[eliasmacpherson]

I think specific parts of tech, lobby specifically, for their specific interests - and those specifics aren't aligned with other players.

Far be it from me to understand the finer points - but to my mind, youtube isn't a whole lot different from megaupload - but you can bet Google has top class lobbyists and lawyers, whereas megaupload did not.

[nly]

Everything on Youtube is publicly indexed. It's therefore accessible to copyright holders and authorities. Megaupload (and all file lockers) were set-up as if your uploads are personal and private, but to still allow files to be shared by passing around direct URLs. This is why Rapidshare (who were once one of the biggest of them all) ditched their sharing capability and are now left alone. It's the cliques that are the problem to vested interests, not the frivolous sharing.

[jlgreco]

> Everything on Youtube is publicly indexed.

That is not actually the case. Youtube has a concept of both private and unlisted videos. Unlisted videos work similarly to how you describe Megaupload:

"Unlisted videos

Making a video unlisted means that only people who have the link to the video can view it. To share an unlisted video, just share the link with the people who you’d like to have access to it, and they’ll then be able to see it. Unlike private videos, the people you share the video with do not need to have a Google account to see the video, and they can share with more people simply by forwarding the link to them.

Unlisted videos won’t appear in any of YouTube's public spaces, like your channel page or search results."

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/157177?hl=en

[nly]

Ok, put another way... all videos on Youtube are videos and relatively transparent, easy to view and inspect. On a file locker your files are opaque mysterious entities that the site can't hope to inspect.

[jlgreco]

So like Google Drive?

Not to incriminate myself or anything, but I have been given copyrighted documents with Google Drive. (Though I've ingested many orders of magnitude more copyrighted documents through youtube...)

[eliasmacpherson]

Can you embed private videos on youtube in a webpage?

[jlgreco]

I have no idea, I've never actually uploaded anything to youtube.

[eliasmacpherson]

I don't follow. In what way was megaupload inaccessible? Rapidshare have had to ditch their sharing capability - and yet youtube continues unimpeded. Can you explain what I am misunderstanding?

[rayiner]

The difference is that Youtube takes advantage of the DMCA safe harbor provision by responding to DMCA takedown requests. Indeed, the Youtube/Viacom litigation was instrumental in the current understanding between media companies and internet companies that sharing sites could operate freely as long as they complied with DMCA requirements. Megaupload in comparison made it a point to bill itself as a facilitator of copyright infringement.

[eliasmacpherson]

I'm not sure I remember it billing itself as a facilitator of copyright infringment and I do seem to recall megaupload responding to DMCA requests. I remember in response to their indictment megaupload said that the DMCA requests they didn't respond to were on machines that had some other legal instrument demanding they not interfere with the evidence.

I wasn't sure how youtube's private videos worked but jlgreco has explained above - further blurring the lines in my view between megaupload et al and youtube.

I think the litigation you mention is evidence of Google's lawyering and lobbying prowess.

[tptacek]

No, from the available information (including the indictment) it did not appear that Megaupload complied with DMCA laws. Specifically:

(1) They sought to rate-limit DMCA takedown requests

(2) They operated the service with red-flag knowledge of copyrighted content, such as when a user complained that the video quality of the Showtime show "Dexter" was poor, and Kim Schmitz mailed his team to work on improving the quality of that content.

(3) They themselves used the service to exchange copyright-encumbered material, such as the movie "Taken".

(4) They operated a paid incentive program to get users to upload copyrighted content, and in their itemized performance reports for the program acknowledged repeatedly that the content they were paying for was copyrighted.

[eliasmacpherson]

1) I don't have anything to disagree with here specifically: it would be easy to make a case that youtube were more responsive than megaupload. (though I don't know any of the details - I'm just assuming) I doubt megaupload had youtube's resources - another assumption.

2) 3) and 4) I think youtube staff were just as bad if not worse. From Google/Viacom - you can see email transcripts on page 7 onwards (numbers being at the bottom of the page)

(PDF warning) http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/...

4) further to above - I do think youtube channels make money - and copyright material can be a source of that (though it should not be by their rules). Youtube now have detectors in place - that wasn't always the case. Megaupload could have done similar.

I think what really swung it for Google was catching Viacom uploading their own material, and yet suing for it, but again I'm not 100%

Also youtube weren't dealing with an FBI sting and it went through the courts. (I think that is where the lobbying aspect comes in - wild speculation, sure, but there is a marked difference in treatment)

[rayiner]

I don't know if the Google/Viacom litigation says anything about Google's lobbying prowess. Google is just trying to take advantage of the DMCA safe harbor, which is as old as Google itself and quite a bit older than Youtube.