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

[Brandon J.F.]

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?

They are responsible if they do not remove infringing content when notified.

Is a web host responsible if one of their clients uses one of their servers for some kind of illegal activity? No, they aren't. Not unless they don't act when made aware of said activity.

 

[Scott Crawley]

They are responsible if they do not remove infringing content when notified.

Is a web host responsible if one of their clients uses one of their servers for some kind of illegal activity? No, they aren't. Not unless they don't act when made aware of said activity.

Hence my mention of telco involvement in the Napster suit. YouTube is different from an ISP in ways too numerous and nuanced for me to even understand. That is what my instinct is telling me, anyway.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

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?

Well a gun's generally meant to kill, which is typically pretty illegal.

When it comes down to it, as Brandon pointed out, the court's have already ruled on YouTube: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc.

And in the case of DRM stripping programs, I'm actually quite sympathetic. I have an old Terminator 2 DVD that came with a special HD version you could play on your computer...well I decided to pull it out last year to try it out and the file loaded up, but then hung and wouldn't play...turned out it was trying to connect to a DRM server to authenticate its key. Problem was that the DRM company had gone out of business and there was no longer any way to authenticate the key and play the file. So I was left with a product I had bought that I couldn't play because a company was more interested in "protecting" itself from pirates than in delivering a working product to its costumers.

 

[Saumene Mehrdady]

it's the butchering of other peoples' works, often mis-mashed together into videos that are mostly unwatchable garbage.

Somebody doesn't understand postmodernism

 

[Scott Crawley]

Well a gun's generally meant to kill, which is typically pretty illegal.

When it comes down to it, as Brandon pointed out, the court's have already ruled on YouTube: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc.

And in the case of DRM stripping programs, I'm actually quite sympathetic. I have an old Terminator 2 DVD that came with a special HD version you could play on your computer...well I decided to pull it out last year to try it out and the file loaded up, but then hung and wouldn't play...turned out it was trying to connect to a DRM server to authenticate its key. Problem was that the DRM company had gone out of business and there was no longer any way to authenticate the key and play the file. So I was left with a product I had bought that I couldn't play because a company was more interested in "protecting" itself from pirates than in delivering a working product to its costumers.

I was likewise burned by a crappy iLok dongle... Over $600 worth of plug-ins... Never again.

 

[Brice Ansel]

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.

As a content producer it is of your responsability to google your content to make sure no bastard try to rape your copyright, if it it is your choice.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I understand, and this works... Kinda... For now. But it is a big world out there and I am but one little guy. How do I police the entire net for my pirated IP all by myself? If anyone can create a computerized hosting company without liability, how will us little folks be able to keep the buzzards at bay?

What is there to stop any of us from throwing up our own free sharing services? Based upon the ignorance by automation defense, if we put a wee computer and software between ourselves and the illegal activity we can be free to pirate at will. No?

As a content producer it is of your responsability to google your content to make sure no bastard try to rape your copyright, if it it is your choice.

 

[Brandon J.F.]

I understand, and this works... Kinda... For now. But it is a big world out there and I am but one little guy. How do I police the entire net for my pirated IP all by myself?

There are companies that do it, but usually the problem little guys have is that no one has heard of them or their film so no one is interested in even pirating it let alone paying for it. I'm speaking, sort of, from experience here. I Executive Produced a film that was released in 2009. It got amazing reviews (New York Times, Variety, New York Post, Village Voice, etc.) and a distribution deal with Kino International. I just checked on several torrent sites and it's listed on most, but only available to download (2 seeds) on 1 site. There hasn't been a single comment in 3 years

Now, I had nothing to do with the making of the film or the release/promotion. I just believed in the director, helped early on with advice/notes and invested the money needed to finish the film. We had a falling out later when I didn't give him more money when he asked for it (I didn't have it) and I haven't talked to him since. Even though he's contractually obligated to report the distribution earnings to me, and pay me a percentage of what comes in, I've received nothing and heard nothing. That's another story though... My point, I guess, is that I have no idea what the film actually earned. I really don't think, in this case, piracy was at all harmful though.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

I understand, and this works... Kinda... For now. But it is a big world out there and I am but one little guy. How do I police the entire net for my pirated IP all by myself? If anyone can create a computerized hosting company without liability, how will us little folks be able to keep the buzzards at bay?

Well see here's the trick...you don't have to stop pirates to make money. Building a strong brand is more important than making people pay to view everything you do. You can make money off of a strong brand in many ways including merchandising and commissioned work for other companies. A million people pirating your stuff and watching it is better than 100 people buying it and watching it because having a million people aware of your brand will make you more money in the long term. This is true now even more now with Kickstarter.

But this applies across the board...the games industry had to learn a hard lesson about DRM. The problem with DRM in games was that it was lowering the value of legit copies of the game because they had a bunch issues which the pirated version without DRM didn't. And then companies started to learn that it was more about strong products, strong brands, and convenient purchasing options.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

These days fighting file Sharing via law suits is probably more damaging to your film than simply allowing your film to be torrented or posted to you tube, at least with YouTube you can flag clips and receive a cut of any advertising revenues which may accumulate from viewing. If anything you should be more worried if your content isn't being pirated online, its a sure a sign as any that no one is interested in your film. There is a recent roman Polanski doco I've been wanting to watch but it seems it is hampered by region restrictions preventing any legal means of purchase and apparently no one is interested in the film so unlike side by side I can't just torrent it either. Top gear I understand is the most torrented show in history and they're doing very well.

 

[Glen Powell]

90% of what I now produce is Branded Content for the web - mostly food content. In the last year YouTube has removed 5 of our videos citing "copyright infringement". Despite the fact that I shot / edited / composed the music had talent and product releases; I owned the content!

There is no mechanism in this type of case for any type of input from me, I just had to accept it. No one at YouTube was interested in taking the time to let me know why the content was removed.

As for the idea that anyone is making money from their content*** on YouTube - let alone from pirating other peoples content; you should read this article calledI ain't gonna work on YouTube's farm no more
The only people making money are Google - or people like me who have brand sponsors embedded in the video.

***Psy, Beiber, and the record companies are probably the only exception***