Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet

Google Video Blasted Over Piracy Claims 103

Posted by CmdrTaco from the mine-no-mine-no-nmine dept.
Stony Stevenson writes "A US-based copyright watchdog has sunk its teeth into Google by sending a report alleging copyright violations on Google Video to members of Congress. The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) researched the extent of copyrighted material being hosted on Google Video earlier this summer and released a Top 50 list of apparently copyrighted movies. But, in the latest spot-check of Google Video conducted from 10 to 18 September, the NLPC claims to have discovered 300 additional instances of apparently copyrighted films, including over 60 movies released this year. This is despite Google's claim that it respects the rights of copyright holders, and provides tools to help identify and remove copyrighted intellectual property from the site."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Video Blasted Over Piracy Claims More

Google Video Blasted Over Piracy Claims

Comments Filter:

  • And NPLC has no stake (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @09:18AM (#20755017)
    If they did, they'd file DMCA complaints. They're just trying to get some publicity (And thus funding), so good work Slashdot.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rs79 ( 71822 )
      Earliesr this week we had a "story" about wordpress that proved to be utterly false and now this paranoia over what looks to be a hardware failure at best, or unsubstantiated rumours at worse.

      It's "news for nerds" not "rumours that make us look like fools". Geesh.

    • Re:And NPLC has no stake (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eonlabs ( 921625 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @11:32AM (#20756721) Journal
      In the same breath, that's 300 out of how many videos. I'd say if they only found 300, 60 released this year, that google video is doing a really good job at keeping copyrighted stuff OFF of the site.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by TEMMiNK ( 699173 )
        I think the report was probably misquoted and they in fact found 60 clips of 300 remixed in various horrible ways.
      • I'm expecting much speechifying and self-righteous anger before Congress gets down to the business of mollifying its paying customers. (No silly, I don't mean taxpayers.)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rm999 ( 775449 )
        The number of videos is irrelevant. It's the number of people who watch those videos, especially the % of viewers who are watching pirated material. I have frequently seen links on popular blogs and link sites (reddit, digg, etc) to full movies hosted on google video. I have even personally watched a few movies on it. Google Video is specifically susceptible because their maximum video length allows full movies to sneak in.

        Google should themselves check the most popular videos for piracy. I don't know if th

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )
          Nah, the only relevant thing is how much google paid for youtube, once they declared that value for sharing low res videos they were screwed. I bet the execs at google wish they had never heard of youtube, it's got to be giving them nightmares by now.

          As for the term 'pirates' the copyrightists should start looking for new derogatory term for copyright infringers, because pirate is now the cool term that people of all ages are happy to use, and that is as a direct result of copyrightists idiotic, back firi

  • Well... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Twisted64 ( 837490 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @09:19AM (#20755027) Homepage
    ...it seems like the tools doing the identifying of copyrighted content are working.
    • I just searched for a selection of "movies" that are recent, including those listed by the NLPC. The longest clip I could find was 10 min long and didn't look like it was part of the movie. Most of the rest were under 4m, with many under 2m.

      So, is that really a copyright violation or Fair Use?

  • The only tool needed (Score:5, Informative)

    by speaker of the truth ( 1112181 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @09:21AM (#20755051)
    The only tool needed is a DMCA takedown notice. They're cheap and easy to use, and companies like Google have a policy of always responding in the affirmative to them. Thankfully there's another cheap and easy response to them which is a counter-DMCA notice and it forces companies like Google to put the work back up (or at least allow the person to put it back up). The original company and/or person can do nothing except take the infringer to court, and Google is allowed to continue on as business allows.

    With the law so bent towards media companies, you would think they'd stop bitching when companies like Google comply with the draconian laws.

    • Re:The only tool needed (Score:5, Informative)

      by russotto ( 537200 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @09:24AM (#20755081) Journal

      With the law so bent towards media companies, you would think they'd stop bitching when companies like Google comply with the draconian laws.


      You may have noticed that the copyright cartel is not happy with their own law (the DMCA) and is now pushing for ISPs to actively censor the net on behalf of copyright holders. They are complaining the law is too biased towards ISPs.

      • Not the only tool they'll want (Score:5, Insightful)

        by huckamania ( 533052 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @10:22AM (#20755761) Journal
        Eventually they will ask for protection on the desktop. Before everyone starts calling me a dunce or troll, I understand how impossible that will be. I'm just saying that they will eventually ask for some sort of legal remedy to suppress peoples ability to circumvent their copyrights. I'm pretty sure that the congress will give it to them.

        If it can happen in Germany, sigh...
        • Don't throw out your old hardware. Who knows what they'll build into CD/DVD players in the future.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by OnlyHalfEvil ( 1112299 )

          Eventually they will ask for protection on the desktop.
          Isn't that called Vista?

          • Yes, it is called Vista.
            Also, see: Sony's rootkit fiasco.
            Video game copyprotection: Starforce, etc...
        • If it can happen in Germany, sigh...

          If if can happen in Germany, what? It can happen anywhere? I don't see your country making BMWs or listening to Hasselhoff CDs! Ihr seid alle Schweine!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by bflynn ( 992777 )
      You're dead on - what's the news story here? There are thousands (millions?) of videos on Google Video. That there are only 300 copyright violations is astonishing. If there were 3000 or 30,000 violations, I would still be impressed by how low that number is.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by GeckoX ( 259575 )
        Totally agreed, I know individual people with FAR more copyright violations sitting on their shelf at home than this!

        I'm also wondering why this goes to Congress? Wtf is with that? Seriously, has corporate protection gone so far in the US that companies can simply go directly to the government in the open, circumventing standard law channels and the more typical monetary-exchange-via-back-door?

        Seems pretty blatantly rotten to me.

        Sometimes makes you wish Google WAS evil...(Well, in a robinhood like way ;)...

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ari wins ( 1016630 )
      Hell, I had one occasion where I happened across a picture of girl I used to know, unclothed. I went to Google and searched for DMCA takedown notice, and the first result was from Google itself, explaining exactly what to e-mail to them if you had an issue. I proceeded to copy most of the page, and as a representative of the female's interests, sent it off to the admin of the site, with an extra line or two about how the content was being used "for profit".

      Received a reply a few hours later, and they remov

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 )
        Hell, I had one occasion where I happened across a picture of girl I used to know, unclothed. I went to Google and searched for DMCA takedown notice, and the first result was from Google itself, explaining exactly what to e-mail to them if you had an issue. I proceeded to copy most of the page, and as a representative of the female's interests, sent it off to the admin of the site, with an extra line or two about how the content was being used "for profit".

        Received a reply a few hours later, and they remove

  • Why Congress? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sxltrex ( 198448 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @09:21AM (#20755053)
    Aren't there already laws protecting copyright? Is Congress really responsible for enforcement? This reminds me so much of a child running to mommy every time another kid takes their toy or calls them a name.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Aladrin ( 926209 )
      Yeah, my first thought was 'Oh noes, they told Congress!' Seriously, what a stupid thing to say. Congress would only care if someone was trying to get a new law passed. They do nothing with old laws. The nearest thing I could think was the someone might have said 'See, even Google doesn't respect Copyright laws!' ... Still utterly useless.

    • Re:Why Congress? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MontyApollo ( 849862 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @09:37AM (#20755221)
      Congress is responsible for writing and funding laws though, and by going to congress the group in effect is saying that current laws are insufficient or not properly enforced. It's about policy, not about the specific cases of infringement. This group does not own the copyrights; they are just promoting a particular policy like any political group does.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Applekid ( 993327 )

        It's about policy, not about the specific cases of infringement.
        Let's hope congress knows how useful the Library of Congress is, and the value of having even copyrighted works available for non-commercial use.

        No, wait, they won't care. It's DMCA 2.0 time. :(

      • current laws are insufficient or not properly enforced
        Enforcement is not performed by Congress, that responsibility belongs to the Executive, not the Legislative branch.
        • Congress has an impact policy, whether or not they do the actual enforcement. Just a few examples - they can give extra funding for enforcement, and they can write amendments or extra laws that direct enforcement activity.

          The type of offenses detailed against Google would probably be a civil matter anyways (not really enforceable by the executive branch), so from a policy perspective, getting Congress to write stricter, more favorable laws for copyright-holders might be the easier approach at "enforcing" wh

  • DMCA requirements (Score:4, Informative)

    by russotto ( 537200 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @09:22AM (#20755057) Journal
    I'm pretty sure the DMCA process for removal involves sending the information to the host (Google), not to Congress. Evidentally this watchdog group has gotten a bit confused about the process.

    • Re:DMCA requirements (Score:5, Informative)

      by MontyApollo ( 849862 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @09:26AM (#20755091)
      I'm not sure, but someone said you have to be a stakeholder to invoke the DMCA process. The watchdog group doesn't own any of the copyrights in question, so they cannot invoke the DMCA process.

      • The watchdog group doesn't own any of the copyrights in question, so they cannot invoke the DMCA process.

        This group had better darn well hope they are right about their assertions. Google is not like most of their victims. Google has the financial means to slap the nonsense out of them if the claims are without merit.
        • >>Google is not like most of their victims.

          I really don't know much about this group so I wouldn't know about their "victims", but they seem to be trying to get Congress to adopt a stricter policy and not to actually file individual lawsuits against Google themselves.

          • but they seem to be trying to get Congress to adopt a stricter policy and not to actually file individual lawsuits against Google themselves.

            I agree, but if they make claims that are untrue (i.e, falsely accusing Google of copyright infringement), they may find themselves unpleasantly entangled in legal action. Not to mention that lying to Congress isn't a good way to get them to listen to you in the future. Note that I'm not saying that Google isn't guilty -- I don't know one way or the other.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by GeckoX ( 259575 )
        So if they're not a stakeholder, what business do they have to lobby for this with congress?

        I'd hope congress would give them a firm 'Mind your own business'...but what are the chances of that?

        Really, it's bad enough we have watchdog groups working on behalf of 'think of the children'...but watchdog groups looking out for the corporate greedy? Pathetic.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by fishbowl ( 7759 )

          >So if they're not a stakeholder, what business do they have to lobby for this with congress?

          Well, fortunately, nothing in the Constitution says that public access to elected officials is to be limited to those with any "stake" in any given thing.

          >I'd hope congress would give them a firm 'Mind your own business'...but what are the chances of that?

          Hopefully, none! The right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances is an inalienable civil right. Whether or not you believe the

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by GeckoX ( 259575 )
            Um, sure, if we're talking about lobbying congress about some area of law that a particular individual or group would like to see implemented or changed, you'd have a point.

            But lobbying congress because a group believes a particular entity is breaking an existing law?

            Do you really not see the difference here? If they're that concerned about something Google is doing, than they should be talking to a lawyer, not congress.

            What's the difference between this, and my walking into congress to complain that my nei

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by fishbowl ( 7759 )

              >But lobbying congress because a group believes a particular entity is breaking an existing law?

              What part of the right to "petition the government for redress of grievances" don't you understand?

              You don't get to decide for them what constitutes a legitimate grievance.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by GeckoX ( 259575 )
                So you're saying that the next time the neighbor lets his dog shit on my lawn and refuses to do anything about it, I should go to congress?

                Well, that is what you said.

                Should we start going to congress instead of calling the cops or a lawyer when we think existing laws are being broken? Is that really the purpose of congress? Or is it intended for lobbying against existing laws for changes to said laws as well as lobbying for new laws?

                Is congress now our Nanny?

        • They have no specific stake in the particular instances in that they are not the copyright holders of the movies in question and therefore cannot invoke DMCA as the original poster suggested.

          They apparently do believe they have a stake in copyright *policy* though, and they are lobbying Congress by holding Google up as example of what they feel needs to be fixed. I would guess calling them a "public watchdog group" is probably a matter of interpretation, and maybe that is what makes you think they should ac
  • Google says:

    We're not doing anything wrong with YouTube, however we're developing technology to remove copyright material *when* we have to do so legally.

    not evil huh?
    • Google is only evil if you think the law they are complying with is evil. Otherwise... I'm not sure that makes sense.
  • ...Google has announced its new copyright search tool, Google Copyright Search Beta (tm). The new tool is designed to allow copyright holders make a Google Video search for terms like "the 40-year-old virgin" in order to file a takedown request. Google will then review the infringing content and remove it if necessary.

    [/sarcasm] come on, this "watchdog" could alert copyright holders of infringed content, so that the affected parties can request the takedown of copyrighted content. Think, people, it's not

  • Was this their first step? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ehinojosa ( 220524 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @09:28AM (#20755115)
    Did the National Legal and Policy Center inform Google that they found these copyrighted files, or are they just choosing to complain to Congress about it instead of going through Google's pre-defined channels? It would seem like the real test here would be to see how quickly Google responds to a proper take down request, not a measurement of how many copyrighted files are on the site at any given time.
  • Please, where's the top50 list? Come on ;-)

  • Almost everything is copyright (Score:5, Insightful)

    by El_Muerte_TDS ( 592157 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @09:30AM (#20755151) Homepage
    ... unless it has been explicitly released in public domain or was created before Mickey Mouse was created.
    The difference is having permission to distribute copyrighted material.
    Does Google Video contain copyrighted material? Of course it does, but is the copyright violated is the important question. That question can only be answered by the copyright holder.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Which is why the study talks about recent movies. Do you honestly thing those recent movies are on Google legally? Then what's your point?
    • ... unless it has been explicitly released in public domain or was created before Mickey Mouse was created.

      Hmm.. Makes one think... Isn't it funny how much culture, society, and economies evolved even before the current strict copyright system?
      • Hmm.. Makes one think... Isn't it funny how much culture, society, and economies evolved even before the current strict copyright system?

        Seriously, have you ever read an old book, or heard an old song? I have, and they're hella boring.

        • No (Score:2)

          by geekoid ( 135745 )
          Some of the best music ever created was created before it was put under copyright.
          That music is know as 'rock and roll'. It wasn't until around the mid 70's that music was under copyright.
          That all changed now, and people have been able to retroactively get copyright.
          But really, where is the innovative music any more?

          Rap, while entertaining, is usually a form of meter and rhyme.

  • Where can I get the list of videos? (with links please)

    I will review and confirm if they are indeed infringing.
      • Cool, however examining that list has left me more curious.

        The movie with the highest views has over 1.2 million views since may this year (nothing else is over a million)

        National Lampoon's Van Wilder 2

        Wasn't that a crap movie?
        What am I missing?
        • Since it's a crap movie, nobody wants to pay to watch it. So, they watch it online instead.
          It's like when there's a bad movie on TV. People watch it because it's there.

          Or maybe they wanted to see if it was really as bad as everyone said.
  • ...bother to tell Google? Automated tools may catch 99% of what they intent to catch, but some content will always slip through (cf: Spam.) Instead of crying to Congress over a very small percentage (300/gazillions) of offending videos. Did they even bother to simply contact Google and say, "Here's a video that violates copyright, please remove it." Instead, it seems that they're doing nothing more than crying foul and escalating this to a level that it really doesn't need to go. Simple intervention on Goo

  • I may get blasted..... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HartDev ( 1155203 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @09:35AM (#20755189) Homepage
    I know I may get blasted but you know, as far as things like viewing video content for free or getting free music and the whole internet piracy thing... If it was not for free then I just wouldn't get it! I had a paper route when I was a kid and I was able to get like a CD a month, well needless to say that is not very much music so I opted not to buy CDs and just listen to the radio, or bought tapes and recorded songs I really liked and then just listened to the tape. So a new mentality forms, buy storage space and fill it with content. I am not one of those guys that will buy a 400 CD case holder and then spends thousands of dollars on CD's where the artist gets a small fraction of the profits, and if iPods (or other generic mp3 or storage devices) did not exist I would be content with the radio and tapes. The thing that irks me is that copyright and freak outs like this are about forcing us to consume, making us pay for something over and over and over again cause it can easily be replicated and the maker can get rich beyond their dreams. Well go for it, all the more power to them, all copyright and pirating headaches do for me is make me not consume the music, movies, or content, Then I might actually go outside again makes no difference to me.
    • The thing that irks me is that copyright and freak outs like this are about forcing us to consume, making us pay for something over and over and over again cause it can easily be replicated and the maker can get rich beyond their dreams. Well go for it, all the more power to them, all copyright and pirating headaches do for me is make me not consume the music, movies, or content, Then I might actually go outside again makes no difference to me.

      Consumers do not have an innate right to consume music/movies
      • I agree, we do not have a right to their content. But I have the feeling that they think they will make more money if they better protect their media, and they may be right, but for me that just means that I will not see their content. so if they want exposure, leave youtube alone, it is great advertising and if people really want that movie they will buy it. I bought "The Matrix" and "Anti-Trust" because I saw them a few times before on the internet and rentals etc., and since I liked them so much I bough
      • Consumers do not have an innate right to consume music/movies/etc. That is one part of the equation many people miss.

        That's not quite accurate.

        There is a natural right of free speech and press, and this encompasses respeaking or reprinting what another person has said or printed. There is copyright, but that is an artificial right, granted by government, which in order to be legitimate, must serve the public interest.

        There is not a right to force authors to create works, however, nor is there a right to for

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pembo13 ( 770295 )
      The thing is, the RIAA/MPAA assumes that I would buy the stuff otherwise. I hardly even pirate most of their stuff, far less buy it.
  • So, despite Google fufilling their obligations to respond to DMCA takedown notices, they're supposed to be doing more? What, do you want them to read your fscking mind or something?

  • Misleading Wording (Score:3, Insightful)

    by skeeto ( 1138903 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @09:53AM (#20755391)

    [...] researched the extent of copyrighted material being hosted on Google Video [...]

    [...] have discovered 300 additional instances of apparently copyrighted films [...]

    [...] provides tools to help identify and remove copyrighted [...]

    I bet I could find 10,000 copyrighted movies! I would go as far as to say that almost every single video on Google video is copyrighted (> 99%). The catch is that most of the copyright holders of the hosted videos have given permission for Google to host the video.

    For example, this post is copyrighted by me, but by submitting it here I am giving Slashdot permission to host it. Big business isn't the only copyright holder out there. Copyright is automatic.

    Either the writer of the article is confused or the watchdog group is confused. Or, if you are wearing your tinfoil hat, maybe they are intentionally being misleading to hide the facts?

  • Mountain out of a molehill (Score:3, Informative)

    by Psychor ( 603391 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @09:56AM (#20755423) Homepage
    I don't see how these findings in any way cast doubt on Google's claim that "it respects the rights of copyright holders, and provides tools to help identify and remove copyrighted intellectual property". There's a difference between complying with notices to remove copyrighted content and helping copyright holders identify it, and removing 100% of infringing content from the site at all times, by magic.

    No matter how good their tools are, with probably thousands (if not tens of thousands) of video submissions per day, it's going to be close to impossible to check them all for potentially copyright infringing material.

    Besides, we all know the NLPC must be evil, since their acronym clearly stands for No Laptops Per Child.

  • A Copyright Watchdog? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by NewbieV ( 568310 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' ... smaharba.rotciv'> on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @10:10AM (#20755623)

    From the NLPC's website [nlpc.org],

    NLPC was founded in late 1991 following the release of the Senate Ethics Committee report whitewashing the Keating Five. The report made reference to the Code of Ethics for Government, but not by name, presumably for fear of giving it greater standing. NLPC was founded to promote ethics, and to give the Code the visibility it deserves.
    This seems to be an organization that focuses on politics more than anything else: its list of accomplishments seems to be targeted at Democrats more than Republicans, although there are a few Republican politicians named.

    A quick Google turned up this page [fairness.com] about the chairman of the NLPC's affiliations.

    So why would a Republican-leaning group be aiming at Google?

  • It's really strange that a copyright watchdog group wouldn't understand that under US law every video on Google Video (or ever created for that matter) is copyrighted. The question is whether the copyright holders want the videos on Google Video. It's a copyright watchdog that doesn't even understand the most basic concept of copyright law.

  • How many video's get uploaded to Google Video (or YouTube) every day? Well, there are a whole lot of people that are potentially uploading. Lots and lots. Let's put the number at 1,000 a day even though I think that is far, far too low.

    Now we have a company that owns the copyright on a popular movie. They might be able to justify 4 people to look at video sharing sites for infringement so they can then request the hosting site to remove it. Let's assume there are no more than 10 such video sharing site
  • In stead of just blasting Google, why doesn't the watchdog work with it to help remove the illegal content?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close