DOCSLIB.ORG

Youtube's Opposition Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Youtube's Opposition Brief HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIACOM INT’L INC., ET AL., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ECF Case ) Civil No. 07-CV-2103 (LLS) YOUTUBE, INC., ET AL., ) ) Defendants. ) ) THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION ) PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED, ET AL., ) on behalf of themselves and all others ) similarly situated, ) ) ECF Case Plaintiffs, ) Civil No. 07-CV-3582 (LLS) v. ) ) YOUTUBE, INC., ET AL., ) ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT David H. Kramer Andrew H. Schapiro Maura L. Rees A. John P. Mancini Michael H. Rubin Matthew D. Ingber Bart E. Volkmer Brian M. Willen WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC MAYER BROWN LLP 650 Page Mill Road 1675 Broadway Palo Alto, California 94304 New York, New York 10019 (650) 493-9300 (212) 506-2500 Attorneys for Defendants TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE FACTS................................................................. 3 A. Viacom Extensively Used YouTube To Market Its Content. ..................... 4 B. YouTube’s Founding Purpose And Operations Were Legitimate.............. 6 C. YouTube’s Early Monitoring Efforts Show Its Good Faith........................ 8 D. The Founders’ Early Debates About “Stupid Videos” Do Not Reflect A Purpose To Exploit Infringing Material................................................ 12 E. The Founders Did Not Upload Or Celebrate Infringing Videos.............. 15 F. Viacom’s “Smoking Gun” Is Anything But. .............................................. 18 G. YouTube Transitioned From An Ineffective Community Flagging Process To A Robust DMCA Regime......................................................... 19 ARGUMENT............................................................................................................... 21 I. VIACOM’S MOTION ESTABLISHES NO ACTUAL INFRINGEMENTS...... 21 A. Viacom’s Motion Does Not Allow The Court To Make A Proper Infringement Determination..................................................................... 21 B. Viacom’s Failure Of Proof Is Not A Technicality. .................................... 23 II. YOUTUBE IS ENTITLED TO DMCA SAFE-HARBOR PROTECTION ........ 25 A. Plaintiffs’ Claims Involve “Storage At The Direction Of A User.”........... 27 1. Plaintiffs’ Storage Argument Has No Support In The Case Law. ................................................................................................... 27 2. Plaintiffs’ Storage Argument Is Contrary To The DMCA’s Text And Purpose.............................................................................. 28 B. YouTube Did Not Have Disqualifying Knowledge Of The Alleged Infringing Activity. .................................................................................... 31 1. Plaintiffs Equate DMCA Compliance With “Willful Blindness.”......................................................................................... 32 2. The DMCA Requires Particularized Knowledge, Not Viacom’s Amorphous “Inquire-Further” Standard.......................................... 36 3. DMCA Takedown Notices Require Service Providers To Remove Identified Material, Not Search For Unidentified Material............................................................................................. 39 4. The Absence Of A Separately Negotiated Licensing Agreement Does Not Establish Knowledge Of Infringement. ........ 41 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page a. The DMCA does not require service providers to engage in rights-clearing on its users’ behalf. ..................................... 41 b. YouTube does not “ignore” information about publishing rights......................................................................................... 43 C. YouTube Did Not Have Control Coupled With A Financial Benefit Directly Attributable To The Infringing Activity..................................... 46 1. The DMCA’s “Control” And “Financial Benefits” Tests Do Not Codify The Common Law Of Vicarious Liability............................. 46 2. As A Matter Of Law, Plaintiffs’ Allegations Of “Control” And “Financial Benefit” Cannot Close The Safe Harbor. ....................... 48 a. The ability to remove material is not “control.” ...................... 48 b. The DMCA does not require service providers to affirmatively police their users’ conduct. ................................ 49 c. Moving from user flagging to reliance on the DMCA is not a failure to “control” infringing activity. ........................... 51 d. The DMCA rejects the “draw” test for financial benefit. ........ 53 III. YOUTUBE IS NOT LIABLE FOR DIRECT INFRINGEMENT...................... 56 A. Direct Infringement Requires Volitional Conduct. .................................. 56 B. YouTube Has Engaged In No Relevant Volitional Conduct. ................... 58 1. YouTube’s Processes For Storing, Formatting, And Displaying User-Submitted Videos Are Automated And Non-Volitional.......... 58 2. Liability For Direct Infringement Cannot Rest On Functions Unrelated To Plaintiffs’ Actual Infringement Claims..................... 60 IV. YOUTUBE IS NOT LIABLE FOR VICARIOUS INFRINGEMENT............... 62 A. YouTube Did Not Have The Ability To Effectively Supervise The Activities of Its Users. ............................................................................... 63 1. The Availability Of Various Forms Of Human Review Does Not Constitute The Practical Ability To Prevent Infringement. .................................................................................... 64 2. Plaintiffs’ Selective-Fingerprinting Allegations Are Baseless. ....... 68 a. YouTube never withheld Audible Magic’s technology based on a copyright owner’s unwillingness to license content....................................................................................... 68 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page b. YouTube did not refuse to cooperate with the MPAA............. 73 c. Class plaintiffs’ claims about filtering are untrue and irrelevant. ................................................................................. 75 d. Viacom’s claim that YouTube withheld its video- fingerprinting technology until May 2008 is false. ................. 78 B. YouTube Did Not Have An Obvious And Direct Financial Interest In The Alleged Infringing Activity............................................................ 80 V. VIACOM’S INDUCEMENT CLAIM FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW. .......... 82 A. Viacom’s Effort To Rewrite The Grokster Standard For Promoting Infringement Is Unsustainable................................................................. 82 B. Viacom Cannot Satisfy The Actual Grokster Standard. .......................... 84 1. YouTube Did Not Take Active Steps With The Object Of Promoting Infringement. .................................................................. 86 2. Google Did Not Take Active Steps With The Object Of Promoting Infringement. .................................................................. 89 3. The Supplemental Indications Of Inducement Relied On In Grokster Point In The Opposite Direction Here. ............................. 92 a. YouTube has an overwhelming array of non-infringing uses............................................................................................ 93 b. YouTube has taken many steps to combat copyright abuse. ........................................................................................ 97 c. YouTube’s advertising practices are legitimate. ..................... 97 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................ 99 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) .........................................................................passim ALS Scan, Inc. v. RemarQ Communities, Inc., 239 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 37, 40 Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ......................................................... 85, 86, 96 Bourne v. Walt Disney Co., 68 F.3d 621 (2d Cir. 1995)...................................................................................... 24 Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519 (1947) ................................................................................................ 51 Cartoon Network LP, LLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008).................................................................. 56, 57, 58, 60 Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung, 06-cv-5578, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122661 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2009)........ 85, 86, 96, 98 Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (W.D. Wash. 2004).................................................. 27, 37, 48 Costar Group Inc. v. Loopnet, Inc., 164 F. Supp. 2d 688 (D. Md. 2001) ........................................................................ 27 CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004) ................................................................ 47, 57, 58, 62 Davis v. Blige, 505 F.3d 90 (2d Cir 2007)....................................................................................... 42 Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 80, 82 FASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 869
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Youtube Yrityksen Markkinoinnin Välineenä
    Lassi Tuomikoski Youtube yrityksen markkinoinnin välineenä Metropolia Ammattikorkeakoulu Tradenomi Liiketalouden koulutusohjelma Opinnäytetyö Lokakuu 2014 Tiivistelmä Tekijä Lassi Tuomikoski Otsikko Youtube yrityksen markkinoinnin välineenä Sivumäärä 47 sivua + 2 liitettä Aika 9.11.2014 Tutkinto Tradenomi Koulutusohjelma Liiketalous Suuntautumisvaihtoehto Markkinointi Ohjaaja lehtori Raisa Varsta Tämän opinnäytetyön tarkoituksena oli luoda ohjeistus oman sisällön luomiseen Youtubessa aloittelevalle yritykselle. Työn toisena tavoitteena on osoittaa, miten yritys pystyy hyödyntämään videonjakopalvelu Youtubea omassa liiketoiminnassaan muiden markkinoinnin keinojen avulla. Työn viitekehyksessä käydään läpi keskeisimmät käsitteet ja termit ja esitellään Youtube yrityksenä sekä videonjakopalveluna. Työssä kerrotaan, millä eri tavoin yritys voi näkyä Youtubessa ja Youtube yrityksen markkinoinnissa. Toiminnallisena osana työtä tuotettiin konkreettisten esimerkkien pohjalta ohjeistus Youtuben parissa aloittelevalle yritykselle siitä, kuinka päästä alkuun tehokkaassa ja yritykselle lisäarvoa tuottavassa sisällöntuottamisessa. Mitä asiota oman sisällön luomisessa täytyy ottaa huomioon ja millä keinoilla Youtubessa voidaan menestyä. Opinnäytetyön johtopäätöksenä todettiin, että ennen oman sisällön luomista on yrityksen sisältöstrategian oltava kunnossa. Sisällön tärkeyttä ei voi oman sisällön luomisessa tarpeeksi korostaa. Sisällön on oltava merkityksellistä asiakkaan kannalta. Avainsanat youtube, sisältömarkkinointi, sosiaalinen media Abstract
    [Show full text]
  • Manual Youtube Content ID
    YouTube Content ID Manual Rebeat is an official YouTube partner and has access to the YouTube Content Management System (CMS). With this, we give you the possibility to monetize and protect your videos on the YouTube platform. Our YouTube service is integrated into our MES software – there will be no extra costs for using it. For this service only the usual 15% Rebeat fee will be deducted from your YouTube revenue in the final accounting. How does YouTube Content ID work? When you upload a product to our software, you 1. Activate YouTube Content ID in MES have the option to send it to YouTube Content ID. For this, you should check the box that says “YouTube Content ID” in the distribution matrix of our software and apply it for the countries of your choosing (1). As soon as the product has been delivered to Content ID, a reference file (also known as “digital fingerprint”) will be created for each one of the tracks of your product. These reference files will then be used by Content ID to find similarities and matches between them and the content uploaded by other users. Thus, if your whole song or even just a part of it will be used by other people in their videos, matches will be found and a claim will be placed on the uploader’s video which has used your content. With this claim it is possible to monetize the foreign content. Rebeat YouTube Manual – updated on 17.08.2020 Page 1 With the help of Content ID we can also claim any of your content manually.
    [Show full text]
  • You(Tube), Me, and Content ID: Paving the Way for Compulsory Synchronization Licensing on User-Generated Content Platforms Nicholas Thomas Delisa
    Brooklyn Law Review Volume 81 | Issue 3 Article 8 2016 You(Tube), Me, and Content ID: Paving the Way for Compulsory Synchronization Licensing on User-Generated Content Platforms Nicholas Thomas DeLisa Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Nicholas T. DeLisa, You(Tube), Me, and Content ID: Paving the Way for Compulsory Synchronization Licensing on User-Generated Content Platforms, 81 Brook. L. Rev. (2016). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol81/iss3/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Law Review by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. You(Tube), Me, and Content ID PAVING THE WAY FOR COMPULSORY SYNCHRONIZATION LICENSING ON USER- GENERATED CONTENT PLATFORMS INTRODUCTION Ever wonder about how the law regulates your cousin’s wedding video posted on her YouTube account? Most consumers do not ponder questions such as “Who owns the content in my video?” or “What is a fair use?” or “Did I obtain the proper permission to use Bruno Mars’s latest single as the backing track to my video?” These are important questions of law that are answered each day on YouTube1 by a system called Content ID.2 Content ID identifies uses of audio and visual works uploaded to YouTube3 and allows rights holders to collect advertising revenue on that content through the YouTube Partner Program.4 It is easy to see why Content ID was implemented—300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube per minute.5 Over six billion hours of video are watched each month on YouTube (almost an hour for every person on earth),6 and it is unquestionably the most popular streaming video site on the Internet.7 Because of the staggering amount of content 1 See A Guide to YouTube Removals,ELECTRONIC fRONTIER fOUND., https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals [http://perma.cc/ BF4Y-PW6E] (last visited June 6, 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • SCMS 2019 Conference Program
    CELEBRATING SIXTY YEARS SCMS 1959-2019 SCMSCONFERENCE 2019PROGRAM Sheraton Grand Seattle MARCH 13–17 Letter from the President Dear 2019 Conference Attendees, This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies. Formed in 1959, the first national meeting of what was then called the Society of Cinematologists was held at the New York University Faculty Club in April 1960. The two-day national meeting consisted of a business meeting where they discussed their hope to have a journal; a panel on sources, with a discussion of “off-beat films” and the problem of renters returning mutilated copies of Battleship Potemkin; and a luncheon, including Erwin Panofsky, Parker Tyler, Dwight MacDonald and Siegfried Kracauer among the 29 people present. What a start! The Society has grown tremendously since that first meeting. We changed our name to the Society for Cinema Studies in 1969, and then added Media to become SCMS in 2002. From 29 people at the first meeting, we now have approximately 3000 members in 38 nations. The conference has 423 panels, roundtables and workshops and 23 seminars across five-days. In 1960, total expenses for the society were listed as $71.32. Now, they are over $800,000 annually. And our journal, first established in 1961, then renamed Cinema Journal in 1966, was renamed again in October 2018 to become JCMS: The Journal of Cinema and Media Studies. This conference shows the range and breadth of what is now considered “cinematology,” with panels and awards on diverse topics that encompass game studies, podcasts, animation, reality TV, sports media, contemporary film, and early cinema; and approaches that include affect studies, eco-criticism, archival research, critical race studies, and queer theory, among others.
    [Show full text]
  • The Next Great Youtube: Improving Content Id to Foster Creativity, Cooperation, and Fair Compensation
    BOROUGHF_FORMAT3 (DO NOT DELETE) 3/27/2015 1:39 AM THE NEXT GREAT YOUTUBE: IMPROVING CONTENT ID TO FOSTER CREATIVITY, COOPERATION, AND FAIR COMPENSATION Benjamin Boroughf* ABSTRACT YouTube prides itself on its automatic copyright detection and filtering program known as Content ID because it goes beyond YouTube’s legal responsibilities under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and because it allows copyright holders to control and profit from their content. However, Content ID is not the technological paragon YouTube and some scholars see it as. By relying on a system that automatically matches, blocks, and monetizes videos that allegedly contain any amount of infringing content, both YouTube and copyright holders have promoted a system that opposes the Copyright Act and YouTube’s goals of promoting creativity and protecting fair use. Without earlier human review and involvement, this costly Content ID system is susceptible to false positives and accidental matches, harming the public’s access to new forms of creativity. Without limiting monetization to the proportion of matched content in a video, Content ID also encourages copyright holders to take advantage of the hard work and creativity of YouTubers by stripping away all of their monetary incentives. This article demonstrates why these problems exist and it sets forth a proposal that seeks to slightly modify Content ID to better align it with the Copyright Act and YouTube’s own goals, while encouraging communication, cooperation, creativity, and fair compensation between copyright holders and YouTubers. * Attorney, Appellate Division, Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission. J.D. 2014, Chicago-Kent College of Law. Sincere thanks to Professor Edward Lee for providing insightful comments and direction, and to the Freedom of the Internet spring 2014 class for providing valuable feedback and discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Helienne Lindvall, David Lowery, Blake Morgan and the Songwriters Guild of America in Support of Respondent ______
    No. 18-956 In the Supreme Court of the United States __________________ GOOGLE LLC, Petitioner, v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Respondent. __________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________ Brief of Amici Curiae Helienne Lindvall, David Lowery, Blake Morgan and the Songwriters Guild of America in Support of Respondent __________________ CHRISTIAN CASTLE CHARLES J. SANDERS CHRISTIAN L. CASTLE, Counsel of Record ATTORNEYS 29 KINGS GRANT WAY 9600 GREAT HILLS TRAIL BRIARCLIFF, NEW YORK 10510 SUITE 150W (914) 366-6642 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78759 [email protected] (512) 420-2200 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . ii INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . 3 ARGUMENT . 5 I. INDEPENDENT ARTISTS AND SONGWRITERS RELY ON COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND CLEAR FAIR USE STANDARDS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN THE MARKET. 5 II. GOOGLE’S U S E IS CLEARLY COMMERCIAL.. 17 A. Google’s Market Dominance Lowers the “Customary Price” of Copyrighted Works.. 18 B. Google Benefits Commercially from Weaker Copyright Protection. 25 III. GOOGLE’S PRIVATE INTERESTS ARE NOT THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 31 CONCLUSION. 33 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). 19 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994). 6, 7 Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., No. 16-2321 (2d Cir. Dec. 12, 2018) . 7 Elsmere Music, Inc. v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 482 F. Supp. 741 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 632 F.2d 252 (2d Cir.
