Adsense HTML

Showing posts with label youtube. Show all posts
Showing posts with label youtube. Show all posts

It is hard to control where your ads will appear online

Advertisers are leaving YouTube, because their advertisements are being placed in close proximity to hate speech and other offensive material.

See NY Times story, Perils of Online Ads

Ninth Circuit Rules That Copyright Holders Must Consider Fair Use Before Issuing DMCA Takedown Notice

Media companies and other copyright holders may need to change the way they deal with infringing content on the Internet.  In a closely watched copyright case, Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (also known as the "Dancing Baby" case), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled yesterday that copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing takedown notices to remove allegedly infringing content from websites such as YouTube and Facebook. This decision has significant implications for owners of copyright-protected content, especially studios, record labels, publishers and other entities with large content catalogs, as well as individuals and businesses that rely on fair use to exploit copyrighted material owned by others. 

Lessig v. Liberation over takedown notice

Professor Lessig has sued Australian music label Liberation in the U.S. in relation to a computer generated take down notice sent to YouTube, to take down video of Lessig giving a seminar in Asia that included music licensed exclusively to Liberation in Australia.

If this case proceeds, there are interesting jurisdictional and fair use / fair dealing points that arise.  If the use of the music was fair use in the U.S., but not fair dealing in Australia, and the video is available in Australia, one would assume that there is copyright infringement in Australia.

Brisbane Times article
The video in question
EFF press release

YouTube redesign

YouTube has had a revamped look for channels in limited beta testing since early February, but it's now ready to spread the new-layout love to interested folks. Dubbed "One Channel," the design refresh places an emphasis on making a user's page look slick across different screen sizes and devices, adapting its style for the occasion -- yes, even on TVs. Along with a look that provides more visual breathing room, a wide image called Channel Art adorns the top of a page, giving the whole affair a stronger Google+ vibe. Now, channel owners can even snag a visitor's attention with a trailer that'll greet them if they aren't a subscriber. The refresh also introduces the ability to organize video playlists with custom sections. Raring to take Mountain View up on the fresh looks? Jab the second source link to get started. If you change your mind after taking the plunge, however, Google's letting users switch back to the old format for a limited time.


Why do you think that Google is doing this?

German Court case fails to settle YouTube copyright controversy

A German court has ruled that YouTube must erase seven contested videos over copyright issues. However, the decision has failed to settle the protracted copyright row raging on the Internet. Hamburg's State Court ruled on Friday that YouTube will have to take seven videos offline, including "Rivers of Babylon" by Boney M.

The verdict strengthens the position of Germany's royalty collections body GEMA which has been battling Google-owned YouTube over copyright issues for years.

The last agreement expired in 2009 and the conflicting parties have since been at loggerheads over the proper method to collect copyright fees.  However, Friday's verdict is not the landmark ruling which some had hoped would once and for all settle the contentious issue of copyright protection in the Internet.

Limited culpability
The Hamburg court decided that Internet platforms like YouTube are not directly liable for the breach of copyrights committed by users uploading protected material. However, the platform is now obliged to "deactivate immediately any illegal videos" once alerted by those holding the copyright.

Notably, the ruling does not oblige YouTube to check all content that has already been uploaded to its site – a key GEMA demand.

The judges said YouTube was not the main culprit because it does not upload or steal any content. Rather it facilitated the copyright breaches by offering and operating the online platform.

In order to prevent further copyright breaches, the judges called on YouTube to employ specific software capable of detecting songs in videos.

Class 7: Liability of intermediatories and ISPs

This class deals with liability of intermediaries. For example, is an ISP liable for the conduct of its users? Is a web hosting company liable for the content of others that it hosts? Is TripAdvisor liable for reviews of hotels posted by users? Is Google liable for the content that appears on this blog?

Should such intermediaries be liable for the actions of others?

This is a very topical class, with a number of relevant decisions from the past two weeks.  Thus, there is a lot of reading for this class.

The main reading for the class is the iiNet case:
The iiNet case is currently on appeal to the High Court of Australia.  Oral argument has been heard, and we are waiting for judgment.  It is reported that judgment will be handed down on Friday, 20 April.  Transcripts and written submissions can be found on the High Court website.

Please also read the very recent case: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Google Inc. [2012] FCAFC 49 decided last week; and compare UK position summarised here.

Also, read the following:

Wrong Takedown Demand

What happens if a person issues a copyright take down demand to a file sharing website such as Vimeo or YouTube, and it is wrong.  Potential liability for unjustified threats.
See Bell v. Steele
See also:  SMH Article and Note.

Week 7: Liability of ISPs and Infrastructure Providers

This class deals with liability of intermediaries. For example, is an ISP liable for the conduct of its users? Is a web hosting company liable for the content of others that it hosts? Is TripAdvisor liable for reviews of hotels posted by users? Is Google liable for the content that appears on this blog?

Should such intermediaries be liable for the actions of others?

The main reading for the class is the iiNet case:

Google and Copyright

Viacom and Google broke their silence Thursday in their legal battle, as Viacom claimed that Google's YouTube unit had sought to exploit copyrighted works for profit, while Google argued that Viacom itself had secretly uploaded copyrighted clips it later demanded YouTube remove. The claims are among the many divulged as a federal judge and the parties to the case released a slew of documents.


Hacktivist raided

Swiss Hacktivist was raided at the request of U.S. authorities for data theft and then publishing what was hacked. https://amp.9news.com.au/...