Are sites like these in trouble?

[mike444]

With the purchase of YouTube by Google and all the video copyright issues in the news lately, are huge sites, like TvSquad.com, which rely on embeding a huge selection of questionable YouTube videos, in trouble?

Should webmasters be purging these videos from their sites' right now? What if they don't...? Can they be sued?

[Ed_Ryan]

Google is not far from owning the world.

[mike444]

Google is not far from owning the world.

That's goes without saying...but what do you project for these mega sites, like tvsquad.com and others, that have invested so much in questionable sources of video content? It seems to me they are headed for a disaster. :confused:

[LeeU]

It's back to the basic question: Is the material copyrighted? If so, and its a standard copyright, then permission must be obtained from the owner. Otherwise, is stealing.

[mike444]

So how can sites like tvsquad continue doing what they're doing?

[LeeU]

Napster operated for a long time before it was brought down. Just because something is done doesn't mean that it's legal. They also may have agreements, I don't know.

[the tree]

Napster in of itself, was never anything illegal. Same with these video sites. The reason Napster got brought down was because it was facilitating illegal activity and people were complaining alot, this might not have the same effect with the video situation as it well, has Google behind it.

[LeeU]

"facilitating illegal activity" is illegal. The entire plan was illegal. Napster, for facilitating it, the users for copyright violations. BTW, what Napster did, "facilitating illegal activity", was still in violation of copyright law, as it aided and abetted the violation of that law.

[the tree]

How do you define aiding in the violation of copyright law? Do video cassette recorders count? I'm sure Google have enough legal wieght to not be brought down by that.

[LeeU]

There have already been court rulings regarding VCRs. What I mean is this: if copying music (that is copyrighted by another) and giving it to another is illegal, then helping someone do that is aiding and abetting.

The moive and music industries have problems because the technology got away from them. How can you sue Google without causing all the consumers to get angry and not buy your product? (As they have already found out the hard way, that's why they allow copying on VCRs for "private" use.) Notice that Google and YouTube have been making deals with movie companies. That works out for everybody.

It doesn't matter if people are doing it; if it's illegal, it's illegal. (BTW, I learned in law school that nothing is "illegal"; the word actually means "a big, sick bird - ill eagle". ;->

[mike444]

Napster operated for a long time before it was brought down. Just because something is done doesn't mean that it's legal. They also may have agreements, I don't know.

Yes, but in the napster case, who was sued?

I know the people who originally uploaded the music were prosecuted...but what about the people who didn't upload the music but merely downloaded it or put it on their sites? Will lawyers target people who embed illegal videos on their sites, but didn't upload them to the internet originally, in the same way?

[LeeU]

Well, the owner of Napster was sued. And lawyers went after several thousand people who downloaded songs.

YouTube has already beed dealing with this problem. With some companies they have made deals. The companies were ready to sue but realized that making a deal was better publicity. Just because a site like YouTube doesn't do the actual uploading doesn't mean that they are not also liable. It would be like knowingly letting someone deal drugs in your corner store. You now about it but you don't do it yourself but you're still liable as an accomplice. On the Internet it's a new world. Media companies weren't ready for what has happened. As I said, now, instead of making consumer angry (like making several thousand people pay for illegally downloaded music), they have to figure out some way to please the consumre while making money. One major problem for the media producers is that it's easy for independant filmmakers and music groups to record their own stuff and upload it to literally hundreds of millions of potential fans/buyers. It's not too hard to be an "international" recording/film star.

It should be interesting to watch it play out over the next few years.

[Vairkjosa]

The google bot doth cometh. Does google advertise the information it steals? If I don't block them out? Is a webcrawling bot anything other than a thief?
Organized crime is as old as prostitution. It will never go away so get used to it.

Ask Jeeves!

JMHO ;)

[Stephen Philbin]

The web is a public library with a few private sections here and there. Aquisition of data from the public sections can not be considered theft if the content/data is owned by the publisher.

That's how I see it anyway.

[LiLcRaZyFuZzY]

i want 1.6 billion dollars!

[LeeU]

The web is a public library with a few private sections here and there. Aquisition of data from the public sections can not be considered theft if the content/data is owned by the publisher.

That's how I see it anyway.

Well, that's not how the courts see it. If I understand you correctly, just because something is posted on the Web, it is available to everybody to use as they see fit?

[poiuy]

Napster went down from what I recall because it was hosting the files on their servers. They were in possession of illegal property whether they put it there or not. Hence the reason file share networks have been around for so long. They don't host any files and claim up front that they don't hold any responsibility for what they software is used for. Same thing Sony, Toshiba and VCR/DVR companies get away with

I've always wondered how You Tube made it this long. They do claim they aren't responsible for what people put up in their site but from what I understand the illegal files reside on their servers. It's only a matter of time before they get taken down. Same case that took down Napster.

To answer the OP I would at least get a back up plan for the website. Personally I can't see 90% of You Tubes content being around much longer.

[poiuy]

Well, that's not how the courts see it. If I understand you correctly, just because something is posted on the Web, it is available to everybody to use as they see fit?

Just to add to that no you can't. If I took a photo of myself and put it up on my website it would still be illegal for anyone to take it and add it to their site without a model release from me (in the U.S.). The only way you could possibly do it is if you blur the face and/or other distinguishable features and even then I can prove your is a fake and was taken without my permission because I can prove I have the original.

Just because it's on a website doesn't negate other laws.

[NogDog]

Related news story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061030/tc_nm/media_myspace_dc_2

[Brandon_R]

It's back to the basic question: Is the material copyrighted? If so, and its a standard copyright, then permission must be obtained from the owner. Otherwise, is stealing.

As a basic rule of thumb, anything posted online is copyrighted. When someone uploads videos onto youtube, you basically give them the rights to your video.
They also GIVE you embed links with the video though, so I would guess thats basically permission to use the videos.

