But yes, Google is a service provider - Just like hotmail, yahoo, ebay, etc. It traffics unmodified user-contribed-content, and therefore is a service provider. Youtube doesn’t want unauthorized content on the site. That is why they quickly remove copyrighted material and also why they are getting legitimate deals with content providers - to make sure that illegal material is minimized.

Given your stance on the whole thing, I’d think you’d be happy that they are proactively seeking deals with media companies.

Ironically, we’re debating youtube, a site I never go to, because it contains nothing but crap! If it had good stuff (e.g. high-quality, easy-to-find, copyrighted material), I’d probably use it.

1. Since when are Google or Youtube service providers ? What service do they provide that they get paid for ? ISPs, Ebay and others that have used the safe harbor rules have a definable business and infringing content is a nuisance to them, not an opportunity. IN addition, they know who their users and customers are and when they upload infringing content, they have a means of turning over the infringer to the copyright owner.

Google Video and Youtube don’t have a business model that represents anything that could be called a service provider. If they did, and everything was above board, why would they need or want to go out and sign content licensing agreements ?

They are groveling for agreements because they know they are in trouble and without them they have no business.

THe DMCA is far from perfect.It has more problems that it should, but it doesnt protect Google and the 200mm they set aside will not be enough