Jimquisition: Copyright War

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 

Thanatos2k:
And that's the problem - Google should have fought this all the way through. But they didn't. Once they got sued they caved, they caved and said "Ok, stop suing us and we'll do something about it" rather than "Look, your problem is with the users. We just host stuff they upload. Sue them instead." like the ISPs did.

1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10...okay.

I was hoping you'd get the implication of my previous post but no matter. ISPs CAN NOT BE SUED for their users' illegal conduct. There is no law that allows this currently that I am aware of. As I've pointed out in my previous post, some interest groups are pushing for such laws to be passed but none were succesful as of yet.
Youtube and Google CAN BE SUED for their users' illegal conduct. There are laws that allow that.

There is not comparison here. It's not that ISPs have massive balls of carbotanium, it's that they know full well they can't be sued.

Thanatos2k:
Youtube shouldn't be doing it. The users shouldn't be doing it. It should be on the onus of the copyright holder to find and send notices against infringing copyright. And if that is not "financially viable" then too bad for them.

It doesn't matter if there are 100 to 1 hit vs miss with the automated system - that 1 miss is more damaging than the 100 videos would have been if left alone.

This going to be a bit of a hyperbole, but it's necessary for you to understand what you're up against.

You're saying copyright holders should find the offending videos and send notices. Alright, I can see that appeasing the users.
Now, give me (or rather them) a reason to do so. Also please keep in mind the astronomical figures of money you've cost them by removing the automated process and forced them to employ thousands of people to watch videos back to back. Think of all the medical and psychological complications a person could face when they have a job of sitting in a chair for 8 hours and watching mostly cat videos every single day and people playing Happy Wheels.

Now find a reason that isn't "you have to do it, deal with it, if you can't too bad for you you still have to I wanna watch my LPs" because I don't know if you're aware but in the corporate world that doesn't fly. Backing every decision are hours upon hours of meetings and charts and reports and, as is the case in the western world, money. And what you're proposing is known in the business world colloquially as "suicide".

furai47:

Thanatos2k:
And that's the problem - Google should have fought this all the way through. But they didn't. Once they got sued they caved, they caved and said "Ok, stop suing us and we'll do something about it" rather than "Look, your problem is with the users. We just host stuff they upload. Sue them instead." like the ISPs did.

1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10...okay.

I was hoping you'd get the implication of my previous post but no matter. ISPs CAN NOT BE SUED for their users' illegal conduct. There is no law that allows this currently that I am aware of. As I've pointed out in my previous post, some interest groups are pushing for such laws to be passed but none were succesful as of yet.
Youtube and Google CAN BE SUED for their users' illegal conduct. There are laws that allow that.

There is not comparison here. It's not that ISPs have massive balls of carbotanium, it's that they know full well they can't be sued.

Thanatos2k:
Youtube shouldn't be doing it. The users shouldn't be doing it. It should be on the onus of the copyright holder to find and send notices against infringing copyright. And if that is not "financially viable" then too bad for them.

It doesn't matter if there are 100 to 1 hit vs miss with the automated system - that 1 miss is more damaging than the 100 videos would have been if left alone.

This going to be a bit of a hyperbole, but it's necessary for you to understand what you're up against.

You're saying copyright holders should find the offending videos and send notices. Alright, I can see that appeasing the users.
Now, give me (or rather them) a reason to do so. Also please keep in mind the astronomical figures of money you've cost them by removing the automated process and forced them to employ thousands of people to watch videos back to back. Think of all the medical and psychological complications a person could face when they have a job of sitting in a chair for 8 hours and watching mostly cat videos every single day and people playing Happy Wheels.

Now find a reason that isn't "you have to do it, deal with it, if you can't too bad for you you still have to I wanna watch my LPs" because I don't know if you're aware but in the corporate world that doesn't fly. Backing every decision are hours upon hours of meetings and charts and reports and, as is the case in the western world, money. And what you're proposing is known in the business world colloquially as "suicide".

