Thursday, December 2, 2010

Making Copyright Work Better Online



There are more than 1 trillion unique URLs on the web and more than 35 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute. It’s some pretty fantastic stuff - content that makes us think, laugh, and learn new things. Services we couldn’t have imagined ten years ago - iTunes, Netflix, YouTube, and many others - help us access this content and let traditional and emerging creators profit from and share their work with the world.

But along with this new wave of creators come some bad apples who use the Internet to infringe copyright. As the web has grown, we have seen a growing number of issues relating to infringing content. We respond expeditiously to requests to remove such content from our services, and have been improving our procedures over time. But as the web grows, and the number of requests grows with it, we are working to develop new ways to better address the underlying problem.

That’s why today we’re announcing four changes that we’ll be implementing over the next several months:
  • We’ll act on reliable copyright takedown requests within 24 hours. We will build tools to improve the submission process to make it easier for rightsholders to submit DMCA takedown requests for Google products (starting with Blogger and web Search). And for copyright owners who use the tools responsibly, we’ll reduce our average response time to 24 hours or less. At the same time, we’ll improve our “counter-notice” tools for those who believe their content was wrongly removed and enable public searching of takedown requests.
  • We will prevent terms that are closely associated with piracy from appearing in Autocomplete. While it’s hard to know for sure when search terms are being used to find infringing content, we’ll do our best to prevent Autocomplete from displaying the terms most frequently used for that purpose.
  • We will improve our AdSense anti-piracy review. We have always prohibited the use of our AdSense program on web pages that provide infringing materials. Building on our existing DMCA takedown procedures, we will be working with rightsholders to identify, and, when appropriate, expel violators from the AdSense program.
  • We will experiment to make authorised preview content more readily accessible in search results. Not surprisingly, we’re big fans of making authorised content more accessible on the Internet. Most users want to access legitimate content and are interested in sites that make that content available to them (even if only on a preview basis). We’ll be looking at ways to make this content easier to index and find.
These changes build on our continuing efforts, such as Content ID, to give rightsholders choice and control over the use of their content, and we look forward to further refining and improving our processes in ways that help both rightsholders and users.

65 comments:

Bill Wolff said...

While I very much appreciate that Google is going to "improve our 'counter-notice' tools for those who believe their content was wrongly removed and enable public searching of takedown requests" the process new process that you are describing still assumes that *all* content that includes copy-written material is used illegally. As someone who teaches video composition and remix, I and my student spend a significant amount of time submitting counter-notice requests when they upload videos that include copy-written material but is used with Fair Use Guidelines and the 2010 Library of Congress exemptions for media studies courses. The removal happens despite the fact that all students put in their descriptions that the work is used with Fair Use Guidelines. This is unfortunate and unnecessary.

I might suggest that Google/YouTube adopt a policy where education-related channels are verified (much like Twitter verifies celebrity accounts and Voicethread has an education side to its services). These education-verified sites would come with the assumption that material is being used within Fair Use Guidelines and as a result, material that is uploaded would be exempt from take-down.

The technology and coding skills needed to make these adjustments are there. There is no doubt that such a thing would be easy to do. Only the will is needed.

rodneysteinberg said...

@Bill Wolff

I'm glad you brought education into this discussion. Having worked at a College, I also ran into the same obstacles. The way I understand it is that if the content in question is available for public access, it is considered infringement. Educational protection only applies to closed environments. Thoughts?

Jeremy said...

Boy, ya think the stupid record labels had something to do with this?

Jon said...

Whats more important, getting paid or notariety?
Jon

alex said...

Long overdue.

Omar said...

What about lyrics sites? Will they be banned from Adsense?

Victoria Luckie said...

Trying to contact Kent Walker for interview / comment.

andmarios said...

Alongside this action I'd like you to support making copyright laws more reasonable too.

I firmly agree that content creators should be protected but not to be able to use a 20 year old song you may already own on LP and CD to a family clip you upload to yutube just doesn't seem logical and I think it is an insult to anyone doing non copyrighted work (like manual labor).

rodneysteinberg said...

@andmarios

Agreed, it doesn't seem logical. However, current copyright laws don't actually prevent this. Youtube/google does have the means (song recognition software) to track which songs/content are being used for which videos. Thus, they should be able to license them no problem. That way more people are free to upload their own creative use of copyrighted material. Boom, everyone is happy and compensated. I just don't understand why this is not the case. Maybe I'm missing something...

Fast Girl said...

I wonder why my earlier post regarding Google earning income from AdSense ads on pirate websites (around the world) was deleted. Just a tad ironic don't you think given the fact that Google's defense with regard their prior "copyright infringement" policies has been based on their concerns about "free speech?"

This move by Google is long overdue.

Barry Attrics said...

I don't think copyright has long to live and it will rapidly become irrelevant as internet speeds improve. I think "pirate" technologies will improve dramatically in the next few years too.

This will ensure that anyone can get any movie, tv program or music track within seconds (possibly milliseconds) without paying for it.

The war has been won convincingly by the "pirates", though there are a few minor skirmishes still going on in various places throughout the world.

Barry Attrics said...

I don't think copyright has long to live and it will rapidly become irrelevant as internet speeds improve. I think "pirate" technologies will improve dramatically in the next few years too.

This will ensure that anyone can get any movie, tv program or music track within seconds (possibly milliseconds) without paying for it.

The war has been won convincingly by the "pirates", though there are a few minor skirmishes still going on in various places throughout the world.

Tyler said...

I believe that censoring search results is never the right thing to do. While the act of simply uploading or downloading certain information is illegal in some countries like the United States, that does not mean it is Google's responsibility to prevent users from from finding this information. Google is simply telling somebody where information is located, and while Google itself wants to provide a lawful service, that does not mean it is there responsibility to prevent users from potentially committing unlawful acts. Suggested terms are supposed to provide the statistically most relevant results, not what the government, Google, or any other company might want to suggest users to do. By taking this action, you are altering the information provided to users, and subjecting them to the information that you believe they should be limited to. You believe that they should not be able to find websites that contain information deemed illegal by only certain countries' laws, but the fact that these results are showing up as suggested terms means that society is democratically setting their importance by searching for them. If the government or private institutions believe that citizens should not be able to access certain information, let them censor the web as countries such as China do.

Peter Griffon said...

I think the "entertainment" industry just needs to realize no one wants to pay their outrageous prices for stuff. Instead of fighting with everything cut cost on stuff, people pirate stuff cause they cant afford it in most cases... I mean goto walmart and you see people digging thru the 5$ movies.. even thou they are B rated movies.. put new movies at 5$ they wont be able to keep them in stock...

Pirating movies has been around since vhs, the only difference is it's getting easier to catch people and pin huge fees on the people who are easy to catch.. you cant catch the people making the movies theirs no profiting from it.

Seems like every time i Goto the movie the prices jump. It's just easier to blame it on "piracy" then lack of quality in movies. MAKE BETTER MOVIES!!!!

If I'm a house builder, and i go out and build a house should i be expected to be paid for the rest of my life because someone uses the house. Piracy is a wake up call.. it needs to be fought for not against....Quality of product is going down, Price of product is going up... any other service this would be unacceptable.

One last thought before i put you all to sleep, How much do these artists make doing concerts? Pirated music is free advertisement!!!!!! If those people like your music then offer then something they cant pirate, like better concerts.... Greed is all it is...

Peter Griffon said...

@ bill, no one's saying your students cant make the videos, but does the law say that they can post it to online websites.... The way i read it they say it cant be used for commercial videos, so even thou your students don't get any kickback from uploading it you-tube would still profit.... so therefore it would no longer be noncommercial.

Again i'm against the whole copyright laws, but i hate it when people link regulations with the right to post stuff online like that's infringing their rights.

Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work


So, one could argue by uploading it to you-tube your effecting the value of the potential market,by making it available to the masses, making it not within the guidelines of the fair use
guidelines.


reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson;

So one could assume, that by making a remix of lady gaga videos does not illustrate a lesson, it might use aspects learned, but it's not teaching a lesson



In short, as with all guidelines there is always a catch 22, which is simply
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

Do you consult an attorney every time you post your youtube videos..

It's up to google to decide if they want to take the risk of being sued... until there is a black and white law i dont blame google for trying to cover their own.

