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 AntiPiracy Policy Likened to 'Mafia Shakedown'

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the i-hear-that's-a-growth-industry dept.

The Internet 103

A C|Net article discusses reactions to YouTube's newly proposed antipiracy software policy. The company is now offering assistance for IP holders, allowing them to keep track of their content on the YouTube service ... if they sign up with the company for licensing agreements. A spokesman for Viacom (already in a fight with YouTube to take down numerous video clips) called this policy 'unacceptable', and another industry analyst likened it to a 'mafia shakedown.' YouTubes cites the challenges of determining ownership of a given video clip as the reason for this policy, and hopes that IP owners will cooperate in resolving these issues. Some onlookers also feel that these protestations are simply saber-rattling before an eventual deal: "'The debates are about negotiations more than anything else--who's going to pay whom and how much,' said Saul Berman, IBM's global media and entertainment strategy leader."

cancel ×

103 comments

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

Doesn't YouTube know (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061212)

That you can use mafia tactics on the mafia? The media companies have been at this much longer.

Re:Doesn't YouTube know (5, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061298)

Tony Soprano called ... he wants the media companies to know they're infringing on his "Intellectual Property" when they use his tactics ... a couple of the boys will be by later to discuss how they can "purchase protection" or "insurance" ... you knw ... "would be a real shame if something bad were to happen ..."

Just give them what they want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061714)

If they don't want their content on Google services, then give that to them. Remove all of their content from YouTube. Remove all Viacom records from Google search and Google news as well.

After all, free promotion == "piracy".

Re:Doesn't YouTube know (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063002)

YouTube is simply offering a deal they can't refuse, either their signature or their brains will be on the contract.

Tilting at windmills (4, Insightful)

Buran (150348) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061218)

Every time I see a story like this, it just upsets me. It's going against our culture, which values sharing and building upon others' work, and making use of what we already have to create new things. What's the point of this? It's just tilting at windmills -- those values are so ingrained in us that they're not going to go away.

Re:Tilting at windmills (-1, Troll)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061328)

Well, at least its nice that they used a mafia comparison instead of a Nazi comparison.

Re:Tilting at windmills (0, Offtopic)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061696)

As to your sig -- atheism has nothing at all to do with eugenics.

Re:Tilting at windmills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061974)

Seriously. He must have strained himself to come up with such a clever sig.

Eugenics? (1, Offtopic)

kennygraham (894697) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062090)

If you think fundamentalist religion is a cause of suffering and atheism isn't, eugenics must not be in your vocabulary.

Because if someone doesn't believe in a god, they clearly support the selective breeding of humans. Wtf?

Re:Eugenics? (1)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064304)

Ugh. I can't believe how many people reply to a sig. It's a sig, people! What my sig is saying is that, before anyone flips out about how 'evil' fundamentalist religion is, and that happens often, that person should sit back and read about the various eugenics programs, not done in the name of atheism, but done in the name of evolution, which is synonymous with atheism, not unlike various bad things were done in the name of God, and that neither eugenics nor, say, murdering Native Americans for being 'godless heathens' should reflect on either atheism or fundamentalist religion, and that the the lesson we should learn here is that people will twist anything to justify their own hatred. I'm not trying to bash atheists or anything, I just want the wild eyed theophobes to see the correlation between theism and atheism before spurting anti-religious crap. Anyway, isn't it funny how everything degrades to some sort of flamewar on /., especially when someone mentions religion?

Re:Eugenics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064826)

Evolution is not synonymous with atheism.* You may incorporate this fact into your future posts.

*Clearly something that a LIBERAL ATHEIST would say!

Re:Eugenics? (1)

kennygraham (894697) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064922)

I didn't think it was a flame war, I just didn't understand the link you were making between atheism and eugenics. I guess the confusion comes from me not considering atheism to be synonymous with evolution. I know several christians and jews who agree with evolution, and while most atheists agree that evolution does occur, lacking belief in a god doesn't necessarily lead to belief in evolution, any more than it necessarily leads to belief in string theory.

Pretty much what I'm saying is, the premise "evolution is synonymous with atheism" is false if there's even one theist who believes evolution or one atheist who doesn't. Several theists believe evolution, so the premise is false. Your association of between eugenics and atheism depends on that premise, so the argument isn't sound.

This isn't a flame at all. I agree with you that fundamentalist religion isn't necessarily evil, and I'm not trying to argue against that. I'm just pointing out that the logic behind your sig is flawed, regardless of the conclusion it reaches.

Re:Tilting at windmills (3, Insightful)

PhysicsPhil (880677) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061498)

Every time I see a story like this, it just upsets me. It's going against our culture, which values sharing and building upon others' work, and making use of what we already have to create new things. What's the point of this? It's just tilting at windmills -- those values are so ingrained in us that they're not going to go away.

I agree with you, but if you log on to YouTube many uploads there are nothing more than TV broadcasts stripped of commercials. Uploaders aren't creating anything, they're just engaging in copyright infringement. I think copyright laws need to be a little more relaxed about "clip-and-snip", where people genuinely create something new by piecing together other (copyrighted) stuff, but I have no patience with people whose idea of "sharing" is just wholesale redistribution of copyrighted material.

I would never do that (1)

giafly (926567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18065828)

Every time I see a story like this, it just upsets me. It's going against our culture, which values sharing and building upon others' work, and making use of what we already have to create new things. What's the point of this? It's just tilting at windmills -- those values are so ingrained in us that they're not going to go away.
I agree with you, but if you log on to YouTube many uploads there are nothing more than TV broadcasts stripped of commercials. Uploaders aren't creating anything, they're just engaging in copyright infringement. I think copyright laws need to be a little more relaxed about "clip-and-snip", where people genuinely create something new by piecing together other (copyrighted) stuff, but I have no patience with people whose idea of "sharing" is just wholesale redistribution of copyrighted material.
Says parent who just copied all grandparent's copyrighted comment wholesale.

Re:Tilting at windmills (5, Interesting)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061502)

Another important feature of our culture is property rights: the idea that you can get rich by being smart in what you own. Laws ensure that if others want to use what they own they have to pay you, and because you're certain of that you'll invest in making and acquiring stuff. It's the essence of capitalism, and that investment in both intellectual and physical resources makes people rich.

The term "intellectual property" incorporates both aspects of the culture and gets to the crux of the conflict: we share our intellect but do not share our property. But as intellectual property can be shared without rivalry, the process is upended.

That's the answer to your question "What's the point?" We have two traditions in our culture: building on each other's work, and owning (and getting rich from) property. The easy sharing of information brings those two cultural values into conflict.

Those who claim that the argument has already been settled in favor of sharing over property are (IMO) missing the fact that property has always been a crucial driver of innovation and investment. Many intellectual things are expensive to create, movies most obvious among them, because they incorporate physical elements (sets, cameras, lights) before they become mere bits to be shared. The movie industry continues to believe that they can make money off their "intellectual property" on the basis of selling it like traditional property. If you manage to convince them that they're wrong, it's more likely that they'll stop making movies than that they'll produce them and expect to be unable to recoup their expenses.

The conflict of the two values will eventually produce a shift to a new order, and I don't know what that's going to look like.

Re:Tilting at windmills (4, Insightful)

neax (961176) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062156)

I guess the confusion here lies in the distinction between physically property and intellectual property. Is is really fair that someone can have exclusive rights to an 'idea' or should they just just be able to make money out of the application of this idea? Copyrights inhibit growth. They discourage people from reusing good ideas and building on top of them. They encourage people to rebuild their own type of wheel. so where does this fit with IP? People need to be able to make money out of the work that they do, but perhaps the current system is flawed. No matter how much they fight piracy and sharing it will always exist, it is the nature of humans to share things. "hey John have you heard this great new album by band X? its great, ..no.... you can't listen to mine go buy your own".

There will always be free riders looking for a free lunch.....as i have been in the past...and sometimes i still am. But i believe that ultimatley it is only good for the artist / producer or whatever it is that is getting ripped off. If you were a band, that made an album or a video clip, would you rather sell 10,000 albums and have 10,000 fans with no one sharing your material, or sell 10,000 albums and have them sharing your work and have 1 million fans? what is better for your music and your future in the industry? I think that being know and getting noticed counts more than actual sales. It will always eventually lead back to sales, ticket sales for concerts etc. Even if only 5,000 people bought the album because the rest copied it, if they share it they are promoting your band which is basically free marketing. That will always lead to sales.

Re:Tilting at windmills (3, Interesting)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062652)

There are several different kinds of intellectual property. The closest thing to owning an "idea" is a patent, not a copyright. Patents are a whole different story; the idea is dubious, and the US patent office implementation of that idea is criminally negligent.

Copyright is owning a particular work: a book, a song, a recording of a song, a movie. And you need to be very careful about making up your numbers here. It's very simple: I'd rather have 10k fans buy 10k albums than have 1,000k fans buy 5k albums. If the word-of-mouth advertising is so great, why did I sell half as many albums?

Especially given the first thousand albums just go to the cost of recording. Studio time is expensive. Engineers are expensive. Mastering is expensive. Album art costs money, screen printing CDs costs money. And getting those first 10k fans to buy any copies of the album at all is expensive. Put an album out there on the web for free and nobody will download it until you play a few hundred gigs in which your money for the night MAYBE covers the gasoline it took to get there. (And god forbid the drummer should have a few beers.)

Why yes, I have been a rock band promoter, and I do know where these numbers come from. If I want to PAY the band, God forbid, I have to sell 10k albums.

Most of the things that are downloaded are things that somebody spent a LOT of money promoting in the first place. Most bands of the kind I've worked with would pay you to download their album.

There's a lot to be said for developing new models; DRM is simply holding back the ocean with a broom. But I implore you, when justifying your downloading to yourself, not to pretend that you're somehow doing the band a service until you've looked at the economics a lot more closely.

Re:Tilting at windmills (2, Interesting)

balloonhead (589759) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063086)

Yes, your figures make sense. But why do unproven bands have money chucked at them (though not in their pockets) for tone-sided deals anyway? The recording time, engineering, mixing etc. don't have to be so expensive when they are essentially an unknown quantity. The fact that there is a large (and growing) number of bedroom sound engineers attests to the fact that, although the quality may not be quite up to the same standard, it can get pretty close - close enough that sales don't suffer (e.g. Daniel Bedingfield's 'Gotta get thru this', recorded in his bedroom with a PC and a microphone).

Technology and the internet have shown a few things in the last few years with regard to music:
1. It can be produced much more cheaply (for close to the same quality in some but not all cases)
2. It can be distributed much more cheaply
3. People are still willing to pay an inflated amount for it if that amount is low (iTunes - $1 a track or thereabouts is probably more than each individual track is worth but such a low price point that people still will pay it)

There is still a place for expensive studios and expensive staff and even expensive marketing - but not at some up and coming band that might turn out to be a one-hit wonder who gets the arse end of the bargain with a record company and ends up in servitude for it.

Re:Tilting at windmills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064864)

e.g. Daniel Bedingfield's 'Gotta get thru this'

that is the gayest song i have ever heard. this post, your previous posts and all your future posts should be modded -1, Queeeer

shame, shame on you.

Re:Tilting at windmills (1)

Nulagrithom (998099) | more than 7 years ago | (#18065114)

Doesn't matter Mr. AC, he's still right.

Re:Tilting at windmills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18062454)

Except that "intellectual property" is a contradiction in terms.

There is no conflict, strong property rights are esssential to our system, and "IP" is in conflict with that.

Re:Tilting at windmills (3, Insightful)

esme (17526) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063248)

Those who claim that the argument has already been settled in favor of sharing over property are (IMO) missing the fact that property has always been a crucial driver of innovation and investment.

This isn't actually true. Our system of copyright is rather new, as the idea is only about as old as our country. Large scale works (opera, architecture, large paintings, manuscripts, etc. in those days) existed for centuries before copyright was invented.

The old system relied on patronage. People with money and power supplied the capital needed for large projects, and hence called the shots on their production. I think this system could be resurrected pretty easily, since there are already a number of government and non-profit organizations that fund film and television productions now. I don't know if we'd ever have patronage-funded $100M-budget blockbusters, but I'm not sure that's an argument against the system.

Also, and more broadly, our experiment with copyright started with a 14-year term. Given that the last works to enter the public domain were produced before my grand-parents were born, I think we've effectively established infinite copyright terms at this point. So I think the media conglomerates have effectively forfeited any moral right to copyright they may have had by stealing the public domain from us. After all, the enrichment of the public domain is the only excuse for giving creators a temporary monopoly in the first place.

-Esme

Culture of IP rights? (2)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063492)

Those have existed in their current form for about 15 years.

And I'll believe that copyrights and patents are "property" right around the time that they're taxed the way real property is taxed.

Until then, it's a load of crap.

Re:Tilting at windmills (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063964)

Only rivalrous goods can properly be property.

"IP" is not a branch of property, but a branch of privilege.

There is no "intellectual property" (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18065842)

The whole point of copyright is that your work becomes public domain in exchange for a short (7-14 years originally) period when you are granted a privilege of its exclusive distribution. The notions that consumers should accept unnatural restrictions for their lifetime simply for the privilege of buying your stuff for whatever price you set is ridiculous and against our tradition of not having privileged aristocracy. Everyone should feel free to simply ignore copyrights and patents until some balance between rights of all people is restored.

Re:Tilting at windmills (2, Insightful)

FLEB (312391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061528)

Building upon != simply reposting

Re:Tilting at windmills (1)

towsonu2003 (928663) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062364)

It's going against our culture, which values sharing and building upon others' work, and making use of what we already have to create new things.
Which culture is this? You should have learned by now to post to slashdot.org *while* keeping in mind that your audience is *American*...

Re:Tilting at windmills - MOD PARENT DOWN (-1, Troll)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062574)

Oh stop it already. Your touchy feely astroturfing adds nothing to the discussion. We could just as easily say that we are a civilization built upon the concept of property rights and contracts, or, more precsisely, that there is a fairly strong case to be made that humans are best motivated by reward thhat is nearby and obvious - that is to say, not by some great notion of sharing (which has the free rider problem), but rather a capitalist sense of barter and exchange.

Cease and Desist (1)

Mr. Shiny And New (525071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18067282)

Your use of the phrase "Tilting at Windmills" is registered trademark The Estate of Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, and you are hereby required to cease using this phrase forthwith. Failure to comply will result in legal action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2.

Microsoft (4, Funny)

BGatesFan (1065072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061238)

I don't like YouTube because it doesn't Digitally Manage My Rights. I'd prefer YouTube if I had to do some sort of verification before watching every movie. This verification would ensure that I am using my Dell PC Solution running Windows Vista. Hopefully Microsoft will buy YouTube so that you'll only be able to access it using Internet Explorer 7/Windows Vista.

Dude, You're Getting a Dell!

Re:Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061266)

Obviously the internet doesnt manage your rights either, or you wouldnt be allowed on it.

Re:Microsoft (1)

BGatesFan (1065072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061322)

Obviously the internet doesnt manage your rights either, or you wouldnt be allowed on it.
Dear Anonymous,
Hopefully in the near-to-not-near-future, either Microsoft or Google will own the internet and this will no longer be a problem. I will be allowed on the internet as long as I verify I'm running genuine Windows Vista Home Premium on my Dell PC custom built by Michael Dell.

Love,
BGatesFan

P.S. (Post Script)

Windows Vista: One look and you'll know its time!

Re:Microsoft (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064170)

Ok, can we have a (-1, Stupid) moderation option? I'd much appreciate it, thanks.

So they bemoan having to pay for their enforcement (5, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061244)

Funny, everyone else has to pay for their own enforcement.

The public has to pay for police work in taxes, the government has to pay employees for studies, every major corporation has to pay their security guards and in most cases security system contractors to keep their buildings secure.

The media industries should be no different. If they want others to be looking out for their interests, they should be paying those people for their troubles.

Re:So they bemoan having to pay for their enforcem (0, Offtopic)

harks (534599) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061504)

You do know that corporations pay taxes, right? And to top that off, they are owned by people, who pay taxes. Of course, the enforcement of rights has nothing to do with paying taxes. The police will still help protect you if your stuff is stolen even if you have owed very little or no taxes. That's the way it should be. Everyone certianly does not pay for their own enforcement any more directly than corporations do.

Re:So they bemoan having to pay for their enforcem (2, Insightful)

Dysproxia (584031) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061700)

The media industries should be no different. If they want others to be looking out for their interests, they should be paying those people for their troubles.

The owner of a copyrighted video is not and should not be obligated to make deals with every damn video sharing site just for the priviledge of having that copyright honored. It's quite obvious that as long as it is illegal to host those videos without permission from the owner, the sharing sites are alone responsible for their "troubles".

Re:So they bemoan having to pay for their enforcem (3, Informative)

Ansoni-San (955052) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062338)

You have no idea of what you're talking about. This isn't about Youtube charging people before they'll comply with the law. The law says the media companies have to name everything they want taken down (also if I remember correctly with links to the offending material).

The media companies want Youtube to do their work for them and blanketly take down any and all of their content because they don't want to have to search themselves.
The law doesn't legally allow for this kind of copyright enforcement so Youtube are saying
"There are lot of problems and work involved in this rediculous demand, so if we do help you we're sure as hell getting something in return"
which is a very big favour on Youtube's part since I doubt any deal would be worth much more to Youtube than the traffic the offending material would bring.
I think the point here is that Youtube have to show willingness to help so that the media companies don't have any legal leg to complain on whatsoever.
As long as Youtube isn't just ignoring the offending material but searching for it at a reasonable speed (reasonable being in comparison with the amount of manpower they can possible be expected to spare), then I can't see any problems a court could find with it.

Re:So they bemoan having to pay for their enforcem (1)

hiro45 (541604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061928)

They do they are called congressmen

Re:So they bemoan having to pay for their enforcem (0, Redundant)

KKlaus (1012919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062230)

Why the hell is this modded insightful? The whole point is that they are being forced to pay someone they shouldn't have to pay for protection, how did you miss that?

I hate viacom, because I myself like to watch clips of TDS and TCR on youtube, but this is a shakedown. Corporations (at least L's like viacom) do in fact pay taxes, and they are supposed to have the protection of the law. They would have that even if they didn't pay taxes, i.e. S corporations don't suffer on that count.

So if I, a taxpayer, had to pay a local group (like say the mafia) to make sure my fence didn't get banged up or something, I shouldn't have to do that. I could hire a guard, and that may be in my best interests depending on the situation, but I shouldn't need to. Similarly, copyright ingringement, like property damage, is already against the law. Viacom shouldn't have to pay or make any agreements with another party to prevent it from occurring, and that party shouldn't say "well if you don't I'm not sure how we can help you." That's what a shakedown would is, by freaking definition.

Are we all that blinded by our anger?

Re:So they bemoan having to pay for their enforcem (-1, Flamebait)

drsquare (530038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062452)

Right, and a homeowner should have to do business with every potential burglar to stop them breaking into their house? Where I come from, that's called extortion.

The burden of responsibility here falls entirely on youtube's shoulders. If they don't like it they should vet videos rather than let any idiot upload something.

Re:So they bemoan having to pay for their enforcem (2, Insightful)

professionalfurryele (877225) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062802)

Burglary is a criminal offence which the police exist to investigate, and the criminal justice system is designed to punish.

Copyright infringement is a civil offence, which includes different penalties, and different rules.

Repeat 100x

Copyright infringement != Burglary

The burden of preventing copyright infringement lies with the rights holder. They have certain actions they can compel others to take with regard to their copyrighted material, and legal recourse if those actions are not taken. This does not extend to bringing the full weight of the criminal justice system to bear against copyright infringers. This is fair because a copyright is not physical property, and copyright itself is a social contract between creators and the public. It is already very unfair on the public due to the Berne convention, and does not serve the purpose it was originally intended for (enriching the public domain). Are you suggesting it should be made more unfair?

Re:So they bemoan having to pay for their enforcem (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064338)

The burden of preventing copyright infringement lies with the rights holder.
No, it lies with the infringers, in this case youtube and its users. No copyright holder can possibly police the entire Internet. If a website cannot keep itself free of illegal material then it should be closed down until it can.

Re:So they bemoan having to pay for their enforcem (1)

professionalfurryele (877225) | more than 7 years ago | (#18065790)

Did you even read the rest of the post? Copyright is an artificial right. If leaving the burden of proof with the rights holders still provides sufficient incentive, then that is good enough. They do not have to be able to police the entire internet, just enough to encourage sales so that there is an incentive to create.

Re:So they bemoan having to pay for their enforcem (2, Interesting)

jrockway (229604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063262)

This is not at all what's happening. It's like after you've been burgled, you complain that you have to report the crime to the police and insurance company in order to get your stuff back. It's like expecting money to magically fall out of the sky for no reason -- not particularly realistic.

Re:So they bemoan having to pay for their enforcem (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064354)

Here's a better analogy: imagine your car is stolen. Then one day you see it on a neighbour's drive. You tell him about it, and he lets you have it back. Then the next day, your TV is stolen. That same neighbour has it in his living room. You go round and he gives you it back. Time after time, things go missing and turn up in your neighbour's house. Are you supposed to have to keep going there day after day asking for your stuff back? Of course not, your neighbour should be arrested for willingly harbouring stolen goods.

Stealing--or borrowing? (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064568)

Yes. But you are the one who's gonna have to call the cops. I mean, for all the cops know, your neighbor might just be borrowing all those things with your permission. You're the one who has to tell them otherwise.
To put it another way: the reason copyright-infringing material isn't taken down without a request from the owner is because copyright owners can enforce copyright selectively. A copyright owner can willingly choose to ignore that some site has put its work up without asking it first; if it does, then the material is legal and should not be taken down!

Re:So they bemoan having to pay for their enforcem (1)

jrockway (229604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18065024)

No, that's not right. In your analogy it's the same person taking things every day. In the case of youtube, 1000s of different people are the ones uploading unauthorized material. If one person continually uploads tons of pirated content, his account will be disabled, and that's the end of that. The problem the media companies face is that although that 1 person has been stopped, 10000 more people will step up to fill his shoes.

Moral of this? When `crime' is completely unstoppable, the laws are probably wrong.

Re:So they bemoan having to pay (1)

memojuez (910304) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062660)

This is funny! YouTube is doing to Viacom and RIAA what RIAA has been trying to do to the rest of us!!

Re:So they bemoan having to pay for their enforcem (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063038)

If they want others to be looking out for their interests, they should be paying those people for their troubles.

Uh, isn't that exactly what the ??AAs are? I believe they are a private club for all practical purposes. So far, they're getting a pretty good bang for the buck. Somehow that sentiment makes me feel...dirty. I think I need a drink.

Superb (1)

JPMaximilian (948958) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061276)

I bet IP owners are going to love this. YouTube sets up a venue for what they'll perceive as piracy and then forces them to pay if they want their movies protected. Reminds me of Deus Ex, when VersaLife is making making the Virus that's killing everyone, and then manufactures the cure to Sell to everyone.

Re:Superb (1, Offtopic)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061340)

Maybe _THEY_ planned this with HIV/AIDS too, but somebody in QA fucked up.

Irony? (2, Insightful)

Phil246 (803464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061304)

Irony : Media companies complaining about mafia-like tactics.
Or is it hipocracy?

Or more likely, with translation (4, Insightful)

DrYak (748999) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061598)

YouTubes cites the challenges of determining ownership of a given video clip as the reason for this policy, and hopes that IP owners will cooperate in resolving these issues.


Daring fire-style translation :

No, we won't let you just pipe the results of your auto-suit-bots into our database.
Identifying actual copyright infrigment, from fair use, from complete false-positive is a very difficult job and if we botch it, people are going to make fun of all of us including YouTube, like it hapened before with the tutorials. So please now pay for the actual work force needed to perform what you ask.

Re:Irony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061606)

Rule by hippos? Sounds scary!

Re:Irony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18064942)

that is funny.

Re:Irony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18062776)

Hippocracy: rule by hippos.

So let me get this right? (4, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061308)

YouTube is arguably one of the largest video sites on the Internet and people are upset when they want to charge for the service of policing the world's multimedia efforts?

Sure, they host them, and perhaps can or do check them, but the law doesn't say that people need to check for IP rights before using something (IIRC) and that it is the IP holder's job to request the violator change their use of the IP or take it down.

If YouTube did this free, they would become IP policemen, and that can't be cheap. Why wouldn't they charge for this service? To me, this doesn't sound like mafia tactics so much as it sounds like business tactics. Offer a service and charge for it. I am thinking that Google et al haven't figured out how to generate ad revenue from this service so they want to charge for it.

Sounds like simple business practice to me. I might be wrong though.

Re:So let me get this right? (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061532)

Where is it written that Youtube is the ONLY place to host video?
If YouTube has a policy like this the answer seems simple: go elsewhere . Long before they became the clearinghouse of film, folks hosted things on sites all over the net. We got by. Many of the things you find there today, first were found on some other site.. Also, I see another phenomena here; when slick Hollyweird stuff is out there in this sort of venue, right next to non-commercial or commercial and outside the mainstream, and you compare it with say home grown fare, the homegrown is usually better. Also the advert money is what is really is at stake here. Can you imagine: "Ghostrider: The Upsala Run" brought to you by ....?

