And so it begins: YouTube nukes 30,000 videos

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Muted (0)
Sort by date Sort by votes
Marcus Andreus

Marcus Andreus

Ars Scholae Palatinae
888
Subscriptor
  • #2
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Although YouTube is legally obligated to remove infringing material when notified, some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>There's something about that idea that I find vaguely ludicrous. Yes, I realize there are arguments about YouTube gaining revenue from copyrighted material (through ads), blah blah.<BR><BR>Ultimately, I think asking them to police all the content themselves is a task doomed to failure. How can they possibly hope to know the specific copyright standing of each video posted on their site by some guy for God-knows-where?<BR><BR>Now this could also mean that YouTube is doomed to fail, if they get sued and some court rules that they <B>must</B> screen it all themselves.<BR><BR>Still... I keep getting the silly feeling when I read about copyright holders being miffed about having to actually protect their copyrights themselves.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    L

    Lucid

    Ars Centurion
    255
  • #3
    I really don't understand how it has survived this long. 90% of the material I watch on youtube is copyrighted. Clips for TV shows, music videos, funny TV commercials, etc. Back in the olden days, this stuff would have been removed very quickly. <BR><BR>Is youtube just ignoring legal notices or are copyright holders just getting lax on enforcing?
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    C

    Cogmatix

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,733
  • #5
    YouTube as it exists today could easily turn out to be a huge white elephant for Google, people are just going to keep suing them until they stop letting people upload their own videos and screen all the content themselves. Which would kind of make YouTube not...Youtube.<BR><BR>Copyright is a bizarre thing to me, specifically in that the holder can claim that they are "losing" money on something that they didn't appear to be making any money on in the first place. Sure, they may not have aired a certain bit of video for ten years but as soon as someone else does they are suddenly missing out on lost profits?
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    D

    Deleted member 14629

    Guest
  • #7
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is youtube just ignoring legal notices or are copyright holders just getting lax on enforcing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Considering the sheer size of YouTube, it may not have anything to do with being lax on the side of copyright holders, it may just be that they are overwhelmed trying to take it all down.<BR><BR>Plus, it isn't like other users won't just put it right back up.<BR><BR>I personally think that big content providers are using a "wait and see" approach with YouTube. Enough of them saw the mistake of just flat-out taking down Napster (kill it and watch a dozen children spring up in its place) to understand that a fairly central location for them to monitor may be a good thing. Plus, they can know exactly how popular some of their content is by monitoring YouTube. (note, I'm talking about both those that have signed agreements with YouTube and those that have not)<BR><BR>So I think we'll see a lot of back-and-forth with YouTube and content producers, but I would be surprised if we see anyone actually pull the trigger on an out-and-out lawsuit any time soon.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    S

    sieb

    Ars Centurion
    297
  • #8
    Yea, I don't see how they could possibly know who's content is who's. And I also find it laughable that copyright holders are miffed about defending their copyright. WTF?<BR><BR>I don't remember the specifics of the transaction, but wasn't YouTube just bought with stock? Google seems to have a bit of it with shares still over $400 and letting someone else put their name on some doesn't do much if: a. You are, by contract, restricted for some set amount of time from selling the stock, and b. if the stock goes down, so does the share they just gave you.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    M

    mithras

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    1,276
  • #12
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by karmakaze:<BR>At least the best one's still there:<BR><BR>http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=japanese+en...robics&search=Search<BR><BR><chant>Spare me my life</chant> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Yeah, those videos are fantastic. But how else am I going to watch bits from bizarro Japanese game shows? These guys should have done a revenue-sharing deal instead...
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    T

    Thaen

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    7,811
  • #13
    Seems like it would be cool to convince the big names that this is actually a good thing:<BR><BR>1. Researchers at Google determine algorithm that scrapes YouTube content, which is user-rated, to decide what makes a video "good" or not.<BR>2. Sell this information to marketers<BR>3. ???<BR>4. Profit!<BR><BR>thaen
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    B

    BrettJB

    Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
    139
  • #15
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thaen:<BR>1. Researchers at Google determine algorithm that scrapes YouTube content, which is user-rated, to decide what makes a video "good" or not.<BR>2. Sell this information to marketers<BR>3. ???<BR>4. Profit!<BR>thaen </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Thaen, we regret to inform you that the multi-step process leading to "Profit!" containing at least one mystery step (hereafter referred to as ???) has been copyrighted by the ACs over at Slashdot. <BR><BR>A takedown request, visit from the lawyers, and beatings administered by jackbooted thugs (preferably, but not necessarily, in that order) will be following shortly...
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    B

    BigLan

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    7,790
  • #17
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Le Scoopertemp:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Although YouTube is legally obligated to remove infringing material when notified, some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Ultimately, I think asking them to police all the content themselves is a task doomed to failure. How can they possibly hope to know the specific copyright standing of each video posted on their site by some guy for God-knows-where? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Agreed. I think the fact that they don't attempt to police it themselves is what puts them in a better legal position. If they're actively policing and something slips through then I'd guess they'd appear negligent.<BR><BR>I can't remember the details, but didn't Napster or audiogalaxy (RIP) end up having to try to police itself, which ultimately led to it's downfall. I really hope the same doesn't happen to youtube, I enjoy the random video clips which aren't available anywhere else.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    Dposcorp

    Dposcorp

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    6,404
    Subscriptor++
  • #18
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by karmakaze:<BR>At least the best one's still there:<BR><BR>http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=japanese+en...robics&search=Search<BR><BR><chant>Spare me my life</chant> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Nice post...........thanks for the chuckle
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    I

    IFeelFree

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    964
  • #21
    Yes, 30,000 videos were taken down, but how long before most of them get put back up again? I think that copyright holders are going to discover that asking Google to remove videos is a losing battle. They'd be better off joining the revolution than fighting it. The alternative is to try to sue Google out of existence, but as others have pointed out, that may also be a lost cause. For one thing, Google has plenty of cash to defend itself. Secondly, even if the content industry succeeded in suing Google out of existence, a dozen copycats will take its place, and they won't be deep pockets.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    E

    Enron

    Smack-Fu Master, in training
    67
  • #23
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zathras2:<BR>Haruhi noooooooooooooo!<BR><BR>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14534152/site/newsweek/<BR><BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Hahahaha. Haruhi made it into Newsweek!<BR><BR>MI-<BR>MI-<BR>MIKURU BEEEAAAMMMM
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    W

    wedgius

    Seniorius Lurkius
    34
  • #24
    It's rather funny that they complain of losses, and yet <I>at least</I> 80% of the people who have watched those 30,000 clips are probably Westerners who don't have access to Japanese television and therefore aren't a loss.<BR><BR>I know it's obvious, but I just figured it would be a little more obvious to the Japanese media. It doesn't seem to be.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    S

    Starhelm

    Smack-Fu Master, in training
    76
  • #27
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MaxJenius:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">at least 80% of the people who have watched those 30,000 clips are probably Westerners </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Do you have any way of backing up that claim? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Of course not, 83.763% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    frankencaster

    frankencaster

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    16,839
    Subscriptor
  • #28
    The funny thing about copywrites, as I understand it, is that if someone is infringing on your copywrite and you let them get away with it, you lose any right to collect damages later. This is basically so you can't know someone is engaged in infringing behaviour, wait until they have made some money, and then go after them.<BR><BR>Essentially, you either have to protect your copywrite when you find out about the infringement or give up your right to collect damages. <BR><BR>YouTube is under no obligation to prevent people from uploading material they don't own the copywrite to. It's up to the content holders to demand YouTube take it down.<BR><BR>-T
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    E

    Eagle One

    Ars Centurion
    298
  • #29
    Well, I searched for "Tekkaman" (original Japanese version of Teknoman)...And there's heaps of clips still there!<BR><BR>I get the feeling that this is nothing more than the standard fear marketing from the music, movie or content industry. (Constantly making announcements of how you're winning a war when you're really getting your a$$ handed to you).
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    F

    FatHed

    Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
    100
  • #30
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>funniest thing I read all day, perhaps those copyright holders should reread the copyright law.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    I

    iclisx

    Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
    173
  • #31
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatHed:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>funniest thing I read all day, perhaps those copyright holders should reread the copyright law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Just curious, what copyright law? The ones governing the business and it's actions, the ones governing the uploader, the ones govering server (exporter), or the ones governing the viewer (importer)? They might all be different, and may be enforcable across national boundaries due to trade\relation agreements with other nations.<BR><BR>As soon as you send thing across national boundaries, things get sticky.<BR><BR>What I would seeing happen here is that YouTube will start having to collect additional user information, and will be made to hand that out to copyright holders if they upload infringing material.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    G

    Gisboth

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    12,373
  • #32
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by frankencaster:<BR>The funny thing about copywrites, as I understand it, is that if someone is infringing on your copywrite and you let them get away with it, you lose any right to collect damages later. This is basically so you can't know someone is engaged in infringing behaviour, wait until they have made some money, and then go after them.<BR><BR>Essentially, you either have to protect your copywrite when you find out about the infringement or give up your right to collect damages. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You're confusing copyrights with trademarks.
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    B

    Bounder

    Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
    173
  • #34
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wedgius:<BR>It's rather funny that they complain of losses, and yet <I>at least</I> 80% of the people who have watched those 30,000 clips are probably Westerners who don't have access to Japanese television and therefore aren't a loss.<BR><BR>I know it's obvious, but I just figured it would be a little more obvious to the Japanese media. It doesn't seem to be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>I am a Westerner and I have access to NHK. It is called a satellite and it ccsts me $45 a month. Which should the Japanese media prefer? Westerners who desire the content paying for the content or seeing it given away on YouTube?
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    E

    endekks

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,591
  • #35
    "Japanese broadcast giant NHK was among those seeking the removal of materials."<BR><BR>Seeing as how Japanese citizens must <B>pay</B> for NHK themselves, I am not surprised in the slightest that NHK is looking for money for their materials being played on Youtube. What sucks is that I never even <B>watch</B> NHK (and I live in Tokyo, btw) and yet when the NHK guy comes around, I still have to pay. And they always refuse to believe that I never watch it. <BR><BR>BS Japanese rules and regulations FTW!
     
    Upvote
    0 (0 / 0)
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Jump to latest Follow Reply
    Jump to latest Follow Reply