Is Watching An Infringing YouTube Video Copyright Infringement?
from the these-days,-what-isn't-infringement? dept
Last year we pointed to a report where a law professor tallied up how much he "infringed" on copyright in a regular day, coming out with a multi-million dollar total. Now Tom writes in to alert us to an article by Chris Soghoian questioning whether or not watching an infringing video on YouTube counts as infringement as well. The summary is that it's hardly a clearcut issue -- which should be seen as a problem. A copyright holder could conceivably make an argument that it's infringement, though it's not clear that it would hold up in court (and the backlash against anyone stupid enough to make such an argument would be overwhelming). What this really highlights, though, is how poorly our copyright laws are structured for the internet age, where anyone can create, distribute and consume tons and tons of content (all covered by copyright, thanks to Congress granting automatic copyrights).
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
If farts could enjoy IP protection by Anonymous Coward on May 16th, 2008 @ 10:56am
Could I sue you for stealing from my ass if you smelled them without a license?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why Not? by eleete on May 16th, 2008 @ 11:21am
Seems to me that our government enjoys these little spats, so it just remains silent. Ever try asking an attorney what you can and cannot do with some piece of media ? They look all frightened and answer.... hmmmmm well this could happen or that could happen... so I wouldn't. They don't recognize fair use and there are no tests to say definitively what is and is not permissible. It's a horror show, unless your on the receiving end of the checks. But as we were shown, when those same people have to cut the check, they're not running to the accounting or press release department. I truly believe that the courts make a lot of money off of all these frivolous battles and that they don't listen to what their voters want, they clearly only listen to the lobbyists. More of the same corporate greed.
eleete
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Melvillain on May 16th, 2008 @ 11:40am
What I find interesting is the fact that watching a Youtube video should be considered any different than downloading an MP3 file. You are still receiving the content, whether or not it ends up on your computer. So technically it would be infringement. You could argue that the watcher was unaware of the copyright, but someone downloading music could make the same argument but would lose. The RIAA is trying to argue in court that even making a file available on a P2P network should be considered an infringement. If the courts rule in their favor then watching a Youtube video that is infringing would fall under the same category. In other words, if you are infringing just by making available content then partaking would seem to fall under the same ruling. Why the double standard? This issue just points out the huge inconsistencies in IP law.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Jake Buck on May 16th, 2008 @ 11:52am
The AA's have only been targeting distributors of media online , not people who only download. There is more ways than just using bittorrent to get your files, and quite a few of them don't let the AA's look at what you're infringing. Watching a YouTube video is not making the video available for others. I'm not arguing that its not infringement, but that watching a YouTube video is much different than distributing it across a p2p network, and you should not lump them together.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Anonymous Coward on May 16th, 2008 @ 11:54am
In fact, if you just emailed the youtube LINK to your friends, you'd be "making infringing content available" and be liable.
And don't even THINK about posting the link on your website site so potentially BILLIONS of people could access it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by comboman on May 16th, 2008 @ 12:02pm
As I understand it (IANAL), downloading an infringing MP3 is not illegal; it is the distribution of infringing files that is illegal (i.e. uploading or "making available"). Leaches are safe, it's the one who share that are in trouble (though most file sharing systems force you to share, at the very least, the file you are download for as long as you download it).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Greg on May 16th, 2008 @ 12:34pm
Well, you're making a copy of the file, even if only into memory on your computer, and you're also downloading the content, but again, only into memory, temporarily.
It's technically infringement, but wow that's a stretch.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Ima Fish on May 16th, 2008 @ 12:38pm
"and the backlash against anyone stupid enough to make such an argument would be overwhelming"
That hasn't stopped the RIAA.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Paul on May 16th, 2008 @ 1:04pm
Let's say I'm walking down the street, and some guy is playing a popular song on his guitar. I stop to listen. Does that mean I've infringed? How is that situation different from viewing the YouTube video?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Aural Equivalent? by JB on May 16th, 2008 @ 1:04pm
If you download a song via BitTorrent and play it loudly on your stereo, then anyone who can hear it is infringing the copyright.
Am I correct that this is the same logic?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Uh - oh by Anonymous Coward on May 16th, 2008 @ 1:10pm
Am I infringing a copyright every time I remember a song or movie without paying a remembering fee ?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by Mike on May 16th, 2008 @ 1:17pm
As I understand it (IANAL), downloading an infringing MP3 is not illegal; it is the distribution of infringing files that is illegal (i.e. uploading or "making available"). Leaches are safe, it's the one who share that are in trouble (though most file sharing systems force you to share, at the very least, the file you are download for as long as you download it).
That's not necessarily true. Downloading could certainly be a violation of the "reproduction" right of copyright. There are some legal rulings in some countries (NOT in the US, however) that have suggested that if it's for non-commercial, personal use, then it's okay -- but US law does not agree.
The reason you might think it's not infringement is because the RIAA has chosen not to go after folks for downloading -- mainly because it's much tougher to find and to prove.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by Dick Clark on May 16th, 2008 @ 2:00pm
No it is not. Because the radio station is paying royalties to be playing that music to anyone who listens
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on May 16th, 2008 @ 4:04pm
so you go to the library and read a (c)copyrighted book. Since the book is not yours, Is or is it not copyright infringement ? or how about the newspaper or magazine sitting in the resturant or doctors office, or the movie that's playing for the kids in the doctors office, and on and on and on.
sick isn't it ?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on May 16th, 2008 @ 8:49pm
Guess I won't embed any more YouTube videos on my blog then. Fuck the RIAA. Their acts won't get any free promotion from my site.
The big content industry are idiots. Free distribution and viral marketing rock, and those dinosaurs will go extinct.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:@4 by Melvillain on May 16th, 2008 @ 11:27pm
"The AA's have only been targeting distributors of media online, not people who only download."
This isn't my understanding, but maybe I'm wrong. I can't imagine that all those letters going to colleges are to people "making available" content.
"Watching a YouTube video is not making the video available for others. I'm not arguing that its not infringement, but that watching a YouTube video is much different than distributing it across a p2p network, and you should not lump them together."
Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough. I'm pointing out that the RIAA is trying to prove in court that even if someone does not download a file from you, just having that file in a shared folder constitutes infringement. I am drawing attention to the absurdity of a claim that even when no infringement has taken place the RIAA is trying to argue intent. If the passive act of making something available (by mistake perhaps) can be considered infringing then obviously actually partaking in an infringing piece, such as a Youtube video, would also be considered infringement. Where do you draw the line? Will the RIAA then be able to argue that you did not take reasonable measures to insure that a hacker wouldn't break into your computer and use it as a distribution center? I'm just saying it is a slippery slope when you start putting up walls around intellectual property.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Nate on May 17th, 2008 @ 6:17pm
The whole system is FUBAR'd and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. But, unfortunately, that will never happen. http://www.custompcmax.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Joy on May 29th, 2008 @ 10:25am
If there is such a issue over this and tons of people getting into trouble than shut the damn sites down! Shut the internet down for pity sake. It's not worth having if people get in trouble for all this. If anyone should be sued it should be youtube, because they allow these damn videos to be uploaded.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: by Curious on Jun 14th, 2008 @ 1:18pm
Does that rule apply as well to website content, graphic or written? Under that interpretation, by simply surfing the web, anyone who downloads copyrighted content to their cache by simply surfing around is a violator? I don't think so.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment