The Internet vs. Copyright

[Danoff]

So many ways to violate copyright law, so little time. The internet provides us with the ability to violate just about every kind of intellectual property in existence. Here are a few examples:

[1] Downloading/Hosting copyrighted music
[2] Downloading/Hosting copyrighted software
[3] Downloading/Hosting copyrighted videos and images
[4] Republishing copyrighted publications
[5] Downloading/Hosting copyrighted text
[6] Cracking copyrighted software to avoid copy protection schemes
[7] Creating software for the purpose of aiding others in copyright violation


How many file sharing services, ftp sites, etc. are guilty of numbers 1-5 without even knowing it? How many common websites are implicated in copyright violation accidentally? Youtube constantly does number 3, Google gets implicated regularly in number 5. Just about every message board in existence (that includes this one) is guilty of numbers 3 and 4. Most of these violations are due to the fact that much of the internet is customizable by the average joe these days. With wikis, message boards, hosting services like youtube, or search engines that grab pieces of the random guy’s website – everyday folks are capable of inducing major websites into copyright infringement.

Some software has been created to aid in copyright violation while carefully negotiating the law. What has happened as a result is that new law is made to catch those offenders. The software is then held accountable for what the law has been changed to, even though the software appeared to have carefully stepped through loopholes. Is that fair? It's happening regardless.

Google and youtube are sent “cease and desist” notices regularly for hosting copyrighted information. But it isn’t possible for businesses to police every web-based service that might be violating their copyright. Once a youtube video is pulled, another springs up in its place. Meanwhile a team of lawyers collected a little cash for the cease and desist letter that didn’t do the company any good. In otherwords, there is friction holding back the companies from protecting their own copyright – while there is no friction for offenders. Paying the government to police the internet with an internet police force is similarly unviable.

Meanwhile, how can you hold Google responsible for posting copyrighted material when it didn’t even know that it was posting it? Youtube? Various internet websites that are unaware that they’re hosting internet porn (I wouldn’t know the names of these website of course)? This doesn’t seem fair at all, but it is the direction courts seem to be headed. The legal landscape seems to have shifted from going after individuals, to going after the tools that the individual offenders use. The tools make much easier legal targets.

But, even if Google, Youtube, and every filesharing service and messageboard on the interent were held responsible for the copyrighted material uploaded to them – what do we do about offshore sites? These sites will just relocate to a country without strict copyright laws and the problem starts anew.

Meanwhile, the companies that stand to lose the most from this rampant copyright violation are moving hard to stop the bleeding. Microsoft and Apple are implementing copy protection software into the copyrighted work they offer for purchase. But how can they stop the deluge of violation? It’s literally a small corporation or team of lawyers against millions.

This isn’t exactly a new problem. Libraries offer a way around purchasing books. VCRs offer a way around watching commercials or even purchasing movies. Cassette tapes offered a way around purchasing music. Floppy disk copying offered a way around purchasing software.

What’s new is that the problem is bigger, a lot bigger. These violations have been going on for a long time, but the internet and digital media is allowing them to become mainstream, rampant, and potentially innovation stifling.

So what’s the solution? Police the internet better? Barge into people’s homes and seize their computers with illegal copies of copyrighted pornography, and music? Hold youtube and google personally liable for every copyrighted work they inadvertently host? Or should we continue to ignore the problem like we have, and hope that companies still create new products.

How do we solve the problem? Should we solve the problem? What are the implications of keeping things the way they are now? Will television shows stop being made if they’re available on youtube? Will news articles stop being written, and photographs no longer taken if they’re hosted on message boards? Will books stop being written if they can be easily copied and downloaded?

Tough questions. The answers may have big impacts on the future of personal freedom.

 

[daan]

This isn’t exactly a new problem. Libraries offer a way around purchasing books.

Libraries have a license to loan items.

I can remember when our library started hiring out films on video. You could walk into a shop and buy the film for £15-£20, but the versions we had to buy were £70-£80 simply so that we could hire them out.

Hold youtube and google personally liable for every copyrighted work they inadvertently host? Or should we continue to ignore the problem like we have, and hope that companies still create new products.

If I accept stolen goods, then I am liable to arrest for holding onto, and selling on, those stolen goods.

Google and Youtube are accepting "stolen" goods, therefore they are liable. However, they should always be given a warning and told to remove any copyrighted items. They obviously can't know who holds copyright on every movie uploaded, so would have to rely on the copyright holder requesting the films removal. If they remove them, then no further action should be taken.



Realisation dawns that I'm in the opinions forum....

Can't breathe...

 

[FoolKiller]

So what’s the solution? Police the internet better? Barge into people’s homes and seize their computers with illegal copies of copyrighted pornography, and music? Hold youtube and google personally liable for every copyrighted work they inadvertently host?

How do we solve the problem? Should we solve the problem? What are the implications of keeping things the way they are now? Will television shows stop being made if they’re available on youtube? Will news articles stop being written, and photographs no longer taken if they’re hosted on message boards? Will books stop being written if they can be easily copied and downloaded?

The answer is already in the works. Google/You Tube are currently in talks to license and host video. Either You Tube will suddenly be much more efficient at filtering copyrighted video or they will just let it slide since they have the license to host that video. Over time people hosting already licensed video will die down as the official videos will inevitably be better quality. iTunes is constantly working to license more video as well.

Digital music will get better over time. Currently Steve Jobs is arguing with RIAA members to get them to remove their encryption technology from digital music so that any player can play any files downloaded from any source on any player. His argument is that the encryption technology doesn't work because piracy still occurs and users are actually more likely to pirate so that the files can be interchangeable.

Pretty much the answer to audio and video is for the entertainment industry to work with the consumers to make it more user-friendly instead of constantly accusing them of piracy. Imagine if a grocery store strip searched everyone before they exited. That grocery store would be out of business in no time.

As for images, that's a tough cookie to break and basically impossible.

 

[Danoff]

If I accept stolen goods, then I am liable to arrest for holding onto, and selling on, those stolen goods.

Google and Youtube are accepting "stolen" goods, therefore they are liable. However, they should always be given a warning and told to remove any copyrighted items. They obviously can't know who holds copyright on every movie uploaded, so would have to rely on the copyright holder requesting the films removal. If they remove them, then no further action should be taken.

Are they really "accepting" stolen goods? You have to be aware that you're "accepting" goods, in order to accept it. If someone drives by and throws a bunch of stolen watches on your lawn while you're away on vacation, are you accepting stolen goods? They're on your property.

The answer is already in the works. Google/You Tube are currently in talks to license and host video. Either You Tube will suddenly be much more efficient at filtering copyrighted video or they will just let it slide since they have the license to host that video. Over time people hosting already licensed video will die down as the official videos will inevitably be better quality. iTunes is constantly working to license more video as well.

Really? That's the solution? Because I think they'll be replaced by a website that doesn't work so closely to filter the videos. There's always another website ready to take the place of one that stops giving people what they want.

 

[daan]

Are they really "accepting" stolen goods? You have to be aware that you're "accepting" goods, in order to accept it. If someone drives by and throws a bunch of stolen watches on your lawn while you're away on vacation, are you accepting stolen goods? They're on your property.

They are accepting goods, some of which are stolen.

You can't stop people from throwing those watches onto your lawn. Google/Youtube can stop people from throwing those watches/uploading videos, by moderating uploaded videos.

The other way you can look at is Google/Youtube are providing a service for people to "move on" stolen goods.

I think it works fine just now. You can find copyrighted material on Google/Youtube, but as long as its removed when asked, then I don't see any problem. Top Gear videos have disappeared pretty quickly from Youtube recently.

 

[FoolKiller]

Really? That's the solution? Because I think they'll be replaced by a website that doesn't work so closely to filter the videos. There's always another website ready to take the place of one that stops giving people what they want.

But why would another Web site attract more people when you can get official, high quality videos of your favorite TV shows/movies for free? In all reality Google/You Tube would just be filtering out poor quality versions of what they already provide for you, or they might not filter at all because it will be part of their agreement.

Don't forget, Google has yet to charge and has yet to say they ever intend to.

 

[Danoff]

Don't forget, Google has yet to charge and has yet to say they ever intend to.

Neither did Napster.

 

[Pupik]

Message boards are exactly that, a place to post messages for other people to read. It doesn't exist to earn money, for I doubt even Jordan makes any sort of profit after payments from Google and Premium Members. It's not intended to be a reference guide, it's not a pay-per-view site, nor is it for the intention of publication.

What makes things hazy is that people don't quote their sources; text that's cut-and-pasted from another site without permission is a violation of sorts, unless it has a free license to be copied (example, anything on Wikipedia, as per their Terms of Service). Internet sites aren't going to going to bother suing one another, unless it really harms their integrity by having their text or data on another site, since it's too much of a hassle. For example, if Warner Brothers wanted to sue everybody on a free web host who posts lyrics from an R.E.M. album, then they could, but there would be no gain from that.

Cutting an pasting text is not intended to be a form of copyright infringement, it's meant to invoke discussion, to (hopefully) provoke thought. This argument weakens when you don't include a source, since then there's no way to tell if the information is correct or not.

Due to the difficulty in policing copyrighted text on the web, you (almost) have to reason that it's really a case of "if you don't want it copied, don't put it on the web in the first place", since there are too many people who think everything is fair game on the web. I'm not saying this is right, since uploading/downloading up anyone else's work without their permission is a violation of copyright. But there's very little you can do about it, save abiding by copyrights in a very strict manner.

In that case, that's the wonderful thing about Wikipedia: It can be peer-reviewed, inspected, corrected, and edited. If there's no source to back up a claim, then it's removed. If an item violates copyright laws, then it's removed.

However, a wiki doesn't work as well for a message board, but it's possible to moderate a message board to that public domain works and items without copyright can be denied, unless a source is mentioned.

 

[FoolKiller]

Neither did Napster.

I think you missed my point.

The difference between the video services that Google, Inc. is wanting to offer through Google and You Tube from what Napster was doing is that Google wants to license the video and have the right to have it on their Web site.

You were saying that other sites owuld pop up, but I am trying to point out that they would have a tough time competing against legal and free quality video. Google's business model has been to never charge the consumers (you and I), but to charge the customers (businesses). If they can pull off that business model while still keeping things legal, what need or want would consumers have for other illegal sites, aside from the anti-capitalists.

I mean, I have already gotten to the point where the closest thing to file sharing that I do is to borrow a friend's CD. I haven't used a P2P program in years. What downloading of music I do tends to be legal and free from either the creator of the music (band's Web site) or music podcasts/sites working under a Creative Commons license. But then my musicasl tastes rarely meet the mainstream anymore, so I can't find anything in many other places.

 

[Duke]

Pretty much the answer to audio and video is for the entertainment industry to work with the consumers to make it more user-friendly instead of constantly accusing them of piracy. Imagine if a grocery store strip searched everyone before they exited. That grocery store would be out of business in no time.

Except that every time the entertainment industry has opened itself to the consumers in the interest of 'user-friendliness', the consumers have never hesitated to simply rip the industry off as hard and fast as they possibly can. From homemade cassettes to Napster, there is a pervasive feeling of entitlement among the public: It's easy, and our odds of getting caught are nil, and besides, it's only a bunch of rich corporate suits that lose anything, so it's not really stealing at all! Software protection was the same way - publishers were forced between selling unprotected games, etc, in which case they sold about 20% of the copies in circulation, or they adopted copy protection of some form, in which case the magazine reviews and the public lambasted them for not being 'user-friendly' and nobody bought any copies.

Google's business model has been to never charge the consumers (you and I), but to charge the customers (businesses). If they can pull off that business model while still keeping things legal, what need or want would consumers have for other illegal sites, aside from the anti-capitalists.

That's great for Google's business model. More power to them.

But what about the producer's business model? Where does the money income fit into that? They're paying to produce the material in the first place - that's their investment. Then they're going to support Google so that they can give away that product for free?

Sounds like a great way to lose a ton of money really quickly.

