YouTube Users Please Read

[Ravi]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/12/youtube_owns_derivative_works/

YouTube owns YourStuff
So does YouTubeTwo
By Andrew Orlowski
Published Monday 12th June 2006 16:13 GMT


The latest attempt to rebrand the web, "Web 2.0" has been evangelized as a platform for sharing - but it's increasingly looking like a platform tilted steeply in one direction.

Millions may be about to discover what singer Billy Bragg found out recently - that "community" hosting web sites can do as they please with creative material you submit.

In its Terms & Conditions, the wildly popular video sharing site YouTube emphasizes that "you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions".

There's quite a large "BUT...", however. Not only does YouTube retain the right to create derivative works, but so do the users, and so too, does YouTube's successor company.  Since YouTube has all the hallmarks of a very shortlived business - it's burned through $11.5m of venture investment (Sequoia Capital is the fall guy here) and has no revenue channels - this is more pertinent than may appear.

The license that you grant YouTube is worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable. The simplest way to terminate it is by withdrawing your video. But even this is problematic, as OpenTV's Nathan Freitas wrote recently:

"It is good to know that if you delete a video from YouTube, then the rights you have granted them terminate. However, once they have distributed your video 'in any media format and through any media channel', that’s a little hard to take back, right?"

And if YouTube went titsup tomorrow, its successor YouTubeTwo would sit on a large library of irrevocable content.

For now, as Nathan noticed, YouTube regards its rights grab as something of a joke: You Tube treats its IP landgrab as a joke

As we've noted with this wave of web juvenilia, it's considered "Web 2.0" to take things like rights, and uptime flippantly. See Flakey Flickr goes down. Again.

Judging from a handful of sporadic blog posts, the issue has been troubling a few users for a while. But with the mainstream press still treating the handful of web hopefuls as if they represent the new Enlightenment, it has failed to catch much wider attention.


http://blog.wired.com/music/#1523392

Tuesday, 18 July 2006
YouTube's 'New' Terms Still Fleece Musicians
Topic: News

Musicians such as Billy Bragg have been complaining about networking/music site MySpace's terms of use – and rightfully so. MySpace is said to be changing its tune, and should be posting updated terms soon (currently, its About page is offline).

The video site YouTube constitutes an equal or larger threat to small content producers. Before you upload that video of your 19-person indie rocker reggae band, for instance, you may want to read the fine print.  YouTube's "new" Terms & Conditions allow them to sell whatever you uploaded however they want:

"…by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business… in any media formats and through any media channels."

Among other things, this means they could strip the audio portion of any track and sell it on a CD.  Or, they could sell your video to an ad firm looking to get "edgy"; suddenly your indie reggae tune could be the soundtrack to a new ad for SUVs. The sky's still the limit, when it comes to the rights you surrender to YouTube when you upload your video.

Perhaps even scarier is the idea that anyone who might eventually buy YouTube would automatically obtain these same rights. Since YouTube is so popular, with 100 million videos shown each day, it's an attractive acquisition target for any number of companies.

A lot of the more mainstream stuff on there was uploaded by people who didn't hold the copyrights. Videos on YouTube that were produced by large media companies would surely be filtered out before any mass redistribution were to take place.  It's the small content producers who owned the copyrights to the stuff they uploaded who really have something to lose.

I wish YouTube didn't annex so many of its uploaders' rights, but if you keep the site's Terms and Conditions in mind, the site still has a lot to recommend it. Musicians and other content uploaders might want to take precautions though, such as submitting music videos with relatively low-quality audio or keeping parts of their catalogs off of YouTube. Hopefully, the site will start offering more levels of user control, so that uploaders will be able to specify how their songs get used (or, more importantly, how they don't get used).

[MacGuffin]

YouTube Slapped With First Copyright Lawsuit For Video Posted Without Permission
Suit claims Web site encourages copyright infringement; YouTube says charge 'without merit.' 
Source: MTV

If Robert Tur has his way, the future of how we waste time at work could be forever altered.

Last Friday, in a federal district court in California, Tur — a journalist who owns the Los Angeles News Service — filed suit against YouTube Inc., charging that the video-sharing site encourages copyright infringement by hosting footage from users who have failed to secure the necessary clearances from the videos' owners.

It's the first-ever copyright lawsuit filed against YouTube, and, if successful, it could open the floodgates for similar suits against the site.

At the heart of the matter is footage Tur shot during the L.A. riots in April 1992 — specifically the now-famous images of trucker Reginald Denny being beaten by several men. Tur shot the footage from a helicopter, and although it was seen across the world, it was broadcast by news agencies that obtained rights from his L.A. News Service.

YouTube's policy is to prohibit the uploading of copyrighted material that hasn't been granted the proper permission, and the site vigorously removes videos that violate that rule. The site has maintained in the past that it is not responsible for material that violates copyright law.

But according to Tur's lawyer, Francis Pizzulli, that's not the case. Pizzulli said the suit is supported by the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in the MGM v. Grokster case, in which the court ruled that P2P file-sharing sites could be sued for inducing copyright infringement.

"This is even more of a clear-cut case than the Grokster decision, because [YouTube] has a central server to collect and store data; they package it and categorize it with titles and listings," Pizzulli said. "This is all indicative of a Web site taking an active role in copyright infringement. They are not, as they claim to be, merely an Internet service provider."

A spokesperson for YouTube had no comment on the suit, but did send a statement to MTV News that reads, in part:

"Mr. Tur's lawsuit is without merit. YouTube is a service provider that complies with all the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and therefore is entitled to the full protections of the safe-harbor provisions of the Act. ... Immediately upon receiving notice of [Tur's] complaint, we removed all of the plaintiff's video clips that we were able to locate, and it is our intention to work with Mr. Tur ... to remove any unauthorized works from our site."

As of Wednesday morning (July 19), a search for the terms "Reginald Denny," "Reginald" or "Denny" resulted in no videos. But a search for "L.A. riot" turned up several videos, including the footage Tur shot of Denny. And according to Pizzulli, that's where the problem lies — something he refers to in the suit as "a murky moving target."

"It's interesting that [YouTube] emphasize that they removed all the videos that they could find. Because Mr. Tur — and several other journalists — have still been able to locate other copies of it," Pizzulli said. "Depending on what tags you enter in the search function, you can still uncover versions of the Reginald Denny video. And while YouTube removing all the videos they could find does answer the 'now' issue, it does not answer how they plan on compensating him for past violations, and how they plan on preventing this from happening in the future."

Tur is seeking compensation to the tune of $150,000 for each uploaded submission, though Pizzulli said that Tur does not plan to go after the individuals who posted the video. No date has yet been set for the hearing.

[MacGuffin]

May We Suggest GooTube? Google Buys YouTube In $1.6 Billion Deal
Purchase expected to bump search engine up to #2 most-visited site.   

In a deal that makes last year's $580 million MySpace purchase look like chump change, Web search giant Google announced Monday it will buy YouTube for $1.65 billion in stock.

The deal unites the Web's most popular search engine and its biggest video-sharing site, with 2-year-old upstart YouTube claiming an audience that watches more than 100 million clips a day. The joining of the firms had been rumored for several days, and earlier on Monday (October 9) each had announced revenue-sharing deals with major media companies, including CBS, Sony-BMG, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

Those agreements will allow YouTube and Google Video users to watch music videos and other media for free, with advertising dollars to be shared between the video site and the copyright owner. The agreements paved the way for the Google purchase by dealing with one of YouTube's stickiest issues, and the one that had scared away some previous buyers: the fact that much of its content consists of illegally posted or traded material.

According to Bloomberg News, the YouTube deal will push Google up from third to second in total visitors among U.S. Internet companies, with a combined 101 million visitors in August. The search engine is currently behind Microsoft's MSN site and #1 Yahoo!

[MacGuffin]

YouTubers Protest Diddy TV With Parody Videos, Angry Comments
Mogul partnered with Burger King to launch channel on video-sharing site. 