Caroline on Crack said...

Google says it will respond to reliable copyright takedown requests within 24 hours. What does it mean for those who have been waiting 45 hours and counting?

Peter Griffon said...

That they are not reliable :)..sounds pretty self explained.

Tyler said...

I wrote and submitted a comment before, and I am unsure if it was removed or did not make it for whatever reason. If it was removed, I would just like to note that I only wanted to share my opinion to encourage discussion on this subject, because I believe that in our current age, it is especially important to be discussing matters such as the legality of transferring information, and censorship.

I said that I do not believe it is appropriate for private company, such as Google, to censor their service. Google's purpose is to help users find what the information that they are looking for, and they do this by giving suggestions and ranking results according to what will statistically be most beneficial to users. Remember that terms such as "torrent" and "rapidshare" were showing up in suggestions not because Google condones these activities, but because our society democratically voted for their importance by searching for them more than other terms.

By simply censoring these terms, you are making your suggestions statistically less relevant, and even worse, promoting your personal belief over that all users that this information should be prohibited. This is what China does to a far greater degree and why you protested their ways. If acquiring this information is really such a social harm, then government should deal with the problem and censor the web (which the United States government has recently begun doing, and I believe it is a poor choice). But Google does not provide this illegal material, and should not pretend that it does not exist by hiding it from people's eyes.

Tyler said...

Dear Google,
I am trying to be quite civil about posting comments here, but it would seem you are ironically censoring me from discussing censorship. At least, I have verified that my posts are going up and then disappearing. Could you please at least confirm for me if you are removing them and that some error is not occurring? You can contact me at tdmurphy [at] gmail [dot] com

Peter Griffon said...

But at the same time does Google not have the right to run their business how they see fit?... It's no more fair for us to tell them how to make their money then it is for them to tell us what we can or cannot view... If walmart wasn't selling your brand of cereal wouldn't you goto another store that does have your cereal?.. Why just because this is internet does that not apply, does Bing for example , block searches.. go there if your not happy with google.

Also, your comment may have been deleted cause google isn't saying you cant search for the words torrent or rapidshare, they are just saying you have to hit enter after you type torrent.. OMG!! one more button... they are only blocked from instant search(which is pointless anyway you lazy people)

Tyler said...

Google can run their business as they see fit, but I see a number of problems with this situation.

First, there is no reason to censor comments that are calm and simply trying to promote discussion on this issue.

Second, I was suggesting that it might be hypocritical for them to censor results (and blog comments) when they committed an act just months ago which made China look bad for its censorship policies.

And thirdly, as for this is not a big deal because they are merely censoring suggestions, I believe this is still an extremely important issue to think about. Suggestions are not merely a convenience, they can contribute important information that it would be dangerous to skew. For example, although Google declared that they did not in fact do this, people were worried for a while that they were censoring the suggestion for the term "climategate": http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/021306.html

If they were to do this, it would mislead people into believing that this was not a very hot topic in the world at the time, and would prevent people from discovering potentially useful information that they might otherwise not have discovered. They man be allowed to do as they please as a private institution, but considering how many people in the world use their service, they have a great responsibility because of the influence they have on the information people can find and discover.

rodneysteinberg said...

Hopefully this will be kept short. First of all

@Tyler, all your posts are still up, no worries. Internet censorship is a slippery slop, and Homeland Security's take down of select 'infringing' website was out of left field for sure. Google's policy is to prevent sites associated with piracy from appearing in autocomplete searches only (a brand new feature), not search results. I would view this more as a handicap on google's part than internet censorship. They want to pay respective nods to the entertainment industry while staying competitive with other search engines. Should the focus turn to Bing (among others) for a similar promise to the industry? Maybe they should be next to make it.

@Barry Attrics & people in general leaning toward the copyleft. This conversation has been hashed out so many times I'm not sure this is going to be original at all, but let's go for it anyway...

We all want the same thing, that is great content whenever we want it, however we want it. And as the industry goes through these growing pains, people are somehow forced to take sides, throwing out names like internet pirates, thieves, corrupt big wigs, the RIAA, the list goes on. This is all surface level friction that really has no long lasting relevance. The top dog will soon be dead and gone, and the underdog will be the new top dog. It's an everlasting battle between have and have nots.