So is pissing off your cash cows which is what Youtube is doing by flagging/taking down everyone's content.TBH I'm less inclined to give a fuck about the Pro Youtube defense since you are willing to burn down a forest just to catch some thieves.This system will fail and Youtube will be forced to change it.

furai47:

Thanatos2k:
And that's the problem - Google should have fought this all the way through. But they didn't. Once they got sued they caved, they caved and said "Ok, stop suing us and we'll do something about it" rather than "Look, your problem is with the users. We just host stuff they upload. Sue them instead." like the ISPs did.

1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10...okay.

I was hoping you'd get the implication of my previous post but no matter. ISPs CAN NOT BE SUED for their users' illegal conduct. There is no law that allows this currently that I am aware of. As I've pointed out in my previous post, some interest groups are pushing for such laws to be passed but none were succesful as of yet.
Youtube and Google CAN BE SUED for their users' illegal conduct. There are laws that allow that.

There is not comparison here. It's not that ISPs have massive balls of carbotanium, it's that they know full well they can't be sued.

*sigh*

Look. The ISPs have *already* been sued. They fought and won.

Here's an example:
http://torrentfreak.com/music-rights-group-sues-isps-over-pirate-tax-130501/

Laws don't matter to copyright holders. And you better believe the copyright holders think everyone should pay. They sue and sue and most of the time their targets cave to prevent long protracted and expensive legal battles. Google used to fight those. Now they take the easy way out.

This going to be a bit of a hyperbole, but it's necessary for you to understand what you're up against.

You're saying copyright holders should find the offending videos and send notices. Alright, I can see that appeasing the users.
Now, give me (or rather them) a reason to do so. Also please keep in mind the astronomical figures of money you've cost them by removing the automated process and forced them to employ thousands of people to watch videos back to back. Think of all the medical and psychological complications a person could face when they have a job of sitting in a chair for 8 hours and watching mostly cat videos every single day and people playing Happy Wheels.

Now find a reason that isn't "you have to do it, deal with it, if you can't too bad for you you still have to I wanna watch my LPs" because I don't know if you're aware but in the corporate world that doesn't fly. Backing every decision are hours upon hours of meetings and charts and reports and, as is the case in the western world, money. And what you're proposing is known in the business world colloquially as "suicide".

Youtube doesn't make money from copyright holders. Youtube makes money from content creators, that is - their USERS. (Well they make money off the advertisements shown around that content but you know what I'm saying). Youtube *should* have incentive to fight for its users and ignore the copyright holders. After all, all the copyright holders do is take down videos reducing the amount of content that Youtube has to show, reducing their revenues.

Again, Youtube USED to thumb their nose at all but the most egregious and legitimate copyright claims, similar to how ISPs don't wish to go after people using bittorrent and the like over their networks (because those people are PAYING CUSTOMERS and if Comcast starts kicking those people off they stop sending checks...) Comcast knows when you're using bittorrent. They KNOW what you're doing is almost certainly illegal. But they don't care, and only do the bare minimum policework when someone with legitimate copyright claims tells them to stop certain activity. Youtube needs to go back to that model, and fight for themselves in court like the ISPs did.

Now they're just tools on the wrong side of the copyright war.

the hidden eagle:
So is pissing off your cash cows which is what Youtube is doing by flagging/taking down everyone's content.TBH I'm less inclined to give a fuck about the Pro Youtube defense since you are willing to burn down a forest just to catch some thieves.This system will fail and Youtube will be forced to change it.

Apparently someone important thinks more money could be lost in trials than in people ceasing to upload video game content. Also I must repeat myself, there are thousands of legit copyright infrigements caught by the system along with the legally uploaded. What you're presenting with the forest analogy is as far from the truth as Timbuktu is from where I'm sitting.

It's also funny how you think Google has to do anything about it. "The system will fail and Youtube will be forced to change it." Just how far back does your memory serve? People have been spouting trite like that since they started changing their layout. People have been doing the same when Facebook introduced changes. Every single time this happens a bunch of people get up in arms about this and that but in the end they all suck it up because they can't live without their entertainment and social media.

