Comments on: Would Filtering YouTube Make it More Liable?

By: nick

nick — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:47:24 +0000

I’m a little late to this party, but section 512(i) says that ISPs must accommodate technology to maintain their safe-harbor status. Namely, they have to shut down the accounts of repeat infringers and “accommodate and not interfere with standard technologies.” It is arguable that this could include a filter, especially an automated one that disables clips without human intervention. I mean, what would a copyright filter be but a standard technical measure?

By: Rafael Costa

Rafael Costa — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:06:20 +0000

What about applying the technology to locate and remove only infringing materials object of take down notices?

This way GooTube wouldn't be editing, monitoring nor taking "afirmative steps to clean up the site", but only responding to copyright owners' requests, as the DMCA states.

By: Rafael Costa

Rafael Costa — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:50:37 +0000

Even if GooTube qualified for it, I think the DMCA exception is valid only until receiving a notice from the copyright owner. After that the content provider is liable and must take the infringing material down.

GooTube received Viacom's notifiation some time ago; as I understand it, they cannot make use of the exception as of the notification date.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:44:52 +0000

Well, Viacom is clearly not a disinterested party that can be counted on to tell the truth in this matter. It’s also possible for YouTube to tell if a video is pornographic just by looking at it, while you can’t tell if a video infringes copyright just by looking at it.

By: RandomThoughts

RandomThoughts — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:39:53 +0000

Liz, are we even sure YouTube qualifies for safe harbor? In your article, you were saying how companies gain safe harbor "YouTube’s defense against claims of copyright infringement has long been the safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which clears service providers from liability related to material transmitted through their systems" but the fact is that YouTube doesn't transmit the material through their systems, they host the material.

There are also some other provisions of the safe harbor, and I am not sure YouTube really qualifies. Course, I am no lawyer.

By: Liz Gannes

Liz Gannes — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:14:43 +0000

Bob,

I'm not sure that I have it in my own notes from talking to YouTube that the company screens for pornography, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but here are a few sources that allege this is true:

Viacom lawsuit: "YouTube proactively reviews and removes pornographic videos from its library"

Mercury News editorial: It already screens postings to filter out pornography and profanity

I'd love to have a more direct quote but I can't find one at the moment.

Liz

By: Jackson West

Jackson West — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:58:51 +0000

Came across two links of interest for further reading. First, Viacom's general counsel Michael Fricklas wrote an editorial for the Washington Post yesterday. Further, the architect of the DMCA, Bruce Lehman, argued at a McGill University copyright conference that the DMCA is broken.

By: GigaOM » Could filtering become a fiasco for YouTube?

GigaOM » Could filtering become a fiasco for YouTube? — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:23:59 +0000

[...] screening content before it’s posted to the site, would YouTube leave the safe harbor of DMCA? Continue Reading… Share/E-mail | Sphere | Print | Topic: Asides | Tags: [...]

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:34:32 +0000

Does YouTube proactively screen for pornography? I thought they counted on users to report it to them.