Youtube makes a lot of $$ off piracy - they need their day in court

[Robert Ruffo New]

They have everything on there, Hollywood features, TV shows, struggling indy features that are barely surviving as it is - not just in 10 minute clips, but the whole thing, often even in HD.

Youtube pays $0 for this content, but shares ad revenue with the posters, who are full-on, for-profit, pirates, as is, not very arguably, Youtube itself.

How can this be?

They say there are too many videos, that they can't monitor them all, to this I say "Hey, that's the cost of doing business." Just like having a bouncer to check ID is part of the cost of running a bar. Anyone posting a 1:30 hour video should be vetted. How hard is that? How many 1:30 hour videos could there be - seems to me these are almost ALL stolen content.

Not to mention, their piracy reporting system is impossible to use. You can't just make a report of something you think is suspicious, You need to go through a very long process that proves you are directly a copyright holder. It takes hours. Why is this? My guess: because they make so many millions off ads on pirated content.

Youtube needs to pay. Now.

Google, their parent too. How hard would it be to block searches for pirated content? Not very hard. In China, they block all kinds of things, as they do in the middle East. But they don;t want to here, because it would cost them profits. They become billionaires, while the little guy with the indy film bleeds all the way to the bank.

Really enraging.

Please spread the word. Youtube must change their ways.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I can't say that you're wrong. I am not a copyright nazi but that is going a bit far. But do you know what's funny? I uploaded a 1' clip from an episode of Family Guy for no other reason than sharing a view about clubs (the 'pLace' episode). But nooooooooo. Even after submitting a statement of fair use, the video eventually became blocked again. What kind of magic sauce are people using to keep up whole movies?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The legal ground is very grey and shaky. The license agreement when you sign up to YouTube and then the agreement again when you post is that you claim you have all appropriate rights for whatever you are posting. And then they also take a mostly hands-off stance with it to, so as not to incur further liability. Only does YouTube step in and do any content removal if and when a content provider reports an infringement and in many cases, also has to show proof of some sort that the content is in violation somehow.

That said, I totally agree with Robert on this one. YouTube is a cesspool copyright infringement gone wild. It's not simple piracy either, it's the butchering of other peoples' works, often mis-mashed together into videos that are mostly unwatchable garbage.

IMO, the writing has been on the wall for some time. I'm really surprised that many of the larger movie and music studios haven't actually taken some form of legal action over it.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

I'm not sure it's working the way you think it does...as someone who has been on the content creation side of YouTube, it is very very hard to get ad revenue because YouTube automatically takes the stance that you have to prove you own the copyright before they'll give you any money. The only way around this is to get on a network which will allow you to make money without proving you own a video every time you upload one.

Now there's another situation where YouTube puts ads on videos, and I think this is the one that you're actually seeing. YouTube tries to automatically detect copyrighted material and in some cases (likely determined by how lenient or strict the copyright holder is) will put an ad on the video and give that revenue to the copyright holder so that the copyrighted piece can stay on YouTube. Some copyright holders are more strict, hence Karim's experience with the Family Guy clip.

The biggest problem is actually that the large media companies have a direct line to YouTube to insta take down any video they think is violating copyright. This has resulted in illegitimate video take downs (I remember I'm On a Boat was briefly taken off the Lonely Island YouTube channel because some asshat at NBC overreacted), while at the same time real copyright infringement like Will.i.am's unlicensed use of Rebound on his song Let's Go was ignored and Will.i.am's videos stayed up. If the situation was reversed the video would have been taken down instantly.

 

[Brandon J.F.]

The legal ground is very grey and shaky.

I don't often disagree with you, but in this case the law is quite clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

The license agreement when you sign up to YouTube and then the agreement again when you post is that you claim you have all appropriate rights for whatever you are posting.

Yeah, they are quite strict now. I think all it takes is 2 reports and you're banned. Also, you can't run ads and get paid for videos that contain any unauthorized third party copyrighted audio/video. Even if it's allowed copyrighted material (see below).

And then they also take a mostly hands-off stance with it to, so as not to incur further liability. Only does YouTube step in and do any content removal if and when a content provider reports an infringement and in many cases, also has to show proof of some sort that the content is in violation somehow.

They have to take a stand off approach. The onus is on the copyright holder to report violations. YouTube cannot have employees monitoring content. That said, they do use automated algorithms to detect if you're using copyrighted music. They actually have licensing agreements with a larege number of labels/artists so if copyrighted music is detected it's often not a problem. Simply the artist/label gets a licensing fee paid to them from YouTube for the views. Ads may also be added to the video and the proceeds go to the copyright holder not the channel owner.

Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/artist/audiomachine?feature=watch_metadata

Audiomachine makes really popular trailer music. In fact RED used them in their last promo. Lots of big Hollywood movies use them. You can use their music too. Any of it... as long as you only share your video on YouTube. I was told this directly from Audiomachine when I approached them about licensing some music. They said if the video is going to be only on YouTube I can use whatever I want for free. Sigur Ros does this as well (in most countries).