Youtube will stay. Short of some other company somehow gaining enough capital to rival Google you're not going to see an alternative gain as much traction. If it does, Google or one of its proxies will buy it, just like it did Youtube. The ones who are not bought out and kick off will eventually have to cave in to the same bullshit outdated copyright law that Google and Youtube have been caving to. I mean sure you have Vimeo and Blip and DailyMotion etc. but convincing people to use those instead of the familiar is going to be hard.

Lastly, lol. Trying to put me in the "pro-Youtube" camp. It's like this is a political debate.

Thanatos2k:
*sigh*

Look. The ISPs have *already* been sued. They fought and won.

Here's an example:
http://torrentfreak.com/music-rights-group-sues-isps-over-pirate-tax-130501/

They haven't had a ruling yet and you're saying they've won? Are you reading the same article I am? Also in that article you linked lies the answer the conundrum, let me quote it:

"Providing Internet access is a 'mere conduit principle': Forwarding information without any intervention also means that an Internet provider can not and should not be liable for the content distributed over the Internet,"...

ISPs forward information while Youtube stores information on their servers. That's the important distinction and why IPSs can't be as easily sued as Youtube can for copyright infringement. The latter stores copyrighted data on their servers, they are in possesion of it and if it turns out it's illegaly there then that's a bit of a hairy situation.

Thanatos2k:
Laws don't matter to copyright holders. And you better believe the copyright holders think everyone should pay. They sue and sue and most of the time their targets cave to prevent long protracted and expensive legal battles. Google used to fight those. Now they take the easy way out.

In 2010 Viacom sued Youtube and Google for 1 billion USD because of copyright infringements. The ruling was given on the 23rd of June. Following that there was an appeal which concluded on the 29th of April of this year I believe. You're wrong when you say they used to fight them or that they've given up. The content match is stricter sure, but after legal battles like that I'd be surprised if nothing was done to avoid similar things in the future.

Thanatos2k:
Youtube doesn't make money from copyright holders. Youtube makes money from content creators, that is - their USERS. (Well they make money off the advertisements shown around that content but you know what I'm saying). Youtube *should* have incentive to fight for its users and ignore the copyright holders. After all, all the copyright holders do is take down videos reducing the amount of content that Youtube has to show, reducing their revenues.

Again, Youtube USED to thumb their nose at all but the most egregious and legitimate copyright claims, similar to how ISPs don't wish to go after people using bittorrent and the like over their networks (because those people are PAYING CUSTOMERS and if Comcast starts kicking those people off they stop sending checks...) Comcast knows when you're using bittorrent. They KNOW what you're doing is almost certainly illegal. But they don't care, and only do the bare minimum policework when someone with legitimate copyright claims tells them to stop certain activity. Youtube needs to go back to that model, and fight for themselves in court like the ISPs did.

Now they're just tools on the wrong side of the copyright war.

I know Youtube makes money off of their users. I also know they're aware of how much money improperly (read: copyright infringing) content makes them. They most certainly have incentive to keep those views coming in. However, they also have incentive to try and appear nice to the copyright holders because billion USD lawsuits and lawyer fees are not negligible.

I've adressed the second paragraph above already. By the way look at the case when you have the time. You should be able to find it under something like Viacom International versus YouTube. Wikipedia has a half decend article on it but it's barebones and missing some important details. I'd suggest the actual court case. It's an interesting read or listen, whichever you prefer.

I'm off to uni so I'll be posting when I get back.

Having at one time been a youtube Let's Player, I understand full well how difficult it can be to make content and avoid copyright infringment. seeing these companies make it that much harder for what is essentially free advertising for them, and a potential way of life for me is disgusting.

... Also I like your new hat Jim.

So, this guy says that Jim is wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-S6Bj3r-JM

Is this guy right?

Judging by what he said, his points make enough sense I guess. I dunno, it just confuses me now.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here