Richard,

I think we largely agree on all this really. Do you mean one violation as in one thing being posted? Or one violation as in failing once to take down an offending piece? I am pretty sure it is the latter.

I actually really love the Chad Vader short:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wGR4-SeuJ0

And my new hero, 1.6M views in two weeks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6tlw-oPDBM&NR
Time-lapse of a man putting on 155 T-shirts at the same time.

I found out that YouTube is very clear in its own Terms of Use section that user submissions may not include copyrighted material. Obviously no one reads the Terms of Use as evidenced by all the breeches. Also in a special copyright section they lay out the procedure for Complaints of Copyright Abuse.


Okay fine, but I think that a judge somewhere is going to make YouTube be more proactive in enforcing their own Use Policies vs letting things fall where they fall.

But I will say that if I owned copyright to a short video and it got ripped and uploaded on YouTube, I would get me a dang good copyright lawyer and make sure it didn't happpen again.

But that's just me.

As we all know theirs a lot of opinions going around over rather Google made the right choice in accruing YouTube but I feel it’s a very strong move because it’s going to be tough competing against a lot of companies putting videos online and this finally puts Google up their with the big boys. Rupert Murdoch wanted to acquire it as well and if that happened, you can say goodbye to Google’s future video business. So just put yourself in Google’s shoes. Risk copyright violations that can easily end in a settlement that’s good for both sides or try to compete against a combination of MySpace and YouTube. If I was in charge of Google I would definitely not let Rupert Murdoch destroy the competition by buying YouTube. Right now Rupert Murdoch is so worried about the potential YouTube will have to Google, he is trying to make an advertising deal with Google. Since Rupert Murdoch lost the chance to buy YouTube, don’t be surprised if he tries to buy Putfile or any other small video hosting service.

When you have 2 very big companies such as News Corp and Google wanting to buy YouTube, it must be a good deal.

I forgot to say that Viacom and Yahoo was also trying to buy Youtube.

Here an interesting article about YouTube’s copyright battles.
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/1...unclean-hands/

Posting clips from TV or otherwise is UNSTOPPABLE, period the end. Like Google just stated, you either fight them at a no win situation, or you join them and make money. In fact, it would be foolish for them to think it will be stopped regardless of what the courts rule. If it isn't Youtube, it will be some website in Indonisia or China that allow posting video clips, where their jurisdiction cannot reach.

Another thought is that is has helped so many people with their movies. For example, the new Sasha Baron Cohen, BORAT, is getting a TON of free promotion with the ads on youtube. Similar to the same way Blair Witch Project was promoted.

I did see on a Sunday morning news show today that there is an agreement in place with CBS for revenue sharing. So, they pay a portion of their ad revenue to CBS for the abiility to have CBS's IP on their site.

I suspect similar agreements will be reached with other media outlets.

-gb-

That's the only way they will win. Suing and winning will force bankruptcy, and start a dozen new companies that will do the same. Its a losing battle. If it isn't youtune it will be another. Itunes advanced technology, but cannot stop free illegal downloading such as limewire etc. Its the nature of the beast.

YouTube deletes nearly 30,000 copyrighted files
 

YouTube shared user data with studio lawyers
 

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...4E9%7D&siteid=

Thanks for the post Boyd, I hadn't seen that.

For all those who argue 'you can't stop it' regarding copyright infringement, or "Everyone does it"... or 'How are you going to catch everyone'... you don't have to catch everyone. Just enough people to stem the tide.

If you DON'T protect your copyrights and trademarks, you run the risk of allowing them to fall into the public domain. So it becomes a matter of picking and choosing their battles.

The question for the infringer is ".... do ya feel lucky, PUNK? Well... do ya???"

(Apologies to Dirty Harry)

So if you look at music download, who really won? the record companies??? the artists??? Nope the lawyers, and ultimately companies like Apple that addressed the fundamantal underlying problem and continues to make a ton of money from it. The smart IP owners figure out how to turn it into a profitable legal business where they win.

One of these days it will get back to legislation, and an intelligent approach will be implimented. Just think if when books came out if it were illegal for anyone else from the original purchaser to read the buck without paying a fee where we would be. Fact is the market is not driven by millions of pirates, it is driven by people who want to share what they find interesting, and would be happy to do it legally. Google MIGHT have the brains and money to get something worked out, OR ELSE it will become one of the worst Business decisions Google ever did.

Is a sense the argument that just because everyone does it, at some point does tend to change things, we used to have Probition here in the US. Eventually people realized the smart approach was to regulate it and make money off it, not force it underground.

The original IP owners need to come up with a reasonable model that allows them to make some money, there is a HUGH NEW MARKET out there, with plenty of economic opportunities, but will they learn from the Record Companies??

Sharyn

Google video slapped with copyright suit
 

The big shoe dropped and the pile on begins now. Viacom sues YouTube for one billion dollars. Google messed up by buying You Tube.

Google didn’t mess up on buying YouTube at all. News Corp would have bought YouTube if it wasn’t for Google. Google would have suffered even more than they are right now competing with a News Corp/MySpace/YouTube combination. They really had no choice.

Viacom was also thinking about buying YouTube so it looks like this is a little payback although News Corp had a better chance than Viacom.

You right. With their stock (Google) at more than $400/share, they had no choice. I think News Corp. and Viacom baited Google all along.

I've been saying since this summer that the emperor has no clothes. You can argue strategic market share, eye balls, and advertising/revenue sharing, and those are valid points. My view is that from a legal standpoint, they we're playing with fire, but they were blinded by all of those eyeballs.

And the number of lawsuits are going to explode. In fact, there is the possibility of an injuction by a U.S. District judge in New York to shut it down completely. Even the freelance video guy that shot the Reginald Denney beatings from LA in early 90's is going after You Tube for a few million.

The problem is as soon as You Tube removes a copyrighted clip, some one else loads up the same clip the next day. It will be a never ending battle, because the average person doesn't understand that these programs, through their copyright, have monetary value and they are prohibited by law for rebroadcast without permission. And Viacom has monitored You Tube and stated that on average there are around 160,000 breeches of copyright a day. And that is just with Viacom content.

Mark my word, Google is going to loose Billions of Dollars on You Tube. Plus another Billion in the Viacom lawsuit. Plus if the federal courts shut it down, there goes it's initial multi-billion dollar investment. If you have Google stock, you might want to start selling it and cash out.

And that's all I have to say about that, Sincerely Forrest.