This is another example of technology companies being forced to consider content ownership. I discuss this idea more here: http://themediaage.com/?p=8.

It's nearly impossible for a company to completely police user-supplied uploads (and this is true for sites much smaller than YouTube). I understand and agree that copyrighted material should be removed if requested, but forcing a company to track and then provide a user's identity is unreasonable without good cause (which I don't think is merited in this case).

Mike
http://quicktrivia.com

Is it just me or is Google/YouTube starting to sound a lot like Napster? Maybe Google needs to invest their money now in getting licensed content as Napster did. Or maybe Google will just get forced to do it and end up losing their hold on the market.

Mike, why is it unreasonable for YouTube to be forced to reveal the identity of the users who violated Magnolia's copyright? What would be 'good cause'?

If YouTube wants to be in the business of hosting content, the cost of being in that business is that it must remove protected material when discovered and, upon order of the court, provide the identities of the individuals who posted it.

I'm not sure if this is an actual case. I just did a Westlaw/Lexis Nexis search for the docket number and party names. I couldn't find anything. I'm going to keep looking, but it might be a good idea to call the clerk's office and see if this is not a hoax. I could just be an inadequate law student though who can't find the case.

I'm not in a position to judge your adequacy, but it's not a lawsuit. It's a subpoena. And it's real.

They won't stop until youtube is closed down - their copyright cross checking algorithm will be interesting to see once its up and running, but i'm sure people ill disguise the content they put up if they really want to!
-
http://www.WindowsVistaUserGuide.com

I like the comparison to Napster. Yah with DMCA laws all it requires you to mainly do is take down content once it's identified, but I had read an article about Google and their apparent "outlaw" approach to copyright. Same argument with their online availbility of copyrighted books, seems like they've built a business off of other people's material. While their stance is "we're making other people's information available to more people" - even though that is true in the reality of things if it weren't for copyrighted material in the first place they wouldn't be where they're at.

It's about time somebody hit them with some legal trouble. Everyone claim that YouTube is a user-generated site, but (as some have pointed out -- YouTube is all about piracy and bootlegging.

- Krissy

I think it's funny how a liberal film company goes on the capitalist offensive just as soon as their own profits are threatened a little. I'm sure these same folks were all for a free internet a few months back. One must take the good with the bad. You are either for a free internet or against it. This type behavior is counter to internet freedom. Not liberal at all in my opinion.

I think it's funny how a liberal film company goes on the capitalist offensive just as soon as their own profits are threatened a little. I'm sure these same folks were all for a free internet a few months back. One must take the good with the bad. You are either for a free internet or against it. This type behavior is counter to internet freedom. Not liberal at all in my opinion.

lol well maybe if companies stopped fighting to increase copyright expirations we would have more content going to the public domain.

Media companies are vying to stop copyrights from expiring so that they can keep the titles to themselves, and never let anyone else have any use from it. Works entered the Public domain after say something like 30-50 years after the creators death, but now it's something like 100+ years and now companies can renew it so all these media companies are taking away from the public wealth of information, which is just pure BS. They want us to give away what we produce (user-generated content) for free so that they can upsale it and profit from ads and etc, but they're unwilling to give up their rights to their content. F***k them.

Diddy, where has Google made online availability of copyrighted books? I can't tell if you really think a person can get a book off of Google, or you just have completely misread the issue (which is: is indexing a copyrighted book, then allowing it to be searchable and delivering a snippet with search result considered republishing).

I don't spend hours and hours on YouTube, but from the random surfing I've done there, I see much more user-created, non-copyright-violating than 2 hour movies. But just like the internet at large, you get what you search for. People who only see Viacom TV shows on YT only look for Viacom TV shows. Remove them from YT and the bootleggers and viewer will go elsewhere. Where's the bit.torrentwatch blog?

Steve

I'm astonished!!!

The last few days in our "Payment historial", with Google AdSense account, "Accumulated income from previous months" they show us "US$0.00" and of course this it's wrong...

Morover, they quit "Full Period" with "No data" And only show two last month data for AdSense for content & AdSense Search.

Furthermore, they quit, without our knowlegde and without any information, our "Customized advanced information", where we put together "Full period" information data up today.

So, would you pls to inform us if you know about any error in Google machines, or any "human miss guidance", have occurred to make that.

Of course, we've asked this question to Googgle first, to change this trouble, and yet we're awaiting for their repply.