| Revision as of 15:08, 22 March 2008 editZimZalaBim (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers47,423 edits these are not criticisms of YouTube, just unique items on YouTube (while some might criticize the content, no evidence is given of notable criticism of YoutTube itself)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:09, 20 July 2019 edit undoZxcvbnm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers61,812 editsm ←Changed redirect target from Criticism of Google#Youtube to Criticism of Google#YouTubeTags: Redirect target changed Visual edit |
| (678 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
The video hosting website ] has been the object of various criticisms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Redirect category shell|1= |
|
=== Copyright === |
|
|
|
{{R unprintworthy}} |
|
].]] |
|
|
|
{{R from merge}} |
|
|
|
|
YouTube policy does not give permission for anyone to upload content not permitted by ], the ] frequently removing upon request a vast quantity of infringing content. |
|
|
|
|
|
Despite this, a large amount of potentially infringing content continues to be uploaded, e.g. television shows/clips, film clips, commercials, music videos, or music concerts. This is despite a decision in October 2007 to allow media companies to block their copyrighted video content loaded onto YouTube without seeking any prior permission.<ref>{{cite news |
|
|
| url = http://in.news.yahoo.com/071016/139/6lzxa.html |
|
|
| title = YouTube allows media companies to block copyrighted content |
|
|
| accessdate=2007-10-16}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Until 2007, unless a copyright holder reported violation or infringement, YouTube generally discovered such content via indications within the YouTube community through self-policing. For a brief time, individual members could also report on one another. The flagging feature, intended as a means of reporting questionable content, has been subject to considerable abuse; for a time, some users were flagging other users' original content for copyright violations out of spite. YouTube proceeded to remove copyright infringement from the list of flaggable offenses. |
|
|
|
|
|
Since 2007, changes to the interface mean that only rights holders are able to directly report copyright violations, even if they are obvious to casual viewers. |
|
|
|
|
|
YouTube generally identifies video content through search terms that uploaders associate with clips. Some deceptive users create alternative search terms when uploading specific file types (similar to the deliberate misspelling of band names on MP3 filesharing networks). |
|
|
|
|
|
] remains divided on YouTube, as "'the marketing guys love YouTube and the legal guys hate it.'"<ref name="sitefright"> |
|
|
{{cite news |
|
|
|first = Ben |
|
|
|last = Jones |
|
|
|coauthors = Leamonth, Michael |
|
|
|url = http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117960880.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 |
|
|
|title = Showbiz's site fright/Web seen as both a threat and a gold mine |
|
|
|publisher = ] |
|
|
|date = ] |
|
|
|accessdate = 2007-03-12 |
|
|
|language = English |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
</ref> Further, |
|
|
{{quote|While lawyers are demanding filtering technology, many Hollywood execs actually enjoy the fact that YouTube only takes down clips when they request it. "If I found part of a successful show up on YouTube today, I'd probably pull it down immediately .... If I had a show that wasn't doing so well in the ratings and could use the promotion, I wouldn't be in a rush to do that."<ref name="sitefright"/>}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Content owners are not just targeting YouTube for copyright infringements, but are also targeting third party websites that link to infringing content on YouTube and other video-sharing sites, for example, QuickSilverScreen vs. Fox,<ref> |
|
|
{{cite news |
|
|
| first = IPTV |
|
|
| last = Guy |
|
|
| title = TV Show Directory QuickSilverScreen.com Threatened by Fox |
|
|
| url = http://www.webtvwire.com/tv-show-directory-quicksilverscreencom-threatened-by-fox/ |
|
|
| work = Web TV Wire |
|
|
| date = ] |
|
|
| accessdate = 2006-10-12 |
|
|
}}</ref> Daily Episodes vs. Fox,<ref> |
|
|
{{cite news |
|
|
| first = Lord |
|
|
| last = Thor |
|
|
| title = DailyEpisodes closed down by Fox, for LINKING to TV show episodes! |
|
|
| url = http://digg.com/tech_news/DailyEpisodes_closed_down_by_Fox_for_LINKING_to_TV_show_episodes |
|
|
| work = Digg.com |
|
|
| date = ] |
|
|
| accessdate = 2006-12-10 |
|
|
}}</ref> and Columbia vs. Slashfilm.<ref>{{cite news |
|
|
|first = Peter |
|
|
|last = Sciretta |
|
|
|url = http://www.slashfilm.com/article.php/20060726145607684 |
|
|
|title = Columnia Pictures tells /Film to remove website link |
|
|
|publisher = SlashFilm |
|
|
|date = ] |
|
|
|accessdate = 2006-10-12 |
|
|
}}</ref> The liability of linking remains a grey area with cases for and against. The law in the U.S. currently leans towards website owners being liable for infringing links<ref>{{cite news |
|
|
|url = http://www.webtvwire.com/linking-to-infringing-content-is-probably-illegal-in-the-us/ |
|
|
|title = Linking to infringing TV Shows is probably illegal in the US |
|
|
|publisher = WebTVWire |
|
|
|date = ] |
|
|
|accessdate = 2006-10-12 |
|
|
}}</ref> although they are often protected by the ] providing they take down infringing content when issued with a take down notice. However, a recent court ruling in the U.S. found Google not liable for linking to infringing content (]). |
|
|
|
|
|
====Examples of infringement complaints==== |
|
|
On ], ], the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (]) finalized their copyright complaints regarding Japanese media on YouTube. Thousands of media from popular Japanese artists (such as ] and other music including ]) were removed. |
|
|
|
|
|
When CBS and Universal Music Group signed agreements to provide content on YouTube, they announced a new technology to help them find and remove copyrighted material.<ref> |
|
|
{{cite news |
|
|
|first = Candace |
|
|
|last = Lombardi |
|
|
|url = http://www.news.com/YouTube-cuts-three-content-deals/2100-1030_3-6123914.html |
|
|
|title = YouTube cuts three content deals |
|
|
|work = |
|
|
|publisher = Cnet-News.com |
|
|
|date = ] |
|
|
|accessdate = 2007-12-02 |
|
|
|language = English |
|
|
}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
TV journalist ] filed the first lawsuit against the company in the summer of 2006, alleging copyright infringement for hosting a number of famous news clips without permission. The case has yet to be resolved.<ref> |
|
|
{{cite news |
|
|
|first = K.C. |
|
|
|last = Jones |
|
|
|url = http://www.informationweek.com/industries/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=190600029 |
|
|
|title = Journalist Sues YouTube For Copyright Infringement |
|
|
|work = |
|
|
|publisher = InformationWeek.com |
|
|
|date = ] |
|
|
|accessdate = 2006-07-28 |
|
|
|language = English |
|
|
}}</ref> |
|
|
<ref> |
|
|
{{cite news |
|
|
|first = James |
|
|
|last = Montgomery |
|
|
|url = http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1536695/20060719/index.jhtml?headlines=true |
|
|
|title = YouTube Slapped With First Copyright Lawsuit For Video Posted Without Permission |
|
|
|work = |
|
|
|publisher = MTV.com |
|
|
|date = ] |
|
|
|accessdate = 2006-07-28 |
|
|
|language = English |
|
|
}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
On ], ], ] said that his lawyers were in talks with YouTube, after Lange learned that his entire DVD, ''It's the Whiskey Talking'', was available for free on the website. He added that he will either demand money from them, or will sue.<ref>{{cite web |title=Scripting News for 10/12/2006 |publisher=Scripting News Annex |url=http://scripting.wordpress.com/2006/10/12/scripting-news-for-10122006/ |accessdate = 2007-01-29 }}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
] and the ] both demanded YouTube to take down more than 200,000 videos.<ref> |
|
|
{{cite news |
|
|
|first = Greg |
|
|
|last = Sandoval |
|
|
|author = Sandoval, Greg |
|
|
|title = Does YouTube have a control problem? |
|
|
|url = http://news.com.com/Does+YouTube+have+a+control+problem/2100-1030_3-6156025.html |
|
|
|work = ] |
|
|
|date = ] |
|
|
|accessdate = 2007-02-04 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
{{wikinews|Viacom sues YouTube, Google, for more than 1 billion dollars}} |
|
|
] announced it was suing YouTube, and its owner ], for more than $1 billion in the ] for the ]. Viacom claims that YouTube posted over 160,000 of their videos on the website without their permission.<ref> |
|
|
{{cite news |
|
|
|first = |
|
|
|last = |
|
|
|author = Reuters |
|
|
|title = Viacom in $1 bln copyright suit vs Google, YouTube |
|
|
|url = http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyid=2007-03-13T134200Z_01_WEN5351_RTRUKOC_0_US-VIACOM-YOUTUBE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22 |
|
|
|work = ] |
|
|
|date = ] |
|
|
|accessdate = 2007-03-13 |
|
|
}}</ref><ref> |
|
|
{{cite news |
|
|
|first = |
|
|
|last = |
|
|
|author = BBC News |
|
|
|title = Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn |
|
|
|url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm |
|
|
|work = ] |
|
|
|date = ] |
|
|
|accessdate = 2007-03-13 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
In 2007 a 15-year-old Australian boy managed to get YouTube to delete over 200 YouTube videos belonging to the ] using a fake ] take down notice. When the fake DMCA notice arrived, the ABC already had in place a long-standing deal with YouTube to freely share its videos. In his hand-written letter, the boy claimed that he was acting on behalf of the "Australian Broddcasting{{sic}} Corperation{{sic}}", giving his own ] address as his business contact and demanded that hundreds of videos from ABC's '']'' television program be deleted from YouTube's servers. Despite the boy not having any affiliation with the ABC and the spelling errors on his hand-written form, YouTube did delete all of the videos at the boy's request and replaced each with a message stating "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Australian Broadcasting Corporation".<ref> |
|
|
{{cite news |
|
|
|url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/boy-dupes-youtube-to-delete-videos/2007/04/13/1175971361981.html |
|
|
|title=Boy dupes YouTube to delete videos |
|
|
|author=Jensen, Erik |
|
|
|publisher=The Sydney Morning Herald |
|
|
|date=2007-04-14}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Philippine TV channel ] also does not allow its videos to be on YouTube. |
|
|
|
|
|
====Use of acoustic fingerprints==== |
|
|
On ], ], YouTube announced that because of recent agreements with high-profile content creators, they are now required to use antipiracy software, which uses an ] technology that can detect a low-quality copy of licensed video. YouTube would have to substitute an approved version of any clip or remove the material immediately. Industry analysts speculated that removal of content with such a system might reduce overall user satisfaction.<ref name=MSNBC_APSCHY1> |
|
|
{{cite news |
|
|
|first = Alex |
|
|
|last = Veiga |
|
|
|title = Anti-piracy system could hurt YouTube |
|
|
|url = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15240348/ |
|
|
|work = ] |
|
|
|date = ] |
|
|
|accessdate = 2006-10-13 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
On ], ], Google's CEO ] presented a keynote speech at the ] Convention in ]. During the Q&A session, Schmidt announced that YouTube was close to enacting a content filtering system to remove infringing content from the service. The new system, called "Claim Your Content", will automatically identify copyrighted material for removal.<ref name=[paidcontent.org> |
|
|
{{cite news |
|
|
|first = Rafat |
|
|
|last = Ali |
|
|
|title = NAB: GoogleTube Close To Its “Claim Your Content” Filtering System |
|
|
|url = http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-nab-googletube-close-to-its-claim-your-content-filtering-system/ |
|
|
|work = ] |
|
|
|date = ] |
|
|
|accessdate = 2007-04-17}} |
|
|
</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Google spokesperson Ricardo Reyes stated on ], ] that the company was seeking "a way to make video identification technology a reality" when they began to test the system in the next few days.<ref></ref><ref>http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/12/technology/youtube_id.reut/index.htm</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
On ], ], Google announced the release of YouTube Video Identification, a tool that would go "above and beyond our legal responsibilities."<ref>http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/latest-content-id-tool-for-youtube.html</ref> In a blog posting on the release, YouTube product manager David King said YouTube Video Identification will help copyright holders identify their works on YouTube and choose what they want done with them. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Violence=== |
|
|
{{Further|]}} |
|
|
{{Wikinews|New Zealand school children put fight videos on YouTube}} |
|
|
|
|
|
YouTube and similar sites were reportedly used by teenagers who ] on ]s.<ref>], ], the evening ] bulletin</ref> In July 2007, such an incident happened at a school in ], U.K.<ref> ''Police remove film of girls fighting from You Tube'' ] Saturday ] ] (Number 47316) </ref> A video was uploaded at the end of 2006 of an arranged fight in Scarborough, England of two 16 year olds fighting, one of them then getting beaten up by at least 20 others. Additionally, in July 2007, a Briton urinated on a dying woman while a friend made a video of the incident. He reportedly yelled "This is YouTube material!"<ref> USA Today: </ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
====Finland school shootings==== |
|
|
YouTube appears to have removed 89 videos linked to an 18-year-old gunman who on ], ] killed at least eight people in ]. Many of the videos featured Nazi imagery. One of the videos, uploaded days before the incident, called "Jokela high school massacre 11/7/2007", showed a picture of a building by a lake and two photos of a young man holding a gun.<ref>CNN Finland School Shootings Story http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/07/school.shooting/index.html</ref>. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Corruption=== |
|
|
====Criminal charges in Honduras==== |
|
|
An unknown individual posted various recordings of high government officials in ] on YouTube, including of the President ], implicating them in a ] scandal concerning ], the state run ] service<ref></ref>. After Zelaya made a complaint to the police they launched an investigation to find who had made the recordings, which are considered ] and a violation of Honduras' privacy laws, that included searching the mansion of the ] of Hondutel, ]<ref></ref>, an action condemned by Zelaya<ref></ref>. On ] Chimirri appeared in court and was charged with various crimes related to the appearance of these clips on YouTube<ref></ref>. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Animal abuse=== |
|
|
YouTube has been criticized for hosting hundreds of whistleblower videos of real-life animal cruelty made specifically to be shown on the site. In spite of these videos being flagged as inappropriate by many users, YouTube has generally failed to take the same policing actions to remove them that they have with videos containing copyright infringement or sexual content.<ref>Times online, August 19, 2007, retrieved August 25, 2007.</ref> <ref> Practical Fishkeeping, May 17, 2007, retrieved August 25, 2007.</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Neo-Nazis on YouTube=== |
|
|
On ], ], ] reported about the prevalence of ] propaganda and ] videos on YouTube.<ref name="CNN">{{cite news |
|
|
|url = http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/12/17/pleitgen.neo.nazis.on.you.tube.cnn |
|
|
|title = Neo Nazis on YouTube |
|
|
|publisher = CNN <!-- --> |
|
|
|date = ], ] |
|
|
}}</ref> Hundreds of Nazi- and SS-glorifying, Holocaust-denying, ] and ] videos have been brought to the attention of both YouTube and its parent company ] and by the German ] ("Central Council of Jews"), which did "not get any response". The first reports about the violation of YouTube's own rules surfaced in ] after the German TV-magazine ] reported that even over a hundred complaints by the federal ] watchdog to YouTube about videos forbidden by German law had not been answered and that the flagged content had not been removed by YouTube.<ref></ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/28/google_germany_neo_nazi/</ref> |
|
|
<ref></ref> |
|
|
<ref></ref> Some of the flagged videos have been online for over a year. CNN contacted Google specifically about a 6 part video series of Holocaust Denial videos, which Google promised to "block immediately", but over five weeks later (and as of ], ]) were still available.<ref></ref>At some point between then and the 9th of February 2008, the video was taken down for a "terms of use violation".<ref></ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==References== |
|
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|