Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Wins vs. Telecinco In Spain

kdawson posted about 4 years ago | from the uncommon-sense dept.

Google 68

eldavojohn writes "A Spanish judge has dismissed a case brought against YouTube by Spanish television station Telecinco for violating Telecinco's intellectual property. The ruling reads in part: 'YouTube is not a supplier of content and therefore has no obligation to control ex-ante the illegality of those. Its only obligation is to cooperate with the holders of the rights in order to immediately withdraw the content once the infraction is identified.' Telecinco brought the case against YouTube when it found that episodes of its television programs were turning up on YouTube prior to their official air and release date on their television channel. Things are looking up for Google's video service as YouTube was granted safe harbor from Viacom earlier this year in the United States. You can find an official response from Google on their EU Policy Blog."

cancel ×

68 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

weird (3, Insightful)

someone1234 (830754) | about 4 years ago | (#33675114)

Did the spanish try to send a takedown to Google, or they just run to the Court?
One would think, sending an email is cheaper, faster and generally more effective.

Re:weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33675316)

They already banned another Spanish channel from showing any of their clips, so they probably went to court to try and repeat their earlier success

Re:weird (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#33675466)

Takedown notices only apply in the US; the DMCA is meaningless anywhere else.

Re:weird (2, Informative)

ntdesign (1229504) | about 4 years ago | (#33675636)

Takedown notices only apply in the US

And YouTube complies with US law. In fact, they make it very easy to send a takedown request: http://www.youtube.com/copyright_complaint_form [youtube.com]

Re:weird (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33676194)

What he means is that you can't file DMCA takedown notices and expect a foreign court to enforce them. I take it that in this case that it was a Spain specific take down notice.

Re:weird (2, Informative)

xtracto (837672) | about 4 years ago | (#33675648)

You are wrong, there *are* takedown notices in Spain as well:

La Comisión de la Propiedad Intelectual, órgano creado por el Ministerio de Cultura, se dirigirá al responsable de la página web que considera que ha vulnerado los derechos de Propiedad Intelectual y le pedirá la retirada del contenido conflictivo. Si éste no es retirado después de que la comisión lo haya solicitado hasta en dos ocasiones, el denunciado podrá presentarle sus alegaciones

(too lazy to translate but Google is your friend)

However, it seems in Spain there is a special comission who is the one in charge of issuing the notices, thus you cannot send everyone you like such kind of notices (well, you can, but they wont care).

At least that is what I read from there, maybe a Spanish guy can shed more light?

Re:weird (1)

xtracto (837672) | about 4 years ago | (#33675658)

linky [20minutos.es] for the quote (slashdot ate my link in the previous post) in Spanish.

Re:weird (1)

diegocg (1680514) | about 4 years ago | (#33675784)

Yes, it seems to be somewhat similar to DMCA. But Telecinco filed suit in 2008, the new law was approved this year.

Re:weird (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#33677084)

Spain implemented the EU version of the DMCA back in 2006.

Re:weird (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#33675676)

the DMCA is meaningless anywhere else.

Except those countries like Spain which have implemented into law the EU Copyright Directive which is the EU's version of the DMCA.

Re:weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33676428)

And that would be every single EU country plus the associated countries Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

Re:weird (2, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 years ago | (#33676154)

Google could ignore any takedown request citing technicalities, but it wouldn't be good for business. Generally if a copyright holder asks, Google should err on the side of caution and take down the video if the copyright ownership can be verified. The alternative would be riskier. After all many television stations in other countries have ties to the government thus entangling Google in a state matter.

Re:weird (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 4 years ago | (#33679286)

Telecinco is owned by Silvio Berlusconi's Mediaset. Has far as I know, there's no direct connection to the Spanish government.

Inquisition (1)

phorm (591458) | about 4 years ago | (#33675702)

Well, actually first they tried sending the Spanish Inquisition, for surely nobody would expect that!
However, the inquisition got bogged down in a dialogue about their diverse weaponry and fancy red uniforms... so Telecinco decided to take it to the courts instead.

Re:weird (3, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | about 4 years ago | (#33675774)

Doing nothing at all is cheaper, faster and.. well, not more effective, but it's not particularly all that much -less- effective.

Here's the rub.. if your content is popular - and I'm guessing it is - then it will end up on YouTube. So what do you do..
A. Pay a staffer to monitor YouTube continually and a legal department (or lawyer) to draft legal complaints (DMCA takedown notice if applicable), send this to Google, wait for reply and video takedown, then wait some more to see if the person who uploaded is feeling fresh and decides to tell Google that they think the upload was fair use or somesuch, and you get to write some more legal documents, or they just bow their heads and admit that it was infringement at no cost to them beyond reading the youtube e-mail subject (don't even bother with the body content). In the mean time, start your work with the legal peeps to deal with the other 2 videos of the exact same show, uploaded while you were dealing with the aforementioned. After all.. Google isn't obligated to remove -all- the videos.. just the one you complained about.. and you can only complain about one.

B. Try to sue Google to get them to implement better filtering methods, fingerprinting, removal of -all- the videos that match ones you've already complained about, etc. and spend a whack of cash... that you would've been spending under A anyway.. but of course go nowhere because the courts do firmly side with Google on this.

C. do nothing.

of course there's also...

D. upload the videos yourself, be the official channel for that show, and people will have less of a reason to visit JoePirate's version of the video with crappy compression and "A JOOOOOEEEEEEEEE PIIIRAAAAAATE production!!!!" leader in front of it with its feeble "I'm not the copyright holder - I do not mean to infringe on any copyright!" description that would make me wonder about the uploader's frame of mind if not for the fact that this is, after all, YouTube.

To some, though, option B may seem more attractive.. perhaps it'll fly in some jurisdiction eventually.. but option A is certainly completely pointless. Option C is the only worthwhile approach if you abhor option D for some reason.

Re:weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33680138)

E. Do nothing. I doubt it affects their profits.

Re:weird (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#33677352)

The ruling reads in part: 'YouTube is not a supplier of content and therefore has no obligation to control ex-ante the illegality of those. Its only obligation is to cooperate with the holders of the rights in order to immediately withdraw the content once the infraction is identified.'

I would guess from this that it was not enough that Google followed their takedowns, they wanted Google to do all the work for them too.

Sanity from a Court! (1)

Algorithmnast (1105517) | about 4 years ago | (#33675130)

Great! I only hope the rest of the court systems in the world will maintain some semblance to sanity. [Come on, I can't be the First Post.... ]

Re:Sanity from a Court! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33675206)

I don't understand how this is a good thing. So now everyone who produces content that they don't want shared on Youtube will need to maintain a staff (and lawyers) who need to monitor Youtube for infringement of their content. This is fine for the rich studios, but bad for the little guys.

In fairness, Google should be required to monitor this!

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | about 4 years ago | (#33675410)

Then just say goodbye to Youtube and just about every site that lets users share media with others. It would be prohibitively expensive to filter every posted videos.

Re:Sanity from a Court! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33675808)

Prohibitively expensive? Google is making billions of dollars. They can afford to have a staff of 20-200 people monitoring every submission. Small content providers can't afford it.

Re:Sanity from a Court! (3, Insightful)

natehoy (1608657) | about 4 years ago | (#33676210)

So, of the tens of thousands of videos submitted every day, a staff of 200 people is going to compare that to the myriad pieces of copyrighted works in existence today and successfully identify the original content copyright holder, contact them, and ensure that permission has been obtained?

No, sorry, that would take a staff of one person per day for each video uploaded, and it still wouldn't be very successful.

If you want to me to support laws to protect your intellectual property, fine. But you have to be part of the solution, not just sitting there after profiting from the work and expecting the rest of the world to protect your property for you for generations. If others are profiting from your work without your permission, that's wrong. But only you know whether the work was authorized for that purpose, and you need to be the one to identify it.

I realize this is a burden. But it's a burden that someone must bear. Should that be you, the person who has a vested interest in the property and is profiting from it, or the rest of the population of humanity who honestly doesn't really give a flying fuck whether you make any money, but will try to right a wrong if you tell us about it?

Re:Sanity from a Court! (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33676338)

Well gee, if Google can't handle policing their own website then they shouldn't be in the Youtube business. Saying "its not technically possible to identify infringements so they can't be required to do it" is not a valid answer (and probably incorrect - I'm sure they could do it if they were forced to). I'm amazed at the love of Google here. The burden should be on Google who is hosting the content. I did find it humorous how you compare Google to the rest of the population of humanity though.

No one is asking for Google to "protect" anyone, they are just asking Google to not host content that they do not have the right to have. Google has the resources to do it, they just choose not to because it wouldn't be profitable enough. Well boo-hoo for Google.

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

natehoy (1608657) | about 4 years ago | (#33676674)

This isn't a love of Google in particular, it's a love of an interactive Internet where I can freely post my thoughts and others can, too.

Google, if they have the resources to even attempt this policing, would in effect own most user-contributed content on the Internet. If they have the resources to police it, they'd pretty much be the only ones big enough to even try.

So, actually, this is pretty much the opposite of a love for Google. I don't want user-contributed content confined to only companies huge and vast enough to police the content they host.

The content POSTERS need to be held liable for what they POST. The PROVIDERS have a liability that ends with taking down the content in response to a valid takedown request, and if the copyright holder decides to pursue the matter, responding to a valid and legal court order as to the identity of the person who POSTED the content.

Re:Sanity from a Court! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33677158)

Yes, this is true. If you cannot police your website against posting copyrighted content then you shouldn't host one. Google isn't even attempting to police theirs - not even a minimal effort. Sorry if that breaks the existing "wild west" business models of Google, Facebook, Rapidshare, et al, but too bad. Asking copyright holders to police every possible infringing website is like requiring me to monitor every pawn shop for items that have been taken from my car.

Its funny how you guys love to consume and share content but are against content providers and their business models. I guess thats what happens when you are only a dumb consumer and not a producer.

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

natehoy (1608657) | about 4 years ago | (#33677674)

Google isn't even attempting to police theirs - not even a minimal effort.

Yeah, you're right. They don't respond to takedown requests at all. They don't have a "report copyright violations" to allow their users to help them identify violations. They've never suspended an account for repeated violations. They've never responded to a court order with the identity of a copyright violator. They haven't formed partnerships with companies who ask them nicely to scan for their videos and take them down automatically.

Except they've done all of these things. But other than that, you're right, they've probably done nothing meaningful to you. They have repeatedly failed to magically identify copyrighted content and act in the interests of other companies and individuals who are unwilling or unable to act in their own interests.

Its funny how you guys love to consume and share content but are against content providers and their business models.

I'm not at all against your business model, only your implication that the rest of the world somehow owes you everything necessary to protect your profits over the content you produce. It's your content. The rest of the world has given you the right and the tools to protect it.

Now it's up to you to exercise that right and use those tools.

If you can't or won't police the uses of your own work, don't expect anyone else to be able to, much less willing to.

Asking copyright holders to police every possible infringing website is like requiring me to monitor every pawn shop for items that have been taken from my car.

Ever had something stolen? That's pretty much what it boils down to.

Who else is going to do that for you? The police? When you haven't even bothered to report something stolen?

The pawnshops? How do they know what your stuff is so they can identify it and get it back to you?

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

someone1234 (830754) | about 4 years ago | (#33699296)

That's silly. The 'content owner' already identified the infringing material. So, why didn't they pick up the phone, and inform Google?
Is that so hard?
I'm pretty sure this lawsuit was lawyer business. And they didn't lose a cent regardless of the outcome.

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33677070)

they are just asking Google to not host content that they do not have the right to have

How does Google know, solely from the uploaded bits, whether Google has the right to have the works of authorship that the bits represent?

Google has the resources to do it

In every minute, over 1,400 minutes of video are uploaded to YouTube. Just watching all this would require at least four shifts of over 1,400 full-time employees each. That's more than unprofitable; it's a guaranteed loss.

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about 4 years ago | (#33676316)

Are there any good numbers on how many videos get uploaded to YouTube per hour? 20-200 people might not even realistically be able to monitor everything in a meaningful way (be able to determine whether or not copyright is being infringed upon).

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 4 years ago | (#33676698)

Again, I agree. Small content providers can't afford to monitor everything on Google. But, wait. If they can't afford to monitor Google, then it's quite likely that they can't afford a lot of advertising either. DAMN! I just realized!! GOOGLE PROVIDES FREE ADVERTISING FOR SMALL CONTENT PROVIDERS!!!!! Why hasn't anyone ever noticed this before? Am I really the first? Alright - enough for sarcasm. Just pull your head out of your ass, and everything will be just fine.

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

bjourne (1034822) | about 4 years ago | (#33677218)

Youtube already has an audio recognition system. That is how it can recognize that the sound comes from a specific song and show you in-video advertising for it. They could just as easily use that system to filter out copyright violations. A similar system could be used to filter video content. Remember, not every video needs to be analyzed, just those that are "copyright violation popular." Most youtube clips get a few hundred clips at most, those that contain copyrighted material gets tens of thousands in a few days.

For proof of the feasability of this idea, try uploading porn to Youtube. It is removed almost instantly without you having to send any DCMA takedown notices. Likely because Youtube already has some content analyzing system tailored to recognize porn.

You can also refine the search using fuzzy string matching and compare it to a database of copyrighted titles. E.g. if the clip is called "First episode of My Fat Famly" a simple string matching algorithm would produce a match on a tv series named "Secret Lives of my Fat Family."

The "it can't be done card" doesn't apply when you're talking about Google and their huge infrastructure. Oh, and if any google employees are reading this, you should employ me. Pay me a million dollars and I'll provide a prototype for this amazing content filtering system in no time!

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 4 years ago | (#33680744)

Youtube already has an audio recognition system. That is how it can recognize that the sound comes from a specific song and show you in-video advertising for it. They could just as easily use that system to filter out copyright violations.

They already do it. Try to upload a video with a Morphine song. You can't.

The reason some show only the name and advertisement is because the content producer *chose that* and it's getting a piece of the profits.

But to benefit from that content producers have to send their originals for Google to process. They won't automagically put every piece of copyrighted content out there in the filter.

The Content Identification tool is the latest way YouTube offers copyright holders to easily identify and manage their content on YouTube. The tool creates ID files which are then run against user uploads and, if a match occurs, the copyright holders policy preferences are then applied to that video. Rights owners can choose to block, track or monetize their content.

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=83766 [google.com]

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

Algorithmnast (1105517) | about 4 years ago | (#33675490)

Practically speaking, someone will have to do this monitoring. There will be jerks who want to post content they have no right to.

But legally speaking (which we hope maintains some semblance of correct thinking.... LOL) the question must be answered: Who is responsible for the monitoring?

I happen to agree with the courts that [in this matter] the government is not Big Brother, and that Corporations can't demand that other corporations be their Big Brother either.

Want to ensure your content isn't pirated to YouTube? Then yeah, you have to have someone spend some time checking it out. YouTube also allows users to flag infringement - a thing I make use of when I see things that I know were not posted by the owners.

Some musicians - even very wealthy ones - will post their videos to YouTube. This isn't infringement, and the current court approach correctly leaves them alone.

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

natehoy (1608657) | about 4 years ago | (#33675948)

There is simply no way for Google or any other enterprise to monitor user postings for the billions of bits of copyrighted material out there. It's not only impractical, it's impossible. The onus is, has always been, and always should be on the copyright holder to defend their works

If hosting companies are required to monitor everything hosted on their sites and start being held liable for copyright or other issues with the content, then you'll see every content provider that allows user submissions shut down within a few days.

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 4 years ago | (#33676846)

You don't go far enough, natehoy. If hosting sites of any kind are held liable for user generated content, the rule will quickly spread. Let's take any hate site - there are plenty of them, and I stumble over them here and there. The Aryan Superiority groups are illegal in some places, and other places would like to make them illegal. If the hosting site were made responsible for the hate content, any number of governments could hold the owner of the server responsible for the trash, and shut him down. When the Aryans are taken care of, some other government will go after the pro-Jewish sites, calling them racist or whatever. It would spread like wildfire. Soon, there would be no hosting sites at all, for anything. No political discussion, no music, no movies, no fan clubs, no social networks - about all that you would see left on the internet would be paid for advertising and "approved" content. Take all the worst that Murdoch wants, plus all the worst of what Australia wants, add all the evil that China and Iran want, keep adding the most idiotic bullshit from every other country in the world, roll into one of the most obnoxious cigars ever created, then multiply by a power of ten or so. I know, people don't generally like slippery slope arguments, but there it is. Give the government and the big corporations an inch, and they'll take a mile.

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

Schadrach (1042952) | about 4 years ago | (#33675950)

Alright, tell me how to determine without ever generating a single false negative, whether or not any given piece of video data has been uploaded without the approval of the copyright owner. More specifically, since everything is copyrighted by it's creator by default, show me where in the data itself I can find a marker showing me that this specific clip is approved (or not approved, take your choice) by the copyright owner?

Yes, there are some low-hanging fruit in both directions, but nothing you can apply as absolute certainty in all cases. "Just let us know if you catch anything that violates your copyright and we'll remove it" is the most you can reasonably expect, unless you expect every company that hosts user provided content of any kind to be required to have a legal team identify the legal copyright owner of every individual piece of data ever posted and get signed statements from them that each individual entry is in fact authorized.

To get an idea of exactly how impossible that is, imagine a legal team having to determine who actually authored every single post on /. and get signed statements from them authorizing each individual comment before it appeared on the site, rather than assuming you aren't just copy/pasting someone else's copyrighted text in an unauthorized manner unless advised otherwise and that if you are posting it that you are authorizing it be posted.

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33676228)

Precisely, Google doesn't have the ability to decide who is and isn't authorized to use a piece of media. As unfortunate as that might be, the owner is the only one that can do that and consequently they have to notify the party hosting the content.

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 4 years ago | (#33676554)

I realize this might be a hard concept but copyright is a short term thing to encourage you to make new music in your case. It's not intended to make a new form of property. Society as a whole is already helping you out by criminal enforcement of for profit copyright infringement and civil protections. Making everybody else responsible to enforce your civil protections for you really goes over the top.

Re:Sanity from a Court! (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 4 years ago | (#33676638)

You're right, of course. And, if anyone paints obscene, derogatory, inflammatory, libelous graffiti on the side of your car, house, boat, or whatever, then you should be liable and go to jail and/or pay any fines, suits, or penalties involved. And, if you EVER put up a bulletin board, be perpared for the consequences!

Find the leak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33675140)

Maybe they should have spent their time and money trying to find out whoever was leaking the episodes early instead of going after YouTube.

Re:Find the leak (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | about 4 years ago | (#33676892)

Smart money says that the "leak" was in fact Telecinco who were planning ahead to sue Youtube, much like Viacom uploaded clips to google videos only to sue them later.

Clueless? Greedy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33675344)

////when it found that episodes of its television programs were turning up on YouTube prior to their official air and release date on their television channel.

Oh yes... This is ENTIRELY a youtube problem.. Not an internal problem due to crappy employees... No way.

Quick! to the lawyers!

Yay legal babble (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33675374)

"YouTube is not a supplier of content"
Could've fooled me.

Re:Yay legal babble (1)

Bagels (676159) | about 4 years ago | (#33675574)

I think they mean "supply" as in upload or originate, which they clearly didn't do in this case. They do supply some of their own content in the form of stuff like YouTube Live or various partnered offerings, but they're not directly responsible what users upload, which is most of the content on the site.

Re:Yay legal babble (1)

paxcoder (1222556) | about 4 years ago | (#33706718)

Ooooooh.
Wish I had some mod points, but I don't. So, you get those letters instead: thx.

Soooo what's in it for Torrents?? (3, Interesting)

xtracto (837672) | about 4 years ago | (#33675590)

So IIRC sites like Suprnova and other torrent *indexing* sites which are often attacked by the MAFIIAA should be safe in Spain after this judgement no?

I mean, Torrent sites are not even hosting a copy of the material (as Youtube does)!

Unfortunately this is a typical example of how justice only applies to big corporations while the small guy is always screwed. (well... I think in Spain are a better but still...)

Re:Soooo what's in it for Torrents?? (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | about 4 years ago | (#33675618)

Exactly my thoughts, that would mean that no one can sue Torrent-Sites in Spain.

Re:Soooo what's in it for Torrents?? (1)

Jahava (946858) | about 4 years ago | (#33675732)

Exactly my thoughts, that would mean that no one can sue Torrent-Sites in Spain.

Do precedents work like that in Spanish court?

Re:Soooo what's in it for Torrents?? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33675960)

Not completely. Only rulings by the "Superiour Spanish Court" (Tribunal Superior de Justicia) can be used as a precedent under the spanish law. Nevertheless, there have been *many* lawsuits against indexing sites (emule, torrent, megavideo, etc.) and *none* of them have been ruled out against the websites. Despite that, some of them settled by agreement where the website owner accepted a symbolic fine in exchange for preventing any further legal actions (and their associated lawsuit costs).

Re:Soooo what's in it for Torrents?? (1)

natehoy (1608657) | about 4 years ago | (#33676018)

I'd say that's true, as long as the torrent site has a solid track record of responding appropriately to takedown requests. I'm sure that, given their long history of immediate and dutiful responses to valid takedown requests submitted by the copyright holder, The Pirate Bay could safely move to Spain and... ah, screw it, I can't even TYPE that with a straight face.

Re:Soooo what's in it for Torrents?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33678146)

Show me some content on Pirate Bay that's there without the consent of the copyright holder.

Re:Soooo what's in it for Torrents?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33676582)

"Exactly my thoughts, that would mean that no one can sue Torrent-Sites in Spain."

In fact not (or not, *yet*). But you should understand the legal system with regards to copyright infringement is quite different in Spain to that of USA.

To start with, there's the right to share all kind of multimedia -it's not illegal *unless* there is *direct* profitability *or* it can be demonstrated it is a case of broadcasting, not private sharing.

Once this said, SGAE (the Spanish RIAA-like) has indeed sued private parties for sharing, torrent uploading, linking to sharing sites, defamation to sites critical to their policies, etc.

It has lost each and every case (except those for defamation despite the fact that SGAE is not a physical person, like the (in)famous regarding "putasgae") in State-like courts (precedents only work when stated by the Supreme Tribunal-equivalent, so they avoid reaching there) but they have control of the media so they air when they sue and/or get the Police to preventively close a site and "forget" to tell when the case is either lost or rejected, except the rare case when they manage to settle (i.e.: a recent case where the web holding links for torrent sites was financially aided with banners -while I think the case was still crystal-clear -revenues from banners are not revenues from downloads, the sued party didn't risk the long process and the bad luck of finding a crazy judge).

The SGAE tactic is for "average joe" to believe that those behaviours surely are illegal or SGAE wouldn't sue so when they finally manage to pass a law, there will be no noise about it.

Re:Soooo what's in it for Torrents?? (4, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | about 4 years ago | (#33676052)

The problem is, many torrent sites do not readily comply with takedown requests. Many even advertise their illegal material. YouTube will take something down on request, which is the main crux of a "safe harbor" argument.

media companies need to police themselves (4, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about 4 years ago | (#33675602)

i don't have anything against copyrights but most of the pirated content is put on the internet by insiders. i know someone that gives me movies a few weeks prior to DVD release that are from the original masters. he used to get movies a few days after theater release that were originals as well. music albums pop up on bit torrent weeks prior to street date. same thing in this case, it's not like kiddie ninja's snuck in and stole the episodes. someone who works for telecino put them up on youtube.

i'm waiting for a case where discovery uncovers emails that the media companies did this as PR and publicity for some new release. it would probably kill most of the lawsuits

Re:media companies need to police themselves (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 4 years ago | (#33675696)

Exactly. The ONLY way something can appear on torrent before the official release is if an insider sneaks a copy out of the door.