After one gets through the cluttered state of the industry, the only things that are important are creative people and their audience. Make no mistake, the foundation of this relationship is our copyright law. Bottom line, whatever it is that is capturing your attention, whether it be the written word, visual art, music, film, or the youtube sensation making movies from the attic, somebody is capitalizing on your fixation. If it's not the creative people, it's someone else (namely youtube, search engines, ISP's, grooveshark, megavideo, etc). This is a case the industry has waiting far to long to make, but it's the most important truth people have to understand. This is the essence of our copyright law, and this is what the copyleft is undermining. Yes, let the content flow freely, levy the medium to insure proper compensation, but do not take the floor out from under our creators.

Yea, not so short after all, but hopefully this is it for tonight, I'm tired. Feel free to respond, hit me with it! G'night -RS

rodneysteinberg said...

Hopefully this will be kept short. First of all

@Tyler, all your posts are still up, no worries. Internet censorship is a slippery slop, and Homeland Security's take down of select 'infringing' website was out of left field for sure. Google's policy is to prevent sites associated with piracy from appearing in autocomplete searches only (a brand new feature), not search results. I would view this more as a handicap on google's part than internet censorship. They want to pay respective nods to the entertainment industry while staying competitive with other search engines. Should the focus turn to Bing (among others) for a similar promise to the industry? Maybe they should be next to make it...

rodneysteinberg said...

@Barry Attrics & people in general leaning toward the copyleft. This conversation has been hashed out so many times I'm not sure this is going to be original at all, but let's go for it anyway...

We all want the same thing, that is great content whenever we want it, however we want it. And as the industry goes through these growing pains, people are somehow forced to take sides, throwing out names like internet pirates, thieves, corrupt big wigs, the RIAA, the list goes on. This is all surface level friction that really has no long lasting relevance. The top dog will soon be dead and gone, and the underdog will be the new top dog. It's an everlasting battle between have and have nots.

After one gets through the cluttered state of the industry, the only things that are important are creative people and their audience. Make no mistake, the foundation of this relationship is our copyright law. Bottom line, whatever it is that is capturing your attention, whether it be the written word, visual art, music, film, or the youtube sensation making movies from the attic, somebody is capitalizing on your fixation. If it's not the creative people, it's someone else (namely youtube, search engines, ISP's, grooveshark, megavideo, etc). This is a case the industry has waiting far to long to make, but it's the most important truth people have to understand. This is the essence of our copyright law, and this is what the copyleft is undermining. Yes, let the content flow freely, levy the medium to insure proper compensation, but do not take the floor out from under our creators.

Yea, not so short after all, but hopefully this is it for tonight, I'm tired. Feel free to respond, hit me with it. G'night -RS

Tyler said...

rodneysteinberg, I made two posts initially that, as far as I can tell, are no longer available. I even took screenshots of them and had a friend online verify that they did initially go up just to make sure I am not going crazy.

And where do you draw the line between "handicapping" websites and censoring them, lowering their page rank, or removing them from results together? They are still available on the WWW so technically Google is just "handicapping" their ability to be discovered, but that does not mean there is not censorship of information being done.

My dictionary says censorship is "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts". It would seem to me that the "etc." is Google's search suggestions, and the suppressed "unacceptable parts" were terms that could potentially bring up results of websites that contain unauthorized, copyrighted material in certain countries.

Tyler said...

I will restate some of the important ideas that I think got lost from one of my original posts. At the very least, I think this is an appropriate time and place to discuss the issues of copyright and censorship.

From my second post:
"I do not believe it is appropriate for private company, such as Google, to censor their service. Google's purpose is to help users find what the information that they are looking for, and they do this by giving suggestions and ranking results according to what will statistically be most beneficial to users. Terms such as "torrent" and "rapidshare" were showing up in suggestions not because Google condones these activities, but because our society democratically voted for their importance by searching for them more than other terms.

By simply censoring these terms, they are making suggestions statistically less relevant, and even worse, promoting their personal belief over all users that this information should be prohibited. This is what China does to a far greater degree and why Google protested their ways. If acquiring this information is really such a social harm, then government should deal with the problem and censor the web (which the United States government has recently begun doing, and I believe it is a poor choice). But Google does not provide this illegal material, and should not pretend that it does not exist by hiding it from people's eyes."

Hardcore XXX said...

@Tyler

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Tyler for President!

Tools said...

Here we go.. Google you make me sooo endlessly disappointed! You do know that walking down that path will only lead to one thing? Please continue to organize the information don't choose wht we should and should not see.

Is this the end to the open internet?

DFT said...

It is not for Google to censor/mask/prioritize search results and should not be capitulating to those groups who demand that they do so. Google Search is a search engine that should allow all users whoever they are and wherever they are to readily find whatever they are looking for....period.

It is a slippery slope when a search engine starts to hide any web content because someone objects to it as there will always be someone who objects to something - where does it stop? Should Google hide information on contraception because the Catholic church objects to it? Should Google hide information on speeding motorists because speeding is illegal and can cause people's deaths?

Some will say these are not the same thing but the principles are exactly the same. Though to some the content may be objectionable there are always those who have legitimate need for it, whatever it is.

Though the music industry may not like search engines displaying search results showing pirated content their lobbying to have these results removed/hidden is misguided and should be deemed irrelevant to the arguement. In fact, Google should be lobbying themselves, and/or seeking a legal ruling, that makes the case clear that no results from any search on any subject should be removed. That way everybody will know where they stand. Pandering to the lobbying of the music industry sets a very dangerous president that will have repercussions throughout the entire web.

GOOGLE, DON'T GO THERE!

Nick said...

This is not about censorship. They are simply going to exclude certain terms from the suggestion feature. You could still type in and see whatever you want.

Jink said...

Something else just occurred to me. Very recently, someone set up a blog to impersonate and ridicule a friend of mine, using blogspot. Google is dragging its heels on this issue, waiting for a court order to be processed.
So now a corporation can have infringing material taken down at their leisure, almost immediately, but individuals have to have their day in court after a prolonged and miserable incident.
If I was cynical I would say that it's because TV companies pay you, Google, whereas individuals don't. But I'll just stick with it being a case of double standards.

NCMan said...

The problem with the pirate sites is that many times these sites have no contact information. You can't even easily find their host. You find the host and they don't reply for days.

For example: this site keeps stealing content from many other websites.

http://eleancer.co.cc/ can anyone contact them? Google please, can you take action and remove this site or at least Adsense?

Thank you

Leo said...

This is Google taking sides. Before, they kept neutral, and everyone would use their services regardless of opinion and ideology.

If Google decides to do this, they will risk losing the information / search monopoly they possess today, since the demand for a service that keeps a fair, unmodified search listing is quite large.

rodneysteinberg said...

@ Tyler

Good question, where do you draw the line? Now this, what's next. Looking at the bright side, maybe it's better (for both Google and it's users)that they took it upon themselves to make this promise rather than to have regulation imposed on them. That's no excuse but a perspective none the less.

Also, just to quickly clarify my use of the word 'handicap' - people fundamentally have the free will to search for whatever they want and google has done nothing to stifle this. However, autocomplete goes further in feeding educated suggestions making it not cleanly about free will. There is an element of intuition on the computer's part, which benefits the user, and adds value to Google Search. In limiting this, they've only handicapped their service while limiting their impingement on people's free will... A limited argument for sure, but one can still ask the question, where do you draw the line? I don't know.

This thread is starting to spiral out so I'm gonna unsubscribe. Fun talk peoples

Raph said...

When censorship begins, nothing can stop it. If you start censoring for some reason, there is no reason not to continue for others.

By this statement you have just lost millions of users who have trusted you so far...

Freedom vs Business...
You just destroyed everything that made Google an ethical company.

Goodbye.

laird said...

Will Google do anything about the Double-click ads on pirate websites? Do you plan to monitor and disable Double-click ads that also appear to be fairly ubiquitous on websites that feature stolen content?

Jörgen L said...

This is Google shooting themselves in the foot.

To continue being a relevant search tool, Google should refrain from running errands for the copyright industry.

