What is Digg?128 Comments
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+112Why YouTube should win this case: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004815.php (courtesy boingboing)
- iamhumble, on 10/12/2007, -4/+48Reading that explained it in plain english. No legal jumbo at all.
- Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -9/+37THIS JUST IN: Sun in sky today, water wet
- phore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17i remember just reading an article here on digg saying how youtube isn't going to be sued, haha that didnt last
- iamhumble, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Reply back to them with some web 2.0 key words, TheWalkingDude. See if that works.
BTW, thanks for your hard work. Sharing is caring as they say :) - gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12So much for http://digg.com/tech_news/YouTube_and_the_copyright_cops_safe..._for_now
- w3bslinger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Just read the article on digg abt why no one has sued YouTube yet, and now this !!! :D You do hav to give credit to L.A. news for being prompt (sarcasm for those who are sarcasm impared)
- Xizer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11YouTube profiting? Get out, dumbass. We don't like your kind 'round here. YouTube spends millions of dollars every month in bandwidth bills and they don't make near enough to make up for that.
I'm surprised they're still around or haven't been bought up yet, to be quite honest. - matthewsr2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7i think bashing on EFF's lawyer is a bit lame.
any lawyer will tell you that their practice is to try to induce judges to interpret laws differently. it's the interpretation and applicability of the law that they work on.
however weak or strong their case may be, they are in fact doing their job, and i for one, applaud them for their effort. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7*cough cough*
@scheper: Turn off Adblock or use IE and you will see the ads when you look at a video.
Profit is immaterial to the equation, it is the fact that YouTube earns *revenue* that is the problem, and which is why they are not protected by 512(c). - dignation, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Its like suing HP because some people illegally copy CDs using their computers.
- davdav, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Youtube? Profiting?
Hah!
Youtube is/will soon be broke. - wstrucke, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17@TheWalkingDude
...because you're advertising for yourself, duh. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9agilethumbs:
_You_ need to learn the definition of profit. You've confused profit with revenue. Youtube does have some revenue, but they have no profit, only loss. Profit = revenue - costs. For Youtube, costs > revenue, therefore profit < 0. Youtube does not "profit" every time you click on an ad, they receive revenue. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Upon further review of the text of the DCMA, it is quite clear that a problem arises:
To be immune to lawsuits, ie, to make use of the 512(c) exception, YouTube must meet all of the following requirements laid forth by 512(c)(1):
(A): does not have actual knowledge that the material is offending or removies it if it finds out that it is. ....Check, YouTube is good to go here. Also note: This is an abridged version, not the actual words.
-----------------------------
(B): `(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, where the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and [note: actual text, commentary below]
------------------------------
(C) does not matter, but involves removal of copyright material.
Why? The problem is (B). YouTube does receive a financial benefit directly attributable to said infringing activity, AND, more importantly, they have the ability to control such activity. Unfortunately, the DCMA does not make any exceptions for the difficulty or cost of said ability to control such activity, only that such an ability does exist. While cost/difficulty of implementation may be taken into consideration by 512(i), it is not guaranteed.
Finally, before you script kiddes get ahead of yourself, not that the (A), (B), and (C) sections are not joined by or's, hence, YouTube must satisfy *all three* requirements to make use of the exception. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@agile is correct except for one thing: profit is not necessary to sue for damages, only *revenue*. As long as YouTube derives revenue from "stolen" copyrighted material, it can be sued for damages.
Which is exactly what is happening here, and which is why YouTube will settle and would not win the case.
Put it another way: it's like YouTube is getting the grades for someone else's lab assignment...and the other person *isn't* getting the expected grade for it as a result. - Pseudo98, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Witness Digg witchcraft!
I believe the cause of this news article lies in this story front paged today: http://www.digg.com/tech_news/YouTube_and_the_copyright_cops_safe..._for_now
New feature of V3? Jinxing? - ChewyBass, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Whereas most may, or may not, agree with your assessment, it is your vile language and attitude that is causing me to digg you down. If anyone came to me with a reasonable explanation in a rational manner I would take them seriously. You on the other hand are disgusting and causing great harm to your credibility. I say this in all seriousness and I'm not trying to slam you. Please check your anger and you may receive more favorable treatment.
