YouTube ethics

[Vexx]

As long as we're clear that Viacom is no more a "content provider" than Google/Youtube, carry on. Viacom is just another middleman, in this case one who leeches the rights to materials off of the actual creators (the ones who rarely see any proceeds because Viacom accounting practices mean no product ever "makes money").

The real innovation that Youtube provides is that --- individuals and groups can produce entertainment (yes, all those silly jackass-type clips) that don't require thugs that the RIAA/MPAA are mouthpieces for.

The lawsuit is one of the Great Battles over who controls or provides access.

On the other topic of "metaword" misuse. <shrug> Youtube should have a report function to slap this sort of stuff but its an arms race of subterfuge.

[no common sense]

Vexx, I am so glad there is someone else out there who sees this the same as I do, I couldn't have said it any better.

[Zu Ra]

This is just a case of Bad Indexing . It has nothing to do much with ethics anyone and everyone can upload a vid on YouTube its impossible for everyone to index properly .

But its quite a pain takes long time to search videos

[kiba122]

thoses guy's make me mad i had my mom over for my birth day i was looking for a funny prank call it came up with porn my mom started to yell at me

[Zu Ra]

Yeah it ticks you off muchos . Rather than the people posting those videos Youtube has to take the blame . Even moron's have rights to post videos but its upto YouTube to see they are indexed/sorted properly

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Geta Boshi

This is just a case of Bad Indexing . It has nothing to do much with ethics anyone and everyone can upload a vid on YouTube its impossible for everyone to index properly .

I partially agree with the indexing part. I think a feature to youtube can be added to minimize the importance of such videos when they appear in the search results, more like an indexing flag, or just remove them from the search results completely depending on the seriousness of the flag. At the same time, flag the user (some kind of warning) and force him/her to reupload the video. This might improve the indexing process. There will be some glitches, that is for sure, but as people start to avoid that wrong indexing more and more, it will take care of itself to some extent.

[Maritime]

YouTube may be badly managed and full of useless junk but without it I would never have seen any of my favourite TV shows and certainly not got into Anime at all. The Internet and Piracy will always go hand in hand - that's an undenyable fact, but Piracy can often expose people to new things that they wouldn't otherwise have had access to, subsequently after discovering these new things people will become customers. Companies like Viacom and all the rest shouldn't be trying to shutdown sites like YouTube, they should be working with it to help their products reach a bigger audience.

Then again, I guess it's far easier for a company to call a team of lawyers and file a lawsuit than it is to sit down and do something constructive.

[felix]

@ SpiderBraids

> "I will go on the record to say that I do neither of these. Ethical all the way!"

Some shows just don't get licensed.
While torrents are good and all they tend to decay, especially if it's a more 'original' show. Torrents really aren't meant as a long-term thing. Youtube is just great in that respect, if you happen to hear about some anime and want to see it, or have a quick glimpse of it Youtube's the place.

Sure quality is bad, but considering most shows where the animation quality was a factor get licensed there isn't much of a problem.

---

There's also the scenario where the show isn't licensed yet (very likely it will) and the torrents 1 seed at best. You could download them at 500b/s but some people can't wait... Watch the story now, rewatch it for the animation using the DVDs later.

[Lexander]

The only times I find myself on youtube is when a friend links me to a video or I just want to show someone something I've seen a long time ago.

For full TV shows youtube is not a great source. On demand usually has enough interesting programming, so it hasn't stopped me from watching television.

Also ... I really don't see what is so wrong about watching your favorite show on youtube if you pay to get that show on your television.

[Tasdern]

Technically, all fansubs are violating copyrights. You don't have to sell something to violate the law. Just copying without permission is enough.

The copyright laws in the US are easy to understand. There is no ‘grey’ area, its just that enforcement is lax. Note: you do NOT need a copyright statement or the ‘circle C’ to have a copyright.

All that has to happen is that something is put onto a tangible medium. It could be paper, film, tape, stone, canvas, whatever. At that moment, it is copyrighted and the author enjoys all protections of the constitution and the copyright law. It does not matter where this was done, just that it was.

Youtube is in for a major hurting. They are violating the law on a massive scale. Much more than MP3.com which had some standing in its case. (It required the user to have an actual CD before the user could download the MP3 versions. But it was ruled that just making and storing the copies on its servers was a violation of the law.)