How can a site get in trouble for using youtubes assigned embed links?

[Brandon_R]

Just to add to that no you can't. If I took a photo of myself and put it up on my website it would still be illegal for anyone to take it and add it to their site without a model release from me (in the U.S.). The only way you could possibly do it is if you blur the face and/or other distinguishable features and even then I can prove your is a fake and was taken without my permission because I can prove I have the original.

Just because it's on a website doesn't negate other laws.

Actually...I think theirs a limit that someone can just take, after that...THEN they have to get permission. I forget the name of it...Fair Use something or other

[LeeU]

As a basic rule of thumb, anything posted online is copyrighted. When someone uploads videos onto youtube, you basically give them the rights to your video. They also GIVE you embed links with the video though, so I would guess thats basically permission to use the videos. How can a site get in trouble for using youtubes assigned embed links?

Well, no, you don't necessarily assign them your rights. It depends on the agreement, etc. And remember, it's others that are uploading videos also, not just the copyright owners. You can't give something away that you don't own. Copyright law is not that cut and dry. If I give CD Baby my CD to sell and they post a song for a sample, it doesn't give you the right to copy it and give it to your friends and post it other places.

[Brandon_R]

Well, no, you don't necessarily assign them your rights. It depends on the agreement, etc. And remember, it's others that are uploading videos also, not just the copyright owners. You can't give something away that you don't own. Copyright law is not that cut and dry. If I give CD Baby my CD to sell and they post a song for a sample, it doesn't give you the right to copy it and give it to your friends and post it other places.

Oh of course.

I was referring to original content.
If I make a movie and post on my website. Its copyrighted. I dont need to put any sort of "copyright" symbols or names anywhere.
If I upload the video to youtube, I am giving them permission to use the video how they want. Youtube offers url and embed links for ANYONE to take the video.
You kinda wave your copyright rights when you upload videos to youtube and let them convert them to flash and tag them.
Thats just how it goes.

[grumpyoldtechs]

google is in talks with allot of the organizations to allow them to have content on you tube in exchange for advertising profit shares

[Waylander]

"EMI, Vivendi's (VIV.PA) Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group (NYSE:WMG - news) and Sony BMG own around 75 percent of mainstream popular music."

Yes, recent advancements in technology have indeed seen the media industry run away from these massive multi million dollar companies. Good. They have held choke holds on the industry for way too long.

But don't get me wrong, I'm definitely all for copyright.

People must have the rights and the responsibilities for the media they create.
I just feel that if someones going to get a fair dollar out of it it should be the one who creates it. Fair enough if there is help along the way to getting out the media, but fair shares are whats needed.

"But MySpace, increasingly seen as a destination to see and hear music and video, will soon begin selling songs from nearly 3 million unsigned bands."

Thats the real stuff right there, if this can be done in an effective manner then i'm all for it.

Sites like MySpace and YouTube whilst they may not be perfect yet I feel are a step in the right direction into connecting artists and listeners/viewers properly. It would indeed be a shame for those 3 million unsigned artists to lose their opportunity because of a tyrants bottom line, as its the big acts that draw people to the sites and give those 3 million the best chance at exposure.

One downside I can see is we may be exchanging one set of old tyrants for a new set. meet the new boss same as the old boss eh?

Advances in technology are changing the way many industries works, hopefully for the better. At the very least I'm glad that teh interweb has at least increased the communication and discussion about these industries and issues.

Viva la revolution!

Waylander.

[netbuddy]

Copyright, the artist(s) involved will have very likely relinquished any claims or rights to the video as it was entering a public domain intended to be seen by many people.

Using youTube/mySapce bandwidth to host your video/audio, I cannot comment on it but I can say that it is entirely up to the owners and what they do with their bandwidth and what use they allow, you best port of call is the AUP in the youTube/mySapce site.

[poiuy]

I may have misunderstood the OP a bit. If the video is original content that the owner uploaded to Youtube (giving up some rights) then YES that is fine and I wouldn't worry about taking that stuff off your website.

If you have your favorite Britney Spears or K-Fed music video showing on there then IMO stuff like that will eventually be getting removed from You Tube either voluntarily or by lawsuits. OK maybe I used two bad examples because if you have B.S. or K-Fed on your website you should be sued any ways ;)

I was just looking at the fact that the site has a lot of illegal content on it and thinking along those terms and as far as I know the good and illegal stuff all sit on there servers.

I'm also confused with TvSquad.com violating any thing (unless the articles are stolen). Not familiar with the website personally but I don't immediately see where the questionable content comes into play?

[Stephen Philbin]

Well, that's not how the courts see it. If I understand you correctly, just because something is posted on the Web, it is available to everybody to use as they see fit?

No. I was talking about personal use. Not obtaining and then displaying or redistributing as your own. That is obviously copyright. I was merely commenting on the fact that if something is on the web, then it is meant to be accessed and used and that you should be sure that you own the rights to whatever content you make availble, because if you don't you'll be in breach of numerous laws.

[chestertb]

Back when cassette tapes allowed anyone to copy any record they wanted to, the music industry and the tape manufacturing industry reached a compromise... a royalty was included in the price of every blank casette tape you bought. At the end of each quarter, the music industry would distribute that royalty. (Don't ask... I don't know how they distributed it... they had a formula.)

Industries have to respond to new technology. If they don't, they die. Someone somewhere will come up with a solution to the web/copyright issue... it's just that, as yet, no-one has.

CTB
PS... you do remember casette tapes don't you? Damn... maybe I'm showing my age again.

[Speedle]

It will be pity to loose YouTube... :(

[Repoleve]

yes, it's so...the most part of amusing and funny videos are from there... i can't imagine what it'll be if there's no youtube