In a recent clip posted on YouTube, Diddy makes a trip to Burger King, proclaiming himself "the king of music and fashion" while he orders a Whopper "my way," complete with onions, cheese, ketchup, mayonnaise, and salt and pepper.

On the surface, it was a strangely appealing video diary of ego and one man's unrequited love for condiments. But as is the case with everything Diddy does, the video also served a much grander purpose: It heralded the launch of Diddy TV, a YouTube channel he started with the fast-food giant.

And to a nation of loyal YouTube users — already reeling from what they see as the increased commercialization of the site — the spot's about as welcome as, well, a Whopper at a PETA convention.

Within hours of the clip being added to the site, more than 1,700 YouTubers left comments, the overwhelming majority of which were negative (samples include "I won't eat there now, I'll go to Wendy's" and "The end is very f----in' nigh"). And soon after, in a lightning-quick show of solidarity, a host of parody videos — of varying degrees of quality and humor — began to crop up too.

One of the first so-called "response" clips to be posted was a spot-on parody by a YouTube user named LisaNova, which details her visit to a neighborhood fruit stand. In the clip, she orders a fruit bowl "with everything on it" and announces that she's joining forces with the stand to buy a channel on YouTube, "even though they're free — just 'cause we're that smart." In his spot, Diddy announces that he and Burger King are "buying" a channel on YouTube, even though, as a spokesperson for the site told MTV News, "Anyone can set up a channel — even if it's for commercial profit. They're free."

And for Nova — who's also made clips parodying now-debunked YouTube phenom lonelygirl15 — the purpose of making the clip was twofold. For one, she wanted to express her displeasure over what she sees as "an outsider trying to use the

&mode=user&search=

[picolas]

EFF.

Anti-piracy system could hurt YouTube
By ALEX VEIGA, AP Business Writer Thu Oct 12, 5:12 PM ET

LOS ANGELES - A technology designed to detect copyright material could give YouTube a needed dose of legal legitimacy and calm any concerns Google Inc. has about spending $1.65 billion on the Internet video site. But that same technology could hurt YouTube's edgy appeal.

While YouTube is known as the place to find almost any kind of video clip, recent agreements with high-profile content creators require YouTube to deploy an audio-signature technology that can spot a low-quality copy of a licensed music video or other content. YouTube would have to substitute an approved version of the clip or take the material down automatically.

Analysts said that stepped-up monitoring by entertainment companies raises the likelihood that YouTube fans won't find what they're used to getting — and will go searching for the next online video rebel.

"There's very little that holds YouTube's audience to YouTube except the belief that whatever they want to see, there is a very good chance YouTube will have it," said Joe Laszlo, senior analyst with Jupiter Research.

"If the video migrates to other places, I fear the audience will too, so YouTube needs to be really careful about how it does this," he said.

YouTube offers a gold mine of clips depicting all manner of amateur hijinks and tons of unauthorized commercial videos. Kevin Davis, a 16-year-old from Torrance, Calif., likes to peruse YouTube for music videos by R&B singer Chris Brown and rappers Lil Wayne and The Game.

"I find what I'm looking for most of the time," he said.

YouTube, based in San Mateo, Calif., has licensing deals with CBS Corp. and three major recording companies — Warner Music Group, Vivendi's Universal Music Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment. The entertainment companies will get a cut of YouTube ad revenue each time someone views a video licensed by them.

YouTube stressed that it won't be filtering content itself.

Instead, the technology it's developing will allow copyright owners "to identify their content, locate it and then make a decision based on whether they want to remove it," said spokeswoman Julie Supan.

The new technology will be designed to scan a digital audio file, such as an MP3 or video, and compare the electronic "fingerprints" to databases of copyright material.

But copyrights can be tricky on sites like YouTube. Even a homemade video can run afoul of the law if it has a professional song playing in the background. Amateur concert footage and other video may be pulled from sites as a precaution simply because it's unclear who owns the rights.

