“Our goal is to allow every person on the planet to participate by making the upload process as simple as placing a phone call,” Hurley wrote in an, ahem, “visionary” post to Google’s blog celebrating the company’s tenth anniversary. “This new video content will be available on any screen–in your your living room, or on your device in your pocket. … In 10 years, we believe that online video broadcasting will be the most ubiquitous and accessible form of communication. The tools for video recording will continue to become smaller and more affordable. Personal media devices will be universal and interconnected. Even more people will have the opportunity to record and share even more video with a small group of friends or everyone around the world.”

And YouTube will have even more video content to fail to monetize!

Well, presumably Google (GOOG) will have figured out a way to turn YouTube into a profitable business by 2018. Hurley best hope so, because YouTube’s rumored $1 million-a-day bandwidth bills are a bit steep, even for Google.

“The layout is the same, the tabs at the top of the screen are the same, the right-side sidebar listing participants and file uploads is the same,” writes Daring Fireball’s John Gruber. “It even copies Campfire’s trick of formatting a message as ‘code’ if it contains literal newline characters.”

UPDATE: Google has taken Huddle Chat offline. Google Product Manager Pete Koomen offered the following explanation for the move:

As one of the App Engine product managers, I wanted to give an update — we’ve now taken HuddleChat down from the App Engine app gallery. The App Engine team was looking for some sample apps to help kick the tires on their new system, so we invited Googlers to build some as side projects. A couple of our colleagues here built HuddleChat in their spare time because they wanted to share work within their team more easily and thought persistent Web chat would do the trick. We’ve heard some complaints from the developer community, though, so rather than divert attention from Google App Engine itself, we thought it better to just take HuddleChat down.

Something like X times Y, to the power of Z–where X is the lack of a sustainable business model, Y is an aggravated response to a nonexistent threat, and Z is the inability to differentiate between customers and thieves.”

–Toronto Globe and Mail writer Mathew Ingram explains the formula used to calculate damages in Virgin Records America et al. v. Thomas.

We’re never going to hear the end of it now …

The recording industry won its first ever file-sharing suit to go to trial yesterday, when a federal jury found 30-year-old Jammie Thomas liable for copyright infringement. The jury awarded the six record labels involved in the case a total of $220,000, or $9,250 for each of the 24 songs they claimed Thomas uploaded.

Seems it was far easier for the labels to sell the jury on their investigative methods than you might think–especially after the presiding judge ruled that no proof was needed that anyone actually downloaded the songs at issue in the case–simply making them available constituted distribution.

Emboldened by the ruling, the Recording Industry Association of America took a break from sending prelitigation settlement letters to college students to issue this gloating statement: “The law here is clear, as are the consequences for breaking it. When the evidence is clear, we will continue to bring legal actions against those individuals who have broken the law. This program is important to securing a level playing field for legal online music services.”

Reading that you’d never think it’s been eight years since Napster, would you? Eight years. Anyway …

Attorney Ray Beckerman, writing in the Recording Industry Vs. the People blog, called the verdict “one of the most irrational things” he’s ever seen in law. “A verdict of $222,000, for infringement of 24 song files worth a total of $23.76?” he asked. “In a case where there was zero evidence of the defendant having transferred any of those files? It is an outrage, and I hope it is a wakeup call to the world that we all need to start supporting the defendants in these cases, and the attorneys who are sacrificing so much to represent them. And the support cannot be with words, it must be with checkbooks. And it cannot be next year, it must be now.

“All the businesspeople who make a living from the vibrancy, democracy and freedom of expression which is the Internet need to get behind the RIAA’s victims; if they do not, the world in which they hope to thrive and prosper will disappear rapidly.

“The RIAA ghouls smelled blood in Duluth, and I guess they were right.”

A bit of background: In 2006 the RIAA sued Pamela and Jeffrey Howell for copyright infringement, accusing the pair of “making copyrighted works available” over a peer-to-peer network. The RIAA had no evidence that the Howells ever transferred content to a third party. It did, however, have screen shots of their Kazaa account. And that was proof enough for the court to grant its motion for summary judgment against them. “It is no defense that a Kazaa user did not directly oversee the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material,” the judge wrote, noting that “the mere presence of copyrighted works in a shared folder is enough to trigger liability.”

So even though the RIAA couldn’t prove the Howells distributed files illegally, the mere fact that they owned a computer with a shared-files folder on it that contained copyrighted files “made available” over an Internet connection was enough to constitute infringement of the “distribution” rights under the Copyright Act.

Essentially, the Howells have been found criminally liable for what they might have done. Which is an unsettling thought in a Dick-ensian (Philip K.) sort of way. But not for the RIAA which, thanks to this ruling, no longer has to work quite so hard to provide proof of violation in these cases.

“Plaintiffs wish to establish two violations of copyright law when a person both downloads and uploads sound recordings via the Internet,” the Computer & Communications Industry Association and US Internet Industry Association wrote in an amicus brief filed in Elektra v. Barker, another RIAA “making available” case. “Proof of the download violation may be relatively straightforward when a plaintiff can establish that a recording has been copied to a person’s computer. Proof of a violation by uploading cannot, however, be established merely by showing the availability of files for potential uploading. A plaintiff must establish a connection to someone else’s actual download. That requires a plaintiff to establish a connection between an uploader and a corresponding downloader, to establish the facts of an actual transaction between the two. Although such proof may require investigation, a plaintiff should not be relieved of its burden. Since copyright holders may (and often do) seek statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed, see 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2), without having to prove actual harm, for such remedies they should be required to furnish allegations and proof of actual violations.

“The remedies provide an adequate incentive for a proper investigation. Amici believe that plaintiffs want to invoke the concept of ‘making available’ instead of the statutory elements of a section 106(3) distribution because plaintiffs perceive that the investigations needed for proper allegations and proof of uploading liability (as contributory infringement liability for another’s download) are burdensome.”

We do a good job of educating users about copyright law.”

–YouTube CEO Chad Hurley, D5 Conference, 2007

The National Legal and Policy Center has finished up its latest list of potentially copyright infringing movies on YouTube and Google Video, and it’s largely what you’d expect. Not the “New Releases” tab on Netflix, but not exactly the dusty DVD display rack at the local convenience store, either. Among the films on the list: “Sicko,” “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift” and the Vietnamese dub of “The Wicker Man.”

When was it again that Google was supposed to finish those video identification tools? Ah yes, “the not-too-distant future.”

In a statement, the NLPC tarred and feathered Google for failing to prevent users from uploading pirated material. “For a company that wants to organize the world’s information and boasts about the most sophisticated search technology in the world, we just find it remarkable that they can’t seem to find and remove apparently copyrighted content hosted on their own servers,” said NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm. “… Google’s response that they are ‘taking the lead’ in offering ‘state of the art tools and processes’ to promptly remove infringing content is just plain nonsense. In just the past few days, we’ve found repeated uploads of ‘Sicko,’ ‘Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix’ and ‘Live Free, Die Hard’ on the video site. Google claims to have a sophisticated ‘hash’ system to block repeated uploads of the same infringing material, but if the repeated uploads of the movies we’ve found so far are any indication, video pirates are making a hash of Google’s ‘hash’ technology.”