We have things to prevent this, they're called 'safes'.

Re:media companies need to police themselves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33678356)

It could also be a botnet owner.

Re:media companies need to police themselves (1)

PerfectionLost (1004287) | about 4 years ago | (#33680008)

I'm pretty sure that was what was happening in the Viacom case, except the insiders were doing it intentionally to sue google.

Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33675740)

Finally some common sense. I wonder for long will this last.

Nobody expects... (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 4 years ago | (#33675742)

...the Spanish Inquisition!

How about finding the source of the leaks? (2, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 4 years ago | (#33676124)

Today's paper had a similar Op-Ed [vancouversun.com] piece about needing better copyright enforcement.

The complaint is the same - people who leak unaired episodes onto the 'net, and thus they need stronger laws to protect that.

What I don't get is why don't they try to find the origin of the leak? If it costs as much as they claim, surely the one leaking it onto the 'net in the first place would be the best place to go, than the thousands of others to play whack-a-mole with.

A simple case of "clean your own house before shitting in everyone else's" or some such. It's just like camcording a movie - no one likes watching camcorded crap, especially since a leaked DVD screener offers far better quality and presentation.

Perhaps these production companies would rather sue everyone the horse visited after it left the barn, than to actually close the barn door. Fix the leaks first that's letting everyone download unreleased episodes prior to airing first, rather than trying to go after everyone who's spreading the leaked episodes. It's easier that way because no law can prevent it from spreading.

Re:How about finding the source of the leaks? (1)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | about 4 years ago | (#33676536)

You clearly have not thought this clever plan through.

Step 1) Have employee put unaired episodes of your own show on youtube with an anonymous account
Step 2) Pay newspapers to write articles about this instead of having takedown notices filed.
Step 3) Spin the articles into support for a new law that makes every media company that is not part of your cartel illegal
Step 4) Enjoy your monopoly
Step 5) ????
Step 6) Profit

Re:How about finding the source of the leaks? (1)

bjourne (1034822) | about 4 years ago | (#33677360)

It is likely that the leak originates from an employee that works for the company in question. Now, how does the company prevent leaks from happening in the future?

1. Surveillance systems.
2. More surveillance systems.
3. Even more surveillance systems.

But leaks still occur, what to do?

1. More surveillance!

Do you honestly think it is beneficial for anyone for companies to treat their employees as criminals?

Re:How about finding the source of the leaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33679276)

It is likely that the leak originates from an employee that works for the company in question. Now, how does the company prevent leaks from happening in the future?

1. Surveillance systems.

2. More surveillance systems.

3. Even more surveillance systems.

But leaks still occur, what to do?

1. More surveillance!

Do you honestly think it is beneficial for anyone for companies to treat their employees as criminals?

In this case, it's preferable to getting lawmakers to make everyone who touches their wares but isn't an employee a criminal....

mCod up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33676152)

Google Advertising (1)

BMAPARTS (1901854) | about 4 years ago | (#33676660)

Its about time Google stepped in and took action on these shady advertisers. Less spam I have to deal with now woohoo!!

You should check (1)

gnola14 (1764100) | about 4 years ago | (#33676700)

what people at Telecinco thinks about that [telecinco.es] (disclaimer: it's in spanish). It seems like they were listening to a completely different case.

moral of the story (0)

youn (1516637) | about 4 years ago | (#33677268)

if you want to make a business out of pirating content, you have to do it in a massive scale :)... if you only pirate a handful of songs and share them for a little while, you're a target

Sue the right people! (2)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | about 4 years ago | (#33677850)

Obviously if you are going to the legal expense of suing someone it is a really good idea to sue the people against whom you have a ligitimate case. How did Telecinco figure that Google/YouTube were the people to sue? Is this the fault of their lawyers or of Telecinco themselves?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?