I've already written about this problem of "girl fight" videos on YouTube. See here and here. With the recent felony case of 8 high school girls and guys beating up another girl in Florida, it finally is getting attention in the national press. This NBC segment is quite good, given the constraints of national news on TV.
It's interesting that the judge in the case forbid the high school students who engaged in the beating from going on MySpace or YouTube, or it sounds like the Internet in general. YouTube's user policy states "Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it." But it appears to be pretty easy to find videos of girls fighting and also guys. Here's one that has been up since December 2007 and has over 160,000 views.
WARNING: Graphic violence and language. Viewer discretion.
News: I have finally posted the draft of my article about user-generated content, mashups, and copyright law. Please email me at utubeblog [at] gmail.com with comments or questions.
You can download the article from SSRN by clicking on this link (or email me for a copy).
News: Today, we discussed the Viacom v. YouTube case in my copyright class. I use TurningPoint technology that allows me to instantly poll my class through PowerPoint slides. 88% of my class concluded that YouTube falls within the Section 512 safe harbors. That's a very high percentage--indeed, one that I find surprising based on previous votes in my class. In difficult cases, my class tends to split closer to 50/50 or 60/40, as you might expect. But rarely does my class vote in one-sided fashion unless the case is pretty easy -- which isn't exactly how I would characterize the YouTube case. I may have some more discussion with my class on Monday, and if I find anything illuminating about the vote, I'll try to post it.
Analysis: I think the voting technology has made me wonder why copyright defendants do not request jury trials in every single case. I would think a jury increases the chances of the defendant winning in cases with arguable defenses.
Below is Viacom's complaint v. YouTube
News: Ars Technica caught another outrageous provision in a EULA (end user license agreement), this time from the just launched Adobe Photoshop Express. Basically, the provision in the EULA by Adobe claimed to allow Adobe to re-use all of your photos posted on its site forever -- without royalties. After Ars Technica emailed Adobe, Adobe has admitted this provision is wrong and will be changed.
Analysis: My question again: who is the lawyer who drafted the EULA? That person should be fired.
News: Karaoke is popular in Japan and, of course, elsewhere. So what happens when thousands of people record themselves karaoking and post the videos on YouTube? Well, for Japanese music, YouTube has worked out a 1-year royalty deal to pay Japan Rights Clearance to allow people to continue to make these amateur karaoke videos and share them online. A similar deal has been hashed out with JASRAC. (More)
Analysis: Good deal. This deal benefits the public and those Japanese amateurs singers or just karaoke fanatics on YouTube. YouTube is essentially acting as an intermediary and arranging the copyright deal that ratifies the user practice. I have an article coming out in October that discusses the importance of these user practices -- I will share a draft soon. The Japanese deal raises a couple questions in my mind:
1. Will a similar deal be hashed out in the United States, with the likes of ASCAP and others? (It may well be that YouTube's prior deals with some of the music labels/publishers may have covered some of this.)
2. How can YouTube afford to pay for all of this? YouTube is doing a public service right now by enabling people to do a lot of things with video without the need for users to get copyright licenses, but YouTube needs to make money somehow.
News: Techdirt blog has an excellent post about the incredibly perverse EULA (end user license agreement) of Apple and even Google. The Apple one is particularly funny because it attempts to restrict the computers on which Safari can be used to Apple computers -- even though it obviously serves Apple's financial interest to have Safari an any computer.
News: The Supreme Court agreed to hear the FCC's appeal of its indecency fines against several TV networks for expletives used spontaneously by Cher and Nicole Ritchie on awards shows, and by an actor on NYPD Blue. The Second Circuit held that the FCC had no authority to punish for "fleeting expletives," which included the F-word. Ars Technica has an excellent write-up of the legal issues in the case.
Analysis: I've been waiting for the Court to step into the fray because the FCC seems like it has gotten out of control. Too bad this appeal doesn't involve the FCC's fine against ABC for showing the naked butt of Charlotte Ross on NYPD Blue.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
