Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Removed 30,000 Japanese Videos from Site

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the awww-but-i-like-the-funny-japanese-tv dept.

265

Grooves writes "YouTube has been asked to remove almost 30,000 videos from their site, according to reports. The Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC) found 29,549 videos on the site that had materials contained in them that where not authorized by rights holders. From the article, 'A spokesperson for that organization said that they were considering petitioning YouTube for a better screening process. 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.' Now that Google's is attached to the site, will events like this become more commonplace?"

cancel ×

265 comments

Wow. (4, Funny)

MBCook (132727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516231)

That must be like 5% of the Naruto videos up there.

Re:Wow. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516383)

"Japanese broadcast giant *NHK* was among those seeking the removal of materials."

It's a conspiracy!

Re:Wow. (0, Troll)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516487)

Quiet, NEET.

Re:Wow. (2, Informative)

yoshi1013 (674815) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516573)

Heh, except that when you search for Naruto on YouTube you still get over 80,000 videos, wtf???

That's unfortunate.... (5, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516239)

That's really unfortunate. Some of those Japanese shows are hilarious, and watching videos from foreign shows is a great glimpse into another culture.

Re:That's unfortunate.... (5, Funny)

s20451 (410424) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516289)

watching videos from foreign shows is a great glimpse into another culture

Yes. Laughing at the weird customs of foreigners brings us together as a human family.

Re:That's unfortunate.... (4, Funny)

smclean (521851) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516447)

Yeah, how dare that guy say he likes funny TV shows and exploring other cultures. What a racist, you give it to him, man.

Re:That's unfortunate.... (5, Funny)

Destoo (530123) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516983)

Are you fucking serious? We're not talking about "weird customs" here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlAkOhH9eek [youtube.com]

Japanese game show - the goal: To make it through a tongue twister without screwing up. The penalty: A swift wack to the groin with the slap-o-matic 2000.

Seriously.. Comedy gold.

Re:That's unfortunate.... (1)

maartynp (578542) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516353)

one place: fc2

Re:That's unfortunate.... (2, Funny)

djupedal (584558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516419)

"That's really unfortunate. Some of those Japanese shows are hilarious, and watching videos from foreign shows is a great glimpse into another culture."

I know I can't get enough of watching some guy try to escape a lit bottle-rocket sticking out of his ass...

Re:That's unfortunate.... (3, Funny)

mnmn (145599) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516741)

In other news Google is selling Youtube for $10,000 on eBay.

Lets hope their purchase wasnt a mistake and we keep getting cool videos out of it.

Re:That's unfortunate.... (2, Insightful)

kabocox (199019) | more than 7 years ago | (#16517185)

That's really unfortunate. Some of those Japanese shows are hilarious, and watching videos from foreign shows is a great glimpse into another culture.

Maybe that's why they want them removed. Could it be a secret plot by the Japanese to export only anime, but keep all the really good live action Japanese cultural related shows to themselves? It could also be that the Japanese don't mind acting fools infront of other Japanese, but by damned if they'll act a fool where non-Japanese will see it.

Nothing to see here. (5, Funny)

killa62 (828317) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516243)

Please move along.

I think the answer to the question is simple: (1)

DarkShadeChaos (954173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516247)

yes. :-D

Re:I think the answer to the question is simple: (1)

n0ah84 (860376) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516929)

no, it's 42!

Who didn't see this coming? (4, Insightful)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516261)

Seriously. Did anyone, including Google, not see this coming?

no, even google saw it coming. (5, Insightful)

adam (1231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516841)

Google is not managed by idiots. If they are going to shell out $1.6B for a commodity (even it's only $1.6B in stock and not cold, hard, cash), you can bet there was some due diligence involved. If you look at similar previous businesses-- Napster is the best that comes to mind.. Napster raked in a bunch of VC cash for Sean Fanning, and then it went down the tubes, but this was mostly as a result of failing to forsee the legal problems they would encouter. Google, no doubt, has already forseen this, and probably has developed a very robust (and hopefully flexible.. since web 2.0 is in its infancy) business model. One major difference between YouTube and Napster is that Napster was virtually 100% copyrighted (pirated) content. YouTube is probably 50% pirated content, with the other 50% being unique content (vlogs, etc) from users more interested in social networking, and I suspect in some ways these are more "valuable" users to google (in that they surf more often, are more susceptible/amenable to ads, etc). Of the pirated content, I suspect around 25-50% of the rights-owners actually "care enough" to pursue the fact that it is being exhibited on the web without royalties to them. The remainer are cellphone camera bootlegs of concerts, people singing covers of their favorite songs, etc.

After about 30 seconds of brainstorming, I can imagine google will focus on the social networking users (I already see YouTube making huge headway against MySpace-- watching a video of someone on their profile gives LOADS more parsable clues about them than a few blurry "MySpace Angles" photos), and secondarily attempt to convince many copyright holders to PROMOTE their retail content on YouTube rather than just ask them to cease and desist. This promotion could come in the way of YouTube "premier access" videos or site area, driven by g-checkout (or whatever its name is), where users pay for individual access to videos (at $.05 a view for a 2 minute video? maybe..) or perhaps for a site-wide access on a monthly fee basis. Or this promotion could come in the way of simply trying to pursuade copyright holders to let heir heavily compressed 320x240 webvideo stay up, with blatant text links/banners to the official site or whatever. As someone who actually creates commercial video content (I make documentaries, but have directed other projects such as music videos, etc), this is a situation I am amenable to. I'd be fine with google showing excepts of my last couple of films (extreme sports stuff), with context links on the page to buy the DVD, or maybe to "jamster" type ringtone sites that sell my video ringtones (which I don't actually have, but funny story, a large distributor [rhymes with Barner Wrothers] approached us to distribute our latest film, and one of their executive's biggest sales pitches to us [this was around a yr ago] was doing video ringtones-- "they're going to be huge!"). Also, remember, even if YouTube can't turn a profit on its own, the data-mining possibilities are endess... let's say I use my YouTube account (i am logged in via cookie) to watch lots of Morrissey videos. Then I google search for "documentary." There is [hypothetically] a new documentary coming out about Morrissey's legal battles with former Smiths bandmates, and now google can serve me context ad content based on the context of not just what I searched for, but what google also know me to enjoy. The correlations that can be made by cross referencing this content are pretty friggin extensive. I am positive this hasn't escaped their attention.

So in short, yes, everyone (including the big G) saw this coming. Expect some cool adaptations soon, I do hope.

Sidenote: I think that there is probably an amazing documentary to be made about the goings-on inside google.. what it means to work on the campus, how google employees are treated differently than typical IT employees, how they foster innovation, how they continue to push the envelope of how to do business on the web, their expansion into china (and grappling with what "do no evil" really means) etc. I doubt they would want to give me the type of access I'd need to shoot it properly, though... although I can imagine they would be much more amenable to giving me access (and working out a situation trusting me to honor an NDA) than most corporations would. Google, if you're listening, I want to shoot a doc about you.

Noooooo!!! (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516273)

How will the world get its homemade music videos that make anime characters look like they're swooning to Evanescence or singing Rammstein, now?

Re:Noooooo!!! (1, Informative)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516349)

http://www.animemusicvideos.org/ [animemusicvideos.org]

not that hard, now was it :P

However, this brings up my question. Fansubs (of unlicensed anime), and AMVs have generaly been considered O.K. by the Japanese companies that hold the rights to these shows. Will we see places that direct link to these types of things start to dissapear (AMV.org hosts almost every AMV that is listed on it, there are a number of fansub groups that do alow for direct download instead of torrents)?

Re:Noooooo!!! (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516505)

They've never been OK with it, it just hasn't been worth the expense to pursue it internationally.

This is changing, however, as some studios are pre-emptively warning fansubbers.

Re:Noooooo!!! (4, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516597)

The public fansub groups and things have always been generally good at no longer making things available that were legitimately released. I imagine that's what keeps the goodwill up between them and the producers. However, the digital and filesharing stuff seems to spell doom for that sort of thing.

*cue the "memory lane" ripple dissolve effect with harp strumming*

I remember back when fansubs were scratchy Nth-generation videotapes, converted from Japanese videotapes or recordings from television, with subs added via the chunky digital fonts that ancient camcorders used to caption 1980s wedding videos with. Fan groups in colleges and stuff swapped them quietly amongst themselves. It was usually good enough for viewing the story, but only just, and buying the official release would be a huge leap forward quality-wise. Fansubs weren't competing with the official releases then, you still had a reason to buy the real thing. Nowadays, they're often pretty indistinguishable from a file ripped from a brand new DVD, you can download a copy with the a/v quality just as perfect as the original digital Japanese DVD or TV signal.

Re:Noooooo!!! (1)

ffrinch (586802) | more than 7 years ago | (#16517141)

It really has very little to do with release quality. There were plenty of high-quality VHS fansubs out there, especially late in the game.

Even just a few years ago, though, the major fansub groups would finish almost any series they started -- even if it was licensed quickly, it wouldn't happen until well after it finished screening in Japan. It was easy for fansubbers and hard-core fans to take the moral high-ground, because their involvement was already over by the time they had to stop distributing. It was only new fans who had to be lectured on how evil they were for wanting free copies.

That isn't true anymore, because many series are licensed while they're being shown in Japan. The result is that there's much less reward for "ethical" fansubbing, which is why some groups have changed to, e.g., stopping distribution only when a show is actually available, or (in the case of mangled Funimation licenses or dub-only releases) available un-cut. Or not stopping distribution at all, which seems fair enough to me given that they're all downloading Battlestar Galactica too.

It's either be unethical or stick to subbing unpopular titles, and who wants to do that?

Re:Noooooo!!! (4, Insightful)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516649)

Fansubs (of unlicensed anime), and AMVs have generaly been considered O.K. by the Japanese companies that hold the rights to these shows.
What the hell dope you been smoking? They have never been ok with them EVER. Its just in the past they never prosecuted them because they had no plans to sell the shows here. Now just about all of their stuff has deals lined up so its in their best interests (and the company who bought the rights.)

The idea that they where ok with it is a bogus excuse the fansubbers have used for years to justify them breaking international copyright laws. Doesnt mean they where right though.

Re:Noooooo!!! (2, Insightful)

British (51765) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516747)

Heh. If any of the 30K videos removed were AMVs, YouTube is doing the public a favor. In YouTube's early months(long before the buyout), ANY search brought up Anime crap, probably being AMVs. It polluted their search engine. Putting a song to some anime footage brings nothing original to the table.

I don't get it. (5, Insightful)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516277)

they were considering petitioning YouTube for a better screening process.
By "better process", do you mean, I dunno, having one?

Re:I don't get it. (4, Informative)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516373)

Many music and video publishers are calling on Youtube, Google, Myspace, etc. to start screening using automated audio/video "fingerprinting" technologies. Here's a recent news article on a pirated music recognition offering [yahoo.com] that would really hurt Gootube in the short term. In the long term, I'd like to think that such anti-piracy measures would make submitted videos more original and interesting, but maybe I'm being naive.

Re:I don't get it. (2, Insightful)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516569)

Is this anything like the Haars Tranform mapping thing mentioned in an earlier article [slashdot.org] ? I can't tell from the linked article.

Re:I don't get it. (2, Funny)

Traa (158207) | more than 7 years ago | (#16517127)

Gootube? You mean Yougle! Has a neat ring to it :-)
 
/me checks if that domain name is available

Re:I don't get it. (4, Informative)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516561)

According to their copyright policy [youtube.com] they place the burden squarely on the uploaders. I'm sure it's for legal reasons. If they claim to screen all content they may become liable for any content that gets through. But they should at least attempt a more rigorous screening process than just waiting for random people to flag it.

Oh, yeah... (1)

hummassa (157160) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516833)

the *AAs want to eat their cake and save it, too.
Today they have the following options:
1. Gootube lays the burden of checking copyright in the uploaders, remove upon request from the holders.
2. Gootube lays the burden of checking copyright in the holders (eg, automagically via fingerprinting), considers anything else fair game.

The *AAs want Gootube to check (via fingerprint), check again (when asked to), and assume responsibility if something (that the *AAs provided) goes wrong.

Re:I don't get it. (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#16517039)

I think the issue is more along the lines of "Does YouTube have an obligation to pre-screen videos?"

AFAIK, YouTube's only legal obligation is to remove copyrighted materials when notified. Copyright was was written with the notiont that "it's your copyright, you protect it."

"If they claim to pre-screen any content they may become liable for all content that gets through."
I switched "any" and "all".
Isn't that how the system works?

Re:I don't get it. (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16517097)

Well, that's how the system is supposed to work. But we all know how well the system is functioning these days.

Why is it YouTube's job (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516673)

to look after someone else's copyrighted works?

Why is this news? (4, Insightful)

fernandoh26 (963204) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516283)

Why is this news? YouTube says if you notice a video that is hosted without permission of copyright holders to let them know and they will remove it, and this is just one japanese corporation using that policy?

Tonight @ 11: My bank stops sending me paper statements upon my request! SHOCKING!

Re:Why is this news? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516757)

Why is this news?

Because, as usual, the Slashdot "editors" were hoping that you'd all work yourselves into some sort of "our rights have been violated" frenzy, which translates into MORE PAGE HITS.

Re:Why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516763)

Go crawl back into your hole.

Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516299)

Now that Google's is attached to the site, will events like this become more commonplace?

I think it will be more commonplace, but that the "Google effect" has very little to do with it. Youtube already had a large user base and exposure to the general populace before Google came along, so increased copyright issues were bound to come along one way or the other. Expect a similar increase on other video hosting sites as well (regardless of their association with Google).

Re:Google? (1)

Xiroth (917768) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516391)

The point is that now there is a legitimate company behind it - and most importantly, a legitimate company with a lot of money to lose.

I still don't understand what they were thinking. At this stage, I tend to doubt that the video-ads at the end of the YouTube videos that they've announced will cover the costs that are going to start piling up.

No wonder why I couldn't find any Polysics videos! (2, Funny)

mekkab (133181) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516303)

Now I'll actually have to buy their albums!

...and so it begins (3, Insightful)

jakoz (696484) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516311)

Can anyone really be surprised?

Suddenly YouTube is worth a bundle of cash. We all knew it would happen.

All in all, I'd say this is a very gentle way of saying to the **AA that we're going to try to do the right thing.

On second thoughts, they already would have said that in private discussions, behind closed doors.

This is the way to prepare the rest of us. Then it won't seem so bad when they come down like a ton of bricks on the US infringements. It won't hurt their market so much.

Google is goin' down (1, Informative)

jedimastermopar (1015773) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516315)

I remember a time when there was a piece of software that allowed people to share multimedia files. It was great, you could post legal files that didn't have copyright issues and people could download them watch or listen to them....Then of course they got sued and it got shut down. anyone remember napster? There is a tonne of nudity, profanity, illegal content on Youtube. It won't be long until all videos must be reviewed before being posted, then google will have to pay millions of dollars to people to watch and authorize all the youtube videos before being put on the site. Just wait youtube will go the way of p2p only it will be google that gets sued this time not the users since google is going to be hosting the illegal stuff. Long Live Altavista

Re:Google is goin' down (3, Insightful)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516375)

I remember a time when there was a piece of software that allowed people to share multimedia files. It was great, you could post legal files that didn't have copyright issues

In what bizarro universe did this happen?

Just wait youtube will go the way of p2p

You mean it will make up more than 50% of internet traffic at any given time? Not bad for a start.

Re:Google is goin' down (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516425)

In what bizarro universe did this happen?

He said you could share multimedia files. (actually, I think it was mo3s only...) Didn't say anyone did

Re:Google is goin' down (1)

jedimastermopar (1015773) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516511)

"Could" was the key word. :) What it could and what it is used for are two totally different things. Email - Could increase office communications, Does allow easy way for direct multimedia advertising MySpace - Allow people to share their lives, Does allow easy access for pedophiles to pictures of kids The list goes on, Copyright companies don't give a hoot about the could, just what it is. and P2P is great for legal distrobution of files, but everyone knows you don't go and install bit torrent clients to share Linux Iso's, well maybe you host a few until they start to slow down your L33T porn collections and Musak philes. :)

Re:Google is goin' down (1)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | more than 7 years ago | (#16517023)

I remember a time when there was a piece of software that allowed people to share multimedia files. It was great, you could post legal files that didn't have copyright issues and people could download them watch or listen to them....

I remember that too! I think it was called something like...Apache?

police (5, Insightful)

bazorg (911295) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516319)

some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves

And exactly whose job should that be?

Re:police (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516767)

Traditionally, the government's executive branch is responsible for catching law-breakers, and the judiciary for dealing with them.

On the flip side, copyright infringement is traditionally a civil matter. Recent legislation in some jurisdictions has changed this. Perhaps this fairly recognises that the speed any damage is done today will be vastly faster than the speed of any protracted civil court proceedings, or perhaps it's because of lobbying from Big Media who want to reduce their overheads; take your pick.

I'm not completely decided on this one, but you can certainly understand content providers feeling that the government should act against organisations who, let's be fair, basically run a business model predicated on ripping off those content providers in violation of the law.

Re:police (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516941)

Content providers do not simply feel the government should act against the organizations you describe, it is a matter of legal precedent. This issue was dealt with by the courts long before the internet allowed people to share copyrighted content.

Re:police (1)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516807)


some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves

And exactly whose job should that be?


Exactly. If the copyright holders aren't doing this then how on earth will we know? I've run into this problem before. No problem in removing it. But how do we know? I can google for it but it's not like they have everything in their system (not yet at least).

Get Over It. (5, Insightful)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516355)

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.

As opposed to the print world, or the spoken world, where... They need to find and notify the authorities of copyright infringement.

I understand the feeling that 'I shouldn't need to do this' that brings up that statement. But it has always been the copyright holder's problem to identify infractions. YouTube is no different in that regard, besides that it brings a lot of creations together in one place.

Re:Get Over It. (5, Insightful)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516547)

Exactly, how is YouTube supposed to know that any particular video being uploaded contains copyright infringements ? Even if they had someone visually checking each video that person cannot be expected to know of and recognise every single copyrighted piece of work in the world which may be incorporated into an uploaded video.

The only people who absolutely know that a video contains copyrighted materials are the copyright owners and in this case they have made the identification, YouTube have removed the content and the world is as it should be.

The company involved can complain as much as they like that their copyrighted material should not be distributed in this manner but there is simply no sensible way in which the system can work other than the way it does. Perhaps if you could "fingerprint" every millisecond of video with a unique identifier which could be checked against a copyright database then that would change but I don't think there is any such system in place today.

Re:Get Over It. (5, Insightful)

radish (98371) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516775)

All videos contain copyrighted information, as everything anyone creates is automatically copyrighted. The question is not "is this copyrighted" but "do the copyright holders give their permission for this to be posted" - which is, unfortunatly, even harder to answer.

Re:Get Over It. (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516877)

So, you're saying there's no way to do this in its current form without flouting the law? Perhaps they should have thought of that before spending zillions on the idea?

Re:Get Over It. (1)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516885)

Perhaps if you could "fingerprint" every millisecond of video with a unique identifier which could be checked against a copyright database then that would change but I don't think there is any such system in place today.

This sounds reasonable enough. I've run into problems in the past and have asked if the copyright holder had any idea how "I" should just know it's not something you can freely distribute. Something like this sounds like it would help me at least determine if it's ok or not.

BTW, the copyright owner would mention I could use a search engine to determine if something is copyrighted or not. So if I don't have the legit name of the work and there is no fingerprint .... thus the problem. It's been frustrating for everyone.

No different? (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516827)

Can you really not see any practical difference between the print world, where each separate infringement by an individual typically requires a significant time and materials overhead, and the on-line world, where mass infringement by thousands of individuals using sites like YouTube is near-free and near-instantaneous? Do you really believe that these have the same potential for damaging an injured party, and at the same speed, and thus merit the same response to uphold the spirit of the law?

Re:Get Over It. (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516837)

This is YouTube being officially notified that their service is distributing material that infringes.

YouTube will need to take this material down I suspect.

As additional material is uploaded that infringes, and they are notified of this by additional copyright holders, evidence will begin to indicate that YouTube is indirectly infringing due to the fact that they are both profiting from copyright infrongement and that they have the ability to prevent it from occurring.

Napster was not that long ago folks.

what copyright provides (5, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516357)

The power of copyright does not include forcing an obligation onto governments or common carriers to search or police the content. The power of copyright gives the owner a right to take down specific infringing works.

Every scribble, photo, sculpted shape or soundbite you create is copyrighted as soon as you create it. This goes for everybody within the copyright-abiding hemisphere, which obviously means that the number of copyrighted works outnumbers the population by a very large factor. Clearly, not all rights-holders are trying to enforce those rights against every transgression, thankfully. Grouse all you want, but if you own a copyright, you are the only party who should be obligated to do anything about it.

Some carriers might impose a licensing check before submissions can be completed, or they might impose occasional purges like this even without the copyright owners having to complain, but the vast majority of carriers do not (and should not) impose any such hurdle to allowing their users to publish. This is the central promise of public broadcasting and collaboration by network.

If every sheet of paper needed permission before it could hold an idea in ink, we would still be scratching words in the dirt and looking over our shoulders.

Re:what copyright provides (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516683)

Read http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/0/ c4f204f69c2538f6882569f100616b06?OpenDocument [uscourts.gov] and then http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise14. html [digital-law-online.info]


YouTube is very likely to be judged guilty of vicarious infringement if they do not find a way to keep copyrighted material from appearing in the first place.

Re:what copyright provides (2, Insightful)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516901)

"If every sheet of paper needed permission before it could hold an idea in ink,..."

Copyright does not, never had, nor ever will, protect ideas. It protects the expression of ieas in a fixed medium. perdiod, full stop, end of story. Ideas cannot be locked up with copyrights, that would be the world of patents, two doors down on the left.

Re:what copyright provides (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 7 years ago | (#16517189)

Firstly, I'm quite clear on the difference. The key words you chose to ignore are 'paper', 'hold' and 'ink'. The tangible expression of the idea *can* be locked up by copyright. Secondly, patents also have the same obligation on the owner to identify infringements: to give a similar dirt-age analogy, if you had to find out who pushed a round rock first before pushing a round rock yourself, we still would not have the wheel.

Re:what copyright provides (1)

Wylfing (144940) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516965)

Well said. If a technology is implemented that by default prohibits the use of all copyrighted works until permission can be secured, with remote (and possibly retroactive) revocation, I think the movie studios and record companies are going to be in for a very, very rude awakening (as well as most of the business world). Business "steals" (sic) copyrighted material all the time. It's a very normal thing to do. But if they want to clamp down on our taking, I think we should clamp down on their taking as well. Too bad there will be no more source material for new records or movies!

Yatta? (2, Interesting)

ericlondaits (32714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516359)

Will this mean the dissapearance of the Yatta [wikipedia.org] video? What about Matrix Ping Pong? [wikipedia.org] .

I can do without all the JPop though...

YouTube as advertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516401)

I can't purchase the DVD if I've never heard of the video.

YouTube vids are low-rez, perfect to get you to go out and buy the real thing.

Of Course (1)

LuciferosX (987569) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516411)

Now that Google pwns YouTube it'll just go downhill. Remember when iFilm was taken over by MTV? So goodbye YouTube, hello YouSuck.

So, like, that's good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516415)



I mean, it's japanese. who the hell can understand japanese?

Re:So, like, that's good? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516449)

.....People from Japan?

automated dupe removal (4, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516427)

Given the low-pass signature identification algorithms we have discussed lately, I would really like to see a duplicate-video cull on these sites. There seems to be fifty copies of each of the more popular clips, cloned and re-posted to video.google and youtube in some kind of karma-whoring frenzy.

I bet there are more than 30,000 dupes if you just count the 3,000 top-rated video clips.

Causing bad image? (4, Funny)

zdzichu (100333) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516457)

I'm not suprised. I seen too many clips from weird japanese tv-shows on Internet. People making idiots from themselves, running naked, shooting sperm, diving in hot water to watch boobs.... Based on those videos, image of japanese people is clear: they are lunatics, they are insane, their society is really fucked up.

So Japanese took the first step to correcting (hiding?) this public image of them.

Re:Causing bad image? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516565)

You can't just use the videos on YouTube to judge Japanese culture. That'd be like judging ALL americans after watching Jackass.

Hard Gay! HOOOOO!!!! (1)

Tom2K2 (591508) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516481)

If it wasn't for youtube hosting Japanese content, I wouldn't of had been exposed to Hard Gay! Wait a minute... But really, the shows that air in Japan are some of the best milk exploding out of your nose comedy I have ever seen.
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=hard+gay [youtube.com]

They looked... (3, Insightful)

doit3d (936293) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516509)

...the gift horse in the mouth then kicked it squarely in the balls just like the *AA's have been doing for years. They have just kicked the best free advertisement they could have had to the curb. Granted, the material may be copyrighted, but the quality is extremely poor. The material is seen by persons who then sometimes seek out and want to purchase higher quality videos/music to support various forums of artistic expression. Nice way to shut out customers that they could have gotten for free. I guess they must be preparing to earn their money through lawsuits rather than through a legitimate business transaction which wins over customers. Money seems to be one helluva drug, seeing how it blinds upper corporate echelon.

This is getting me most exercised! (0, Redundant)

BorgCopyeditor (590345) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516525)

How dare you say
such a thing
to me?!

YouTube 2.0 would be the source of the New Star. (1)

torpor (458) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516533)


All they have to do is make their user-base screen the video's by answering, honestly, these questions associated with every item:

"Was this original material? Have you seen it before?"

In other words, Home Of The Super-Stars, 2.0 .. (like MTV was, for like, 13 minutes..)

Only reason why this has happened (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516541)

is because a lot of authorities weren't aware of YouTube [utube.com] , but when Google bought them and it was front page news, suddenly everyone's logging on the (wrong) website, realising that (they're on the wrong site) there's copyrighted material on there and requesting it to be removed.

Slipped a nice little joke in there for everyone to enjoy too.

Those Poor Copyright Holders (5, Insightful)

GogglesPisano (199483) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516543)

some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves
Yeah, that's tough. I mean, corporate copyright holders have spent millions buying politicians to protect their cash streams with the full force of the federal government for 120 years. Clearly it's unreasonable to expect them to stop counting their money and actually expend some effort on their own behalf. Everyone else should be doing it for them!

Copyright holder != international megacorp (1, Troll)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516987)

And would you apply the same standards to the countless small, specialist outfits, which produce much of the best video material out there, yet which are threatened with quite literally going under because of sites like this ripping their stuff? This type of organisation couldn't afford a lobbyist in their wildest dreams, never mind having anything to do with getting copyright law changed.

It's really very annoying when people equate "copyright law" with "abuse of power by multinational corporations". The latter are the last people who need copyright to protect them. However, when you attack the copyright system as a means of getting at the megacorps, you also undermine the protection that should be afforded to all the little guys producing new, interesting, informative, really valuable content. Yes, the actions of the megacorps suck, but you're aiming at the wrong target by going after copyright; you want "price fixing" and "corrupt legislative systems", down the hall and on the right.

I don't understand (5, Insightful)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516545)

As always they want to remove everything instead of thinking first. What kind of quality does YouTube have? Sh*t, everybody knows. Those videos should be classified as promotional material. Instead removing them, they should lower the resolution (as if there's need for it already) and audio quality (look previous brackets) and add some intro like 'If you want to see it in proper way - Buy It!'. That would be much better than removing it.

Best part is that this process can be easily automated so videos marked as copyrighted by MPIA or similar can be automatically 'copyright marked'. That would create a lot of revenue for artists and a lot of fun for ordinary people.

Shame that they cannot think in this way. Create - not destroy!

Cross-Pollination (4, Insightful)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516577)

Adult Swim aside, without exposure like this there is little chance of American folks becoming fans. Heck, I've been using YouTube for the last few days to help buy Anime (check for popularity and samples) for my kids and myself for Christmas. Bad move.

Re:Cross-Pollination (1)

CYDVicious (834329) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516831)

Speaking of cross polination...nice choice of words when you were scoping out La Blue Girl and Cool Devices to see if they were good or not...for your kids sure... j/k ;)

Re:Cross-Pollination (3, Insightful)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#16517021)

Exposure is one thing, posting entire seeeasons of episodes from TV shows is something entirely different. If this were simply a quesiton of exposure then why not put up one or two espisodes or the first 5-10 minutes of each episode with some information on when and where to watch the show? Posting copyrighted material online without consent is not about exposure or fighting the man, it's about getting shit for free, period.

How many videos are on YouTube? (1, Interesting)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516579)

What percentage of YouTube's hosted content does this represent?

Great! (0, Redundant)

DaRiuX (1001415) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516587)

Some japanese movies are horrible... I apreciate the initiative.

camcorder TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516601)

YouTube needs to get rid of videos where, instead of using a VCR or DVR, people used a camcorder to record off the TV set. Why do people even bother doing that?

Sco3k (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516643)

Did they remove Anime clips? (0, Flamebait)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516661)

Because if they did, I can tell you it's really no big deal - after all, when you've seen one big-eyed schoolgirl being raped by a Cthulhoid tentacle, you've seen them all.

Darn. (1)

andynms (564072) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516737)

Does this mean no more bizarre Morning Musume [wikipedia.org] videos [boingboing.net] ?

Some more (1)

theid0 (813603) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516781)

Here are another ~18500 videos that the YouTube staff has been purposefully ignoring.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=family +guy&search=Search [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=south+ park&search=Search [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=futura ma&search=Search [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=daily+ show&search=Search [youtube.com]

If they got rid of the copyrighted material, YouTube would be mostly junk videos and they'd be worthless to Google.

Irritated -- at their own law? (0, Flamebait)

Buran (150348) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516809)

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.

Well, that's funny. That's what the law says, and who petitioned for that law? Yes, that's right. It was the MPAA and the RIAA!

Now they're complaining about the bed they made themselves.