Good luck YouTube (1)

Propaganda13 (312548) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063158)

I sent several letters about purchasing "licensing agreements" to distributors. If they pay, I won't release their IP on P2P networks. Needless to say, I have not received any payments so far.

Re:So let me get this right? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061558)

Sure, they host them, and perhaps can or do check them, but the law doesn't say that people need to check for IP rights before using something (IIRC) and that it is the IP holder's job to request the violator change their use of the IP or take it down.

Actually, the law pretty clearly says that only the creator has the right to make copies or derivitive works. Surprisingly, this is called copyright law.

Re:So let me get this right? (3, Informative)

Nicholas Evans (731773) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062086)

Unfortunately, copyright law is not that simple. YouTube is a 'safe harbour' under the DMCA 512(c). 512(c) is a magical section of the law that grants an online service provider which hosts content from users on their own servers immunity from IP infringement provided that they meet certain criteria.

To summarize, YouTube has to designate an agent [copyright.gov] to receive notice of infringement, publish their copyright infringement policies [google.com] , disable access to repeat offenders, and respond reasonably to takedown / counter notices.

So just as long as they're processing those DMCA takedowns and tossing users out, the DMCA (in theory) shields them from litigation. So, eh, surprisingly, this is copyright law.

Disclaimer: IANAL. Go read copyright.gov/onlinesp/ or ChillingEffects.

Re:So let me get this right? (2, Interesting)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062632)

Safe Harbors are not for online service providers, they are for internet service providers. It is a way to protect ISPs from being sued for the content they host. YouTube is not an ISP, they provide a place to store videos, not host connections. If YouTube was protected by the Safe Harbor loophope in the DMCA then anyone could also make the same claim and distribute intellectual property to their heart's content.

Re:So let me get this right? (1)

professionalfurryele (877225) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062878)

Assuming you are right, how long do you think it is going to be before YouTube (and by proxy) Google loses a court case on this, and decides to turn around to the government and buy a law like the parent describes?

People forget that if the media companies can buy laws, then so can search engines, and Google ($143.88B) has a bigger market capitalisation that Time-Warner (83.75B).

Corruption works both ways and it is reaching the point where Google can just as easily end a political career as Fox can.

Re:So let me get this right? (3, Insightful)

makomk (752139) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063194)

Safe Harbors are not for online service providers, they are for internet service providers. It is a way to protect ISPs from being sued for the content they host. YouTube is not an ISP, they provide a place to store videos, not host connections. If YouTube was protected by the Safe Harbor loophope in the DMCA then anyone could also make the same claim and distribute intellectual property to their heart's content. You do realise that if the Safe Harbour provisions don't protect YouTube, then by the same argument they also don't protect most web hosting providers (as well as picture hosting sites such as Photobucket, blogs, forums, etc), and they are equally vulnerable to being sued over content they host?

Re:So let me get this right? (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063776)

Yes, I am well aware of that. I'm glad to see sunlight is starting to dawn on some of the marble heads around here.

Re:So let me get this right? (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064076)

It is a way to protect ISPs from being sued for the content they host.

What makes one content host protected and another one not protected? Seems clear to me that they are talking about web hosting providers, which YouTube is, just as much as Yahoo! or AOL.

Re:So let me get this right? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 7 years ago | (#18065424)

er... Youtube isn't an Internet Service Provider?

Odd, it certainly looks to me like they are a hosting service. You know, a service they provide over the Internet.

How does that not fall under the definition of Internet Service Provider?

Re:So let me get this right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18065870)

"Safe Harbors are not for online service providers, they are for internet service providers. It is a way to protect ISPs from being sued for the content they host. YouTube is not an ISP, they provide a place to store videos, not host connections. If YouTube was protected by the Safe Harbor loophope in the DMCA then anyone could also make the same claim and distribute intellectual property to their heart's content."

Safe harbors do exist for online service providers. You need to read the law again or for a first time. If you let others upload videos, text and god knows what else you can be elgible for a safe harbor as long as you take certain precautions.

The safe harbor section of the DMCA also goes into detail why someone can not make the claim and distribute IP to their heart's content. You have to stop repeat abusers, you have to take off IP owned by others when you are informed of said violations, and theres several more things you must do to fall into a safe harbor...

Re:So let me get this right? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 7 years ago | (#18065468)

I knew as soon as I made that post that there would be more than one way of interpreting it.

I interpreted "people" as end users. It is up to end users to make sure that they aren't using something that is copyrighted in the videos that they upload to Youtube, or else they can be found liable for copyright infringement.

Screw YouTube... (5, Insightful)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061314)

...there are other places to post video. I hope they don't wind up the iTunes of online video.

A friend of mine's Daria fan animations (no they aren't hentai) got taken off of YouTube. Viacom has been approving of fan films in the past, the most elaborate of which being the Star Trek: The Original Series continuation "The New Voyages," hosted at http://www.newvoyages.com/ [newvoyages.com] . The fan films got swept up in the Viacom/YouTube dragnet. This pissed me off because quite a few people from the Daria fandom were involved, and they really were nicely done.

Hopefully an appeal to have the fan films reinstated will be successful.

The screwed thing is that unless you take a lot of trouble with 3rd party apps you cannot download a YouTube .FLV. And the resulting file is pretty crappy looking no matter what you do, because .FLVs are so intensely compressed and lose so much in the lossy compression process. I mean WTF? Big Media is getting FREE PUBLICITY even with the copyrighted stuff. They are using YouTube as a promotional tool on the one hand, then on the other they are screwing the fans.

There are alternatives. Metacafe, Ning, Revver...all excellent choices for showing your stuff. And there is always BIT TORRENT for something a bit higher quality and a bit more permanent.

Big media needs to grow a brain. YouTube needs to grow a spine. Everyone wins when content is up on YouTube. Everyone loses when these silly fights start up.

Re:Screw YouTube... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061570)

It does re-encode the original, and you could just copy the cached file if you prefer (or tweak the codec), but it's not all that much trouble to download them--a one line script:

#!/bin/bash
ffmpeg -i "$(find ~/.mozilla -regex '.*Cache.*' -a -not -regex '.*_CACHE_.*' -printf '%T+ %p\n' | sort -n | awk '{print $2}' | xargs file | grep -i "Video" | tail -1 | awk -F : '{print $1}')" -vcodec msmpeg4v2 -b 300 -ab 64 -ar 22050 -s 320x240 $1

But if you're looking for the high quality, go to the original producer. From an evolutionary perspective, that would be a good business model--low quality available cheaply or freely as advertising for a high-quality product. Unfortunately it would fly in the face of Hollywood's business model, which is currently to convince everyone (via advertising) that junk is great, rather than admitting it sucks and moving on to the next product.

Re:Screw YouTube... (3, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061574)

...there are other places to post video. I hope they don't wind up the iTunes of online video.

They are going to become the Napster of online video... An awesome service when it was all free and full of pirated stuff. Now that it's going legal and making deals with the industry, it's probably going to suck.

Re:Screw YouTube... (1)

Monkier (607445) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061886)

If you are happy to host the video yourself, create the FLV with FFmpeg [mplayerhq.hu] , there's a tutorial on it here: FLV encoding with ffmpeg [gwikzone.org] .

..and use Jeroen Wijering's Flash Video Player [jeroenwijering.com] for playback.

If 90% of us use Windows (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062610)

If you are happy to host the video yourself, create the FLV with FFmpeg, there's a tutorial on it here: FLV encoding with ffmpeg.
I noticed that the tutorial you linked uses a Bourne style command line to pull sources from SVN and compile them. Is there a tutorial that does not require a second PC to run *BSD or an installation of Cygwin?

Re:If 90% of us use Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18063574)

No, you don't need Cygwin for ffmpeg...

If you know how to open a Command Window in Windows (cmd.exe) and can cd (change directory) to a folder, you can use ffmpeg.

There are compiled Win32 ffmpeg binaries here: http://ffdshow.faireal.net/mirror/ffmpeg/ [faireal.net]

(you'll need this .dll in the same folder as ffmpeg.exe: ftp://sourceware.org/pub/pthreads-win32/dll-latest /lib/pthreadGC2.dll [sourceware.org] )

Re:If 90% of us use Windows (1)

Monkier (607445) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064594)

I think grabbed the EXE that comes with the "Super" (http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html) frontend for FFMPEG..

Re:Screw YouTube... (2)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064032)

There are easier ways to skin this particular feline, particularly on Mac OS X. I like VisualHub [techspansion.com] . Which reminds me, I gotta register my copy. Yes, I know you can use free commandline tools if you are uber-geeky. But VisualHub is the most Mac-like way to do it.

I got VisualHub to convert XviD/DivX material to DV so I could burn DVDs, but I noticed just recently that it can do .FLV as well.

If worst comes to worst, I'll put my stuff up on my own space.

Re:Screw YouTube... (1)

wolverine1999 (126497) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061984)

I encode my video using a special low bitrate matrix and get somewhat better quality on youtube..

Re:Screw YouTube... (2, Informative)

JoeRandomHacker (983775) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062158)

The screwed thing is that unless you take a lot of trouble with 3rd party apps you cannot download a YouTube .FLV. [ ... ]
The Fast Video Download plugin for Firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/3590/ [mozilla.org] will grab your FLVs easily. I have no Flash plugin for my platform, so this plus mplayer is the only way I can watch the stuff.

Re:Screw YouTube... (1)

Dissectional (528344) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064242)

Wait a minute. YouTube's deleting fan-made Star Trek movies?

Sweet geezus, there is a god. Bravo YouTube, bravo.

Re:Screw YouTube... (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 7 years ago | (#18066414)

This makes me wonder if their main concern is not that the videos are posted, but that so many people will happily accept such lossy, poor quality videos in the first place. It flies in the face of the big push for HDTV (which in turn brings with it the associated DRM fun and games). If people are willing to watch such low quality videos then why buy shell out a ton of money on a bunch of DRM encumbered technology and buy all your content again...

Wake up. (1)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061372)

One morning, we'll wake up and find out the media companies spent the weekend writing and setting up their own video site, with ads intact. YouTube will have a pile of takedown notices for 99% of the pirated content on their site and cops seizing their servers. Only a matter of time.

