| Revision as of 04:24, 7 February 2010 editSceptre (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors79,161 edits Undid revision 342424170 by Vexorg (talk); I'll stop edit warring when you stop reinserting unsourced material← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:09, 20 July 2019 edit undoZxcvbnm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers61,809 editsm ←Changed redirect target from Criticism of Google#Youtube to Criticism of Google#YouTubeTags: Redirect target changed Visual edit |
| (209 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> |
|
|
<!-- The nomination page for this article already existed when this tag was added. If this was because the article had been nominated for deletion before, and you wish to renominate it, please replace "page=Criticism of YouTube" with "page=Criticism of YouTube (2nd nomination)" below before proceeding with the nomination. |
|
|
-->{{AfDM|page=Criticism of YouTube|logdate=2010 February 6|substed=yes|help=off}} |
|
|
<!-- For administrator use only: {{oldafdfull|page=Criticism of YouTube|date=6 February 2010|result='''keep'''}} --> |
|
|
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> |
|
|
{{cleanup|date= December 2009}} |
|
|
The video hosting website ''']''' has been the object of numerous criticisms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Redirect category shell|1= |
|
==Copyright== |
|
|
|
{{R unprintworthy}} |
|
<!-- Commented out: ].|{{deletable image-caption|1=Tuesday, 25 August 2009}}]] --> |
|
|
|
{{R from merge}} |
|
<!-- Commented out: ], but muted instead of deleted.|{{deletable image-caption|1=Tuesday, 25 August 2009}}]] --> |
|
|
Content must be permitted by ], the organization frequently removing upon request a vast quantity of infringing content. A decision in October 2007 allowed 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>{{Dead link|date=December 2008}} |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
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, was occasionally used in bad faith. Since 2007, changes to the interface mean that only rights holders are able to directly report copyright violations. |
|
|
|
|
|
] remains divided on YouTube. Ian Schafer, CEO of online advertising company Deep Focus has been quoted as saying "'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 = 2007-03-10 |
|
|
|accessdate = 2007-03-12 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
</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 = 2006-07-12 |
|
|
| 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 = 2006-10-02 |
|
|
| 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 = 2006-07-26 |
|
|
|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 = 2006-09-26 |
|
|
|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 (]). |
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, YouTube has a rule prohibiting false claims of copyright from being filed; again, as with the rule aiming to prevent such videos from being uploaded, this too has been subject to abuse. For example, when American commentator and blogger ] uploaded commentary about ] to YouTube, using footage from music videos and the Trinidad concert, ] then forced its removal by issuing a ] takedown notice.<ref>Malkin, Michelle. , MichelleMalkin.com, 2007-05-03.</ref> The ] joined Malkin in contesting the removal as a misuse of copyright law, citing ].<ref>, ''Electronic Frontier Foundation'', 2007-05-09.</ref> In May 2007, UMG rescinded its claim to the video, and the video returned to YouTube. |
|
|
|
|
|
Problems with YouTube's copyright protection practices has caused some internet satirists who originally started on YouTube such as James Rolfe (]) and Doug Walker (]) to forgo YouTube altogether and form their own websites. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Examples of infringement complaints=== |
|
|
On October 5, 2006, the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (]) finalized its 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 = 2007-12-02 |
|
|
|accessdate = 2007-12-02 |
|
|
}}</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 = 2006-07-18 |
|
|
|accessdate = 2006-07-28 |
|
|
}}</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 = 2006-07-19 |
|
|
|accessdate = 2006-07-28 |
|
|
}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
On November 9, 2006, American comedian and actor ] 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 YouTube, 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 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 = 2007-02-02 |
|
|
|accessdate = 2007-02-04 |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
{{wikinews|Viacom sues YouTube, Google, for more than 1 billion dollars}} |
|
|
Viacom 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 its videos on the website without Viacom's 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 = 2007-03-13 |
|
|
|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 = 2007-03-13 |
|
|
|accessdate = 2007-03-13 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
</ref> US District Court Judge ], on July 1, 2008 granted ]'s request for data upon which ] viewers watch which videos on the website to support its case in a billion-dollar copyright lawsuit against Google. He debunked privacy concerns, directing Google to give Viacom viewing log-in ID / names of YouTube users and ] (IP) addresses (online identifier) and video clip details (totalling more than 12 terabytes of data). The judgement was criticized by Google and privacy advocates. ] said that the privacy of millions of YouTube users was threatened: "The chickens have come home to roost for Google." Stranton however, denied Viacom's pleas "to get its hands on secret source code used in YouTube video searches as well as for Internet searches, and to order Google to provide access to the videos YouTube users store in private YouTube files."<ref></ref><ref></ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
In May 2007, the English ] announced that it was suing YouTube for alleged ] infringement, claiming that the website had "knowingly misappropriated" its intellectual property by encouraging Premier League ] matches to be viewed on its site. <ref></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> |
|
|
The boy was subsequently on The Chaser's War On Everything, when, upon closing, one of the Chasers said 'If you're quick, you can watch this episode on YouTube, unless some random Australian kid deletes them all'. |
|
|
|
|
|
Philippine TV channel ] also does not allow its videos to be on YouTube.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} |
|
|
|
|
|
In August 2008, a U.S. District judge ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material. The case involved Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from ], who made a home video of her 13-month-old son dancing to Prince's song ] and posted the 29-second video on ]. Four months later, ], the owner of the copyright to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video enforcing the ]. Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks, as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, to see whether Universal planned to sue Lenz for infringement. Lenz then sued ] in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair-use of the song.<ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Woman can sue over YouTube clip de-posting |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/20/MNU412FKRL.DTL |quote= |work=] |date= |accessdate=2008-08-25 }}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning in December 2008, various music labels (primarily ] and ]) have continuously removed YouTube videos featuring their songs in a long list of copyright complaints. This has led to a multitude of videos remonstrating against YouTube for not protecting its users from WMG and UMG, even if the music, while under fair use, is either an AMV or just a 10-20 second clip. This has caused a great many users to stop making videos altogether, due to their music tastes being arbitrarily disallowed. On 30<sup>th</sup> September, YouTube announced on their blog that the rights to post WMG music had returned.<ref>http://youtubeukblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/warner-music-comes-back-to-youtube.html</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Use of acoustic fingerprints=== |
|
|
<!-- Commented out: ].|{{deletable image-caption|1=Tuesday, 25 August 2009}}]] --> |
|
|
On October 12, 2006, 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 = 2006-10-12 |
|
|
|accessdate = 2006-10-13 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
On April 16, 2007, 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> |
|
|
{{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 = 2007-04-16 |
|
|
|accessdate = 2007-04-17}} |
|
|
</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Google spokesperson Ricardo Reyes stated on June 13, 2007 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 October 15, 2007, Google announced the release of YouTube Video Identification, a tool that would go "above and beyond our legal responsibilities."<ref></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. |
|
|
|
|
|
In January 2009, YouTube's Video ID system was used by ] to aid in automatically taking down or muting the audio of a mass amount of infringing and non-infringing videos. This resulted in a large amount of "]" videos suffering the consequences from the mass takedowns.<ref></ref> According to YouTomb, (a MIT free culture project) due to Video ID aiding in the takedowns, January 2009 had seen double the amount of takedowns compared to all of the last year alone.<ref></ref><ref></ref> On September 21, 2009, CNET reported that Warner Music Group had possibly struck a new deal with YouTube and WMG videos may start appearing back on YouTube within weeks, however some videos were still either muted by WMG, or cannot be viewed globally. <ref></ref> It was confirmed on Warner Music Group News and the YouTube Blog on September 29, 2009 that YouTube and Warner Music Group were in a multi-year deal with each other. <ref>http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/09/warner-music-comes-back-to-youtube.html</ref> <ref>http://www.wmg.com/newsdetails/id/8a0af81223ca5ea0012406e5d0b7333b</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Censorship== |
|
|
YouTube has been criticized for censorship from political reasons. |
|
|
|
|
|
YouTube blocked the account of ], an activist who posted videos of police brutality, voting irregularities and anti-government demonstrations.<ref name="EgyptTorture"></ref> His account was subsequently restored. |
|
|
|
|
|
YouTube also removed a video produced by the ] which is critical of ]. It has since been restored. <ref></ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
On February 22, 2008, Pakistan Telecommunications attempted to block regional access to YouTube following a government order. The attempt subsequently caused a worldwide YouTube blackout that took 2 hours to correct. Four days later, Pakistan Telecom lifted the ban after YouTube removed religiously controversial comments made by Dutch member of parliament ]<ref></ref> concerning Islam.<ref></ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
During the ], YouTube removed videos of air strikes against the Palestinian militant group Hamas that were posted by the ] (IDF). <ref name="IDF"> ], December 30, 2008</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
]'s video "Welcome to Saudi Britain" was removed by YouTube early in October 2008, but reinstated shortly after. In the video Condell criticises Britain's sanctioning of a ] court, and refers to the entire country of ] as mentally ill for its abuse of women. A YouTube spokesman said "YouTube has clear policies that prohibit inappropriate content on the site, such as pornography, gratuitous violence or hate speech...If users repeatedly break these rules we disable their accounts." The National Secular Society were among the complainants to YouTube."<ref name="telegraphcensor">{{cite web |
|
|
| last = Beckford |
|
|
| first = Martin |
|
|
| title = YouTube censors comedian's anti-Sharia video called 'Welcome to Saudi Britain' |
|
|
| publisher = ] |
|
|
| date = 2008-09-04 |
|
|
| url = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3130883/YouTube-censors-comedians-anti-Sharia-video-called-Welcome-to-Saudi-Britain.html |
|
|
| accessdate =2009-03-16 }}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Neo-Nazis and genocide denial== |
|
|
On December 18, 2007, the news network ] reported about the abundance of neo-Nazi 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 = December 18, 2007 |
|
|
}}</ref> Hundreds of Nazi- and SS-glorifying, Holocaust-denying, ] and racist videos have been brought to the attention of both YouTube and its parent company ] by the German Jewish group ] (tr. "Central Council of Jews"), which did "not get any response". The first reports about the violation of YouTube's own rules surfaced in August 2007 after the German TV-magazine ''Report Mainz'' reported that even over a hundred complaints by the federal Jugendschutz.net 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 six-part video series of Holocaust Denial videos, which Google promised to "block immediately", but over five weeks later (and as of January 17, 2008) were still available.<ref></ref> At some point between January 17 and February 9, 2008, the video was taken down for a "] violation".<ref></ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==References== |
|
|
{{reflist|2}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{You Tube}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{DEFAULTSORT:Criticism Of Youtube}} |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|