"We're going to probably see a lot of instances like that," said Michael McGuire, a technology analyst for Gartner Inc. "It's going to be a constant game of cat and mouse."

YouTube did not provide further details on the technology, which it expects to roll out by the end of the year.

Some analysts doubt the screening technology will be foolproof. For example, detecting someone singing a copyright song on a homemade video could be difficult because the sound would not exactly match the original recording.

"It's impossible to be completely effective," said Josh Bernoff, a digital video analyst with Forrester Research. "The devil's in the details."

YouTube's final product could resemble a system developed by Audible Magic Inc., which has compiled electronic fingerprints for more than 4 million recordings to compare to content posted on iMesh, an online file-sharing application.

Another video-sharing site, Guba LLC, which hosts user-generated videos as well as Hollywood movies that can be streamed or downloaded for a fee, uses a different content filtering technology dubbed "Johnny" that has been endorsed by major film studios.

The application tracks the transition of images in a video, like a series of snapshots, to build a signature used as a basis for comparison.

Banned content can be matched against Guba's video database and flagged, regardless of whether its format, resolution or file size are different than the original, said Bart Myers, Guba's senior vice president of product development.

"The beauty of Johnny is that Johnny doesn't care," he said.

The company claims the technology is more than 90 percent accurate with video clips that exceed three minutes. But the shorter the clip, the harder it is to spot a match.

Some sites such as Microsoft Corp.'s video-sharing hub Soapbox don't use any technology to filter what gets uploaded. But that appears to be changing.

In a statement, Rob Bennett, general manager of MSN's entertainment and video services unit, said the company is developing technologies to protect content owners.

Other sites figure to follow.

"We expect that all of our partners in this space are going to implement state-of-the-art content-filtering technology," said Michael Nash, a senior vice president at Warner Music Group.

[pete]

I just saw this on youtube, it was pretty cool

[last days of gerry the elephant]

I just saw this on youtube, it was pretty cool

Stylez! Makes me want to put on the killer or hard boiled.

[picolas]

&mode=related&search=

best beatbox video ever. even though it isn't technically beatboxing.

[Pubrick]

best beatbox video ever. even though it isn't technically beatboxing.

bjork made an album like that. cept she released it as audio and not video. but if she had decided to "show" all the sounds, we would have seen a complex, constantly-morphing mosaic of screens.

i'm not impressed.. maybe in the youtube thread.

[picolas]

just because it's been done bigger and better doesn't make this less impressive. plus bjork had an army of beatboxers, choir people, inuit.. breathers? this is one guy in his room composing/editing/singing everything himself. and i think the way bjork did it involved far less editing of the individual sounds. this guy is taking a couple of frames here and there to knit together a beat, rather than laying many longer beats on top of each other.

[pete]

but in the age of awesome beatboxers and awesome editors all out of job and hanging out on youtube, this kid is merely okay.

[kotte]

&mode=related&search=

best beatbox video ever. even though it isn't technically beatboxing.

http://www.myspace.com/lassegjertsen

The four top ones are good.
22 yr old guy from Norway going to Hollywood and getting work at MTV thanks to youtube.



admin edit: added quote to highlight relevant post

[Pubrick]

http://www.myspace.com/lassegjertsen

The four top ones are good.
22 yr old guy from Norway going to Hollywood and getting work at MTV thanks to youtube.

i merged your post into this thread, and i split the four posts above yours from Favorite Music Videos as they are connected.

still not that amazing, and the videos with the random violence were typical of the stupid shit kids with a camera like to do. also his site doesn't say anything about hollywood or mtv.. where's the story?

i remember sickfins him doing more complex stuff than that shadow thing back in 03 with prehistoric software. if only he'd shown his stuff to more than 3 ppl, maybe he'd be on the real world now or something.

[kotte]

The story´s in several papers and magazines in Sweden...Why? Don´t ask.

But I must say I'm pretty impressed...but that´s me.

[ono]

I didn't know where else to put this.  So if anyone's got a better idea for Youtube gems, go for it.

Spiders on Drugs