Should YouTube Check Copyrights?

[Damion Chaplin]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6209414.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6209414.stm</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Video website YouTube should proactively check if videos infringe copyright, a group representing Japanese rights holders has said. The Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers wants videos checked before they go online. More than 100m videos are watched each day via YouTube and many are posted without necessary permissions. Last month 30,000 clips were taken down by YouTube at the request of the Japanese entertainment group. YouTube's policy has been to remove clips that infringe copyright after it receives complaints. The current system "is not functioning well due to the [continued] large volume of illegal uploads," said the letter, reported the Associated Press."</i><br /><br />This I actually agree with. Not necessarily because of 'artists rights', a phrase often slug around by studios as a preamble to suit, but for a simpler reason: If everyone's gonna make a big stink about there being copyrighted works on YouTube, and if YouTube could get shut down because of it, then just hire a few more people to check videos that are posted. It really wouldn't be that hard. Yeah, I'm talking about a lot of uploads and person-power, but if that's what it takes to keep such an incredibly useful thing as YouTube operating, I'm all for it. You?

[Vincent Ferrari]

It's possible, but is it realistically feasible? Probably not. I can't imaginehow many people it would take to scan over the volumes of videos coming in every second. If you think about it, it would also require the "screener" to be an expert on copyright law, and have a wide range of knowledge about what is and isn't copyrighted material. Under the DMCA, YouTube seems to be playing the Safe Harbor rules perfectly. They comply with every C&amp;D / Takedown notice, and are fully within the law. Copyright holders may not like that they have to police sites on their own, but seeing as they're the ones with something to lose, I don't really have a problem with it.

Shame if it does end in YouTube being shut down, too, because if YouTube does get sued out of existence (something I also doubt), then it will show that entertainment companies learned nothing the last time they sued someone out of business and lost a major promotional outlet (Napster). There are always going to be copyrighted works on YouTube. Suing them / shutting them down is only going to do what it did to the Napster crowd...

...Push it further underground.

I think a digital watermarking system similar to what the music industry is putting in place is probably their best hope, but I don't know how that could be done with video. Audio patterns are easy. Video patterns, not so much...

Who knows... This is Google we're talking about.

[whydidnt]

I agree with Vincent re: this. :D

YouTube is well within it's rights (at least in the US) to NOT do this. From a legal standpoint, I would imagine that if they started to do this for certain content providers they then would be liable to do it for all, and there is no realistic way for them to do so.

Having said this, I find it interesting that YouTube decided to payoff some of the large TV &amp; Movie studios so they would agreed not to sue Google for 3 years for allowing infringing content to be posted. I think Google perhaps recognizes that if they don't play nice with the big providers they will be stuck having to constantly pull posted clips. It may be cheaper (and a better business model) for them just to pay off the big guys and not have to deal with it. Though, really what Business model does YouTube have? I believe so far all they have been able to do is generate huge losses.