Boo hoo. Cry me a fucking river.

No more zuiikin? (1)

mpeters13 (862444) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516839)

awww. That's such a shame. I suppose we have the RIAA to thank for this lovely regard for intellectual property rights collecting. i'd say a good majority of stuff on youtube you can't buy on DVD yet anyway? Where is my damn Zuiikin English DVD collectors edition? What? That's right, I sure didn't think so.

They even have copyrights on news feeds... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516875)

My college pays for a satellite feed to some of the various NHK channels and during the limited news shows they do have it's not uncommon to see a large black block appear when they show images of events or sports events. Usually there is some message about the broadcast not being allowed outside of Japan. It's at times like that I feel the copyright thing is taken to new extremes. At another time, I was going to download a music video from Yaida Hitomi from YouTube and the next day they it was removed because copyright owner JASC or whatever had said it was infringement, which it was but! Still, it gives worldwide exposure to some artist that would otherwise be seen by one country. It's sad the way artist availability and exposure can be minimalized by copyright holders who might not even be the artist themselves.

Non-dubbed anime. (2)

thenetbox (809459) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516891)

Youtube was the easiest to use source of non-dubbed sub-titled anime. Why can't Cartoon network just sub-title their anime shows instead of dubbing the crap out of them.

The voice actors for most dubbed anime aren't very good and you lose a lot of information.

Licensing? (1)

Shade of Pyrrhus (992978) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516923)

If a lot of this material isn't licensed in the US (like most of the anime people download out there), why would Google have to comply? Sure stuff like Naruto has been licensed, but a lot of those sort of things are AMVS, which promote the anime more than anything, imo. Was Google really legally required to remove these videos if they weren't licensed in the US, or were they simply doing a service?

Re:Licensing? (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16517099)

They aren't licensed in the US _YET_. I'm sure the owners would be quite happy to do so, in exchange for money.

If Google and anyone else was allowed to distribute their copyrighted work left, right and centre due to this, why would anyone bother to pay for a license?

This is EXACTLY how copyright law works (2, Insightful)

csoto (220540) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516993)

As a copyright holder, it's YOUR responsibility to defend your rights. Once properly notified, an offender or facilitator (like YouTube) is obligated to take action, but "policing" is the (C) holder's problem.

A Better Alternative? (1)

Neil Hodges (960909) | more than 7 years ago | (#16517025)

Half of the music videos I watch have been on YouTube, so now I'm unable to watch some of my favorite Japanese artists sing.

Oh well, I guess I'll have to download them instead of watching them online.

Smart (1)

kurtis25 (909650) | more than 7 years ago | (#16517085)

I'm guessing Google knows what they are doing. They could have some good legal argument, they could be hoping that the date of any lawsuit gets pushed way out like in the print.google case. It seems by the time a lawsuit occurs the companies will realize the need for print.google. The same could happen with youtube by the time a few years down the road anything legal occurs the companies have changed so much that the case is mote. They may think that their Google biceps are big enough to force change. Seeing as TV is a starving industry,CBS anyone? [google.com] , or Maybe a job at NBC [linuxinsider.com] They may be forced to see an opportunity instead of fighting. After if they can make money by posting what someone else will no doubt post why not beat crime to the punch.

why bother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16517093)

at least now more people are seeing their stuff. They weren't going to get money either way so they should just let us watch em. Time to start up another video site or goto bebo dot com

Your Job sucks? (3, Funny)

SCDavis (974281) | more than 7 years ago | (#16517125)

What do you do all day?

I work for The Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers. I brows YouTube all day looking for pron, i mean illegal japanese material that does not belong on YouTube...

Just imagine their annual review...

"Good Job Li, you found 3,000 illegal videos on YouTube. Too bad Jin found 5,000 illegal videos. 15 lashings and you need to work more than your normal 60 hours a week!" :)

Responsibility? Hell No! (1)

Real1tyCzech (997498) | more than 7 years ago | (#16517129)

some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves

Right. Why take responsibility for policing how folks use *your* content when you can force that responsibility on to some other company.

I bet they expect the government to babysit their kids at our expense as well.

EBay as precedence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16517159)

Hasn't this problem been around for a long time (and ultimately settled down on a mechanism) for EBay, in terms of sales of e.g. pirated videos?

I'm not sure what it ended up on (whether Ebay screens every day or month, or they just act on notification) but Larry and Sergey might consider asking some Ebayers out for lunch.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...