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Mark my post down. I was using the wrong definition of service provider; the DCMA providers an additional definition under which YouTube does qualify.
In response to dignation:
No, because GoDaddy is protected by 512(a), which covers exemptions for service providers (first definition, as in ISP or data providers, ie web hosts). YouTube is an online service provider (ie, any other type of service provider) and would be covered by 512(c), as noted at the top of the page IF it satisfied all the requirements of 512(c)(1). Unfortunately, it fails to meet the requirement set forth in 512(c)(1)(B). - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Why am I being modded down for a simple statement of fact?
That provision requires that the service provider, in this case YouTube, does not make money off the infringing material. This is important, because YouTube must meet this requirement to be eligible for the exemption provided by 512(c) as noted in the first post at the top of the page. - arnaudh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Duh. YouTube had it coming. You can't stamp your logo onto "user content" and pretend it's all good. Sure, they'll get sued by greedy hypocrites, but then YouTube can't either pretend they can't comb through their database and discard obviously copyrighted material. They've done it before, so they're going to have a hard time at some point convincing some judge it's impossible to do.
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Which is the problem, in a nutshell. If YouTube is deriving its revenue from the copyrighted material, then it is liable for copyright infringement and damages. And this is why it got sued.
- buggiemks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sorry Grayfox777, but you're wrong.
The other year I made my own short film. I financed it, wrote it, shot it, edited it and paid for it all myself. Then I put it on Atomfilms. Several weeks later, I found my film on a British website that offered films you could download to your phone for only $2.99. They stole my work and making money off of it. It may be different to you, but it's the same issue to me -- people using other people's work without paying them for it.
Now let me say this -- I don't think YouTube is necessarily responsible. I believe that the person who uploaded the file is to blame. YouTube should turn over their name to this guy and he could sue them. That would put the responsibility back where it belongs -- on the people who upload to YouTube. - pussyWagon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Did the company suing YouTube ask to have it removed first? The company should simply contact YouTube to remove the video - which we all know they are fully willing to comply - and if they ignore or refuse then use the law. Otherwise who can really monitor the amount of videos and know what news corp owns what clip. Give these guys a break with the law suits already.
- bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3awww. i got dug down for "usually siding with the copyright holders." Was that by those that are too cheap to purchase things, or too broke?
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Given the courage it took to videotape the police beating a citizen back in the 90s when the LAPD was fairly corrupt, that argument is not as sarcastic as you'd like it to be.
For those of you who weren't alive at the time, no one ***** with the LAPD in the early 90s. Because the LAPD, especially the RAMPART division, ***** right back. Almost 15 years later, the LAPD is still under federal oversight for the actions by its cops during this period. - ehmjay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3While I'm not suprised, I do feel bad for Youtube. Mind you the Terms when you upload stuff states that you cannot upload anything copyrighten so hopefuly they've got their butts covered.
of course this could be the end.
when will these people get it? suing your consumers DOESN'T make you money! - kurotenshi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6By creating a user based system (logons, EULA, etc.) they have managed to protect themselves under the safe harbor act. I think EFF is correct in surmising that this suit will not fly.
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5See my post above about 512(c)(1)(B). Therein lies the rub.
Unfortunately, because of that provision, the copyright owner can sue YouTube for damages. While it's a ***** thing to do, they're still allowed to do it. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Blaming the users is a valid defense. Unfortunately, it's *not enough*.
YouTube does not satisfy all three of the requirements (it only meets two of them) of 512(c)(1), which states who is eligible for the exemption from monetary damages provided by 512(c). - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sorry about that. I made that remark before fully reading through the DCMA's text. YouTube does qualify as an online service provider, though NOT as a web host, as stated above. There is a distinction made there by the DCMA, and the one I knew about was service provider as it is commonly meant, ie, ISP or web host. However, it also includes a provision for online service providers that is distinct from these two, which YouTube does qualify under.
The problem:
512(c)(1)(B). Unfortunately, while YouTube satifies 512(c)(1)'s (A) and (C), it must satisfy *all three* to qualify for 512(c).
As I noted in other posts, revenue is and always has been the problem for YouTube. They make money from the infringing material, and hence, do not satisfy (B), which requires that they not make money off the infringing material. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Actually, that argument won't win for YouTube. Here's the problem: YouTube is not acting as a webhost in the in the legal sense. Why? Because the only website they host is their own. The copyrighted material being infringed upon is being provided on their *own* website, and the users are uploading the content to *their* site. Thus, the burden to verify that content is legal falls onto YouTube, not the user.
Now, if YouTube were to let individual users have their own websites, distinct from the YouTube site, ala GeoCities or Tripod, then YouTube would have a valid, though weak defense under this exception. User profiles don't count in this regard, as the data is still part of YouTube's site and not compartmentalized for the user.
Also, the comparison between YouTube and Napster is invalid for various reasons, not the least of which was that Napster was not a website or webhost.
Unfortunately, spurious legal arguments like these are why the EFF is considered a mockery by the legal profession. - mookieXL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, that's because you probably use noscript and only allowed youtube.com. Youtube has ads from doubleclick, even in europe.
- Grayfox777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, you can't stop a lot of things from happening until you find each thing and deal with it. Much more serious things too.... not stupid copyright infringement.
- m0ke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Not two pages back lies a page titled. 'Youtube: Safe for Now?"
- frednofr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5well, now, I guess that page can be market inaccurate ;)
- washoetech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3***** THIS GUY!!! Oh Wait! I better not say anything or he might sue me!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like free stuff as much as the next guy, but I knew it was only a matter of time before this would happen. Unless some major entertainment company steps in and buys them out... BYE BYE YouTube.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5this copyright war isn't about money, it's about controlling others.
when youhave so much money you don't even have to think about it anymore... what else do you want? control. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8No, not even close. YouTube here is acting act the distributor of the materials, which is a direct violation of copyright laws in the US. HP is acting as a manufacturer, but does not actually control the end use of the product. This is a big difference.
The user which supplied the copyrighted materials is *also* acting as distributor, and is also liable. However, unless they have deep pockets, chances are they won't get sued...except maybe by the RIAA. - SoxFanNH, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Hopefully this suit fails miserably and will help stop this stupid crap from happening over and over again. Youtube is an awesome service and if it goes down because some idiot is whining about their video being on there thats dumb. Please contact YouTube 1st to have them remove it, no reason to sue right off...
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3YouTube feels far too much like a video host to be charged for these things. The only option for them to be sure "they" didn't violate copyrights would be to shut down the site. Aren't ISP's and the likes protected from these things? I believe YouTube should too, as well as Google, etc. And I'm pretty sure they are. I have definitely seen blatant violations on Google Video without any action taken against them. Sometimes it's even harder to catch, such as fan material using a song without permission from the composer. That's just as much infringement as anything else, but you have those heaps of WoW videos etc on Google Videos that keeps repeating that.
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4People like me were modding you up until you started attacking other users. That's where the neggs come from.
- dognose, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Actually, they are providing an internet service. All they have to do is register and provide DMCA removal instructions. (http://youtube.com/t/terms) The act as an intermediary between the copyright holder, and the person who uploaded the video (and thus, claiming to be the owner)
I believe that ala RIAA, they will have to start suing individual users. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3so is kazaa. i think that was his point.
- nemesys, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Last I checked TPB was up and running just fine
- scheper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't use noscript either. I do use flashblock.
- Grayfox777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I am so sick of this copyright infringement and licensing crap. It's a bunch of *****. It's not like YouTube is burning this stuff to disc and selling it. Hell, they aren't even selling the files!
Oh... and this is such a great way to confuse children. It might make them think that sharing is wrong. Think of the children, dammit!
Oh and hey, guess what, Robert Tur? YouTube is saving you bandwith you ***** idiot! The site is doing you a favor by distributing the content! - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No ads on youtube? What do you call this?
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n299/merreborn/p.png - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Please remember that you can digg my comment down all you want but that will still not change the law on the books. And that law, unfortunately, states that YouTube is **NOT** protected by 512(c) for the reasons discussed above.
I stand by my statement on the spuriousness of the EFF's legal arguments. If they actually hired competent lawyers and looked at the actual law as it was passed and not as they wished it was, they might actually accomplish something now and then instead of wasting their time going after OSS developers for minor GPL violations. (Yes, I'm talking about Mepis). -
Show 51 - 100 of 127 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 