While there has been a great deal of discussion (and a few lawsuits) concerning the legality of YouTube hosting infringing videos, one question where we haven't seen very much discussion is the legal liability for people who embed infringing YouTube videos on their sites. One of the great features of YouTube was that each video provided a line of HTML that would allow you to embed the video directly into your site -- exactly as we've done a few times. However, is that act -- of putting the HTML embed code on your site -- copyright infringement if the video is infringing? After all, the actual video is still hosted by YouTube. The person who uploaded it is someone entirely different. All you've done is put a single line of HTML on your page -- but it's not hard to see how some might see that as infringing. In fact, we may have an example of exactly that. Ronald Lewis let us know about a typical cease-and-desist letter he received from a lawyer because he had some blog posts that embedded YouTube videos of musician Michael McDonald. Lewis didn't upload the videos. He's not hosting the videos. He simply put a single line of HTML (provided by YouTube for this specific purpose) on his website, and it would then display the video. There are plenty of other questions raised by this as well, such as whether or not the videos really infringe, why a lawyer would want to stop someone from promoting the music of someone (since it's unlikely that anyone would stop buying music because they saw a video on YouTube). There's also the fact that Lewis claims he's been friends with McDonald for a decade to make the whole situation awkward. But, honestly, the much more interesting (and rarely discussed) question concerns the liability of those who embed infringing videos. My guess is that it won't be long before we start seeing a lot more threats and lawsuits over embedded videos from bloggers who have no idea they're putting themselves at risk simply for putting a line of code into a blog post.

Variations in two genes related to inflammation may be a major risk factor for developing lung cancer, according to a team of scientists from the National Cancer Institute and the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. The effect of these genes is especially strong among heavy smokers, suggesting that the inflammatory response is important in modulating the damage caused by tobacco smoke.

Defacement video tutorial pulled after attack

Saudi hackers manged to deface a page on Microsoft's UK web site last week, recording the techniques they used in an online video.

Filed under: Laptops

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Office Depot Featured Gadget: Xbox 360 Platinum System Packs the power to bring games to life!

A court in Australia has ruled that a critic's unflattering review of a restaurant in a Sydney newspaper constituted defamation (via The Grinder), and that the critic may now be responsible for damages. Writers in the US are afforded plenty of protection when writing reviews and criticisms since they're stating opinions, and decisions like these in other countries will have a chilling effect on all kinds of legitimate speech -- particularly as more and more people use the web to become critics. This isn't to say that no sort of speech should be regarded as defamation, or to say that operating under the guise of being a critic should give people free reign to commit libel or engage in other defamatory speech. However, most definitions of defamation hinge upon false claims being made, and opinions can't really be false. Given this decision, it's hard to see how any Australian writer, newspaper, web site or other outlet would publish any sort of review that's negative at all -- and it's similarly hard to see how that's in the public interest at all.