|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/06/06 00:58
"Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message news:457611dd$1@clear.net.nz...
>
>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4tm87aF151740U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> "Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message
>>> news:4575e5bd$1@clear.net.nz...
>
>>> If visitors to the youtube site see literally thousands of items taken
>>> from DVDs and TV shows, then they obviously think it's OK to upload
>>> similar material, because the existing material must surely have the
>>> blessing of youtube's owners, otherwise it would have been taken down
>>> long ago.
>>
>> Perhaps. Perhaps not. Did you ever post a video to Youtube? The
>> posting process makes it very clear that you must own the rights to
>> upload the material. It's hard to imagine someone thinking, "it's okay
>> for me to upload this, even though I don't have the rights."
>
> The warning message about uploading video on youtube says this:
>
> "Do not upload copyrighted material for which you don't own the rights or
> have permission from the owner."
That seems pretty clear to me.
>
> BUT, it DOESN'T say: "You can be held personally liable for uploading
> copyrighted material and Youtube has no liability whatsoever for having
> published your video on this site." If it said this, then this could
> discourage a few people from uploading countless video tracks!
It also doesn't say, "You can be held personally liable for uploading
material constituting child pornography, sedition, fraudulent
representations or trade libel," either. It's not Youtube's job to instruct
uploaders on the law.
>
> I see a lot of videos on youtube that have obviously been filmed on
> privately owned camcorders by people who attended concerts. Now these
> people must think that, because they personally filmed a musical item, for
> example, that they have the right to upload this to youtube. But I guess
> this would be illegal because they didn't have the permission of the
> performers to film them, and they didn't get the permission of the music
> industry who hold the rights to the music.
They don't own the copyright to the underlying music, so that would
infringe. There is no inherent right in one's image beyond commercial
appropriation and right-of-publicity laws, false light defamation, etc.,
though the license by which most people are admitted to concerts usually
precludes videography.
>
> But then it would be difficult for either the performers or the music
> industry to track down the people who uploaded this illegal music.
Oh, it's not that hard to track down infringing uploaders. The RIAA does it
all the time.
> Firstly, people can have assumed names, and when they set up their
> youtube account, they could use a false name on their e-mail address.
> Unlike usenet messages, I don't think the youtube site discloses the IP
> address,
Youtube, like virtually any website, has logs with IP addresses, and those
IP addresses can be easily obtained via subpoena. ISPs also maintain logs
that link dynamically-assigned IP addresses to specific accounts and those,
too, can be easily obtained via subpoena.
It is possible to maintain anonymity on the internet, but it is not as easy
as most people think.
> so if all the account information held by youtube about someone is false,
> then a copyright holder would have no information from which to track down
> the illegal poster. Unless, that is, youtube generously provided them with
> the uploader's IP address.
Youtube can be compelled to provide the IP address -- a subpoena duces tecum
is a court order (in the context of a copyright infringement suit, issued by
an attorney in his capacity as officer of the court) that compels the
recipient to disclose specific documents and records. I issue subpoenae all
the time.
> Even then, the internet service provider may not disclose who the owner of
> the IP address is unless ordered to do so by a Court of Law.
See above. All I have to do is sign the subpoena and serve it on the
recipient. If they refuse to comply, they'll be cited for contempt by the
court under whose jurisdiction I issued the subpoena.
>
> In any event, to go to the bother of suing someone for possibly very
> little gain, is not the way in which most copyright holders would go.
Not true. My clients rarely sue because they're interested in a damages
recovery. In fact, I tell them to never regard an infringement action as a
profit center. Businesses sue for infringement for a variety of reasons:
e.g., to protect their interest in their intellectual property, to send a
message to other infringers, both existing and potential, etc. I will
frequently sue diminimus infringemers on behalf of my clients precisely
because they're the easiest against whom to prevail -- it sends a strong
message to others contemplating infringement when they lose.
> They are more likely to complain to youtube and ask them to take down the
> offending video.
So far.
> This is what the thousands of illegal video uploaders are relying on! I
> think it would be very difficult for the rights owner of a video to prove
> that they have lost a lot of revenue as a result of one or two clips from
> their videos being illegally uploaded to youtube.
They don't have to prove any lost revenue. They only have to prove
infringement, i.e. that they own a valid copyright in the protected
expression and that the infringer violated one of the reserved rights.
Statutory damages are available without any proof of actual loss.
> If they can't prove they have lost any revenues, and that the uploader has
> benefited financially from uploading the videos, I doubt whether a Court
> would award them very much by way of damages?
Wrong. See above. Statutory damages for wilful infringement can be as
high as $250,000 per infringement, i.e. knowingly violate copyright by
uploading clips from 4 different episodes of the Daily Show and you can be
liable for $1,000,000 in statutory damages.
>
> Does anyone know if any illegal Youtube uploaders have been prosecuted
> yet, and if so what amount of damages was awarded? Also, how would such
> offenders have been tracked down?
I have no idea if anyone has been sued for a Youtube upload. I've already
explained how easy it is to track down infringers.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|