Huh? YouTube Sends TechCrunch A Cease & Desist

Mike,

Just write back “Wilson how about Cease & Desist my brother…………wasting my time”

Michael,

That’s funny, thanks for sharing.

But seriously, have you, or are you going to respond directly, as well as publicly (here)?

The Bloggers are going to have a field day with this one - unfortunately, once someone becomes REAL BIG - they forget the people that helped to get them there in the early days when they would have been very happy for any publicity

http://www.techcrunch.com/?p=137

Steven - I have no intention of fighting YouTube on this. If they want it down, I’ll take it down. I don’t want to be put on a black list with Google PR. But first I’m going to have a conversation with my attorney and the attorney that sent me this letter.

You don’t have to agree to their terms of service to write software. You’re writing a 3rd party app which happens to download video from youtube.

The irony is insane though…… my head is going to explode.

Youtube is really starting to suck.

Someone should write a youtube proxy so that we can get our videos off of that site.

Kevin

Michael,

Thanks for your reply… I didn’t mean to ask whether you intend ‘fighting’ them - just whether you planned to speak to the attorney or the company to find out what the hell they think they’re doing. If you are able to share any of that conversation, it would be very interesting.

And the fall of YouTube begins….

HaHa, this makes my day - the total irony of YouTube going after others for copyright!!!

Great PR Google/YouTube - goes to show what happens when a innovative entrepreneurial venture gets swallowed up by the big guys - you get a bunch of lawyers running the show.

I wonder if they actually write similar letters to developers of all similar applications. They are really numerous and some of them might be so small that no one even uses them, I believe. I guess in this case a large part of Google investment is intended to go to pay for attorney services.

Thanks for sharing. I see your point of removing the app in order to keep your relationship with gootube, but still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, especially considering all the positive exposure they got here.

“Techcruch is not authorised to promote YouTube”

I suggest you take them at their word and cease and desist from writing about their site.

I think the key phrase in what Michael has quoted is “as permitted through the functionality of the Website”, which I read as - yes, you can do all of these things: “use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform”, but only via the YouTube website.

I actually think its what Michael said it is, a show of good faith towards the copyright holders of some of the movies that are available.. Think the Big 4 in music land.. While YouTube might have discussed licensing the movies, but only on terms of them being shown online and not to be downloaded.

I agree that any third party software that gets written is not the doing of YouTube and the license they have with the companies wont be harmed due to it, but as a sign of good faith towards said companies these type of letters would be a very low cost sign of good faith, much cheaper than developing new ways to complicate downloading.

I’d be interested in a short report of the convo the lawers have as well, if possible, could you share that Michael?

I s’pose “Do no evil” is subjective.
Aaaaand, if you’re gonna spend that much money and (presumably) get in cahoots with the major tv/movie/music suppliers then they (Google - it’s not a YouTube issue any more) are gonna start playing by someone else’s rules: http://investor.google.com/conduct.html

YouTube appears to be another case of getting to the top then falling off the cliff. It sounds like the beginning of the end for YouTube.

So youTube thinks that its users may have a problem with others downloading their videos! And why is that? Is it because they will be missing out on rev share they get from YouTube? Of course not because they get nothing!
So youTubers who do you think made you as rich as you are? Your technology or your design? It is your community and blogs like TC, you are now threatening!
You do not own the content you host. Make it downloadable, remixable or share your Google shares with your users.

I think something like this can give unwanted publicity to the tools which youtube wants to prevent people from using. This story will surely make it to the top in digg and other news sites. Even if I assume that it is mostly a techie audience that reads these sites, all of them might not have been aware of this tool till now. I wonder how many videos were actually downloaded using these tools.

It would be an interesting exercise to look into how big companies become on average before turning into evil bullying conglomerates entirely lacking in common sense and any semblance of corporate ethics. It reminds me of HG Wells (all capitalist progress necessarily ends in monopoly and dysfunction).

I’ve never read YT’s terms of use and I’m not a lawyer, I have spent way too many brain cells on DMCA issue…

That said, I thought one of the reasons YT got away with what they did is that they did not facilitate the creation of a mechanical copy of the video on the client machine (that YT had no control over), they only created an ethereal copy during playback.