    [Show full text]
  • DMG Music Distribution Channels
    Distribution Channels Stores Store Type Territory Provider Direct Streaming and Akazoo Worldwide Internet Radio Amazon Music Download Worldwide Amazon Prime Streaming Worldwide Amazon Unlimited Streaming Worldwide Anghami Streaming Middle East Apple Music Streaming Worldwide Cyprus, Greece, Audible Magic Content ID Malaysia & Poland AWA Streaming Japan Beatport Download Worldwide BMAT Vericast Content ID Worldwide Africa, Asia & Boomplay Music Streaming Middle East. BPI Anti Piracy Content ID United Kingdom Download and Bugs South Korea Streaming Download and Claro Musica South America Streaming Deezer Streaming Worldwide Deedo Streaming Africa Equal FM Streaming Facebook Social media Worldwide Downloads and Google Play Worldwide Streaming Audio Gracenote Information US Service Hi Res Audio Downloads Germany iHeart Radio All Access Internet Radio US iHeart Radio All Access Internet Radio US Plus iHeart Radio Internet Radio US Download and iMusica Brazil Streaming Instagram Social Media Worldwide iTunes Download Worldwide JioSaavn Streaming India Juno Download Worldwide Me Playlist Streaming Nigeria, Ghana, Monking Me Streaming Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, South Downloads and Africa, Zimbabwe, Mdundo Streaming UK, North America. LATAM, US, Spain, Dreamscope Media Group Ltd. Music Distribution Channels Page 1 of 5 Stores Store Type Territory Provider Audio Music Reports Information Worldwide Service US, Canada, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Napster Streaming
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Use, Fair Play: Video Game Performances and "Let's Plays" As Transformative Use Dan Hagen
    Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts Volume 13 | Issue 3 Article 3 4-1-2018 Fair Use, Fair Play: Video Game Performances and "Let's Plays" as Transformative Use Dan Hagen Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wjlta Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Dan Hagen, Fair Use, Fair Play: Video Game Performances and "Let's Plays" as Transformative Use, 13 Wash. J. L. Tech. & Arts 245 (2018). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wjlta/vol13/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hagen: Fair Use, Fair Play: Video Game Performances and "Let's Plays" as WASHINGTON JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & ARTS VOLUME 13, ISSUE 3 SPRING 2018 FAIR USE, FAIR PLAY: VIDEO GAME PERFORMANCES AND “LET’S PLAYS” AS TRANSFORMATIVE USE Dan Hagen* © Dan Hagen Cite as: 13 Wash. J.L. Tech. & Arts 245 (2018) http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/handle/1773.1/1816 ABSTRACT With the advent of social video upload sites like YouTube, what constitutes fair use has become a hotly debated and often litigated subject. Major content rights holders in the movie and music industry assert ownership rights of content on video upload platforms, and the application of the fair use doctrine to such content is largely unclear.
    [Show full text]
  • Music on Youtube: User Engagement with Traditional, User-Appropriated and Derivative Videos ⇑ Lassi A
    Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015) 108–124 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Computers in Human Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh Music on YouTube: User engagement with traditional, user-appropriated and derivative videos ⇑ Lassi A. Liikkanen a, , Antti Salovaara b a Helsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT, Aalto University, PO Box 15600, FI-00076 Aalto, Finland b School of Business, Aalto University, PO Box 21220, FI-00076 Aalto, Finland article info abstract Article history: YouTube is the leading Internet video service and one of the most popular websites in 2014. Music videos Available online 17 April 2015 hold top positions in different YouTube charts, but the music video types or engagement patterns with them have not been systematically studied. In this paper we present three studies that focus on Keywords: YouTube music. We first show that music videos are the most popular content genre in YouTube. We then Digital music present a typology of traditional and user-generated music videos discovered in YouTube. It includes YouTube twelve subtypes of music videos under three main types: traditional, user-appropriated, and derivative. Music interaction Last, we present findings on user engagement statistics that go beyond view, comment, and vote counts. Appropriation These metrics show that while music videos gather more views, engagement differences with other Music listening content genres are miniscule. However, there are notable differences in engagement between different music video types. This is prominent between different artists on one hand, and between traditional and user-generated videos on the other. We synthesize these findings by discussing the importance of user-generated videos in YouTube’s music ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Evidence Submitted by Youtube
    Written evidence submitted by YouTube “YouTube has been a great support to GRM Daily as platform [sic], and have [sic] been willing to partner with us and amplify our brand even in these difficult times.” - GRM Daily, entertainment platform and YouTube channel with 3.4 million subscribers1 1. Background Google appreciates the opportunity to submit comments in connection with the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into the economics of music streaming. This submission focuses on YouTube Music (since Google Play Music will be deprecated by the end of 2020) and describes our unique contributions to the music industry, whilst seeking to address each of the topics specified in the Inquiry. The Internet has enabled British creators, artists, and songwriters to connect, create and distribute new works of art like never before. A key part of preserving this creative economy is ensuring creators and artists have a way to share and make money from their content. YouTube accomplishes this in two ways in partnership with the music industry: with our subscription music service, YouTube Music, and our advertising-supported music platform, which includes content from rightsholders, creators, and artists, as well as original, user- generated content (“UGC”). Services that host UGC , such as YouTube, are stimulating an explosion of new creativity - by making it easier than ever for creators of all types, amateur and professional, new and established, to find their audiences - and generating significant income for rightsholders whose works are used in UGC. We think it is critically important, and recognise our responsibility to ensure, that artists, creators, and rightsholders benefit from their work.
    [Show full text]
  • Youtube Copyright Management Product Suite
    YouTube Copyright Management Product Suite EU Commission stakeholders dialogue - 25.11.19 Nov., 2019 1 ● YouTube Copyright Management Product Suite. Agenda ● Challenges and limitations of copyright management products. ● Video creator experience and redress mechanism. Introduction Google fights piracy & generates revenue for rights Create content YouTube is an open platform where Upload it to YouTube anybody can upload and share their Find an audience content Make a living Confidential & Proprietary How can YouTube provide copyright holders powerful tools to identify uses of their content on YouTube, control them and even take advantage of these new forms of user distribution? Confidential & Proprietary Recap: Components of a Copyright Product Receive Organize Detect and Conflicts Fight Information rights Find Owner resolution abuses Confidential & Proprietary Introducing YouTube’s Copyright Management Suite Takedown Webform Copyright Match Tool Content ID Who? Anyone, users who hold few Who? YouTube channels that are prone to Who? Expert users such as movie studios, copyrights and scarcely find it on reposting of their copyrighted content service providers and other publishers YouTube. and everybody who apply through public that have heavy reposting of copyrighted form. content, mostly enterprises with a large scale of copyright issues. Detection: Manual Detection: Fully automated Detection: Fully automated What? Webform which allows to file a What? automatically shows full reuploads What? automatically claims per copyright takedown notice
    [Show full text]
  • Making Content ID Algorithms More Conducive to Fostering Innovative Fair Use in Music Creation
    UCLA UCLA Entertainment Law Review Title The Dilemma of False Positives: Making Content ID Algorithms more Conducive to Fostering Innovative Fair Use in Music Creation Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1x38s0hj Journal UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 24(1) ISSN 1073-2896 Authors Lester, Toni Pachamanova, Dessislava Publication Date 2017 DOI 10.5070/LR8241035525 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California THE DILEMMA OF FALSE POSITIVES: MAKING CONTENT ID ALGORITHMS MORE CONDUCIVE TO FOSTERING INNOVATIVE FAIR USE IN MUSIC CREATION Toni Lester* Dessislava Pachamanova** Abstract Content ID programs commonly use algorithms to block uploaded music when the algorithm concludes the owners of certain copyrighted works will claim their work is being used without consent. However, algorithmic enforce- ment programs can produce “false positives,” where legally allowable music associated with a reference file is inappropriately blocked. The phenomenon of false positives is especially problematic for songwriters, composers, exper- imental music artists and others who create music by combining their own vocal or instrumental performance with work created by others and “loops” from audio libraries. Balanced by such factors as how much a new work dam- ages the market for a prior work and how much of a prior work is used in a new work, the “fair use” defense allows songwriters to upload technically infringing work if the new work amounts to a critique, is in the public domain, or suffi- ciently transforms the original work to render it new. This article explains how Content ID algorithms are developed and interpreted and discusses how the fair use defense can sometimes limit the extent to which Content ID programs can block innovative music creation.
    [Show full text]