As users of Google we expect to be presented with results that is ONLY valued by their relevance, not biased or censored by some other random principles.

Keep this up, and in the long run, you will loose business and open up the field for new players.

Graham said...

For six months my independent feature film has been automatically blocked in Germany because it contains a song Sony granted us worldwide rights to use in the first place.

I hope the new system will take counter-notices more seriously.

cnab said...

"Do no evil" But to whom, dear Google. To US politicians or to we, the people, around the world?

Ghostkeeper said...

I am sick and tired of Big Media acting as victims in the digital age. The blame for loss of revenues lies squarely in the boardrooms of these media conglomerates. In the retail business, shoplifiting is a part of running a business, but if you focus on that to the exception of actually running your business you'll never make it.

The hold ny breath till I turn blue approach these corporations are taking against the cloud is doing more to fuel piracy due to their ever increasing loss of respect by their customers.

They are simply refusing to understand the digital age and in that refusal are failing to see the enormous capital potential of being connected to billions of people instantly.

Hulu is a stellar example of embracing technology and understanding how the internet and social Media works.

Hulu doesn't charge a subscription to view basic content... that is 1980s thinking, instead they leverage it by advertising... just like on old fashioned tv... duh!

Hulu provides content which in turn reaches a far wider audience on line, since you don't need a livingroom and a try to watch Hulu... in turn the advertising market increases and Hulu capitalizes on that.

When the conglomerates stop viewing all of us consumers as thieves and in turn ask how can we capitalize on this unprecedented reach and off us value, the Huge media companies will return to profitability and break profit records...

IMHO, of course

Steve said...

Every copyright term in US law is far to long to be reasonable. There are variances, of course, but most of them are 95 years, 120 years, or 70 years from the death of the author! These laws are obviously not made to benefit the human creators of a work. They're made to benefit corporations.

I understand that Google has to survive as a company and can't take on every poorly constructed law in every jurisdiction, but it saddens me to see a gentle giant like Google bow down to an ancient evil like the RIAA.

Franky said...

I believe that Google should respect the net neutrality.
I also believe that Google should respect politics ideas and
Religious ideas of its users. If I search "lesbian" or "pornography" is not
right that the search results are filtered just because Google thinks
that pornography should not exist.
So if I search "Swedish pirate party" is not just that the results
are filtered just because google does not agree with my hostility
to the current copyright laws.

I do not think it is for google to determine what users can and
can not search.

Daniel said...

The day the freedom died...

people rights? or money?
It smell like money...

qwertyuioplkjhgfdsa said...

Wouldn't it be really cool if ...

googles putting legitimate content towards the top of the search results included Creative Commons and Public Domain Music and Videos. Or better yet put them first.

qwertyuioplkjhgfdsa said...

@Jörgen L - Google isn't shooting themselves in the foot. Everyone knows that the record labels will be dead in less than 5 years. The TV Networks will fail, like music, TV shows are going to "Singles" not channels. The Movie Studios will end up with one or two windows over the next 10 years. Basically this is a holding action until these businesses fail or more competition creeps up from the bowels of the internet.

Tyler said...

I like how this article has phrased a similar situation: http://osdir.com/Article10586.phtml

"If this is real censorship, it is much more profoundly unacceptable than just deleting someone's account, because it's not like trying to block that one account, that one voice, but like censoring and manipulating the collective voice."

What Google is censoring is the collective voice, and if the collective voice is suggesting some sort of illegal activity, maybe the government should look at its laws instead of having companies cover it up.

Björnen "The Bear" said...

Scary when the big supports the big!

The Question is if this is good for the people, what's the next step?
Block WikiLeaks, Pro Islam sites or just rule the world?

Search engines should not act as a self proclaimed police.

shoebox said...

Those of you saying pirating only affects big media are wrong. I run a small indie record label and lately I'm finding as soon as we release our music, pirates are there to pick it up and distribute it on the web.

Now, I expect this, and see it someone useful in promoting our music, but when I go to google and the pirated distributions of our music appear ABOVE our legitimate website links, there is a problem because now any average internet user can simply go to google and search for one of our songs and download it for free.

This is why this new offering by google is important.. especially for smaller labels like us..

Pirate links like this should NOT appear in google results. If you already know where to find pirate material then more power to you.. go to those sites and find the music there.. but the average person should not be able to go to google and just find any copyrighted material they want and download it.

The pirate scene used to be much more exclusive. You would have to know where to go to find things. Now, any idiot can find just about anything and get it for free.. The pirate scene needs to go back to the way it was in the old days...

Afterall.. how else is the indie music industry going to survive unless it is able to pay it's musicians?

How can you not agree with what I'm saying here?

Zebu said...

Though it is true that copyright laws should be taken account I do believe that the customer needs to be satisfied. For instance, I know that many gaming related videos on YouTube have been taken down and ‘copyright infringement’ is cited. On the face of it this looks fine but upon further inspection on the law we see there is ambiguity:

“Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work”


I refer now to the case of darksydephil (THEKINGOFHATEHD) where his entire GTA4: Lost and the Damned series has been taken down (unless you watch it in glorious 240p quality.) The argument against game playthroughs is as follows:

Should the whole game be played for review purposes people will be less likely to buy the game. Therefore his playthrough impacts on the “market for, or value of, copyrighted work.” An example cited here would be that if you comment live on a movie and publish it, it would still infringe on copyright.

The argument against this is that movies have only one experience (i.e. if you play it again it will be the same) However the experience of a game is dependant on how it is played, and thus the experience of the playthrough belongs to the owner. Should the person directly profit from this they would infringe on the “commercial nature or non-profit educational purpose(s)” aspect of copyright law. However videos that have review like & critical commentary is actually protected under copyright law so long as it does not profit from it or affect its market.

The latter point (infringement on market) is the ambiguous part of the law. Indeed it must be ascertained whether a playthrough that gets 20,000 hits per video is actually ruining a game for someone or encouraging them to buy it. On this point I believe that it is YouTube’s responsibility to fight for the user, as it is the user they work for, not corporations. Cases such as movies, TV shows and music are non-issues as they are covered by no law (yet there are plenty of movies and TV shows on YouTube that haven’t been taken down.) However, since anyone can launch a copyright claim though they may not own any content plenty of false accusations can be made. It is YouTube’s duty to investigate these to an extent which satisfies all parties involved.

It should be noted that review sites that publish videos to YouTube (Gamespot, IGN) and amateur reviewers who can spoil a game in 30 seconds are not taken down because they are seen to be expressly reviewing it. I hope YouTube knows exactly where the line between review and infringement lies and if not, it is their duty to stipulate that line.

ANDiTKO said...

It seems like i will be changing my homepage to yahoo or bing. I dont like the filtering. Where is the freedom of speach.

Stupid corporations must find a new way to deal with piracy. I think that if most people have about 10-30 $ per month for file sharing premium accounts they will have the money to buy or rent LEGALLY content.

People will always find a way to get copyrighted media for free! There is no way to stop this! Deal with it! Internet is a TOOL learn to use it! If corporations are loosing money, that's because they cant use the internet.

two bells said...

Hmm, the thought police now have a new tool at it's disposal: Google.

I want my data searches unadulterated without some Big Brother deciding what I can see or link to.
It is a shame that Google has once again fallen to vested interests, I suspect it is only a matter of time before they (Google) fall by the wayside.
Why? Because information recognises no border while any attempt to restrict access identifies the perpetrator for what they are...part of the problem.

picnet said...

Could google please give a definition of the "Internet" and its relationship with geographically defined countries? Is the internet classified as a country? if so where? Im very tired of ""This video contains content from big corporation/label, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
Sorry about that."

-I'd be willing to PAY for the content rather than read such a message - Its an insult where the occurrence seems to be increasing.

Also as a content producer how do I select "Limit this content to country x" on youtube?

Tyler said...

An article at TorrentFreak discusses this issue: http://torrentfreak.com/google-starts-censoring-bittorrent-rapidshare-and-more-110126/

"Although the impact of this decision does not currently affect full search results, it does send out a strong signal that Google is willing to censor its services proactively, and to an extent that is far greater than many expected."

mistertrufa said...

Google siempre quieren ser los primeros en todo incluso a la hora de la censura. Ya lo han demostrado en China y no lo olvidamos....

Google always want to be first in everything even when censorship. They've already proven in China and do not forget ....

CENSURA CENSURA CENSURA
CENSORSHIP CENSORSHIP CENSORSHIP

mistertrufa said...

Could google please give a definition of the "Internet" and its relationship with geographically defined countries? Is the internet classified as a country? if so where? Im very tired of ""This video contains content from big corporation/label, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
Sorry about that."

-I'd be willing to PAY for the content rather than read such a message - Its an insult where the occurrence seems to be increasing.

Also as a content producer how do I select "Limit this content to country x" on youtube?

xstream said...

what happend to don't be evil? this is censorship and censorship is always evil!

bolapara said...

Google, 'torrent' is a tool. It can be used for legitimate purposes (Linux torrents, anyone?) or piracy purposes. Censoring autocomplete for a tool that has legitimate purposes is wrong and sets a VERY dangerous precedent. You are giving credence to the ridiculous claim that a tool that may be used for good OR bad purposes should be censored. Please reconsider!

snapy666 said...

I'm very disappointed about your deciscion to censorship. And yes it is censorship because Google censors the suggestions you get, when typing. Also this is just the entering wedge. There're are things, like ACTA, on the way, that will give the copyright-holders too many rights. Google is mercenary. I will immediately stop to use Google services if this will not be revoked!

mistertrufa said...

Bolapara true what they say. The Torrent is not only a tool, as well as the P2P. Rapidshare no longer hosting server. So come and others may be used for this purpose good or bad. By Torrent Linux can download programs, works with GPL, GNU, and others. Licensed programs are shareware and freeware, public domain and everyone Copyleft this is absolutely legal. Torrent join with illegal downloads or is a hoax and an excuse to censor anything else. It is seen that with censorship in China have caught the taste.

Besides seeking to use these tools to pursue this are ineffective and dangerous. I still remember when they created a tool for spam blogs on Blogger and are out of control, taking several weeks without access to thousands of legitimate blogs until they had to turn it off. Seem to want to repeat the error.

On the other hand is very suspicious as only fixed on Rapidshare and Torrents, not similar. It may be some corporate strategy. Ultimately we had to Google foolish as defenders of freedom in the network and now become the first to break this free. The worst thing is that we are told as if it were beneficial. Beneficial to whom? Not for the people. We will have to switch to another service, using this sure will be some willing to waive them censorship and a blow to its economy, which is where it hurts. Boycott censorship.

LotusWatcher said...

I appreciate that copyright is a sensitive issue right now but I would like to point out the wide range of applications for torrents, from linux distribution, communities built around access to public domain film, music, literature, and archives, made-for-torrent product distributions, repair and technical manual databases, and many other things. Google does not censor usenet, file transfer protocol, instant chat programs, instructions on connecting computers through a physical ethernet connection, scanner technologies, encryption services and techniques, or many other topics that, though not exclusive to copyright infringement practices, lend themselves to the practices just as freely. Without commenting one way or another on copyright issues I hope you reconsider your stance on the censorship of torrents themselves.

StefanU said...

If I write a review of a book on my blog (hosted by Google) and I quote extensively from that book, can it be considered violation of copyright and can Google take the blog posts down ?

Jason said...

"Making Copyright Work Better Online"

What a SAD joke again from google. And google still believes that those sites (blogspot) below are not about Piracy. Until they start growing some balls and start deleting complete websites from there own servers, i will have no respect for company.

http://audiofv4.blogspot.com/

http://audiopirate.blogspot.com/

http://audiofeenz.blogspot.com/

http://theaudiopirate.blogspot.com/

Jesse Taylor said...

It's really disappointing that you're acting as an organ of state censorship.

If you keep making decisions like this, people are going to replace you.

Jason said...

..and if nothing is done, good and honest companies are still be going backrupt.....

mark said...

Mr. Walker. May I strongly suggest that Google purchase Interdigital IDCC to obtain the patents it needs to defend in the lawsuits regarding the Android operating system. Interdigital owns patents that are used in every phone sold today. Some estimate that Interdigital owns 25% of the patents used for LTE. Google needs Interdigital. Just thought I'd bring it to your attention.