Or, you could try Cory Doctorow's take: Viacom is acting like an ass and deserves to be sued.

This statement is not entirely correct, either: "If YouTube enables people to steal copyrighted video, then it’s liable for damages." YouTube is not enabling "stealing," any more than ComedyCentral is by streaming video to web surfers.

True. YouTube isn't physically enabling stealing. Someone else records the video and then uploads it to YouTube to be rebroadcast. But somewhere along the way, that video becomes hot property.

And from my standpoint, the clip becomes stolen the moment it's uploaded. After all, it's perfectly legal to record for personal use. Not OK to rebroadcast.

That's why Viacom is perfectly justified in demanding its content be removed.

Pouting about how Viacom is a bully reflects an immature or idealist view of business. In the real world, people own things. No one has the right to take them.

Actually, it's not that clear that it's okay to record for personal use in digital form - at least to hear some interpretations of the DMCA.

You also seem to be wanting to do away with the protections of service providers who host content posted by users (section 230 of the CDA).

From a technical standpoint, YouTube does not facilitate the downloading of *any* of the videos posted on the site.

Others have created plug-ins or software that will download the FLV files, but that is not something YouTube did. And YouTube - or revver, dailymotion or any of the other video sharing sites - (and every other service provider) takes down content that violates copyright when they are asked to - which is how this particular episode worked itself out.

Finally, I find the suggestion that Doctorow is "pouting" to be immature and ill-informed (causing me to wonder whether you actually read the post I referenced).

The takedown notices apparently reflected no prior vetting by Viacom's legal department other than performing a search for certain terms on YouTube, which resulted in content being removed which had NO RELATION WHATSOEVER to the YouTube/Viacom spat.

For the record, I never claimed that Viacom wasn't justified in demanding its content be removed. That's certainly their right. As you said, people own things.

And I for one would actually welcome some clear thinking from the legal system about intellectual property, but it seems in short supply.

There is confusion about copyright law. True again.

But in the end, just my prediction, plaintiffs such as Viacom will win. It makes no sense that the obligation to prevent theft is on the part of the person or entity owning the content and not on the part of the Web site that knowingly rebroadcasts it illegally (and repeatedly).

Viacom's request that YouTube filter all obviously copyrighted material is reasonable. And, overdue.

(And yes, I did read the post you linked. And then I read the DMCA, as described on Answers.com. All before replying. I even read Doctorow's Diebold link, which has more relevance to fair use than copyright infringement.)

With regard to your recent reply, Bryan, I understand that YouTube doesn't allow downloading. What it does is much worse. It actually streams the content as if it were its own.

It makes no sense that the obligation to prevent theft is on the part of the person or entity owning the content and not on the part of the Web site that knowingly rebroadcasts it illegally (and repeatedly).

Define knowingly. A web site that allows users to upload content cannot be expected to go through every single piece of material looking for material that *might* be copyright infringement.

That's why the DMCA requires a positive effort on the part of a copyright holder. It actually *is* the obligation of the copyright holder to prevent or halt the theft of IP, and has been even before the DMCA.

Technically, the portion we're referring to is the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act - text of the act.

What might not be totally clear is how the act would apply to the types of UCG that is stored and streamed from GooTube servers.

It may not make sense to you, but it makes sense to me, and apparently it made sense to a majority of members of Congress and the President who crafted the DMCA. I'm glad it's there, because it allows innovation to flourish without the incredible burden of having to physically sift through every piece of data on the Internet.

None of which means that GooTube shouldn't be addressing the issue of its mystical, mythical filtering technology (I have doubts that such will work to any great extent).

With regard to your recent reply, Bryan, I understand that YouTube doesn't allow downloading. What it does is much worse. It actually streams the content as if it were its own.

Sorry, wrong. Streaming user-submitted content is NOT the same as streaming something AS IF it were its own. Nothing on the site is tagged as coming *from* them, hence the ISP safe harbor is applicable to YouTube. Offering something for download is much worse than streaming - period, full stop.

Viacom's request that YouTube filter all obviously copyrighted material is reasonable. And, overdue.

Reasonable? If they're actually targeting their material, I'll agree with you. But 100,000 takedown notices don't appear because of due diligence. Apparently, they also garnered some "collateral damage" along the way. That's something that is just as serious as what Viacom is accusing GooTube of doing. To wit:

"(f) MISREPRESENTATIONS- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section--

`(1) that material or activity is infringing, or

`(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it."

I'm sure the Viacom legal minds have figured out a way to say that they didn't "know" they were garnering material outside their copyrights, but that doesn't make it right, either.

(btw, the distinction between "fair use" and "copyright infringement" is something that also needs to be fleshed out as well, as there are plenty of folks who confuse FU with CI and produce steaming piles of takedown notices on material that should rightly fall under fair use. OTOH, there are people clearly ripping lots of material from newspapers and reposting it in its entirety under the guise of FU that probably should be considered CI)

I agree with much of what you're saying. For example:

- "A web site that allows users to upload content cannot be expected to go through every single piece of material looking for material that *might* be copyright infringement."

But at the same time, YouTube doesn't live with its head in the sand. Its executives are well aware that copyrighted material is available on the site, and they've done nothing to take it down unless asked to by the real owner. That's not going to sit well in the eyes of a judge. And there will be a judge one day. YouTube needs to show that its taken all reasonable steps to remove copyrighted material even before being asked to. That might redeem it during the looming court battle.

- (DMCA) allows innovation to flourish without the incredible burden of having to physically sift through every piece of data on the Internet. None of which means that GooTube shouldn't be addressing the issue of its mystical, mythical filtering technology . . ."

YouTube's innovation has well flourished by now. Grown-up sites shouldn't be allowed to use the DMCA as an excuse. It's time to launch filtering of copyrighted material. Granted, the filter won't work perfectly. But show some good faith for the judge.

One point of confusion from your last reply, though:

- "Streaming user-submitted content is NOT the same as streaming something AS IF it were its own. Nothing on the site is tagged as coming *from* them, hence the ISP safe harbor is applicable to YouTube."

If memory serves, when a blogger uses one of those handy embed tags provided by YouTube, it's pretty clear where the clip came from when someone plays it. And the logo in the corner doesn't say Viacom.

If YouTube starts placing ads around the stolen streaming content, then lawsuits are really going to ratchet up in damages. Viacom will inevitably argue that all subsequent revenue should be directed toward its pockets.

- Clarification. When I mentioned that Viacom's request to filter was reasonable, I was talking about its request for the filtering technology you mentioned above.

Your point that Viacom was over broad in its complaint is correct. And anyone whose content was unfairly removed should also sue. Let's get this all worked out the American way. Lawyers, judges and judgments. Oh my.