Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Google Television The Courts Youtube Your Rights Online News

YouTube Wins vs. Telecinco In Spain 68

eldavojohn writes "A Spanish judge has dismissed a case brought against YouTube by Spanish television station Telecinco for violating Telecinco's intellectual property. The ruling reads in part: 'YouTube is not a supplier of content and therefore has no obligation to control ex-ante the illegality of those. Its only obligation is to cooperate with the holders of the rights in order to immediately withdraw the content once the infraction is identified.' Telecinco brought the case against YouTube when it found that episodes of its television programs were turning up on YouTube prior to their official air and release date on their television channel. Things are looking up for Google's video service as YouTube was granted safe harbor from Viacom earlier this year in the United States. You can find an official response from Google on their EU Policy Blog."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Wins vs. Telecinco In Spain

Comments Filter:
  • by xtracto ( 837672 ) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @10:49AM (#33675590) Journal

    So IIRC sites like Suprnova and other torrent *indexing* sites which are often attacked by the MAFIIAA should be safe in Spain after this judgement no?

    I mean, Torrent sites are not even hosting a copy of the material (as Youtube does)!

    Unfortunately this is a typical example of how justice only applies to big corporations while the small guy is always screwed. (well... I think in Spain are a better but still...)

  • by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <> on Thursday September 23, 2010 @11:34AM (#33676124)

    Today's paper had a similar Op-Ed [] piece about needing better copyright enforcement.

    The complaint is the same - people who leak unaired episodes onto the 'net, and thus they need stronger laws to protect that.

    What I don't get is why don't they try to find the origin of the leak? If it costs as much as they claim, surely the one leaking it onto the 'net in the first place would be the best place to go, than the thousands of others to play whack-a-mole with.

    A simple case of "clean your own house before shitting in everyone else's" or some such. It's just like camcording a movie - no one likes watching camcorded crap, especially since a leaked DVD screener offers far better quality and presentation.

    Perhaps these production companies would rather sue everyone the horse visited after it left the barn, than to actually close the barn door. Fix the leaks first that's letting everyone download unreleased episodes prior to airing first, rather than trying to go after everyone who's spreading the leaked episodes. It's easier that way because no law can prevent it from spreading.

  • Re:weird (Score:3, Interesting)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @11:37AM (#33676154)
    Google could ignore any takedown request citing technicalities, but it wouldn't be good for business. Generally if a copyright holder asks, Google should err on the side of caution and take down the video if the copyright ownership can be verified. The alternative would be riskier. After all many television stations in other countries have ties to the government thus entangling Google in a state matter.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 23, 2010 @11:54AM (#33676338)

    Well gee, if Google can't handle policing their own website then they shouldn't be in the Youtube business. Saying "its not technically possible to identify infringements so they can't be required to do it" is not a valid answer (and probably incorrect - I'm sure they could do it if they were forced to). I'm amazed at the love of Google here. The burden should be on Google who is hosting the content. I did find it humorous how you compare Google to the rest of the population of humanity though.

    No one is asking for Google to "protect" anyone, they are just asking Google to not host content that they do not have the right to have. Google has the resources to do it, they just choose not to because it wouldn't be profitable enough. Well boo-hoo for Google.

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson