packet8
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Makes perfect sense said by Camelot One  :If you think about it, why would they want to defend their users? Perhaps because if it weren't for its users YouTube would be worthless? | |
| | Hayduke
join:2001-01-06
Memphis, TN
| It's the way they're enforcing the copyrights though. Some of the top "stars" on youtube use copyrighted music and things in their videos and they don't get pulled while other users, in some cases using the very same songs, have their videos yanked.
--
"Writing on the wall: 'Will trade three blind crabs for two with no teeth.'" -- Edward Abbey | |
| | 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| said by Camelot One :If you think about it, why would they want to defend their users? Users aren't footing the bill for the service. Except that they are. Why do you think advertisers pay YouTube? | |
| | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: Makes perfect sense said by vpoko :said by Camelot One :If you think about it, why would they want to defend their users? Users aren't footing the bill for the service. Except that they are. Why do you think advertisers pay YouTube? But advertisers are paying based on the number of hits, they could care less about which videos are or aren't staying up. And if YouTube had to pay legal fees for every video one of the big companies sued them over, the ad rates would have to go up, which would then drive away advertisers.
I'm not saying it is right, I'm saying it makes sense, given that the MPAA/RIAA can file a lawsuit for any reason they like, and YouTubes only option at that point is to pay them off, or pay the legal fees. Either way, they are out the $$, not the person who uploaded the, all be it, perfectly legal video.
--
AMD X2 4800+ @2700Mhz/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 4x 1024Mb Corsair XMS PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Makes perfect sense said by Camelot One :But advertisers are paying based on the number of hits, they could care less about which videos are or aren't staying up. And if YouTube had to pay legal fees for every video one of the big companies sued them over, the ad rates would have to go up, which would then drive away advertisers. I'm not saying it is right, I'm saying it makes sense, given that the MPAA/RIAA can file a lawsuit for any reason they like, and YouTubes only option at that point is to pay them off, or pay the legal fees. Either way, they are out the $$, not the person who uploaded the, all be it, perfectly legal video. The problem for YouTube is that if they get less hits, they lose money and advertisers can demand cheaper rates which means even less money for YouTube. | |
| | | | | disc
join:2005-12-31
Raleigh, NC
| Re: Makes perfect sense said by moonpuppy :The problem for YouTube is that if they get less hits, they lose money and advertisers can demand cheaper rates which means even less money for YouTube. Which in turn means that any revenue distribution by YouTube back to the content owners is diminished as well. The content owners know how their bread is buttered. They're just still trying to figure out the best channel to market for monetizing their assets. If YouTube is conflicting with their other channels, they'll make hard decisions, and having content yanked off of YouTube is a likely one. | |
| | | | 
ss4vegito7
join:2004-07-24
Cranbury, NJ
| said by Camelot One :said by vpoko :said by Camelot One :If you think about it, why would they want to defend their users? Users aren't footing the bill for the service. Except that they are. Why do you think advertisers pay YouTube? But advertisers are paying based on the number of hits, they could care less about which videos are or aren't staying up. And if YouTube had to pay legal fees for every video one of the big companies sued them over, the ad rates would have to go up, which would then drive away advertisers. I'm not saying it is right, I'm saying it makes sense, given that the MPAA/RIAA can file a lawsuit for any reason they like, and YouTubes only option at that point is to pay them off, or pay the legal fees. Either way, they are out the $$, not the person who uploaded the, all be it, perfectly legal video. your logic sucks
Thats all i have to say.
--
»www.rockinthebury.com
andhttp://www.cranburypcrepair.com | |
| | | | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: Makes perfect sense said by ss4vegito7 :your logic sucks Thats all i have to say. Thank you for contributing to the conversation. | |
| | | | | |
ss4vegito7
join:2004-07-24
Cranbury, NJ
| Re: Makes perfect sense yes the advertisers care about hits, but what gets the site hits??
POPULAR VIDEOS!
Much more then half of youtube's audience uses the site to watch copyrighted material. This in turn creates hits, which advertisers care deeply about.
It is in youtubes best interest to care about what users want.
--
»www.rockinthebury.com
andhttp://www.cranburypcrepair.com | |
| | | | | | 
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
| Not Quite Fair Use 1) An astute poster wrote:
...Am I correct in understanding that your YouTube posting was entitled "Superbowl Highlights"? If so, why did you name it that, rather than, say, "NFL copyright notice"? If your point was to illustrate that copyright holders are overreaching, I think you undermined your case somewhat by posting something with a title that sounds like run of the mill infringement. I suppose you can say that it was NFL's burden prior to sending a take down notice to make a good faith determination that your use of the clip was not "authorized by . . . the law." Which arguably means they were required to watch your clip in its entirety and perform an analysis under section 107 prior to sending their notice. But is that really a fair burden to put on copyright holders trying to police a site like YouTUbe for infringing material? Isn't it incumbent on fair users who want to avoid getting mistaken take down notices to at least make some effort to make the nature of their use readily apparent?
...
two thirds of the clip was game footage, as were all three of the thumbnials that you would see if you searched for it. The title was "Super Bowl Highlights", and there was no indication that it was intended for educational use (e.g. reference to a course, username "professor something-or-other").
While I understand that you were trying to upload something that would draw a DMCA counternotification and were successful in that, I think that your descriptions of your actions (and the "clear fair use") statements are creating materially false impressions in the minds of your readers. This was pretty far from a vanilla attempt at Fair Use posting. A pretty poor "test."
2) It's YouTube, they do want they want, they pull what they want. They have no obligation to honor any perceived Fair Use stuff. Users have no "rights" and no guarantees that their upload will be shown or forever available.
3) Why does anyone care? The goal of YouTube was to make money, not some altruistic internet crusade. To keep the money coming in, of course they are going to honor any take-down requests that alledge infringement. | |
| | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 |  Re: Not Quite Fair Use
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by Jehu :1) An astute poster wrote:
2) It's YouTube, they do want they want, they pull what they want. They have no obligation to honor any perceived Fair Use stuff. Users have no "rights" and no guarantees that their upload will be shown or forever available.
The "fair use" rights belong to YouTube and NOT to the user who posted it. YouTube can delete any content it wants without any reason at all. The person posting has no rights except that which YouTube gives them in its AUP.
»www.youtube.com/t/terms
YouTube also reserves the right to decide whether Content or a User Submission is appropriate and complies with these Terms of Service for violations other than copyright infringement and violations of intellectual property law, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscene or defamatory material, or excessive length. YouTube may remove such User Submissions and/or terminate a User's access for uploading such material in violation of these Terms of Service at any time, without prior notice and at its sole discretion.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | bigskank
join:2002-06-07
Norman, OK
| said by Jehu :1) An astute poster wrote: ...Am I correct in understanding that your YouTube posting was entitled "Superbowl Highlights"? If so, why did you name it that, rather than, say, "NFL copyright notice"? If your point was to illustrate that copyright holders are overreaching, I think you undermined your case somewhat by posting something with a title that sounds like run of the mill infringement. I suppose you can say that it was NFL's burden prior to sending a take down notice to make a good faith determination that your use of the clip was not "authorized by . . . the law." Which arguably means they were required to watch your clip in its entirety and perform an analysis under section 107 prior to sending their notice. But is that really a fair burden to put on copyright holders trying to police a site like YouTUbe for infringing material? Isn't it incumbent on fair users who want to avoid getting mistaken take down notices to at least make some effort to make the nature of their use readily apparent?
...
two thirds of the clip was game footage, as were all three of the thumbnials that you would see if you searched for it. The title was "Super Bowl Highlights", and there was no indication that it was intended for educational use (e.g. reference to a course, username "professor something-or-other").
While I understand that you were trying to upload something that would draw a DMCA counternotification and were successful in that, I think that your descriptions of your actions (and the "clear fair use") statements are creating materially false impressions in the minds of your readers. This was pretty far from a vanilla attempt at Fair Use posting. A pretty poor "test." 2) It's YouTube, they do want they want, they pull what they want. They have no obligation to honor any perceived Fair Use stuff. Users have no "rights" and no guarantees that their upload will be shown or forever available. 3) Why does anyone care? The goal of YouTube was to make money, not some altruistic internet crusade. To keep the money coming in, of course they are going to honor any take-down requests that alledge infringement. I will respond in kind:
1) This is a materially incorrect interpretation of what the fair use argument in. The author of the clip is not claiming it is fair use because she showed the copyright notification the NFL put before the super bowl. She is claiming it is fair use because it was being used for an educational purpose. This is explicitly one of the things condoned by the fair use provisions of the US Copyright Act. See 17 USC 107 here: »www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/···00-.html
Thus, this is exactly a plain "vanilla" fair use argument. She is saying it was fair use because it was being used in an educational context in her classroom. Further, a copyright user is required to make a good faith use attempt to determine if material is fair use. There are complaints all the time on BBR, Slashdot, etc... about people who send out all kinds of takedown notices without making a good faith effort (such as that dude who sent out the stuff to people posting an image of him from Fox News...the name escapes me right now). The law imposes burdens on both sides of the copyright regime (copyright holders and users). If you think it's unfair that someone would have to make a good faith determination by watching a whole clip, ask Congress/the courts to change it. As is though, that's what the law requires.
2) This is true. But, if they want the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, and someone sends a counter-notification, then they have to follow the DMCA by putting the material back online. If they don't, then the safe-harbor doesn't apply. Since Google/YouTube want (and NEED) the safe-harbor, they had damn well put it back up after receiving a counter-notification. Their user agreement does not over-ride the statutory provisions of the DMCA. See ChillingEffects.org for more info here: »www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/···i#QID132
3) People care because, even though they are there to make money, people have invested a lot of their own personal time into seeing YouTube succeed, and don't want it to become another slovenly example of a copyright bootlicker. Further, if YouTube doesn't fight it, then there is likely no other current video-sharing website with the resources to do so. Thus, the net community as a whole generally wants to see this fight happen. I'm not saying this necessarily means it is in YouTube's best interest to do so, but that is the reason why people care. | |
| | |
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
| Re: Not Quite Fair Use What she says and what she did are 2 completely different things.
1)She says it was for educational purposes, but made no effort, in any way, to demonstrate that in her GooTube upload.
2) "She is saying it was fair use because it was being used in an educational context in her classroom."
That's great..but I think limits of Eductational Fair Use are pushed beyond the limits when you upload copyrighted material for people outside of your classroom, millions of random people, having nothing to do with her class, to view.
It doesn't make sense and doesn't follow the spirit of Fair Use as intended. | |
| | | | bigskank
join:2002-06-07
Norman, OK
| Re: Not Quite Fair Use 1) The actual copyrighted material that you use does not in any way have to state it is for educational purposes. It is the context in which it is being used that matters. If you copy 2 pages of a copyrighted novel for use in a classroom to demonstrate proper grammatical structure, you don't have to write "This is for educational purposes on it" in order to receive fair use protection. Why should the requirements for a different medium be more stringent?
2)Part of the point of the educational exercise for her class was to demonstrate how copyright bots prowl YouTube and send out takedown notices en masse without attempting to make a good faith determination of fair use. This would have been difficult to accomplish had she only made the video available to her own students. See her blog for her short explanation of why she did it »wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/···hts.html
Additionally, even if you are 100% convinced that this is not fair use, the NFL still violated the DMCA by re-sending a takedown notice after they were apprised of the fact that the alleged infringer was claiming fair use. The NFL's option under the DMCA is to go to court, NOT to send another take down. Further, Google/YouTube violated the DMCA by re-honoring the takedown request. This destroys any YouTube claim under the safe-harbor provision. This was not a takedown within the ambit of YouTube's "Acceptable Use Policy," because YouTube is still attributing the reason for the takedown as a DMCA request by the NFL. See here: »www.youtube.com/browse?&session=···fV1wzsM= | |
| | | | | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| Re: Not Quite Fair Use said by bigskank :Further, Google/YouTube violated the DMCA by re-honoring the takedown request. This destroys any YouTube claim under the safe-harbor provision. Please cite where taking down content because the NFL claimed they owned the copyright (no matter how many times) violates the DMCA.
--
Go Colts | |
| | | | |
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
| Ok, I'm sorry but if you think that making copyrighted information publicly available to the general Masses under the guise of "educational" for a classroom full of people, then I don't know what to say.
A classroom is finite and controlled environment... As a poster to her blog wrote: "Doesn't the educational fair use claim required limited distribution of the material in question?
By posting to YouTube haven't you lost control of distribution?"
I think her test sucked and proved nothing other than "working as intended."
She baited an infringement claim, and got it.
Now if she alleges that the second take-down is in violation of the DMCA, then she can go nuts and sue the NFL and let a court decide. | |
| | | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Not Quite Fair Use said by Jehu :She baited an infringement claim, and got it. Precisely.
Using a different technology, her 'experiment' would be to set up a printing press in her classroom and duplicate all of Stephen King's (for lack of another example) books and stacking them outside every Borders in the country. She may not be making any money at it, and her intent may be to show her students how to run a printing and distribution company, but since the educational aspect can easily be accomplished without baiting copyright enforcement and without infringing on Mr. King's IP rights it's real purpose is to both infringe and bait. That may be "educational" in its own right but claiming protection is absurd.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
2 edits | said by Jehu :1) An astute poster wrote: ...Am I correct in understanding that your YouTube posting was entitled "Superbowl Highlights"? If so, why did you name it that, rather than, say, "NFL copyright notice"? [...]
3) Why does anyone care? The goal of YouTube was to make money, not some altruistic internet crusade. To keep the money coming in, of course they are going to honor any take-down requests that alledge infringement.
So essentially, your argument on behalf of the YT copyright nazis is to take the ball and go home if you don't get your own way. That's a beautiful theory except that it is the users who make/have made YT what it is today. No users = no hits = no traffic = Zero ad revenue.
YT is biting the hand that feeds it. And if it isn't careful, it may end up in the same popularity contest as the (dia)RIAA. Notwithstanding the fanboys on this site, the entertainment companies are about as popular as food poisoning and herpes.
--
The Toll
| |
| | |
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA | Re: Not Quite Fair Use Is there a question in there or just a diatribe about how you think GooTube ought to run their business? | |
| | | |
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Re: Not Quite Fair Use said by Jehu :Is there a question in there or just a diatribe about how you think GooTube ought to run their business? That's as good a lame excuse as any put forth by you yet when you can't come up with something wittier. At least I use my own words instead of quoting astute posters. Too bad you can't say the same.
--
The Toll
| |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit |  Viacom sued over YouTube removals (breaking news)
Activist groups sued the parent company of Comedy Central on Thursday, claiming the cable network improperly asked the video-sharing site YouTube to remove a parody of the network's "The Colbert Report."
Although the video in question contained clips taken from the television show, MoveOn.org Civic Action and Brave New Films LLC argued that their use was protected under "fair use" provisions of copyright law.
They said Viacom Inc. should have known the use was legal and thus its complaint to YouTube to have the video blocked amounted to a "misrepresentation" that is subject to damages under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The challenge, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, came about a week after Viacom filed its own, $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube, claiming that the wildly popular Web site is rife with copyrighted video from Viacom shows, including "The Colbert Report."
Neither YouTube nor its parent, Google Inc., was named in the latest lawsuit, filed on the plaintiffs' behalf by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society. --
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| 
thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
1 edit | Why does anyone care? If I post something here and it gets deleted, and it is covered by fair use, would it be a front page news story?
No.
Replace DSLR with many other webforums.
No. Same answer.
Why with youtube? It's not like you pay for it. It's a free service that provides low res video that sounds like garbage. It's a novelty. If they want to delete certain things and you don't like this, get your own damn webhosting for $5/month and host it yourself. | |
| | bigskank
join:2002-06-07
Norman, OK
| Re: Why does anyone care? 2 reasons:
1) If you posted something on DSLR or another site, and it received at DMCA takedown, and you counter-notified, and it was still taken down, it might well be "front-page" news. This is a clear DMCA violation and it doesn't happen that often. The sheer novelty of it makes it newsworthy.
2) Wendy Seltzer is somewhat "famous" (for lack of a better term) in the copyright/open internet movement. People who are more well known get more attention when stuff happens to them. | |
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Right now "YouTube" is a hot button Internet buzz-issue.
Anything announced about "YouTube" will automatically get press atm. It's happened in the past and continues to happen. (Remember when Napster was the buzz-issue, for example). | |
| 
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß | Duuuh Youtube is about hits, no content no hits...to that end I don't think people are going to run away from YT if they get their content pulled as there isn't an as popular alternative.
| |
| | | |
|
|
So Much For YouTube Parody, Fair Use
