backtop


Print 22 comment(s) - last by ethana2.. on Sep 28 at 12:47 PM

The NLPC is not happy with Google Video

The National Legal Policy Center (NLPC), a large U.S.-based copyright watch-dog group, has conducted an investigation of Google Video and is upset with the results.

Earlier this summer, the NLPC released a top 50 list of illegally posted copyrighted content that was available online. The group rechecked Google Video between September 10 and September 18 and found over 300 more instances of copyrighted material, including 60 movies released this year.

Shrek the Third, Oceans Thirteen, The Bourne Ultimatum, and Knocked Up were among the new titles easily found.

The NLPC says that these 300 apparently pirated films, along with many other copyrighted works, received more than 22 million views in the past year on Google Video.

"While Google faces numerous legal challenges related to the posting of copyrighted content on its video sharing websites, there is a growing chorus who believe that evidence of Google's seemingly indifferent attitude towards internet video piracy has resulted in a legitimization or 'mainstreaming' of video piracy which will have broad and damaging implications for all intellectual property owners," stated the NLPC in a letter to Congress.

The NLPC says its random spot checks have revealed the continual presence of copyrighted material on Google Video over the last year and that the amount of copyrighted content is rapidly growing. The NLPC also notes that Google has never delivered on its promise of filtering technology, which it announced in the fall of 2006.

Google controls a vast amount of the online video content via Google Video and YouTube, which it owns. In July Dailytech reported on YouTube's efforts to crack down on piracy.

The NLPC said that internet piracy theft cost nearly $2.3 billion USD in lost revenue to the US film industry.  They condemned Google's inaction as willful negligence.

The issue of video piracy remains a contentious one.  A large amount of movies and copyrighted works exists for easy, free viewing on YouTube.  Videos are regularly taken down, but they are quickly reposted.  With an increasing amount of media content stored and accessible directly online, copyright law and digital freedoms are frequently clashing, as illustrated by the NLPC's claims.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

For the full study
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/27/2007 10:41:25 AM , Rating: 4
For the full report of NLPC's gripes and claims go to the studies:
http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&ai...
http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&ai...

In response to some posters comments, NLPC's allegations are not that Google refused to remove copyrighted material when asked, but rather that it did not "as actively pursue removing material as it might have".

I know, sort of silly eh? I don't know what kind of legal ground they have...I'm no lawyer, however it's scary to see them putting this out before Congress.




RE: For the full study
By Murst on 9/27/2007 11:10:25 AM , Rating: 2
Something has to be done about this. I generally will not side with the big media companies, but I can kind of see their frustration here.

Suppose you had a video that you've created and you make money from it. Now, you see it go up on youtube. You file a takedown notice, just to see 10 different copies uploaded on the next day. You then file 10 takedown notices, and you see 10 uploads the day after of your exact same video. Its a fight you will never win.

The exact same thing happens to the media companies. The duty of our government is to protect rights, be it the right to life or the right to property. There is clearly a violation to right to property when you cannot get your own video removed from a file sharing site. What's even worse, your competitor (in many ways google competes with media companies) is making money from your own content that has basically been stolen. I just can't see congress sitting and doing nothing.

I will completely agree that there are other issues which come into play, such as pricing, drm, etc. However, two wrongs don't make a right.


RE: For the full study
By SurJector on 9/27/2007 11:52:27 AM , Rating: 5
While I generally agree that something should probably be done, I'd like to remind you that intellectual property is actually not property , even though the MPAA, RIAA, the SCO group and others would like us to believe.

Nobody has any right to infringe on anyone else's intellectual property but doing so is not theft.

Intellectual property is not considered a natural right (in the US of A and more generally in the western countries, don't know for anywhere else). It is a mean that has been given as an incentive to creation. Mind you, I think it is a good thing, but it is not natural and when you see a video on Google, it is not ``clearly a violation to right to property'' but only clearly a copyright infringement.


RE: For the full study
By rcc on 9/27/2007 12:03:02 PM , Rating: 2
oooo, you gotta tell us. What are "natural" rights?


RE: For the full study
By Murst on 9/27/2007 2:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
John Locke's On Liberty . It is a truly amazing book.


RE: For the full study
By Murst on 9/27/2007 2:43:13 PM , Rating: 3
Although intellectual property is not the same type of property as, say, real estate, I do consider it to be property. Anything that can be described as having an owner, a value, and the ability to be transfered from one owner to another would be property.

You're right about theft. In order to steal intellectual property, you'd probably have to deprive the owner of it without their will. Although I guess it would be possible to steal copyrights (as in, do something illegal to get it transfered in your name), simply infringing on it would not deprive the owner of ownership, and hence would not be theft. I should not have used the word "steal" in that context.

As to intellectual property not being a natural right: It is not a natural right any more than the right to education. However, just like the right to education, I believe it could be derived from other natural rights. Also, keep in mind that violating someone's right to property would not necessairly mean depriving them of said property. For example, take trespassing. You're violating their property rights without taking them away. I think copyright infringement is similar to trespassing.


RE: For the full study
By ethana2 on 9/28/2007 12:47:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. However, I must say I dislike piracy for its lack of backbone-- instead of changing the world to take advantage of information's nature, they simply take advantage of it themselves, thereby pissing off all the people who don't understand how it works.

I now state that all code created by myself in the future may be assumed to be covered by version 2 of the GNU GPL, and all other art under the CC-BY-SA, unless otherwise stated at the time, at my liability.
...and there's nothing the MaFIA or BSA can do about it.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki