I wrote, shortly after Google bought YouTube, that this purchase was a potential windfall for YouTube copyright claimants however recent happenings are proving me wrong (imagine that!).
Prof Tim Wu (Professor of Law at Columbia) wrote recently in an article in Slate that YouTube (or GooTube as people are now taking to calling it):
is in much better legal shape than anyone seems to want to accept. The site enjoys a strong legal “safe harbor,” a law largely respected by the television and film industries for the choices it gives them.
Prof Wu went on to say:
if Jon Stewart notices an infringing copy of The Daily Show on YouTube, Comedy Central can write a letter to YouTube and demand it be taken down. Then, so long as YouTube acts “expeditiously” and so long as YouTube wasn’t already aware that the material was there, YouTube is in the clear.
This comment was very prescient because Boing Boing has posted news that YouTube has taken down all copies of the Daily Show!
ComedyCentral have their own online video site where people can view the Daily Show but as the blog An Unreasonable Man said of Comedy Central:
the YouTube video player works. Your video player? Not so much… Here’s why:
1. You have tiny little videos that can’t be resized. It’s like watching TV from the next room through the keyhole of a closed door.
2. You use javascript to launch a popup window. Therefore, I can’t send a link to my friends or put a link on my blog to direct people to the video highlight I want them to see.
3. Your popup window can’t be opened in a tab or resized. Give me control of my browser back.
4. Your popup window has an obnoxious background that I’m afraid is going to give me a seizure.
5. Next to your video, there’s an ad that’s bigger than the video. Firefox blocks it, but I can’t decide which is worse: the hole that remains in the background, or the background.
6. When I open a YouTube page, the video starts to play. Isn’t that cool? On your page, I sit and think about how much you suck while the video buffers. The video plays for about 3 seconds until it over-runs and starts buffering again. …and that’s with DSL. It must be completely useless at slower connection speeds.
7. With YouTube, I can embed the videos in my own website. When I visit a site I’m more likely to watch a video if its right there and I can just push play. You’re at least five years away from developing that technology.
8. YouTube’s search feature also works, conveniently allowing me to find what I’m looking for. At your site I end up looking through a list of videos.
If ComedyCentral are no longer going to allow YouTube to distribute the Daily Show, they should at least have a credible alternative in place. If they don’t, people will go elsewhere for their entertainment. In the era of the Long Tail, it isn’t as if we are stuck for choice.
Sometimes your users know better than you - sometimes it pays to listen.
In case you haven’t heard (where have you been?) Google announced that the rumours were true after all and that they have agreed to buy YouTube for $1.65bn.
Yep. You read that correctly, $1.65bn.
Unsurprisingly, this is the top story on TechMeme.
It looks like Google believes video on the web has a real future and YouTube’s legal troubles (they are being threatened with litigation for copyright infringement) are a price they are willing to pay.
For the people thinking of suing YouTube this has got to have them down on their knees thanking their deity of choice! Instead of suing YouTube - a company with no significant assets, they now get to sue Google - one of the world’s wealthiest companies!
Simon of Tuppenceworth has a great post where he reviews the terms and conditions of video sharing sites (YouTube, Blip.tv and Google Video). Simon works in McGarr Solicitors a well known law firm in dublin.
I haven’t tried Google Video yet but I have tried both Blip.tv and YouTube and I much prefer Blip.tv. Google would have to be really good to come close to Blip.tv, in terms of functionality.
However, when considering the ToS, Simon comes down in favour of Google Video - this is what he says for each of the sites:
YouTube -
Take your valued video off YouTube. They can do any damn thing they like with it, for money or any other reason, and you can’t do a thing.
Blip.tv
I’d be unworried were it not for two clauses. You do need to grant Blip a right to disseminate the video- otherwise how could anyone see it? But “either electronically or via other media�? What non electronic media does the blip.tv intend to use? I only want to agree to electronic dissemination. Also what is the definition of a “Blip.tv affiliated site�? Leaves us with questions.
and finally, Google Video
“non-exclusive� is good. “modify� is concerning, but could be a technical term. Let’s let it slide for the moment. “Reformat� might be read as referring to a video format. Or it might be selling a DVD of Google Greatest Giggles. Otherwise I’d say that it’s not so bad. Particularly read in conjunction with the later clause. You’re taking a risk, of course, but it seems to be a lesser one than in the two examples above.
I must take a look at Google Video in light of that. Thanks Simon.
[EDITED] to correct Simon’s current status
I have been playing a bit doing some research on YouTube. I realise YouTube has been around a while and I have watched many videos on it but I hadn’t looked into uploading video to YouTube until now.
YouTube is a site which allows you to upload video clips (in the same way that Flickr and Zooomr allow you to upload photos) and share them online.
I setup an account and uploaded some quick videos.
Why am I playing with it? Well, my wife is Spanish and her family are always interested to see how our children are doing. I can take a video of the kids using my camera phone, copy to the computer, and upload to YouTube in a few short minutes. Each video gets its own url and I don’t get hit for hosting or bandwidth charges.
The interface is very straightforward and it seems to accept most video formats.
This has great possibilities for anyone interested in online video.
Latest Comments
RSSgayle, Ellie, mike, Dee, krishna, diego, Jim Wagner, Joe Public, desa, [...]
Le Web (3): Das politische Skandalon - Teil 2 | Sajonara.de - Internetmagazin, Politica e web 2.0 -- Fucinaweb - Idee per forgiare siti, DaithÃ, Paul Walsh, PaulSweeney, Tom Raftery, Nicolas Sarkozy reçoit un accueil mitigé au Web3 , Code is poetry, Pat Phelan, dahamsta, lol [...]
bhupendra, Ninj, Aaron, Lance, John, Don, Don, jon, gourav khurana, richard [...]
James, Guy Ames - Cheap Computers Guide, SimonH, Tom Raftery, Angsuman Chakraborty, Comments removed from post « Tom Raftery’s I.T. views, Tom Raftery
Chui’s counterpoint» Blog Archive » Tom Rafferty on Web 2.0 Toolset, Tom Raftery, Terry, links for 2008-06-02 : Des Walsh dot Com, Roseanne, iia blog » A different angle, Gordon, Amit Agarwal
LizC, Jean Marie, V G, Andy Rivers, Jean Marie Feddercke, V G, the bard, Andy Rivers, Jean Marie, Concerned from Surrey [...]