YouTube copyright row
p2pnet.net News:- An attempt by Landmark Education to use America’s DMCA to find out who posted videos on GooTube is fast turning into a major international incident.
Copyright infringement has become a “hot topic” as, “pirated video from TV, films and music videos has proliferated across the web,” says The Los Angeles Times.
Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion but now, “Investors are concerned that Google could be financially liable for videos appearing on sites it runs; the company has said it does not face financial recriminations if it acts quickly to take down copyrighted material once alerted to it,” says the story.
Copyright infringement has become a hot topic because the entertainment and software cartels have promoted this purely commercial event to the level of major crime as an excuse for their failure to come to terms with the facts that a) peer-to-peer technology is, or should be, the marketing and distribution vehicle for the 21st digital century, and b) once-compliant consumers are fast becoming customers again, people with unfortunate tendencies to exhibit discernment and intelligence, and exercise free choice.
But now the Copyright Spectre has gone well beyond the level of helpless consumers lacking the resources to defend themselves. Today, it haunts powerful conglomerates such as Google whose newly acquired GooTube is in the centre of a copyright storm which doesn’t look likely to disperse any time soon.
The Landmark Education lawsuit, filed in France, has been virtually dismissed by Google spokesman Ricardo Reyes as a, “small lawsuit over a single video that appeared briefly,” says the LA Times.
“Small” means $193,000 and, “We have procedures in place that allow copyright owners to tell us if their content is placed on Google Video without authorization,” said Reyes. “When we receive appropriate notice, we quickly remove the content from Google Video.”
So, “does all this expose such sites to the risk of lawsuits from the big studios – with Time Warner the latest media group to make clear that it will enforce its copyright in material posted on YouTube?” – wonders The Times Law Supplement, going on:
“Clearly the sites think that they are not protected from the threat of litigation, given the removal of 30,000 clips from YouTube in the past week or so after complaints from Japanese rights holders, and the talks that Google has launched with a range of media companies to agree licence fees to allow content to be legally used on the site.
“Users have also been give warning that they face legal action if they upload clips that breach copyright laws.”
In other words, a once exciting Net phenomenon is fast being reduced to a banal commercial enterprise, thanks entirely to the efforts of the cartels to rigidly control how, and by whom, content is distributed online.
“The aim of sites is to maximise membership which in turn generates profits through advertising on the site,” says The Times, continuing, “To post material a user has to agree to the site`s terms through a click of the mouse, known as a click-wrap licence. These give the site owner a licence to do anything that a copyright owner would be allowed to do, for example to copy, distribute, adapt and communicate the content to the public. Users also give a warranty that they own the copyright or at least that the content does not infringe a third party`s copyright.
“But this is where the problem lies – most users don`t appreciate the full extent of copyright and other rights in the video clips being posted.”
Or put another way, your average surfer isn’t a copyright lawyer.
“Some sites contain basic summaries of copyright and most have procedures to allow users to notify them of suspected breaches,” says the story, “Yet a glance at some sites shows such widespread use of broadcast material ranging from music videos to prime-time network programming as to suggest a complete disregard of copyright by users.
“So site owners are wide open to legal action by the real copyright owners. What can they do? Enforcing the licence terms against users will usually be pointless and it isn`t likely to help in building an online community.”
Most sites, “emphasise that they take copyright infringements seriously and where notified of breaches will take down the offending video clips,” continues The Times. “In the US, sites must take these steps before they can claim the protection from liability offered by the relevant legislation. As well as taking down content, some sites say that where possible, they approach the copyright owner to discuss keeping the material on the site but charging users to watch it and sharing profits.
“Initially, some content owners took a slightly more cautious approach to users ripping their content than expected. For some studios and broadcasters, it may be worth turning a blind eye to some breaches of copyright, at least temporarily, given that the ‘viral’ benefits of informal online distribution and promotion can be significant in reaching new audiences. They may choose, as NBC has with YouTube, to make their own premium video material available on the site in return for better policing of copyright infringements.”
But, “with the recent muscle-flexing by a number of studios, it seems that when it comes to infringement risk in future, the policy of Google and YouTube will be safety first,” adds The Times
The French documentary which got GooTube into trouble is Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous (Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus).
Late last week the EFF said it was in discussion with Landmark about its DMCA subpoena to Google, “In the hope that we can resolve this without need of litigation” and with that in mind, the EFF has, “held off on filing its motion to quash that subpoena“.
The video was posted on Google Video, YouTube and the Internet Archive, and elswhere
Landmark is using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to try to, “force Google Video and others to identify who posted the film,” says the LA Times.
“Much like Scientology, Landmark is trying to shut down truths that it doesn’t want people to know about,” says a p2pnet Reader’s Write.
“Scientology’s efforts failed miserably and served only to draw further focus onto the cult. Now, with the Landmark story starting to hit the major news providers, the question is whether Landmark is willing to stand up to the scrutiny.
“Here’s hoping that some journalists take the time to view the video and see what all the fuss is about.”
Also See:
The Los Angeles Times – Google’s video service faces suit, November 13, 2006
filed in France – Cult News on Landmark Education, November 9, 2006
The Times Law Supplement – Can the YouTube copycats still get away with theft?, November 14, 2006
quash that subpoena – Landmark Ed, EFF, negotiations, November 10, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
