youtube employees uploaded unauthorized content to YouTube

so you expect youtube to take a submission
send a letter to viacomm
wait weeks/months/years for a response before posting the video.

and if viacom decides they don't like a parody and delay for years getting back to youtube

just live with the censorship that additional rule creates.

since when do employees follow the guidelines anyway?

[QUOTE=gideongallery;16405103]bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ....................[QUOTE]



.

Only 20k?!?

The way I understand DMCA to work is that it allows you to use the defense that your site is "just a host" and that you and your company do not control the content of the site, that the users of the site do that and you only respond to take down request and flagged content. If your employees are uploading content or manipulating content before it is posted on the site it could very well violate the DMCA safe harbor. If they don't have that to hide behind then anyone who has copyrighted material on the site can sue them and there is a decent chance they will win.

but the issue is not as cut and dry as people seem to make it here
first of all what if the employee in question did it on his own,
what if the employee action was fair use


The fact that employee did it for case 1 doesn't make them guilty for case 100-10,000.

if they were acting as just a standard youtube user at the time of the upload (ie uploading videos at lunch/break for what they believed/was the fair use of commentary-- look at quest crews best dance routine)

should that still be covered by DMCA.


there is a huge amount of grey area on youtube side of an employee uploading

conversely there is no similar level of grey area on the viacom side, because as i pointed out youtube could use how can we tell the difference arguement if they find a single authorized upload.

that sounds like a bad thing... if I were google I would ban every site that had any relation to the owners of the videos... just to see how bad they would get fucked by not being found on the biggest SE in the market...

They'd get slaughtered if they do that.

sure, there are a million questions. I am just pointing out the simple reality that from what I understand if it is found out that Youtube controls/monitors or manipulates content before it is posted then it could violate the DMCA safe harbor. As it is now they say they are acting as a "host only" and have no control over the content on the site. They say the content is strictly controlled by the users of the site. If it is found out that this isn't true and they do control the content or in some way manipulate the content before it is put up on the site then a person could argue that if they do that for one person or one movie they should be able to do that for everything.

In the end if they are shown to not be "just a host" they then have to be responsible for the content that is on their site. You can't have it both ways. You can't say you are "just a host" and that you have no control over the content of your site, while simultaneously controlling some of the content of your site.

God damn, shit is hittin' the muh fuckin' fan yo!

Good stuff! Can't wait until it happens in adult!

it not controls and monitors/manipulate it UPLOAD and only UPLOAD.

you can control and monitor (no porn) you can manipulate (auto watermark) your trying to significantly weaken the safe harbor by misrepresenting it restriction.

Being able to stop porn (i see naughty bits therefore it out of there) is significantly different then being able to tell if it fair use or not especially when viacom own lawyers didn't get it right (all the mistaken takedown requests).

i am just point out that UPLOADing by a employee is not an automagic win for viacom, you still have the uphill battle of proving that employee was UPLOADING as an employee and not as every day user.

I'm not arguing weather or not it was uploaded by a employee or not. What I am saying is that they are trying to prove that YouTube manipulates/controls the content on the site. If they can prove that there are systems in place that allow Youtube to manipulate/modify/control content on the site it could disqualify them from DMCA safe harbor provisions.

Here is a bunch of good info about that
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html

Here is a summery:

(1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;
(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
(3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
(4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and
(5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

Using these rules you could set forth this example: Youtube has a filter in place that scans videos for colors that are in the skin/flesh tone range. If it hits a certain threshold the video is flagged and looked at to make sure it is not actual porn. If it is not it is approved and put up on the site. I'm not saying that something like this exists, but if it does, then it would be proof that they have something in place that allows them to monitor/edit/approve content. By doing this is violates the DMCA safe harbor since they are no longer just hosting content, they are selecting content and scanning content before it ever posted. A person could then argue that if they are capable of monitoring for porn they could do so for other things. If there is a question about whether or not something falls under fair use or if the poster has permission to post it, then they could ask the poster for proof that they have the rights to post it. Problem solved.