It’s the streaming VS download argument.

(of course flash DOES make a mechanical copy in the users’ cache, but let’s not talk about that, or YT and all the other video sites that use Flash (and Pandora too) will get in trouble…)

Don’t worry, Michael. As you put it down I’ll gladly host the tool on my server where it will be far from their legal claws.

Ironically, this is not even a new technique and it’s been blogged to ad infinitum. See for your self http://www.google.com/search?&.....o+download

I guess sending you a C&D letter simplifies their job rather than sending it to 17million++ blogs & websites. Lazy bums :p

aha, TC makes youtube more famous and popular. then youtube is afraid of getting more lawsuits.

Here we go again. Apple Inc. and the “pod” ownership letters…YouTube with the “infringement” letters. The fat greasy lawyers want a part of the action and it’s going to get worse. It’s the cheesy underbelly of the web and the slime oozes from the cracks. Good luck, Michael. I have my own ongoing battle with the word “iTour” in my domain.

They left out the instructions on how to use the term YouTube properly in a sentence.

Bad execution but makes business sense. I am certain that Youtube is planning some sort of content distrtubtion that involves for-pay content. If there are tools out there that can easily download video - blah blah blah

It just sucks because I’m sure a lot of their early adopters came from Mike and his coverage of their service.

We’ll see how this plays out.

As if my opinion matters, I will offer one. I would not cease and desist. I would force YouTube to do what they probably have intended to do all along AFTER they everyone hooked on their currently open and free web-based API’s. They intend to start charging people for using their API’s after they get everyone hooked. If they are forced to reveal this strategy before everyone gets hooked on them as part of “mash-up” site content aggregation, then people might think twice about using them in the first place.

You tool (and others’) use in this manner forces their hand and can result in protecting a LOT of people from being “jacked” at the point of a gun later when Google decides they want to start collecting revenue from YouTube’s use.

Perhaps, through this, the use of YouTube’s open API’s can stay free for a little longer as well.

Cease and desist orders should be used with extreme caution when directed at the press. Otherwise they are a club that preemptively turns off discussion ( a right I consider invaluable) Doesn’t look like W & S really exhausted their options before going to this measure. (2 voicemails does not a great effort make).

Wilson Sonsini has the coolest logo.

What a crock of sh|t. Nintendo came after me the same way (http://www.metroidclassic.com).

Is it just me or is GOOGLE starting to suck more and more too?

I read this early this morning, and it did bring a smile to my face.

Eric Schwartz’s arguments appear to make the most sense, but there is still something tremendously funny about Youggle finding religion about copyrights.

Michael,

I knew this will happen the minute I saw your post about the tool on TC, but did not realize that it will be this soon. It just showed how popular TC is, considering this kind of tools exist and continue to exist way before TC has it in the public. But seriously, we just saw the tip of the iceberg about YouTube’s issues regarding to the nature of its business that everybody is watching how it will evolve, the second Google bought YouTube.

My take on this will be to put myself in GooTube’s shoes and think what I will do. I think I will have to do the same thing which is to keep improving on the technology front to solve the problem (don’t know if it is ever going to be solved) while continue to hire lawyers to show that GooTube is serious about the issues it is facing and life goes on.

But, Michael, I am curious to know what you will do if you just bought youtube. And, I am also curious to know what everyone here will do?

Thanks,
William

I got my first Cease and desist letter via email the other day from Digg. It was nicer wording that the youtube one. I have a domain name that uses digg in it so I am at fault and like Micheal I will take it down (well rename the site).

the letter shown here seems very heavy handed, the only bit I can see where they have a point is in using the name youtube but you could rename the product for that to be fixed. As for the content issue I fail to see what their point is. when you view the video it is no longer on thier site as its downloaded to your computer.

Just imagine this, in year 2050, technology has enable human brain to act as a massive digital storage device as well as to have a way to distribute the information in our brain among people without any external devices. Do lawyers write a letter demanding everyone to cease and desist? I think the technology is not the problem here. It is the copyright law of today.

many other Youtube download tools exist ..even for iPod:

Check http://www.ratiatum.com/log1037_iTube.html or http://www.ratiatum.com/log1032_DownTube.html or
http://www.ratiatum.com/log993.....oader.html

Do you know if you are the only one receiving this Cease & Desist or all others also?

Can anyone say youtube is falling apart. Those two guys were real smart, and google, real dumb. Anyone noticed all the freaking pauses you get now.

The music industry has demonstrated that using systems to avoid copies is useless and that user are not bandit and so that they are going to pay small sums to see contents.
If Google is planning to use their websites to broadcast video from majors, I believe this stupid letter is only a demonstration to them (quite stupid people) that they care about copyright protection.
Nicola

You don’t need a tool to download the videos. Just go to your browsers cache and copy the file.

This is because yt doesn’t stream but just downloads videos to your browser.

I imagine it’s a good time to be a lawyer for video and intellectual property….lots of business in the near future!

They’re just pissed that you broke the YouTube/ Google thing. I don’t know that nay part of it is problematic EXCEPT the YouTube name in the title, but that’s an easy fix.

“TechCrunch is not authorized to promote YouTube?” Does that mean I don’t get to write about YouTube in my blogs? Exactly how DO they think people found them in the first place? If they are going to require authorization, I think we should all stop linking and writing about YouTube. Watch the hit numbers dip, and maybe they will change their tune.

Hoseheads.

can you approve my comment? appears its in the moderation queue - thanks

They kidding?! Google must keep this up. They are good on their way to become as unpopular as Microsoft…

Just promote this site then:

http://www.videodl.org/

hubris.

I can’t decide if I should be scratching my head, laughing my @$$ off, or just be plain pissed off.

The fact that YouTube, of all freakin’ people, is suing someone for copyright infringement would be like Jesus Christ crucifying someone for turning water into wine: It’s just plain stupid and hypocritcal.

It also makes me very sad that, since Google now owns YouTube, they are in someway involved in this….and it really makes me question my respect for them.

If you were hurting someone, making money from the videos, etc. I could understand, but this is just plain ridiculous.

Interesting. I agree with you Mike.

Folks, someone already Dugg this. Here’s the URL:

http://digg.com/tech_news/YouT.....ourt_Order

That is really incredible. As you showed, you haven’t broken the Terms of Use. You have the backing of the community Michael. And yeah, it would be wise to remove the tool for the time being, but I’m sure this will all blow over and you will be able to put it back up.

If you’re having difficulty writing back, here are some suggestions: http://thepiratebay.org/legal

Ok I’m kidding about responding A LA Pirate Bay, but I hope it gave you a laugh

We’re behind you buddy, Keep up the good work.

–Jon Z | http://www.jzencovich.com

What a great readto start off the morning. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to clean the coffee off of my keyboard…and chin.

Make a video response to the lawyer, put it up on YouTube, then download it using your tool and email it to the lawyer.

It seems that GooTube is about to change its terms and conditions.

Michael,

We understand if you take down the video. Sometimes it’s just not worth the fight. We must spread the word about youtube to average users. I would stop using the “service” as your content becomes their content:

“. . . you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube’s (and its successor’s) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) ”

Why give them free content?

I am wondering whether this is linked by Google, who infact have not yet completed complete take over of youtube.. Would be interesting to see if this is continued once YouTube is officaly owned and controller by Google..
Well keep fighting Mike

What do you call 10,000 lawters at the bottom of the ocean????? These dirt bags can now go directly to hell without passing go or collecting their $200. I say, just like I did when Metallica tried to screw it up, take everything, steal whatever isnt nailed down. Eventually they will get the point, if I want to show a friend or whatever else a video, as long as I am not selling or mass producing, m.y.o.f.b!!!!!

boycottyoutube.com

comming soon…

FFS……. this is becoming both repulsive and frustrating….

Personally, i’ve yet tae become excited about anything on YT, or Google, but this really takes the cake….

I wish ye luck dealing with these idiots, Mike

Digg this posting. It’s in the top already for today, #8. Here’s the URL:

http://digg.com/tech_news/YouT.....ourt_Order

You forgot to mention the additional irony that you used to work for WSGR!

This is hilarious, I’ve been using this since it was posted on eHow months ago, when will people stop trying to police the web and embrace it and all of its potential? Shame on Youtube, but I guess its part of the ‘Don’t Be Evil (unless it makes us lots of money)’ mentality

Youtube accusing techcrunch of copyright infrigment !!!!

There is a precedent, Moliere’s Tartuffe.

Can your social network handle a corporate culture?

Good ideea :))

If the legal team doesnt spend their recently announced funding, how will they justify the budget? I wonder how much the tube got billed for your letter.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3df876.....e2340.html

I don’t understand this specious argument about “authorized to promote”. This is crap from the entertainment industry.

Does this mean YouTube don’t want to be linked to?
Is Google authorized to promote my site if it indexes it?
Do I have to pay marketing money (aka payola) to websites in order to write that I think they are good?

YouTube says: “Do as we say, Not as we do”.

After this i would like to see more people going after youtube for copyright infringment.

If they want to send threatening letters they should at least review thier own ToS first to make sure what they are saying is accurate.

This is funny since you were just in a podcast with one of the Google/YouTube attornies..  Great podcast (TWIL) for those who didn’t hear it ..  

God, Arrington, you’re such a pansy…

Uh! Is there something called “gratitude” left in this world?

HAHAHA This is like Saddam Hussein claiming violation of his human rights. When I ran a law school website, I got plenty of C&D letters from a test prep company that is owned by a freak. It was a lot of fun palying with their attorneys. Here are a few examples of the correspondence:

———————————————————————————————–
Dear Mr. ___________:

This email is a reply to your letter dated November 8,
2005. Please be advised that even though I am willing
to cooperate with your requests, I deny all
allegations that you made in your letter. I have been
harassed by Mr. ________ in the past and judging
from your letter, it seems that a new phase of
harassment has commenced. In light of this
unfortunate situation, I would like to bring to your
attention the following matters.

First, in your letter, you refer to me as the
“publisher” of the posts in question. I direct your
attention to 47 U.S.C. 230 and Zeran v. America
Online, Inc., 129 F.2d 327 (4th Cir. 1997). Under
these authorities, an Internet Service Provide is not
the publisher of any defamatory statements posted by a
third party on its services. Even if the posts here
in question are of defamatory nature, which I
seriously doubt, I, as the administrator of a
discussion board, do not qualify as the publisher of
these posts. I did not post these messages and I was
not aware of these messages.

Second, in your letter you mention that agents of
____________ have requested removal of these posts in
the past and my failure to comply with these requests
exposes me to a claim for punitive damages. I would
like to inform you that the last time I spoke with
__________ or any other representative of ________
was back in the summer of 2004. At that time, ________
asked me to remove some the ratings and reviews of
_________, and although his claims were completely
absurd, I complied with his requests. Therefore, I am
not sure what imaginary requests you are referring to
in your letter.

Third, I encourage you to educate your client, Mr.
_____________, on the law of defamation. As your letter
states, “_________ is the owner of __________, and
is well-known in the LSAT preparation industry for
being the worldwide record holder of the most perfect
scores on the LSAT.” You should inform your client
that the advantages of a public figure status come
at a price. If he is willing to reap the benefits
of his public figure status, he should not be
threatening every living being with a lawsuit any time
his name is mentioned in a critical manner.

As the “small guy” in this battle, I cannot afford the
costs of litigation against ___________. Therefore,
as I have mentioned above, I am willing to comply with
your requests. However, I do have my limits. I will
not tolerate harassment in the form of threats of
absurd lawsuits. In your next letter or email, please
be a bit friendlier.

Sincerely,

[Vik]

P.S. Your letter states that I have to comply with
your requests by November 4, 2005. I am not sure how
this is possible, as your letter itself is dated
November 8, 2005. Please provide a more reasonable
time frame.
———————————————————————————————–

Dear Mr. __________:

I suspected from the beginning that you needed my assistance in your litigation against ___________. As I have stated before, I am willing to assist you. But, you have to “request” the information from me and not “demand” it. Please send me an email “requesting” the IP addresses of the posters and I will be more than happy to send you that information.

You are correct, I don’t want to become a party in the litigation between the two companies, although I really don’t see how I can become a party as I am NOT the publisher of these messages. However, I do have a big ego problem and I don’t like being treated as someone’s slave. So please send me a “request” email and I will send you the IP addresses and bring an end to this matter.

This email is obviously a request for a “request email” and not a demand.

Sincerely yours,

[Vik]
———————————————————————————————-
HAHA, it actually worked:

Dear Mr. [Vik],

I apologize that you were offended by the lawyer like tone of our previous correspondence. I know no one likes to received “demands.” We request that you please provide us with the IP addresses as requested in our earlier email. We also request that you please confirm that you are removing the defamatory threats.

Cordially,

____________

HAHA, told you this crap is fun

Mark Cuban just posted on the exact same point in a different context. Youtube filed a Summary Judgment motion in the LA Riots video case in which they claim to be mere conduits, hence not liable for infringement. The argument flies in the face of their attitude that they own content uploaded, as Michael points out.

I think you’re handling it the right way. Good going!

Enought with the snotty attitude from the tube.

The Youtube “Terms of Use” and Adobe “Progressive Download” seem to have serious conflicting issues:

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/fl.....ad_03.html

“User-accessible content: Because the file is downloaded, the media physically resides on the viewer’s machine. Savvy users will be able to search their browser caches or temporary Internet files and access the content. This is not necessarily a bad thing if the content owner has no concerns about rights management for his or her content. In fact, in that case it may actually be useful—if the user decides to view the same video clip again before the browser cache is cleared, the file plays back from the local cache without the user having to access the web again. However, if digital rights are a concern, streaming video is a better option.”

Good moves Michael! Don’t be afraid for that letter. Just do the right steps and keep a nice relationship with youtube and google.

“I am likely to remove the tool to preserve my relationship with the company”
Funny how your motivation is not values- or even legality-based, but rather all about your self-interests.

Leave TechCrunch alone, YouTube! Google is becoming a lot like Microsoft and Apple in this respect.

Isn’t that what it should be about?

As stated, there are a number of other tools available for you to use, so why bother pissing off a company that can keep you at the top of the technology blogging game?

Could he fight and win this? Most definitely. But what’s the cost/benefit analysis of such a decision? He might get a bit more “blogger-cred,” but he could potentially lose business in the future from Google/YouTube.

A splash was made by posting this story and the response is generally negative towards Google/YouTube. The best part is that he doesn’t get pinned for the negativity - it’s the other people speaking on his behalf.

Smart move, Mr. Arrington. Smart move, indeed.

Rich … coming from YouTube. I think they’re becoming a bunch of tools and I just told them so. Keep doing what you do.

Now — release a script that scrapes all of youtube, and then subsequently duplicates the entire website and its catorization. That would be sweet.

YouTube duplicator

Slam a web 2.0 theme on it and you’ve got instant VC money. wh00t.

J

I lost some respect for YouTube/Google. Even more Techcrunch. Most people would act on principle and argue with them, particularly given the irony of the situation.

I’ve already left YouTube.

They banned a video I had published online of some footage from a US Gunship citing some sort of TOS violation except they refuse to detail what I am in violation of.

There are 12 other people with the very same video in their accounts and I am the only one who has had the video removed even after notifying YouTube of their presence.

I’m sticking with VideoEgg.

Any update on the issue ??

What has your attorney said about the situation?

Too funny.

Am surprised !! There are many websites around that does exactly the same as the tool that Mike posted in Techcrunch. One example is http://www.keepvid.com which allows people to download videos from youtube and other video publishers.

This letter from youtube is really weird.

@ paul - i don’t agree with that because I, as a reader, enjoy the scoop tech crunch gets from google, etc. - I would rather see that than whatever this iPod thing is

Bob @ #47: ROFL! Good one.

Am I reading this correctly? According to this article at WSJ, Michael Arrington worked at the firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in 1999, the firm that’s serving up the cease and desist.

Now, that’s a strange twist.

i told you this would happen and you removed my post.

Well, this kinda ruin the party tomorrow. We all know what will be on Arrington’s mind.

“Fair Use” doctrine allows for making a personal copy of broadcast video (ie VCR recordings). Would it not also allow for doing the same for digital video?

Please use the fair use defense, I would love to hear GOOGLE’s response to that one… since it is their own favorite defense technique.