backtop

Internet YouTube Gets Sued by News Company
Tuan Nguyen (Blog) - July 18, 2006 9:01 AM
Print 32 comment(s) - last by cubby1223.. on Jul 19 at 12:02 PM
YouTube gets sued for videos its members upload

Los Angeles News Service along with its owner Robert Tur, have filed a lawsuit against YouTube, alleging that the online video sharing website infringed on copyrights. Tur is also suing YouTube for allowing its users to upload a video of Reginald Denny, a trucker that was beat up during 1992 riots.

Tur said that he has spent millions of dollars to protect his work and is appalled at the content that's available on YouTube. Tur himself is an award-winning journalist who is also a helicopter pilot with copyrights for many footages. In fact, Tur captured O.J. Simpson's runaway chase on the freeway.

In the lawsuit, Tur says that ""the scope of the infringements is akin to a murky moving target, in that videos uploaded are not identified by copyright owner or registration number but rather by the uploader's idiosyncratic choice of descriptive terms to describe the content of the video -- tags -- making it extremely impractical to identify plaintiff's copyrighted works."

Tur and his company is seeking $150,000 for each piece of work that has been infringed upon. His company is also seeking a court order that would forbid YouTube from allowing users to post his work.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Youtube polices its content... within reason
By Acanthus on 7/18/2006 9:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
Users who are submitting the files are ultimately responsible legally afaik.




RE: Youtube polices its content... within reason
By rrsurfer1 on 7/18/2006 9:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
It can still be sued however, on the basis that it is not policing content effectively enough. It would be one thing if YouTube simply hosted the addresses of the files, but since they host the content itself they have a duty to make sure it is legal. It's not all on the users.


RE: Youtube polices its content... within reason
By EarthsDM on 7/18/2006 10:02:53 AM , Rating: 2
Once something is broadcast on national news you can make a case that it is open domain. The footage is something that news networks give away for free. While I can agree that there are cases of copyright infringement on YouTube, this appears to be a poor example. If anything, this man should post his old videos as advertising for his services.

Discussion Topic: "If you can copyright the news, is democracy better served? Could the White House have stopped the New York Times from publishing the 'Pentagon Papers' during the Vietnam War by copyrighting them?"

Note: I am not trying to compare Robert Tur to Richard Nixon (that would be horrible and unfair) but the question is the same.


RE: Youtube polices its content... within reason
By TomZ on 7/18/2006 10:59:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Once something is broadcast on national news you can make a case that it is open domain. The footage is something that news networks give away for free.

Last time I watched the news, or visited cnn.com, I saw lots of copyright notices. I'm not sure the news organizations, or legal precedent, agree with you.


By rrsurfer1 on 7/18/2006 11:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, I don't think this argument holds up. The Simpsons are broadcast OTA for free, but it's still illegal to distribute copies.


By marvdmartian on 7/18/2006 2:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
That would depend on their TOS. If they've put any statement that basically says, "If you find your copyrighted material here, let us know and we'll take it down", then the uploader is to blame, not the site the material was uploaded to. Most places that offer free website space give standard copyright notices, and make certain to say that they'll take down your web page if they receive a copyright complaint about it, and just about any place I can think of that offers free file uploading/downloading services (rapidshare, yousendit, etc) will also take down a file once a copyright complaint is filed.
If the original copyright holder lodges a complaint, and youtube did nothing to take down the material (and a blanket "get my stuff off your website, wherever it is" does NOT cut it), then they have the right to sue youtube. If they've made no complaint, then I hope they enjoy paying their high priced mouthpieces, cuz they're likely gonna get this tossed out almost immediately. The DCMA does give protection to the copyright holder, but only if they follow the rules of the DCMA.


By brystmar on 7/18/2006 9:52:17 AM , Rating: 2
Internet forum admins police their site's content within reason too, and the courts have ruled that forum owners cannot be held responsible for content added to their site by its membership.

This is clearly a different angle -- their claim is similar to how Napster claimed it wasn't responsible for its users sharing copyrighted material -- so it will be interesting to see what the courts decide.


And there is the end of youtube.com
By shamgar03 on 7/18/2006 9:53:42 AM , Rating: 2
It would seem youtube's popularity will be its own downfall. I would say 90% of the stuff on youtube is either copyrighted or contains copyrighted material (music etc). It sucks that once people see something good like this (youtube that is) all they see is the money they can make from lawsuits.




By AxemanFU on 7/18/2006 10:18:07 AM , Rating: 2
Well, they're probably mostly pissed off that they didn't think of doing it first, since the owners of most of the copyrighted material are in the media business. Old media 1-upped by new media once again.

I wonder how much of a segment of a video or music can be shown and it still be covered. I know that the media can show snippets of other's copyrighted works, or sound bites, and if they are small or short enough, they don't have to get approval, or so it seems.

I don't think minutes of video uninterrupted would fall into that category. It's sure going to be hard for youtube to vet every piece of media it gets to filter out anything already copyrighted. Maybe we'll see more nasty griding wipeouts and retards juping off apartment roofs into pools and less nascar pileups and SI photoshoots.


RE: And there is the end of youtube.com
By TomZ on 7/18/2006 11:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It would seem youtube's popularity will be its own downfall. I would say 90% of the stuff on youtube is either copyrighted or contains copyrighted material (music etc). It sucks that once people see something good like this (youtube that is) all they see is the money they can make from lawsuits.

That's a pretty one-sided view. Consider also the view of the companies that pay money to develop content. From their view, YouTube basically makes money off their content without having to pay for it.


RE: And there is the end of youtube.com
By segagenesis on 7/18/2006 11:43:03 AM , Rating: 2
Psst... Hey, uh, bro... your doing again... (points to Saturdays article and my post above)

Seriously though do you have to reply to everyone and thier kitchen sink on this kind of topic? I think we got your point of view like 50 posts ago. Just relax...


RE: And there is the end of youtube.com
By TomZ on 7/18/2006 11:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
OK, sounds good - you can take over now correcting the glaring flaws of fact and logic. I'm getting a bit tired of doing it.


RE: And there is the end of youtube.com
By segagenesis on 7/18/2006 12:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you had to remind me about this the other day... and this is the only halfway decent pic I could find on short notice...

http://jeroenr.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/in...

While we should not ignore it, the world is not coming to an end over copyright infringement. If people choose to ignore it let them... would it make it harder for you to sleep at night knowing people do this?

While this is not an attack against you per say, I see this over and over and over (cue the energizer bunny) on the same damn topic for at least the past 2 years here. Yeah, I'm growing tired of it also but it just starts looking really silly when as I said above, you have a news article and 150 comments where 75% of which seem like they are from the same two people... I thought that got grossly out of hand personally.


By TomZ on 7/18/2006 12:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, love that picture of Bush playing Reader Rabbit. My kids usually just use the mouse since it is faster than using the keyboard. Cheap shot, but there is just something inherently funny about Bush doing anything on a computer.

Seriously, I agree with you, and a couple recent topics in question did get quite out of hand, e.g., blatant personal attacks, somebody creating a new alias to pretend to be an attorney, a report by a psychiatrist claiming "malignant narcissism" - pretty wild stuff. I don't think the quantity of posts is out of hand, just the content of many of them.

The thing that inspires me to react to comments is that I believe some people post comments that are expressing opinions that do not have full exposure to the facts, are not realistic, are not logical, do not consider the other side of the argument, or do not think about the consequences of what they are suggesting. Many of these comments remind me very much of what you might hear in fictional societies like in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I am very much against having our society become more and more like that. (Excellent book if you haven't read it.)

Don't get me wrong - I'm not on any kind of crusade - I participate mainly for entertainment purposes just like everyone else. But I do think that it is good to speak up when others are saying things that you feel are wrong.


YouTube is not Napster/Grokster
By rushnrockt on 7/18/2006 3:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
If you follw the news at all, YouTube has been amazingly proactive at removing content, offensive, copyrighted or otherwise deemed inappropriate. That's one of the large differences between it and the file sharing providers.
There is more to be said in defense of YouTube, but it seems that most people attacking it here have a limited knowledge of the actual actions that YouTube takes and the laws that apply to this particular situation, so I would recommend doing some searching around first.




RE: YouTube is not Napster/Grokster
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/18/2006 5:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
You don't get points for trying, this isn't elementary school.


RE: YouTube is not Napster/Grokster
By FairUse on 7/18/2006 7:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
Master Kenobi,

I'm surprised the "force" didn't alert you to the fact that Tur, the man that sued Youtube, lived with Princess Leia, Carrie Fisher. Google him! Hahhh.


RE: YouTube is not Napster/Grokster
By rushnrockt on 7/18/2006 9:02:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't get points for trying, this isn't elementary school.


Yeah, I recommended researching the topic at hand so as to avoid statements like that. For the easy source, check out www.techdirt.com There, I gave you a spoon.


RE: YouTube is not Napster/Grokster
By TomZ on 7/18/2006 9:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, I recommended researching the topic at hand so as to avoid statements like that. For the easy source, check out www.techdirt.com There, I gave you a spoon.

IMO the criticism was somewhat deserved, since you basically did the equivalent of walking into a party, listening for a minute, and then telling everyone present they are full of baloney and walking out the door. Not exactly very social, to say the least.


By rushnrockt on 7/19/2006 12:07:15 AM , Rating: 2
It's also not very social to create whole arguments on half truths and misunderstanding of facts. I am sorry for pointing out painfully obvious fact of having to do at least some research. IMO techdirt's article on this case gives a good background for a surface understanding of the case at hand, as opposed to random opinions fighting it out here. Sorry for your feelings though, I'll shake your hand next time before giving out baloney.


FINALLY!
By Ralph The Magician on 7/18/2006 9:24:36 AM , Rating: 2
Despite the fact that I like it, YouTube is one of the biggest piracy sites on the internet. Certainly the most used and widespread. It's been my feeling that the only reason YouTube still exists is because it makes no money (yet) so no one has tried to sue them. The idea being, if and when they come up with a revenue scheme, then the studios will start dropping the lawsuits like hotcakes.




RE: FINALLY!
By Digobick on 7/18/2006 9:48:55 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, YouTube is viewed as an ISP, and they are protected by the DMCA. Should be an interesting fight.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060716-7273...


RE: FINALLY!
By TomZ on 7/18/2006 10:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
I'd be surprised if that legal theory gets them anywhere. After all, if that were an available legal defense, wouldn't others like Napster have been able to use it?

In any case, such a dubious legal theory will not keep the lawsuits away. YouTube's future will probably be spending tons of money defending itself from a number of lawsuits. Hardly an ideal business model from that perspective.


RE: FINALLY!
By Ralph The Magician on 7/19/2006 12:08:18 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, what the fuck? Torrent sites don't host ANY OF THE DATA, yet the MPAA and RIAA are all over them.

So you are telling me I can make a website called moviesbyyou.com, and as long as other users upload the movies, it's kosher? You've got to be shitting me. That's the most ridiculous, and erroroneous, thing I've ever heard. Whoever wrote that Ars article is an idiot.

How is YouTube an ISP? YouTube is a website. It's a website with a database that has thousands of videos which are uploaded by users. It's like Napster, only with a central sever where all the songs go.

Why has no one sued YouTube? Because the timing isn't right. They are waiting. I guarantee that the RIAA and the MPAA have a fleet of attorneys with cases already mounted. What are they waiting for? Well, if they sue now all they can do is get the site shut down. Probably overnight. But that's not where the money is. The money is waiting for YouTube to come up with a revenue model (if that ever happens) and then sue them for some gigantic imaginary number and demand royalties everytime x,y, and z videos have been shown. Then, for the next 100 years YouTube will make absolutely nothing, because all their revenue will go to the attorneys and the fiends behind RIAA and the MPAA...I'm sure some artists will get like 10 cents too.

The reality is that YouTube is already dead. It's fate is sealed. It's just a matter of when. Seems like the news companies aren't going to wait for the cash, and they are just going to attack now. I wouldn't be surprised if others follow. If YouTube is around a year from now (at least in any capacity similar to the way it is now), I'll be impressed.


Well...
By segagenesis on 7/18/2006 9:09:07 AM , Rating: 3
... to save us from another 160 post news article he is right. Now whether it's moral to be making money off this video is a different story...




RE: Well...
By captchaos2 on 7/18/2006 4:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
well... can't we just have a separate section for all of the lawsuit news?


Typo
By fbrdphreak on 7/18/2006 9:27:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
suing YouTube for along its users
Maybe allowing its users?




RE: Typo
By Tuan Nguyen on 7/18/2006 9:49:41 AM , Rating: 2
Fixed! Thanks.


Tuan


sorry
By sprockkets on 7/18/2006 9:48:30 AM , Rating: 1
If you have infringing material, they have to FIRST tell them to remove it, not go to straight to suing. Copyright law 101.

Why do you just go away and multiply yourself? I'm so frustrated someone has the ability now to play material from years and years ago that I put into a vault never to be replayed again? Oh the power the people have due to the internet.




RE: sorry
By TomZ on 7/18/2006 10:57:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you have infringing material, they have to FIRST tell them to remove it, not go to straight to suing. Copyright law 101.

Says who? You can contact an attorney today and sue anybody for anything (some exceptions of course, e.g., federal government). A lawsuit doesn't have to be valid or even make sense.


By FairUse on 7/18/2006 10:42:02 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, in one of Tur's earlier suits, Los Angeles News Service v Tullo, the U.S. 9th Circuit agreed that news video is copyrightible. Tur successfully argued that without copyright protection, there would be no financial incentive to create news content. It's the money that drives competition and technology.

Think where we'd be if one news organization could take the content of another? Our only source of information might very well become the government.




I thought that...
By cubby1223 on 7/19/2006 12:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
web hosters were not accountable for what users upload to the servers. Maybe the laws have changed (and I really hope they haven't because the company I work for hosts many web sites). But it just seems more logical to sue the people who uploaded the infringing videos rather than youtube.

But I'm sure it all comes down to youtube has more money, so they are the target.




"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki