Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Legal Briefs

View
11 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

11. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 26, 2012, 13:08 Orogogus
 
I'd think the biggest difference is that it's a lot harder to find, say, a full copy of Transformers 3 on YouTube, or even the whole thing broken up into 15 minute sections.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 26, 2012, 10:16 zirik
 
Crustacean Soup wrote on Jan 26, 2012, 03:06:
Youtube is neither expected nor required to manually monitor their entire repitoire of videos to look for infringing content.

does that law only apply to youtube? part of the case filed against megaupload by DOJ is that they do not remove illegal content even if they have not received DMCA notice. are they required to or not?

However, to ease the process, reduce the amount of work needed to go through all the takedown requests, and placate the media companies so they'll do business with Youtube, they do provide additional tools for the media companies' use.

again. the same with megaupload. they even have an individual whose sole purpose is to process DMCA take down requests. megaupload also provides tools for copyright holders so that they can remove content without notifying megaupload as already reported by some online tech sites. time warner used to have the ability to remove 2500 infringing content per day and when they requested more they were given 5000 per day. what else do you want to say about youtube that megaupload has not done in order to please copyright holders? are we gonna see schmidt and company get arrested and google/youtube assets confiscated anytime soon?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 26, 2012, 03:06 Crustacean Soup
 
zirik wrote on Jan 26, 2012, 00:42:
Beamer wrote on Jan 25, 2012, 16:46:
Differences:
1) YouTube actually takes down infringing content. MegaUpload would just take down the URL that was reported. The content remained, and most content had dozens, hundreds, and in some cases even thousands of URLs. Only the reported URLs went down, not the content, so the other URLs worked fine.

no they dont take down infringing content. it is easy to find URLs linking to illegal files from youtube videos. and those are two year old videos that earn youtube cash from serving ads.

Youtube takes down infringing links when they're provided with a DMCA takedown notice, which is all they're required to do by law. MU allegedly did not.

Youtube is neither expected nor required to manually monitor their entire repitoire of videos to look for infringing content. However, to ease the process, reduce the amount of work needed to go through all the takedown requests, and placate the media companies so they'll do business with Youtube, they do provide additional tools for the media companies' use.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 26, 2012, 00:42 zirik
 
Beamer wrote on Jan 25, 2012, 16:46:
Differences:
1) YouTube actually takes down infringing content. MegaUpload would just take down the URL that was reported. The content remained, and most content had dozens, hundreds, and in some cases even thousands of URLs. Only the reported URLs went down, not the content, so the other URLs worked fine.

no they dont take down infringing content. it is easy to find URLs linking to illegal files from youtube videos. and those are two year old videos that earn youtube cash from serving ads.

2) YouTube is compressed versions made to run solely through streaming. MegaUpload are true mp3s/mpgs/whatever made to be available anywhere, any time. Yes, you can work around this if you want, it's virtually impossible to prevent, but you're still left with a crappy version.

so you are saying its okay to pirate as long as its a crappy version? sony will not be happy with your concept of fair use since a majority of pirated PS2, PSP and PS3 games have reduced audio bit rate. the ones demonstrated as working using modded equipment or emulators on youtube with surprise, surprise... links to where they can be downloaded.

3) YouTube worked with content creators and paid them licensing fees. MegaUpload does none of this.

youtube is still fighting legal battles between content creators. judging from the amount of pay per view videos uploaded every time there is a big event they dont seem to be in a hurry to pay licensing fees. the only reason they didnt get taken offline like megaupload is the safe harbor status given to them by the DOJ. why was megaupload not given a chance to fix their problem? megaupload had a DMCA representative that handled take down requests. they could not be served with a cease and desist? they also had a legal representative in the US for at least a year before being taken down last week.

4) YouTube never flaunted being pirate providers. It never worked with pirates. It has actively worked against this. MegaUpload bragged about being a tool of piracy.

youtube started out by serving pirated content uploaded by users. their co-founder "borrowed" content from other sites to put on youtube. if youtube actively worked against piracy they wont be as popular today.

This isn't blaming the medium for the content. MegaUpload wasn't some innocent person whose restaurant was used for drug deals. MegaUpload was a drug ring that existed solely for trafficking drugs.

except that the drug can be found elsewhere even in legal sites like youtube. they wont hand the drug to you but they will point you in the right direction to get it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 26, 2012, 00:06 zirik
 
Beamer wrote on Jan 25, 2012, 10:28:
zirik wrote on Jan 25, 2012, 10:25:
difference between youtube and megaupload is the amount of money they gave to politicians in the US. safe harbor status can be bought.

Really?
That's the only difference?



Really?

yes really. the case between youtube and viacom already mentioned an internal youtube email referring to one of the co-founders blatantly borrowing content from other sites without permission.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 25, 2012, 19:44 Tom
 
Hmm. YouTube 1080p Blu-ray-esque? How so? YouTube 1080p tops out at about 8Mbps. Blu-ray video can do 40Mbps. That's a factor of 5. And YouTube often can't even sustain the necessary throughput for its 720p, let alone 1080p. Hope you like buffering.

YouTube has the necessary UI and bitrate categorization for streaming 1080p, but with the low bitrate it's just low quality streaming. It's like 64kbps vs 320kbps MP3. Huge difference.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 25, 2012, 17:56 Scheherazade
 
It's a generic system which allows multiple uploads to link to the same data, if the uploaded file is identical.
It saves on storage, and also evaluates file access on an individual uploader basis. Some of the uploaders may have rights to the files, and some may not. In a shared resource system, you can't remove the content until all links are dead, otherwise people with legitimate rights to the files would have broken links.

The system is sound... but it got played. Re-uploading 10000 times made the link count insane, and unenforceable without allowing action that would risk breaking a lot of legitimate links (deleting data).

A more interesting question is :
Did the creators deliberately design a system that is easy to game, in order to protect copyright infringement under the guise of providing uninterrupted service for legitimate accounts?
And even if it was, does intent take precedence over action?

Recently, youtube video quality goes up to 1080P. Blue-ray-esque.
True, nit-pickers might care and want the MKV's...

True, youtube royalties have helped their situation.

Youtube creators also had emails chatting about how they uploaded copyrighted video.
Regardless, the behavior of the individuals is not important. A few individuals uploading a few individual files is not worth this level of effort by the authorities.
Like it was in youtube's law suit, the personal behavior of the creators does not make the service. It's the methodology/implementation of the megaupload service that's in question.

(Ultimately, it's the users that put 99.999...% of the infringing data onto the mega servers.)

I'll be interested to see if they can argue that the 'nature of the space-saving system architecture necessitated soft-deletion', since that's really the only legal snag. If it's shown to not be an excuse, then it may affect cloud storage as a whole.
Imagine you could have uploaded your own DVDs, to back them up and so you can access them while on travel from your laptop, which would fall into fair use.
Then someone else uploads an identical rip, and you are cross hashed.
Then if the pirate copy MUST be hard deleted for compliance, yours gets nuked too.
To avoid that, they'd need to allow individual copies of matching data, which would raise costs of cloud storage.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Jan 25, 2012, 18:12.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 25, 2012, 16:46 Beamer
 
Differences:
1) YouTube actually takes down infringing content. MegaUpload would just take down the URL that was reported. The content remained, and most content had dozens, hundreds, and in some cases even thousands of URLs. Only the reported URLs went down, not the content, so the other URLs worked fine.

2) YouTube is compressed versions made to run solely through streaming. MegaUpload are true mp3s/mpgs/whatever made to be available anywhere, any time. Yes, you can work around this if you want, it's virtually impossible to prevent, but you're still left with a crappy version.

3) YouTube worked with content creators and paid them licensing fees. MegaUpload does none of this.

4) YouTube never flaunted being pirate providers. It never worked with pirates. It has actively worked against this. MegaUpload bragged about being a tool of piracy.


This isn't blaming the medium for the content. MegaUpload wasn't some innocent person whose restaurant was used for drug deals. MegaUpload was a drug ring that existed solely for trafficking drugs.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 25, 2012, 16:12 Scheherazade
 
megaupload doesn't just do videos...

But yeah, not much difference between mega and youtube.

Both have gobs of content infringing material.

You could say that youtube doesn't let you download the files... but really it does.
That's the stuff in your user temp folder, *.tmp files.
You're only a shadowcopy and rename away from having them forever...

Still, I don't support blaming the medium for the content.
Might as well start charging the state with being accessory to "every crime where the criminal drove on a state road to get to the place of incident".
Ultimately, there has to be an easier way for content makers to go after the true infringers... while not hurting people who have fair use, and not hurting service providers, and not trampling on privacy. Ideally with consequences more in line with the offense, not these insane 150'000 usd per song penalties.

-scheherazade


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 25, 2012, 10:28 Beamer
 
zirik wrote on Jan 25, 2012, 10:25:
difference between youtube and megaupload is the amount of money they gave to politicians in the US. safe harbor status can be bought.

Really?
That's the only difference?



Really?
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 25, 2012, 10:25 zirik
 
difference between youtube and megaupload is the amount of money they gave to politicians in the US. safe harbor status can be bought.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo