I wonder how the copyright enforcement will work out now that Google has bought Youtube. I seem to recall reading that some content producers were allowing their stuff to be put up, on purposee.

There was a bit on this on Slate, last week. The idea is, since copyright stays in existence whether you enforce it or not (unlike trademark), an owner can basically ignore copyright infringement for days or weeks or years, and then suddenly change her mind and enforce.

While the ignoring is going on, the owner gets the benefit of free advertising.

(YouTube isn't responsible for the content posted on it, and is responsible for policing only to a limited extent. It's really up to the copyright owner to police her property. Thanks to lobbying by AOL, a decade ago, that got enshrined into law.)

It's official. Democrats control both houses of Congress.

Don't frak it up. The next time it may not be fixable.

Loved Lee Ann's comment: This episode was a flashback to the gas station challenge ... I happen to love challenges like this, because it forces me to think outside of the box. And believe me, I have come home, relatively intoxicated, many a night to bizarre and somewhat random ingredients in my cupboards. The mark of a true chef is the 3:00 a.m. challenge.

but that he's going to re-post a 10-second clip b/c 10 seconds is within the boundaries of fair use.

Ha! What complete bullshit.

The idea is, since copyright stays in existence whether you enforce it or not (unlike trademark), an owner can basically ignore copyright infringement for days or weeks or years, and then suddenly change her mind and enforce.

Yup. Which is why, legally, "fair use" boils down to "whatever you can get away with at the time." It's up to the copyright holder to decide whether they're being infringed upon -- there are no hard and fast rules about what you can and can't use, or how much, or for how long. None.

(YouTube isn't responsible for the content posted on it, and is responsible for policing only to a limited extent. It's really up to the copyright owner to police her property. Thanks to lobbying by AOL, a decade ago, that got enshrined into law.)

Without being the cops, there's a lot that a company can do to make the existence of YouTube more palatable to big business. Even if it's Google, the site has to pay for itself. If it's known to be the Wild West of brand dilution, less easy to attract the money.

HA! In her blog, Lee Anne calls the Cheeto in Mike's quickfire entry a Cheesy Poof!

If it's known to be the Wild West of brand dilution, less easy to attract the money.

But that's a separate issue than whether or not they're legally liable.

On the one hand, I agree that Google has an interest in being vigilant because they want to attract advertisers. On the other hand, Google Video has even worse copyright violations on it than YouTube (since they don't have the 10-minute limit on clips), so it's hard to say why they'd run YouTube any differently than their own branded service.

But that's a separate issue than whether or not they're legally liable.

The issue of legal liability is not one I raised. What you're quoting is my response to it being raised. Not a conflation of that point with my own.

Google Video has even worse copyright violations on it than YouTube (since they don't have the 10-minute limit on clips), so it's hard to say why they'd run YouTube any differently than their own branded service.

There's my second question--why own both?

ita -- the NHL has started putting games on Google Video. These are current games and it's categorized by team. I haven't tried it yet but, when I get a chance I'm going to try and watch a few.