There was a case a few years back where a bunch of high school cheerleaders posed for a picture taken by the cell phone of one of its members or friends. The girls were in their uniforms but posing in a very suggestive manner. This photo was circulated around and ended up on a porn site. At which point the porn site operator was investigated on charges of child porn since the girls were under age. Since the photo was technically not pornographic, those charges were dropped but he and some others were charged with a copyright violation for resending the photo – even though it was freely given to them. BTW, once the photo surfaced on the web, the girls and cheerleading squad were investigated as well and the cheerleading program was canceled at the school. It was a very messy scene. But they nabbed the guys on a copyright violation.

If the Gov’t found gigabytes of fansubs on your computers and they were investigating you for something, they very well might tack on copyright violations for each fansub AND any proof that you have redistributed them. Why prove a drug charge that is shaky when they have you nailed for a copyright violation? Even now prosecutors know to search for MP3 files and they do add charges when they find them. And to make it worse, YOU have to prove they were not illegally downloaded.

~Tasdern

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Tasdern

Youtube is in for a major hurting. They are violating the law on a massive scale. Much more than MP3.com which had some standing in its case. (It required the user to have an actual CD before the user could download the MP3 versions. But it was ruled that just making and storing the copies on its servers was a violation of the law.)

ISPs like YouTube were exempted from copyright liability for material uploaded by their users under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. In return ISPs are required to remove infringing material if the copyright holder of those items requests it. Google, YouTube's corporate parent, does comply with these requests. You'll notice, for instance, a lot of anime has been removed from YouTube in response to requests from Japanese copyright holders. Nevertheless Viacom would like the court to rule that Google is a "contributory infringer" rather than a passive entity as envisioned in the DMCA exemption. See, for instance, this Newsweek article on the suit for a decent overview of the issues involved.

In the MP3.com case, MP3 itself made the copies and placed them on its servers. In this case the ISP exemption obviously didn't apply.

If the Gov’t found gigabytes of fansubs on your computers and they were investigating you for something, they very well might tack on copyright violations for each fansub AND any proof that you have redistributed them.

"You" obviously don't qualify for the exemption either.

[Azrael_Azure]

YouTube has no ethics, it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money. You should seriously question yourself as to whether or not you believe money, or entertainment, to have ever had actual ethics.

Piracy has been going on for years and years, there has not been any major impact upon the entertainment, and music industries. The only thing they seem to be bitiching about is prehaps a slight loss in sales, so from say $1,000,000,000 to lose only about a hundred million. They're still rolling in it, no matter what happens.

When YouTube was created I believe the company knew full well what they were doing, and did not have any immediate intention on preventing copyright infringments. Because ultimately, suing aside, they made more money out of letting people commit acts of priacy than preventing it. One simple reason, the site was hella popular.

[Vexx]

This is also swirled up in the whole meaning of copyright, Creative Commons, and that imaginary goblin called "intellectual property rights" (which does not actually legally exists as much as certain corporations and a pack of lawyers would like to make it so).
The meanings are not fixed, they have evolved over time -- some say bribed into their present condition. The Public domain and the Creative Commons has suffered in the last few decades. So far, my biggest observation is that anyone who tells you that inventors and artists will stop creating if we don't have strong DRM and ever-more stringent controls is ignoring 40,000 years of art and invention versus a few decades of this "IP" bullshit. Follow the money to see who's really pushing agendas.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Lexander

Also ... I really don't see what is so wrong about watching your favorite show on youtube if you pay to get that show on your television.

As long as the owners get paid for those showings (compensated in some ways), it would be considered as right. That is why, Fox or others broadcast channels put their shows on the web by also including commercials with them. Also, not for all the programs, you have to pay for watching, especially if it is also broadcasted.

I believe, if those youtube showings were to be proved as increasing the demand of that showing on TV by increasing the popularity (increase the number of watchers that count for them in addition to the commercial advantages come with that additional showings), the CEO's of those companies would be the first to upload those videos on Youtube.

I wouldn't mind watching a few minutes of commercials while watching those full-hour programs on the web, if I am going to be shown a good quality feature. However, for the music videos I consider it differently. I don't think putting a video with that low quality would be bad for the music companies, as they claim so. It is most probably going to help many bands of those companies in terms of gaining more audience attention, which usually translate to higher number of sales.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

In return ISPs are required to remove infringing material if the copyright holder of those items requests it. Google, YouTube's corporate parent, does comply with these requests.

I think Youtube's case is different than a regular ISP's case who may not have the chance to block the content efficiently. In Youtube's case, the content that is placed on the site can be checked beforehand to determine its legality, and it can be done in a more efficient way.

Originally Posted by Azrael_Azure

Because ultimately, suing aside, they made more money out of letting people commit acts of priacy than preventing it. One simple reason, the site was hella popular.

Actually, at the beginning they haven't made much money, and that is why they weren't sued.

Originally Posted by Vexx

So far, my biggest observation is that anyone who tells you that inventors and artists will stop creating if we don't have strong DRM and ever-more stringent controls is ignoring 40,000 years of art and invention versus a few decades of this "IP" bullshit. Follow the money to see who's really pushing agendas.

Compared to before, the money to be shared is much much bigger. And, the number to eat from that amount has also grown bigger, in the last few decades considerably.

So, even though, what you say is right on the basis, for many different types of art where the money to be shared is not large, for the ones that share huge money, that statement has some truth to it. Not in terms of artists stop creating, but in terms of the creations getting processed instead of getting presented as raw meat and thrown to trash before getting eaten. The artists need the ones who push the agendas, if they want to create and present better products; and if those money-eaters decide to cut the resources, they are expected to affect the number of productions negatively. And that would have some negative impact on us listeners, who expect to find some good quality products finding instead lower quality marketable products, in a higher ratio.

[Edgewalker]

even if youtube survive it will not be fun, if there are so many things that will get banned. absolutely horrible...

And then a random youtube knockoff will rise to the throne.

Everyone uses new youtube.

New youtube gets popular.

New lawsuit.

New Youtube dies.

Rinse, wash, repeat.


I love the internet

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Sazelyt

I think Youtube's case is different than a regular ISP's case who may not have the chance to block the content efficiently. In Youtube's case, the content that is placed on the site can be checked beforehand to determine its legality, and it can be done in a more efficient way.

Actually I believe that if YouTube did develop some method for pre-screening uploads it would put them at greater risk legally. Once you start pre-screening content you're heading down a slippery road. What if I fail to identify your copyrighted work in advance and allow it to be stored on my server? Now, suddenly, I'm really open to "contributory infringement" claims since I presumably could have blocked or deleted this upload, but failed to do so. The DMCA exemption assumes passivity on the part of ISPs unless they receive a "take-down" request from a copyright holder. If I were YouTube, I'd want to make sure I didn't pre-screen anything and just waited for those requests to roll in. Viacom doesn't like this model because it puts the onus on them, but I can assure you that firms like Viacom were listened to closely by Congress before the DMCA was passed. They're just unhappy that the deal they agreed to then no longer seems quite so appealing. Not to mention that now there are some ISPs with pretty deep pockets who make a much more attractive target for litigation than the mom-and-pop ISPs of ten years ago.

In the US, copyright law is one of those areas where most of what's passed reflects a lot of private consultation between Congress and the affected industries. Usually what's decided represents a series of compromises among the various interested parties. That's why copyright law (and patent law as well) has gone so far beyond the Constitution's rationale of promoting "the progress of science and useful arts." The founders envisioned time-limited patents and copyrights as helping to preserve a balance between the public's interest in the free flow of information with the need to reward "authors and inventors" for their discoveries. When copyright is extended from 25 to 75 years after the author dies, at what point does the public get its due? Will we see son-of-Sonny-Bono be passed when the copyright on Mickey Mouse once again approaches expiry? How long will it be extended then? After all, the Supreme Court said it only need be a "limited" period. A millenium is limited, too.

Unfortunately there are few representatives of the public in the corridors of power when these laws are written and passed. Other than a couple of politically-weak organizations like the American Library Association, no one speaks for the public interest when policies about intellectual property are made.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Actually I believe that if YouTube did develop some method for pre-screening uploads it would put them at greater risk legally. Once you start pre-screening content you're heading down a slippery road. What if I fail to identify your copyrighted work in advance and allow it to be stored on my server? Now, suddenly, I'm really open to "contributory infringement" claims since I presumably could have blocked or deleted this upload, but failed to do so.

I don't think that would be the case.

If I am not mistaken, in a related program, a person who developed an algorithm for that purpose was interviewed, and he explained both the advantages and the disadvantages of implementing it. In short, it is not perfect. If the video is processed in some way (i.e., cropped), it may fail to determine. But, the important thing would be, the company (google in our case) will be developing the algorithm, based on a full agreement with the companies. So, currently assuming that the catch ratio depends mostly on the companies, that ratio might be less than 1%. If they implement the algorithm above, and if they can increase that ratio over 70-80%, I think the companies would be much more happy and grateful. As they continue to work on the algorithm, they can improve the efficiency further and further. I think, that is something the companies expect to happen in the future (if releasing the content is not approved by the company block it using the algorithm).

The DMCA exemption assumes passivity on the part of ISPs unless they receive a "take-down" request from a copyright holder. If I were YouTube, I'd want to make sure I didn't pre-screen anything and just waited for those requests to roll in. Viacom doesn't like this model because it puts the onus on them, but I can assure you that firms like Viacom were listened to closely by Congress before the DMCA was passed. They're just unhappy that the deal they agreed to then no longer seems quite so appealing. Not to mention that now there are some ISPs with pretty deep pockets who make a much more attractive target for litigation than the mom-and-pop ISPs of ten years ago.

I guess, that was long time ago, when mp3 or other content were hugely hosted by the web sites. Considering their point of view, I think, if they want to change that law, they might achieve success, especially if implementing such efficient automatic-catch algorithms are possible. And, I am sure they will take advantage of the currently implemented algorithms, developed for that purpose.

Unfortunately there are few representatives of the public in the corridors of power when these laws are written and passed. Other than a couple of politically-weak organizations like the American Library Association, no one speaks for the public interest when policies about intellectual property are made.

That is true. But, still, the companies would not want to create extra burden also on themselves if what they propose might cause huge negative reaction in the public. So, that hesitation is also some plus for us.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Sazelyt

But, still, the companies would not want to create extra burden also on themselves if what they propose might cause huge negative reaction in the public. So, that hesitation is also some plus for us.

I wish I could agree with you here, Sazelyt. Unfortunately what I see is the representatives of Sony, Time Warner, EMI, and the like (aka the Recording Industry Association of America) suing disabled retirees and attempting to depose ten-year-olds because some of their copyrighted works might have been downloaded to computers in those people's homes. Sadly I don't see much of a "huge negative reaction" in the American public to these events. In fact, I don't see any reaction at all.

I believe, like I suspect do you, that creators deserve to be fairly compensated for their works. But I also think that the large, cartelized purveyors of mainstream entertainment continue to pursue a business model that clearly has little future in a world where both reproduction and redistribution of digitized works is easy, widespread, and growing rapidly. (I hardly need make this point on a forum devoted to torrented fansubs of copyrighted Japanese animated works.) On the audio side, we've already begun to see artists attempt to sell their works directly to listeners without the need for the cartels. My guess is that independent video artists will begin to do the same. As to what will happen to people like Britney Spears or to Hollywood films that's anyone's guess, though I doubt either of them will completely disappear.

What I find most troubling is the ever-diminishing size of the public space in America and the reduction in what we've traditionally seen as "fair use" of copyrighted works though both legal and technological means (DRM, etc.). I don't think "fair use" extends to my copying a CD and distributing that copy to thousands of people around the globe. I do think I should be able to watch a DVD on my DVD player, or on my computer, or even make a copy of it for later viewing on my portable media player. Organizations like the RIAA and the Motion Picture Association of America would prefer a world where I have to pay them repeatedly for those copies. In fact, in the best of all worlds from their perspective, I'd have to pay for every viewing of a work. Unfortunately other large organizations like Intel and Microsoft have now collaborated with the content providers to build hardware and software designed precisely to limit my ability to do any of these things. Meanwhile our legislators seem to approve of this behavior and, through provisions like the no-circumvention clauses in the DMCA, even make it illegal for me to engage in any practice that might give me back some of the rights I once had. So to watch a DVD I purchased legally on my Linux computer, I'm forced to violate American law by installing software like DeCSS. Policies like these are turning millions of Americans, particularly the next generation of citizens, into scofflaws every day and do little to create a reasonable balance between the rights of creators and the interests of the public for whom the monopoly called copyright was originally created.

[WanderingKnight]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

On the audio side, we've already begun to see artists attempt to sell their works directly to listeners without the need for the cartels. My guess is that independent video artists will begin to do the same.

That, my friend, will be the best thing that could happen to the entertainment industry. To stop being a monopolistic industry at all. Maybe, thanks to the Internet, this can finally happen.

[WhiteWings]

Yeah, and there’s no going back. It's a whole new world.

Still, all that fuss does shed light on a problem that goes in so many ways. To give internet total free rein over everything is irresponsible and stupid but to attempt to control the flow of information and usage is just potentially just as harmful. But what are you gonna do? Everything needs restrictions and boundaries.

But even if there are effective methods that don’t defeat the benefits and goodness of the internet exist then there’s a problem of trying to enforce them on different nations. I just wonder if trying to enforce copyrights and protecting media contents with security with real effectiveness is even remotely economically feasible.

In the end it’s up to the internet community and its members to keep themselves in check and that’s not that encouraging at all.