 

[Danoff]

You can't stop people from throwing those watches onto your lawn. Google/Youtube can stop people from throwing those watches/uploading videos, by moderating uploaded videos.

That notion destorys the whole concept of many of the internet services we enjoy. If you place the onus on youtube to monitor the content of uploaded videos, youtube dies quickly.

Also, you CAN stop people from throwing watches onto your lawn. All you have to do is put up a big wall made of fire - let's call it a firewall.

The other way you can look at is Google/Youtube are providing a service for people to "move on" stolen goods.

The goods are not necessarily stolen. They can be legitimately purchased and uploaded to Youtube. A person on the other end might have legitimately purchased the goods as well, but might prefer the Youtube copy because of portability/ease of access/whatever. Where is the copyright violation?

I think it works fine just now. You can find copyrighted material on Google/Youtube, but as long as its removed when asked, then I don't see any problem. Top Gear videos have disappeared pretty quickly from Youtube recently.

I think you'd find that most media companies don't think it works just fine at all. I think you'd find that the instant the offending material is removed, it's reupped. Top Gear videos pop back onto Youtube as quickly as they're taken down... which is how I get to see all of them....

By the way, does watching a video on Youtube make me an offender? If the video is copyrighted, and it's up there without license, I shouldn't be watching it. But how can I tell the difference between a licensed video and an unlicensed one? The same problem was true of Napster. How can you tell which mp3's are legitimate for download and which ones aren't? Especially when you consider that it's possible to use Napster completely legally.

Message boards are exactly that, a place to post messages for other people to read. It doesn't exist to earn money, for I doubt even Jordan makes any sort of profit after payments from Google and Premium Members. It's not intended to be a reference guide, it's not a pay-per-view site, nor is it for the intention of publication.

Making money is not a requirement of copyright violation.

Cutting an pasting text is not intended to be a form of copyright infringement, it's meant to invoke discussion, to (hopefully) provoke thought. This argument weakens when you don't include a source, since then there's no way to tell if the information is correct or not.

Whether you intended it to be copyright infringement doesn't matter. Cutting and pasting text from a copyrighted news broadcast and republishing it here on GTPlanet (regardless of whether you give credit to the original writer) is often copyright infringement... and it may implicate Jordan.

"if you don't want it copied, don't put it on the web in the first place", since there are too many people who think everything is fair game on the web. I'm not saying this is right, since uploading/downloading up anyone else's work without their permission is a violation of copyright.

Obviously not everything on the internet was put there legitimately.

I think you missed my point.

The difference between the video services that Google, Inc. is wanting to offer through Google and You Tube from what Napster was doing is that Google wants to license the video and have the right to have it on their Web site.

You were saying that other sites owuld pop up, but I am trying to point out that they would have a tough time competing against legal and free quality video. Google's business model has been to never charge the consumers (you and I), but to charge the customers (businesses). If they can pull off that business model while still keeping things legal, what need or want would consumers have for other illegal sites, aside from the anti-capitalists.

How does Google get media companies to pay Google to host television shows again? Advertisements or something? That almost defeats the purpose - which opens up a market for competitors.

I mean, I have already gotten to the point where the closest thing to file sharing that I do is to borrow a friend's CD. I haven't used a P2P program in years.

I haven't either. I buy all of my music legitimately and online. But I'm not going to pretend that I can't be found liable for copyright infringement in other ways. Hell there are threads on GTPlanet in which I've ripped off the AP by republishing their news articles (giving them the credit of course). The thread is called "spot the media bias", and I think it's still on the main opinion forum page.

 

[FoolKiller]

Except that every time the entertainment industry has opened itself to the consumers in the interest of 'user-friendliness', the consumers have never hesitated to simply rip the industry off as hard and fast as they possibly can. From homemade cassettes to Napster, there is a pervasive feeling of entitlement among the public: It's easy, and our odds of getting caught are nil, and besides, it's only a bunch of rich corporate suits that lose anything, so it's not really stealing at all! Software protection was the same way - publishers were forced between selling unprotected games, etc, in which case they sold about 20% of the copies in circulation, or they adopted copy protection of some form, in which case the magazine reviews and the public lambasted them for not being 'user-friendly' and nobody bought any copies.

I agree that consumers have abused the industry, but the industry has only half-heartedly accepted the digital landscape. And I understand why. OPn average a good mainstream musician will only produce one or two hits out of a whole CD. The industry would lose money because we will only buy two songs. The music industry requires large scale changes to get what the consumers want. Every instance you listed above with tapes and Napster was the listening audience weeding out the crap to hear the one or two songs they liked. I mean, not even Led Zeppelin made all great songs. The consumers have been sold packages full of fluff for years. Even greatest hits CDs have bad songs thrown in to get money back on them.

In a free market the consumer helps determine the products and the prices, correct? In the music industry many consumers have now said that since the technology is available they don't want a bunch of crap. Granted some people are just thieves and that is wrong. But you have to look past that for a second to see what demand the average person is meeting for themselves. They are saying that they want a change in the music industry. They are saying they want quality music and don't want to pay for anything else.

When Napster was out, or even when we made tape compilations, there was no other way to go about getting just what you wanted. Now there is and the industry has to change to meet that and still make money.


The same is happening with television. Once shows began being placed on iTunes there was an immediate discrepancy between the most popularly downloaded shows and the shows with high broadcast ratings. Now we have a handful of Internet only TV shows.

The Internet offers a completely different dimension to media and it must be explored fully before it can be considered a pirate's dream. Any time anything new comes along it gets exploited in some way, but that doesn't mean it must be avoided forever.

I mean, imagine if we had outlawed VCRs and casette recorders. Where would we be now? It is the way everything new works.

I'm not saying that no regulation of some form is best, but until you go into all that can be done online you can't know what criminal activities must be stopped.

EDIT: because you did it to me first.

That's great for Google's business model. More power to them.

But what about the producer's business model? Where does the money income fit into that? They're paying to produce the material in the first place - that's their investment. Then they're going to support Google so that they can give away that product for free?

Sounds like a great way to lose a ton of money really quickly.

Google does make money you know. And a lot of it from what I understand. That is why they are negotiating licensing fees, so that the creators of the media can get what they deserve.

And I honestly don't know how it may work out in the end for us to watch licensed videos, but Google likes to stand by their business model and I have a feeling they will do just fine.

 

[exigeracer]

Nice discussion. I posted the original on some of my other forums to see what kind of reaction I would get with other communities. 👍

To lightly touch upon the initial question of what can we do the stop it, I think that for now, we just have to wait things out a bit. Instead of applying real-world laws, created for specific real-world articles in a real-world country, to the internet, which breaches those international boundaries, we will have to wait out a considerable amount of time for the internet to evolve into its own sort of entity. That internet could have its own legislation, it's own policing and own discipline, created specifically for digital media and how it can be shared, viewed, or used, as if it were its own country completely unbound to laws and rules enforced by real-world bodies.

The internet is still far from that third dimension to create this kind of "internet law" to keep things just and right for people who work hard and can do little to protect themselves while still trying to make a living.

Neither did Napster.

Wasn't this claimed by Shawn Fanning when Napster was still small-time and being relatviely un-noticed by corporations or governments? I think that Fanning has little or nothing to do with what the Napster name and logo has become today.

(that first sentence was a joke, bofore I get stomped by something)

 

[Tornado]

But why would another Web site attract more people when you can get official, high quality videos of your favorite TV shows/movies for free?

Because it would come with ads.

The difference between the video services that Google, Inc. is wanting to offer through Google and You Tube from what Napster was doing is that Google wants to license the video and have the right to have it on their Web site.

Which is the exact same thing Napster did when it relaunched.

You were saying that other sites owuld pop up, but I am trying to point out that they would have a tough time competing against legal and free quality video.

Other sites already ARE popping up. Ever since YouTube began cracking down on content, many of the people who wanted to see said content left the site. I believe that is what much of the hoopla over Viacom and Google was about.

 

[FoolKiller]

Because it would come with ads.

Um, it already does, both Google video and You Tube (same company) but neither make it blatant in your face, which keeps them popular. How do you think You Tube pays for all that bandwidth? You don't honestly believe they are coughing up that much cash out of the kindness of their hearts do you? Is Google free to you or do you watch advertising every time you use it? Do a search for something. You have certain sites highlited at the top - they paid for that, you have commercial sites highlighted in a sidebar - they paid for that, and you have certain sites that come up on the first page every time you do said search - they paid for that.

Which is the exact same thing Napster did when it relaunched.

Napster now is not the same Napster from then. Just like AT&T now is legally bigger than the original AT&T because it is not the same company.

But if Google sticks to their usual business plan then they will license the videos without having to charge for it. That is the big difference.

Other sites already ARE popping up. Ever since YouTube began cracking down on content, many of the people who wanted to see said content left the site. I believe that is what much of the hoopla over Viacom and Google was about.

The hoopla was about copyright infringement. It was started because people weren't going to the Viacom sites to look at the content. Plus, other sites are cracking down as well. Heck, even My Space is starting to get on people for having things on their MySpace page because Universal got on them. If My Space is liable then any Web page host is. They don't have to hunt down individuals, just go after hosting services.

 

[Danoff]

If My Space is liable then any Web page host is. They don't have to hunt down individuals, just go after hosting services.

The legal landscape seems to have shifted from going after individuals, to going after the tools that the individual offenders use. The tools make much easier legal targets.

Going after the company is the latest fad. But does it really help? And is it fair? Another website can pop up and take the previous one's place... and how can you say that Youtube is responsible for copyrighted movies uploaded to their site?

(Answer: The same way you can say that Napster was responsible for hosting mp3s)

 

[FoolKiller]

Going after the company is the latest fad. But does it really help? And is it fair? Another website can pop up and take the previous one's place... and how can you say that Youtube is responsible for copyrighted movies uploaded to their site?

(Answer: The same way you can say that Napster was responsible for hosting mp3s)

Napster was caught off guard. The original idea was to create a New Artist Program (NAP) that allowed unsigned groups to get their music out there. Napster got abused, but the creators didn't mind because they enjoyed the popularity.

Honestly, You Tube should have known it would happen and been better prepared for it. When Google purchased them they were prepared with a fund set aside specifically for dealing with the legal issues ($100 million, if I remember correctly).

Whether it is fair or not wasn't my point, rather the fact that the idea of going after the company, not the user, is the way things get done now will make it much harder for other sites to pop up if You Tube becomes not so user friendly after working out the licensing deals. So, yeah, it does help. It isn't perfect, but it is the most efficient means available at the moment.



Let me sum up my view on this whole issue:

Every new technology has made the entertainment industry scream about copyright violation issues. They tried to make it illegal to own a VCR. They didn't want audio tapes. They didn't want CD burners. Heck, they were even afraid that gramaphones would be used for unauthorized public broadcasts. They would prefer that we all had to go to the theater, watch television, or listen to the radio and all our entertainment be the way they want it. It was even as bad as radio not wanting TV and the movie industry not wanting talkies because it would make a mockery of their profession. They are afraid of technology and change for a multitude of reasons.

Now, what did VHS, audio tapes, CDs, and DVDs bring the entertainment industry once they embarced that technology? More money. Were there copyright violations along the way? Yes. I remember my dad having a crate full of copied movies. That didn't mean VHS was a bad thing. Every new technology will have its abusers. Does that make it a bad thing to have that new technology? No. To say so is using the same mentality that says the Internet is just a catalogue for sexual predators.

Now in the case of the Internet it makes it easier and faster to violate copyrights, but it also makes it easier and faster to give the consumers what they want. Over a million songs are downloaded legally every year from iTunes alone (I don't know the figures for other companies). That is a million less pirated copies floating around than before. Granted, most digital music downloads are still pirated but the trend is shifting and tons of CDs are still being bought. The nature of the Internet allowed pirates to get a huge jump but as using it for entertainment becomes more mainstream it will just become more convenient for the average person to use the legal outlets. I already know plenty of semi-computer literate people that would much rather go to abc.com or iTunes to download an episode of Lost than try and figure out a P2P program and then learn how to tell the viruses and spyware from the real files.