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.

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

Because it was easier to buy them than to compete, would be my guess.

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.

Well, yes and no.

Trademark violations involve an opportunity for confusion. You don't lose your trademark, but you can dilute your ability to enforce it if you say, ignore nine or ten uses you don't mind and try and then protest one that you do. Then number 11 might effectively argue "well, you didn't object to these other guys" but you still own the trademark.

Copyright violations, on the other hand, involves use of the material its self. It's not a question of confusion at all. Fair use* is determined by:

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4) the effect of the use upon the potential marked for or value of the copyrighted work.

So, using clips to make money is different than using clips to crack up your friends (and who makes the money is important). Two lines of a film is different than two lines of a four line poem. Are you hurting sales with your use, etc. All come into play.

Of course, a lot the outcome IS influnced by who choses to pursue what -- Lucasfilms will go after ANYBODY for ANYTHING involving Star Wars. If anybody could afford to take them on in court Lucasfilms would lose plenty of them. But that's not the law per se, that's corporate muscle.

*(FTR, I'm not a complete nerd, I have the statute sitting by my desk at work)

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

Aside from Jessica's answer, there's also the ¿why own both TypePad and LiveJournal? question -- even before the YouTube deal, they were dressing up Google Video as the more serious, grown-up, corporate-friendly dealy-o. Now they get to keep those deals and also get the kids with their crazy viral marketing hijinks.

Point me to the hard and fast rules within that statute, though, Trudy. Fair use laws are vague, and deliberately so. The so-called "rules" that "everyone knows" (parody, news-for-news, etc), are gentlemen's agreements, not law.

(And I am a complete nerd, but I also do this for a living. Explaining fair use to clients with stupid entertainment lawyers who tell them they should be getting everything for free because [insert fair use urban legend here] is easily the most annoying part of my job.)