Cameraman drops first YouTube suit to join class action Eight new groups of rights holders have joined the legal action against Google-owned video sharing website YouTube. Among the eight is Robert Tur, the cameraman who has dropped his existing suit against YouTube to join the case. Tur began the first copyright infringement case against YouTube, but his suit was lodged before the …
I can see the day coming when all that will be left on youtube will be a load of second rate video clips of "happy" slapping (i.e. assault of a person) ,sum bags doing all kinds of nefarious things and mindless drivel. Google might as well close it down now and do us all a favour!
99% of the videos I've ever seen on You Tube have been of pretty bad quality. I find it hard to believe that the Premier League have really suffered any loss/damage from footage being posted on You Tube.
If you want to watch Premier League football that badly then you'll either cough up a subscription or go down the pub. I can't image a die hardy footy fan sitting at home waiting for someone to post, after the match is over, highlights on You Tube.
OK the footage shouldn't be on there as its copyright infringement but frankly we get enough play acting/crying foul on the pitch without the Premier League getting in on the act.
...whining biotches like Mr Tur and the Premier League start their own channels on YouTube, instead of trying to sue the arse off them..?? I've noticed that the BBC started demanding clips be taken down from YouTube once it was bought by Google, but now they have their own channel. I find this perfectly acceptable, as it allows me to watch the things that I want (unedited and unaired clips of "Mock the Week" for instance). And these clips tend to be of better quality that the normal webcam shite that's posted by Joe Public.
The Premier League in particular would endear itself to people if it set up its own channel and posted match highlights, goal of the month or whatever. It might even encourage a few people to fork out for the likes of Sky or "Sultana/Santan/Banana"...
Except blatent copyright infringements. They can say they can't do anything about it B***cks. How about the content being moderater controlled. i.e someone at Google has to vet all videos before upload.
But that would eat into their huge profits and would require them to work for their money. That and the fact they won't be able to hide behind "it's not us..." badge.
Its widely used by people posting their own material. In my own sport of sailing boats its the favourite means of publishing amateur video clips. That sort of thing is highly legitimate and practical, but unfortunately it won't deliver the numbers of adverts and so on that the torrents of pirate material have done. It might be that they've got enough critical mass now to survive without the piracy now, but theres no doubt in my mind that piracy made You Tube what it is.
Although i agree the Premiere league should stop whining, you have to remember that the Premiere league was made for the money.
We used to have the 1st four leagues of football in this country but in order to make more money the premiere league was formed with a view to maximising the viewing and marketing of it.
Currently one of the (few) things that is being offered to get people to take mobile TV is the offer of match clips to your phone. I think that is where they think they are losing out to youtube.
Still its about time they stopped suing and starting thinking creatively... dont hold your breath.
I came across BeelineTV today.
http://www.beelinetv.com/
They carry streams of TV stations from around the world. After about a decade, I can watch CBC News again, and reconnect with my home and native land.
About a decade ago there were several businesses that were rebroadcasting Canadian channels over the internet. It was legal in Canada. The model was cable TV, which also began by "pirating" terrestrial TV and rebroadcasting it. There were hopes internet TV would be bigger than cable. However, the industry was killed in it's infancy by copyright suits brought by the US networks and the *cable* companies, ie. the same kind of people trying to bring down GooTube.
Keep that in mind the next time someone tries to BS you about "piracy" and the poor mega-media-corps that can't cope with new technology. As with copyright extensions - which amount to corporate pirating from the public - ask yourself who is pirating from whom.
Premiere League, Tur et al are whining because youtube won't cut them in on the add revenue which in this day and age is completely inexcusable. That's why they won't start their own channels. If the beeb is posting stuff to the tube then Google is paying them something somewhere. Either that or the beeb (with it's guaranteed revenue streams) simply doesn't care.
Premiere League and the others however deal in selling EXCLUSIVE rights to their content. Therefore they must attempt to prevent these outside sources or the value of their deal goes in the toilet. If YouTube is unwilling to help defray the loss then what choice do these rights holders have other than defending themselves?
Mr. Reeves is right about moderating the content. Metacafe (with nowhere near the resources of Googoply) both moderates their content AND pays a part of the add revenue to the content producer. YouTube (in true Google fashion) has a similar payout scheme 'in-beata' and only applies to producers they have invited to join the scheme. Bollocks indeed.
First, let me say that I'm against Google on this issue, because I do think they are making money off of someone else's work. Work which they have not licensed, not paid for. Google is the largest copyright infringer on the planet, and they do so with great gusto, being very proud of that fact. And people blindly support them, quite emphatically, as if they're not out to take over the world.
That aside, Google (and YouTube's operators before they were acquired by Google) have had to spend considerable attorney's fees defending themselves in this case. Now this plaintiff decides to just drop the case and join another case against them. So now the process starts all over again. It sure does seem like a good way to bleed a company dry, doesn't it? Start litigation, make the company pay, drop the suit, start another suit, make the company pay, drop the suit, start another suit... If a plaintiff drops a case only to start (or join) another one, they should have to pay the defendant's attorney's fees. It's only fair.
Tur is probably a misunderstanding fool. Unless you are the named class actor, the typical class member gets squat. I've been a member in dozens of suits. Remington: $2.35 per shotgun. Doubletree Inn: a free day's stay, within a specific time period. American Honda: a free tune up for a car I no longer owned. etc, etc, etc. Unless he's cut some deal with Premier, he'll get a couple of dollars.
WTF? Are you saying that attorney's fees are a serious threat to Google's business? You tool. Google has a large flock of on staff attorney's and 3rd party litigators under contract. Big companies don't pay fees the same way individuals or small companies do. One, or a lot, of lawsuits won't matter much plus being sued in the US is just another cost of doing business for which companies are prepared to deal with.
I said no such thing. If that's what you read, you need to to learn how to read. I simply stated that it is unfair for the plaintiff to be able to drop the case and then open/join another case without paying the defendant's attorneys need. And if you think that being sued in just another cost of doing business that companies are prepared to deal with, as you say, they you are the tool. I'll agree that a number of large business employ inside counsel. But that doesn't mean that nuisance lawsuits don't eat away at their profit (and guess who pays for that counsel in the long run). And just because some big companies expect and can afford lawsuits doesn't mean that it's "just another cost of doing business for which companies are prepared to deal with". Most companies are not prepared to deal with lawsuits, nor can they afford to. Big companies, yes. Most companies, no.
Re: Does anyone remember... I, too, remember those times. Back when webcrawler and metacrawler were the "in thing". I think the Google guys watched a little too much "Pinky and the Brain".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