I believe they have algorithms to detect some video as well which is why, once in awhile, you will see someone has mirrored a video they uploaded.

That said, I totally agree with Robert on this one. YouTube is a cesspool copyright infringement gone wild. It's not simple piracy either, it's the butchering of other peoples' works, often mis-mashed together into videos that are mostly unwatchable garbage.

It really used to be much worse. At least now people are getting paid. I think it will continue to improve.

IMO, the writing has been on the wall for some time. I'm really surprised that many of the larger movie and music studios haven't actually taken some form of legal action over it.

There has been and they've lost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc.

 

[Mike P.]

You could argue that it's more the copyright holder's responsibility to report infringement to youtube and/or the users in question (and have all the paper work to back up their claims). If you're saying that their report system is fubar, than that's a different argument. If you're saying it's their responsibility to police content, it's really not. That's like saying it's gun companies' responsibility to ensure no one uses their weapons to murder people or alcohol companies responsibility to make sure no one drinks and drives. Not going to happen; if someone chooses to break the law they do so under their own steam regardless of the means with which they break the law.

 

[Scott Crawley]

You could argue that it's more the copyright holder's responsibility to report infringement to youtube and/or the users in question (and have all the paper work to back up their claims). If you're saying that their report system is fubar, than that's a different argument. If you're saying it's their responsibility to police content, it's really not. That's like saying it's gun companies' responsibility to ensure no one uses their weapons to murder people or alcohol companies responsibility to make sure no one drinks and drives. Not going to happen; if someone chooses to break the law they do so under their own steam regardless of the means with which they break the law.

If a representative of Smith and Wesson supported your hands, helped you aim and assisted in the trigger pull, then they might be similar.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

If a representative of Smith and Wesson supported your hands, helped you aim and assisted in the trigger pull, then they might be similar.

I have never had a YouTube representative help me upload a video. I doubt anyone else has either. Unless you think their software should be required to be sentient and have morals...

 

[Scott Crawley]

I have never had a YouTube representative help me upload a video. I doubt anyone else has either. Unless you think their software should be required to be sentient and have morals...

lol no, but they host the material. They accept it from you, they store it and they serve it. I understand to some degree their argument that their involvement is passive, but it is Google a.k.a. YouTube that is actually distributing the pirated material. You supply it, and they give it away at your request. I don't really know how they avoid culpability.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

lol no, but they host the material. They accept it from you, they store it and they serve it. I understand their argument that their involvement is passive, but it is Google a.k.a. YouTube that is actually distributing the pirated material. You supply it, and they give it away at your request. I don't really know how they avoid culpability.

But it's all automated. How are they supposed to know what's copyrighted content? It's the same as expecting gun companies to make sure their guns don't shoot people. A gun is automated. YouTube is automated.

And the thing is YouTube has actually gone out of its way to develop advanced technology to detect and act on copyrighted content.

 

[Scott Crawley]

But it's all automated. How are they supposed to know what's copyrighted content? It's the same as expecting gun companies to make sure their guns don't shoot people. A gun is automated. YouTube is automated.

And the thing is YouTube has actually gone out of its way to develop advanced technology to detect and act on copyrighted content.

Yes, they apparently do use bots to identify some types of material to their credit. If they can do this some of the time, should rights holders not expect them to control their software more fully? Should YouTube be allowed to use automation as a shield from liability?

My dog is automated. My dog bit your kid on the face. Am I not liable? It sounds a little weird maybe, but I see a paralell.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law. Is Google's ignorance of what their own systems are doing an excuse for their violations?

I don't know the answers to these questions but they are important, and they fascinate me. If YouTube were found to be culpable then the ISP's might also be, and I'm not sure I am as comfy with that thought.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I think we can compare YouTube and the ISPs here to Napster and the telcos. Napster could not dodge liability in many cases and had to settle with rights holders, yes? When the telephone companies were dragged in as accomplices, they got off. Is that also true?

Napster claimed the same defense that you offer for YouTube; that they were passive, ignorant and simply unable to police users, right? Is that defense flawed, or were they just wrong?

Napster is to YouTube as the telephone companies are to the ISP's... don't you think? If not, what makes this different?

 

[Robert Hart]

My guess is that the big entertainment players and YouTube have a symbiotic relationship going in an uneasy dance with neither really wanting to upset the other.

They can easily break a lot of each other's glass if they want to get into a fight. At best, each party would go off sulking and bloodied to their respective corners but not really beaten.

What determines whether or not I haul my weary stamp 20km to the cinema seat these days? - It is muchly promotion posted as trailers on YouTube. It is an easier option than navigating some cinema websites.

I have had experiences both ways. Origination by myself was blocked by a party which hosted a publicly accessible event, the Red Bull Air Race in Perth. They have subsequently left other equally non-infringing clips by other people alone. A prominent practitioner in law here suggested that if he took it to court he would win.

Contrarily, I have clips of old musical or film performances posted as a research resource for others. I preface them with a declaration that if there is an aggrieved copyright holder, that I be contacted first and that I will remove the clip.

I experieced an audio track being blocked on one actors workshop piece I posted. Subsequently the track was restored, I assume with the blessing of the copyright holder after my preface and covering post were read. So to legendary performer Joan Baez and/or your manager, a public thanks for your kind consideration. As a little more cross-promotion for Joan Baez and causes she supports, here is the "infringing clip". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmN-dW948xU - ( - what this could have looked like if the SI2K or Scarlet/Epic family had been around and kicking then. )

I have mixed feelings about YouTube getting a kick in the slats. It is a useful resource and repository for some rare stuff, especially older audio recordings. As a writer, I have found it to be a useful resource along with the rest of the internet. That was also the usefulness of Napster and WinMX before both were consigned to history back. It is not the use but the mis-use which does the damage.

A real names policy as implemented by this site and dvinfo.net might be more useful in regulating inappropriate use of YouTube. Perhaps there might be an alteration to the join-up contract stating that in event of infringing content being uploaded, the details necessary to contact the infringer will be disclosed publicly watermarked over the clip and on the clip info below.

 

[Paul Russell]

you have to get a LOT of views to even make a cent on Youtube. I'm talking hundreds of thousands.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

Yes, they apparently do use bots to identify some types of material to their credit. If they can do this some of the time, should rights holders not expect them to control their software more fully? Should YouTube be allowed to use automation as a shield from liability?

My dog is automated. My dog bit your kid on the face. Am I not liable? It sounds a little weird maybe, but I see a paralell.

You are directly overseeing your dog however. Is every company responsible for overseeing that their users don't use their product for illegal activity? Should Apple be prosecuted because someone uses iTunes to play pirated music?

 

[Brice Ansel]

They have everything on there, Hollywood features, TV shows, struggling indy features that are barely surviving as it is - not just in 10 minute clips, but the whole thing, often even in HD.

Youtube pays $0 for this content, but shares ad revenue with the posters, who are full-on, for-profit, pirates, as is, not very arguably, Youtube itself.

How can this be?

You need to go through a very long process that proves you are directly a copyright holder. It takes hours. Why is this? My guess: because they make so many millions off ads on pirated content.

I haven't experienced such a pain with Youtube.
I did pull down 3 times, 3 different movies I did.
Every time after filling the form online (take 5 mn ) the content has been remove in 24 hours.
I think if the producers really wanted to get rid of their content from Youtube they could do it in a snap.
For some It is a sort of free advertisement, for others just pure lazyness and disrepectull atitude toward the autors.
B.

 

[Scott Crawley]

You are directly overseeing your dog however. Is every company responsible for overseeing that their users don't use their product for illegal activity? Should Apple be prosecuted because someone uses iTunes to play pirated music?

We are responsible for the actions of our dogs because the law requires it. The question we are both asking is should the law require Google to be responsible for what their "product" is doing?

I put product in quotes not to be a wise ass but because I believe they provide a service, not a product. It is a KEY difference for someone to argue in court, perhaps. So to answer your question; iTunes software is a product that people download and for the most part use independently of Apple, so no I do not believe Apple should be liable. iTunes Match is a hosting and serving service and as such could be treated differently. It is also different from YouTube in that their service provides for personal use. I do not believe it is designed or intended to be used for sharing. I could be mistaken about that, but the ultimate point there is that they are not publishing content in the traditional sense. A legal definition of publishing could make for a point of contention. I don't even pretend to know what the legal definition of publishing is. ;-)

 

[Stephen Gentle]

I don't think there is anything extra Google should have to do. If the content creator finds their material on YouTube, they can send in a takedown request. Easy as that.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I don't think I disagree. As a consumer that is the answer I am most comfortable with, but as a content producer (a small, no infinitesimal producer) and philosopher I am not so sure.

Should they not be responsible for this thing they created and the damages is causes?

If not, that opens the door for anyone to deny responsibility for all manner of automated, computerized monsters they might create, doesn't it?

Are the creators of software designed with the sole purpose of stripping DRM responsible for the piracy it enables? I know there is a strong personal backup argument for limiting DRM that has been used in defense of these apps but that aside the fundamental question stands. Are they responsible?

The potential consequences of this kind of decision could be far reaching, well beyond this relatively trivial matter of entertainment IP so it bears close scrutiny. One potential problem that I see is in this context it can be casually decided upon out of a mass sense of entitlement and in the process we might unknowingly be throwing away the right to claim damages in scenarios we aren't even considering here and now.

I do wonder if I am framing the issue incorrectly.

I don't think there is anything extra Google should have to do. If the content creator finds their material on YouTube, they can send in a takedown request. Easy as that.

 

[Paul Russell]

The bots can be annoying. I've had take down requests despite owning all of the content. There seems to be no appeals process. In the end I simply removed and replaced. But that's why I prefer Vimeo - replacing means keeping the same url and not having to change your embed code.