YouTube is the kid running a lemonade stand trying to negotiate with the local Mafia boss.

Oh, and when did YouTube remove all the English content, it's getting hard to find...

Re:Wake up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18062820)

You forgot to note that the 'kid' running the lemonade stand is a massive corporation.
They are quite capable of defending themselves, and even of rewriting the lemonade-distribution rules if necessary. They practially own that game.

In corporate American 'justice' is bought. The amount of power you have is directly proportional to the amount of money you have. The MAFIAA aren't the only ones who have a lot of it. If they try to shut down the lemonade stand I think you'll find they have quite a fight on their hands.

Or had you forgotten that YouTube is owned by Google?

toss the stuff off and ban the users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18061662)

I like the smaller outfits and indys that post to youtube. Stuff the actual IP owners have posted. Some great content there...

I don't care for the big house stuff. I think youtube should just delete stuff on complaint of the owner and ban the user who posted it. If they are legally responsible for more than that (I'm sure they are...) the laws need to be changed.

The older or rare music videos are the exception. I'd hate to see those go away.

Finally add in the usual google adverts/links off to the side and give the indys or personal people a cut of the ca$h.

"mafia shakedown" (1)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18061744)

Viacom had their lawyers prepped & paid & retained, tassled loafers purchased, affidavids signed, slush funds sloshing and CxOs slinging dirt and for what? So that youtube could turn around and help them? Now it's going to looks really bad when the legal hit squad rolls with the pain. GOD DAMN YOU, YOUTUBE! WE'RE STILL GOING TO FUCK YOU UP ANYWAY THIS CHANGES NOTHING!

Mafia? (1)

ryepnt (1064238) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062058)

So tempted to make Godfather joke.... must... resist... urge....

copyrighted content (1)

WeeBit (961530) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062280)

YouTube's "proposition that they will only protect copyrighted content if there's a business deal in place
I see nothing wrong with this type arrangement. It is not up to the net to protect your work, if you want it protected, then get off your butt and protect it. This is net neutrality at work.

YouTube is dead (2, Interesting)

svunt (916464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18062486)

Ever since Google put a huge bag of cash into YouTube, the content's been getting weaker and weaker, thanks to takedowns. It won't be long until all that's left are camwhores, idiots getting hurt & mentos/coke videos. You know, all that "person of the year" winning material.

YouTube... (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063796)

YouTube is on its way to becoming a has-been. The problems go far beyond copyright holders wanting to protect their property. Stupid message posting limits, "Recently added" videos that "aren't available" for several hours, and a few, for far longer, and other strange and annoying problems. Some of these have been around for a while, and have yet to be fixed. But still, YouTube expects me to sit and watch a stupid ad? Not even.

Re:YouTube... (1)

okinawa_hdr (1062664) | more than 7 years ago | (#18065056)

I was waiting a few days to be able to access a video that was put up. LiveVideo might just have a chance if YouTube keeps this up.

Sad... (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063806)

Big Media is going to eventually sink YouTube. The irony is that if Google hadn't acquired them, that probably would not have happened.

Enjoy it while you can, and remember that there'll still be archive.org, videobomb, and p2p. Participatory media in general won't die when YouTube does.

Mafia shakedown (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18063858)

So, is this like a mafia shakedown?

Yes. YouTube is shaking down the Mafia. Turnabout is fair play, though, since the ??AA has been shaking down elderly/juvenile/disabled/computer illiterate people for years now.

But seriously, there's a huge difference between complying with the law for free (which YouTube is doing) and accepting an agreement to go above and beyond the call of duty (which YouTube is now offering).

Why do we need a 'You Tube'? (1)

MissionAccomplished (951344) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064136)

What purpose does You Tube really serve? It seems to be nothing more than some place an average Joe Schmoe can upload some crap video shot on an even more crappier video medium; a service for the dumbass who can't figure out how to create their own blog and upload a video clip. Appeal to the least common denominator and they will come, along with those smart enough to know that a service like You Tube can be easily taken advantage of. Build it and they will come...

Baytsp was used for the job? (1)

dangerdude292 (1065688) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064190)

I noticed on most of the take downs on YouTube have this message: "..as a result of a third-party notification by Viacom (Baytsp) claiming that this material is infringing.." BayTSP was hired by Viacom to do the youtube takedown, I think. I've had my Internet disconnected by BayTSP for P2P infringement. Now they're getting their doing video sharing! FUCK THEM!

Re:Baytsp was used for the job? (1)

imthesponge (621107) | more than 7 years ago | (#18065248)

You're so badass! Fight the power!

Update (1)

TempeTerra (83076) | more than 7 years ago | (#18064356)

"We take this kind of statement very seriously. We have an organisational image which we strive to maintain, and we can't have people making this kind of spurious comparison. They need to learn that it's just not acceptable, even as a jest" said Mafia spokesman Vinnie "The Axe" Scapieri when contacted today.

Pah! These teenagers and their YouTube! (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#18065690)

In the good old days of copyright piracy, we had to sit there in our Usenet groups with our uuencode/uudecode command-line tools and about 25 different types of de-archiving program for "zip" files, "ace" files, "gz" files and "rar" files in order to get our "warez".

Bloody kids these days don't know that they're born!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>