Hacker News Reader

Comment by Retric | Hacker News Reader

Youtube actively does the same thing with people directly making money using 'pirated' content.

Note: They currently remove specific content when requested and even automate the process. But, you can still find plenty of 'pirated' content where the owner has yet to complain.

View on HN

No, that's not the same thing. The law doesn't say that you can't have any pirated content on your service. It says you can't knowingly have pirated content. Once you learn about a stolen movie on your site, you have to take it down.

When, like Dotcom, you instead actively solicit pirated material, optimize the pirated material on your site for quality, and pay users to put more pirated material on your site using a sliding scale based essentially on how pirated the material is, the DOJ reasonably concludes that you are not a public video site like Youtube, but rather a criminal conspiracy.

Dotcom appeared to have been operating under the misconception that a "notice and takedown" system insulated him from that charge. Dotcom didn't actually read the DMCA, because notice and takedown is only ~half of the responsibility of an online service. The other half, written right into the DMCA, is operating without red flag knowledge of pirated content.

It's a little more nuanced than that. They are aware that for example much foreign TV content is going to be on their site without active intervention. However, they don’t actively protect this content without direct assistance.

Basically, unless you complain we are going to pirate the hell out of your content.

They aren't required to actively protect whole classes of content. They're simply required not to operate with specific knowledge of individual pirated videos on their service.

I don't think it's enough to simply never look at the contents of your database while massive piracy is going on. YouTube goes beyond a simple DMCA request by providing tools to keep content from showing up on their site. And I suspect that's what's deemed sufficient protection where simply complying with each DMCA request is not enough.

You could also interpret Google's behavior there as an attempt to forestall any changes to the law.

If you're curious what was "deemed sufficient" you can read the court opinions from when Viacom sued YouTube/Google (and lost). [1]

As I read it, the only additional "protection" that Google was required to implement was to have a policy of banning "repeat infringers." There is some additional statutory language about accommodating "standard technical measures" that are "used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works," but as far as I can tell no such measures were identified so that didn't constrain Google in any way.

[1] District Court: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1830782936500485... Appeal: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1364457904897559...

What does the DMCA have to do with New Zealand and why should he have read US laws?

I wish that you had received an answer. I have always wondered the same thing.

Presumably because international treaties extend the reach of certain domestic laws.

... Or because the Copyright cartels bribed the NZ gov't to roll over.

We'll never know.

In what way? This was true when YouTube first launched (I've heard stories that the founders uploaded copyrighted movies and tv shows themselves) but YouTube has a system in place now that removes copyrighted content automatically and it works pretty well (some say too well).

That's not true at all. I can find dozens of full length movies and hundreds of full length albums on YT, all uploaded illegally.

You're not wrong, but it's only because that content hasn't been entered into their system or because the copyright holder isn't actively requesting content be removed.

Type in the search terms "full album" and then tell me their automatic removal of copyrighted material is working pretty well.

It's up to the copyright holder if content is removed. YouTube gives the holder the option to leave content up but take any ad revenue.

"copyrighted" != "cannot be shown"

copyrighted means that the owner of the copyright is the only one with the right to decide when/where/how it gets shown. But if that owner is cool with it being on Youtube, there's no reason for it to be taken down.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fullmoviesonyoutube/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNd1l7LsxvU

This person covered the entire youtube screen in popups to his other stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDcrGq_fyoE&src_vid=hhHPnT_h...

They are protected under the safe harbor porvision of the DMCA which basically says that if someone says "That's my stuff, take it down" they have to take it down. However if no one complains, YouTube can argue that millions of videos are added everyday, they can't possibly screen them against every piece of copyrighted music/film ever made.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com