# How does YouTube get away with it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 19, 2006, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149 "2006-10-19T22:10:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![neutron\_star](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/51bf81/32.png) [@neutron\_star](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/neutron_star)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/1 "2006-10-19T22:10:22Z")
YouTube is a collection of literally millions of copyrighted works, used without permission, and seemingly with utter impunity. Hell, one of the most respected businesses online, Google, recently bought them out! Users of the SDMB, contributors from Slate, and many other avid defenders of IP routinely link to copyrighted material from the site without consequence. Considering their incredibly high profile, how is it that haven’t they been sued by _anyone_ yet? The users of P2P services, despite being decidedly more underground and offering essentially the same material, have had their brains sued out by the RIAA. What makes YouTube so special that they escape this fate? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/2 "2006-10-19T22:28:34Z")
The simple factual answer is that they remove any copyrighted material when the legitimate copyright holder asks them, which is what the law specifies. We will now see a long parade of [largely uninformed] opinions about copyright which will eventually throw this thread over into GD after much acrimony. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/3 "2006-10-19T22:30:43Z")
When they receive complaints, YouTube does act reasonably fast to delete copyrighted material. So those cases don’t move beyond the Cease and Desist phase. In addition, YouTube has made deals with NBC, CBS and a few other companies to officially distribute promotional materials; in return, they largely look away from copyrighted stuff posted by fans, as long as it’s kept relatively short. (This is also why YouTube introduced their 10-minute clip limit.) ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/4 "2006-10-19T22:34:21Z")
They are pretty responsive to taking things down when asked by the copyright holders. In general the movies have to be less than 10 minutes so it is harder to distribute TV shows or movies. Until just recently, and not until the merger is completed, they don’t have a whole lot os cash. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/5 "2006-10-19T22:35:57Z")
You can bet that YT is going to be acting proactively a **lot** more now in nipping copyright infringement in the bud now that it’s owned by Google. I suspect anything in violation wil lhave a lifespan of days (if not hours), as opposed to possibly weeks of things escaping legal notice or attention. ---
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/6 "2006-10-19T22:36:54Z")
Maybe nothing. Variants of this question are appearing in many quarters, and Time Warner appears to be firing the opening salvos: > **[Google faces copyright fight over YouTube](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/oct/13/digitalmedia.citynews)** > > Dick Parsons, chairman and chief executive of Time Warner, fired a shot across the bows of Google, saying his group would pursue its copyright complaints against video sharing site YouTube.com. By Jane Martinson. Also, some of the large record labels are playing it smarter this time. Sony BMG, Universal and Warner Brothers all worked out revenue sharing deals before the Google acquisition: [http://www.mp3.com/news/stories/6820.html](http://www.mp3.com/news/stories/6820.html) ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/7 "2006-10-19T23:22:04Z")
Let me throw in an even more general question. How does Google itself or any other search engine for that matter get away with it? They just go around around and grab every bit of content they can find, cache it on their servers, and then make money by presenting other people’s work in an easy format. I am glad it is allowed but it seems like that type of thing would run afoul of the law in any other medium. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2006, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/8 "2006-10-20T00:17:53Z")
I believe there have been some lawsuits against Google for this precise issue. However, Google does respect any sites that are set up with a “no archive” file, and would take anything down if there was a complaint. [Archive.org](http://Archive.org) has the same issue with archiving web pages. But so far, there has been no definitive ruling. I’m guessing Google could pay enough to make any lawsuit go away. ---
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2006, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/9 "2006-10-20T00:46:21Z")
Here was one such case: [http://pcworld.com/article/id,125132-page,1/article.html](http://pcworld.com/article/id,125132-page,1/article.html) ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2006, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/10 "2006-10-20T01:23:09Z")
There’s also the fact that a not-insignificant portion of the material on YouTube is actually put up by the copyright holder. Particularly for videos from small-label bands. ---
**Author:** ![xnylder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbce88/32.png) [@xnylder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xnylder)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2006, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/11 "2006-10-20T13:17:02Z")
They didn’t in Japan: [YouTube deletes 29,549 videos at request of Japanese broadcasters, copyright groups](http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20061020p2a00m0et018000c.html). ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2006, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/12 "2006-10-20T21:30:14Z")
I started a [similar thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=389210&highlight=youtube) a little while ago, that never really went anywhere. I still don’t think that any of the claims that people make about why Youtube is different didn’t apply equally to, say, the internet radio stations that let you choose songs to play. And they all got sued into non-existence. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2006, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/13 "2006-10-20T21:35:24Z")
A friend of mine who works for Disney wants to go after YouTube in the worst way, but I just don’t think she’d be able to knock out everything that wasn’t cleared by the Mouse, not to mention all the other studios. There’s so much of it. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2006, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/14 "2006-10-20T21:45:27Z")
[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=] I started a [similar thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=389210&highlight=youtube) a little while ago, that never really went anywhere. I still don’t think that any of the claims that people make about why Youtube is different didn’t apply equally to, say, the internet radio stations that let you choose songs to play. And they all got sued into non-existence. [/QUOTE] Apparently professional intellectual property lawyers think they know more about the subject than you do. People in that other thread kept trying to tell you that but you brushed them off, which is not the same thing as the thread not going anywhere. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2006, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/15 "2006-10-20T21:47:33Z")
This just showed up on Yahoo: [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061020/ap\_en\_ot/japan\_youtube\_copyrights;\_ylt=Al8mA\_Dmt.eXrlDJawXQFNPMWM0F;\_ylu=X3oDMTA3YXYwNDRrBHNlYwM3NjI-](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061020/ap_en_ot/japan_youtube_copyrights;_ylt=Al8mA_Dmt.eXrlDJawXQFNPMWM0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YXYwNDRrBHNlYwM3NjI-) ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2006, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/16 "2006-10-20T22:39:05Z")
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase] Apparently professional intellectual property lawyers think they know more about the subject than you do. People in that other thread kept trying to tell you that but you brushed them off, which is not the same thing as the thread not going anywhere. [/QUOTE] Apparently. By “professional intellectual property lawyers,” are you referring to those employed by the RIAA and video sharing sites, or to the other posters responding in that thread? If the former, that’s a cop-out answer. If the latter, none of them identified as such. How did I “brush them off”? Several people suggested reasons why Youtube was different, and as far as I can tell I responded to all of them. And then people stopped making suggestions. > [@](#): > > YouTube isn’t the one posting the copyrighted materials, and if they remove such materials when notified by the copyright holder, they are not liable. Napster did the same thing. Not initially, when they were still trying to fight every lawsuit, but once it was ordered by a judge, they happily filtered search results to remove infringing works when notified. That didn’t stop the lawsuits. > [@](#): > > YouTube does allow others to copy anything. For one, it’s easy to download video off of Youtube. For two, that doesn’t explain why _other_ such sites, like Vimeo, which allow downloading, aren’t getting sued. For three, it doesn’t explain why internet “radio” sites, which allowed people to pick their own playlists but not download the music _did_ get sued. I agree with those who posted that the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA should protect Youtube. But by the same logic, they should have protected other services and didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2006, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/17 "2006-10-21T02:58:37Z")
None of your responses betrayed any understanding of the legal arguments underlying the suit. Safe harbor? Have you read any analyses of the Napster case? They lost on Safe Harbor. [http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/05/09/napster\_lawsuit/](http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/05/09/napster_lawsuit/) > [@](#): > > Napster is pinning all of its hopes on something called a “safe harbor” – a legal exemption created by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998. The DMCA provided four separate safe harbors for Internet service providers, limiting their legal liability for copyright infringements that happen on their watch. Without a safe harbor, Napster is open to what’s called contributory and vicarious copyright infringement charges. Because the DMCA is so new, the Napster suit is the highest profile case in determining the question of safe harbor status. > > Napster executives have claimed that the company is not responsible for copyright infringement because no music files rest on or pass through Napster’s servers. Under the DMCA’s ISP exemption, Napster would be off the hook – proving, essentially, that Napster merely provides the pipes, while the individual customers are the naughty ones exchanging illegal music. > > But the DMCA is very specific about who can qualify for the four safe harbors. Napster argued that the software acts as a “a passive conduit” connecting individual users, and should fall inside the first, and most narrowly defined, of the four safe harbors. Patel disagreed. The problem, suggests Neil Rosini, a copyright and new media attorney with Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell & Vassallo in New York, was that Napster wasn’t “dumb enough,” meaning that the first safe harbor is meant for services and limited to communications, such as the phone company. But since Napster’s free software offers music cataloging, chat rooms and updating features, it may have been too smart for the first harbor. > > Additionally, Napster’s main argument – that it is exempt from copyright infringement since no files ever pass through company servers – may have boomeranged. As the RIAA argued in court, if no files pass through Napster, then Napster by definition is not a conduit and cannot qualify under the first safe harbor. > > The judge agreed, writing that “because Napster does not transmit, route or provide connections through its system, it has failed to demonstrate that it qualifies for safe harbor.” And Judge Patel’s injunction was on the following basis: [http://news.com.com/2009-1023-244045.html](http://news.com.com/2009-1023-244045.html) > [@](#): > > The court finds that–and then I’ll go through the elements of this–but the finding is that any of the potential noninfringing uses of the Napster service are minimal. Some of them seem to be thought of them afterward and after this litigation started; but the substantial or commercially significant use of the service was and continues to be copying popular music, most of which is copyrighted and for which no authorization has been obtained. > > While it may be capable of some of these other things, that seems to–those uses seem to–pale by comparison to what Napster is used for, what it was promoted for, and what it continues to be used for. > > Now, the court must consider, and the factors the court must consider, among others, is, the four that are specifically enumerated in Sony are: The purpose and characteristic of use, including whether it’s of a commercial nature; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for value of the copyrighted work. > > I think there’s not much dispute with respect to the second and third factors. The copyrighted musical compositions and recordings certainly are the paradigmatic kinds of things for which copyrights are obtained. They’re creative in nature. They constitute entertainment and also the third factor. They are, in fact, uploaded or downloaded, or at least can be and generally are, in their entirety. Certainly they’re generally made available in their entirety. > > As to the first factor, the court finds that although downloading and uploading MP3 music is not a paradigmatic commercial activity, it is not also typical of the personal use–that is, in the traditional sense. It may be what makes this case difficult–or any of the cases involving new technology–is that it is hard sometimes to make a neat fit. > > The mere fact that, that fit is not an easy one does not mean that plaintiffs have to forego enforcing their rights under the copyright laws. > > Plaintiffs have not shown that the majority of Napster users download the music for sale or for profit, and it would appear that they probably do not. However, there is evidence that Napster anticipates proudly that more than 70 million users by the end of the year 2000 will be on Napster in some fashion or another. > > Given the vast scale which Napster and the Internet can in fact access–numbers and numbers of users–and that the uses among anonymous individuals, not just a sharing among friends and typical of the more private use, that cases have seen at the very least a host user sending a file cannot be said to engage merely in the typical personal use when distributing the file to, in this case, many anonymous requesters. > > Moreover, the fact that Napster users get for free something they ordinarily would have to pay for suggests that they reap–the users reap–an economic advantage from Napster use. IOW, the Judge found that very basis of the extistence of Napster was predicated on the illigeal swapping of copyrighted music, which is not the purpose or even the de facto majority of Youtube’s video displays. You’re simply wrong in equating Youtube and Napster, and any attorney active in the field would see this in a second. They do in fact see this and they are handling Youtube in a different way. ---
**Author:** ![filmyak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@filmyak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmyak)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/18 "2006-10-21T19:35:37Z")
Heck, I’ve worked on major TV shows where we intentionally take clips from the show and “leak” them to youtube. Build buzz and get eyeballs to watch the rest of your show. Suing the fans is counterproductive, when you can work with them to build a larger fanbase instead. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2006, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/19 "2006-10-22T03:41:59Z")
Out of curiousity, is there any sort of “fair-use” concept for copyrighted video? I can quote a short excerpt from a copyrighted text on the Dope without breaking the law, does this principle extend to TV/movies? Could YouTube just limit copyrighted postings to a minute or two and thus have them all be legal due to fair use? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2006, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149/20 "2006-10-22T15:35:11Z")
[QUOTE=Malodorous] Out of curiousity, is there any sort of “fair-use” concept for copyrighted video? I can quote a short excerpt from a copyrighted text on the Dope without breaking the law, does this principle extend to TV/movies? Could YouTube just limit copyrighted postings to a minute or two and thus have them all be legal due to fair use? [/QUOTE] This is an enormous argument today in the legal community. It has not yet been tested in court, so the answer is: nobody knows. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-youtube-get-away-with-it/377149.md?page=2)