I remember when Google first bought YouTube there was a discussion about whether or not they had opened themselves up to a lawsuit ... it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Did anyone NOT see this coming?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Pixiest- Sure, just look for the thread in question. IMO, Tom Davidson did the most sensible thing at the time (edit: sold his stock in Google)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Just tell us what Tom did and don't make us search for it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It'll be interesting to see how Viacom gets around the DMCA. Did they send take-down notices to Google? If so, then Google was incredibly stupid. If not, I'm not sure how Viacom wins this.
I'm sure their lawyers thought of that, mind you. I'm just curious.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
He liquidated his holdings in Google.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag: According to the story, yeah... Viacom has been talking to YouTube since before Google bought them.
Eros: Yup, that was wise. If I'd had any Google I would have done the same. I hope my mutual funds all did.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag: According to the story, yeah... Viacom has been talking to YouTube since before Google bought them.
We don't know if those talks qualify as a take-down notice. They'd have to have given the URLs or some other way to identify each and every infringing video.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: The move comes after Viacom demanded that Google take down 100,000 clips earlier this year after months of talks between the two sides over a distribution deal broke down. Viacom said that it had filed the lawsuit today after "a great deal of unproductive negotiation".
My bad, Dag, I shoulda just quoted the post in the first place.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It sounds like, from the article, that Google wants notification for each infringement (as Dag seems to be saying is accordance with the law) and Viacom is suing because they are not pre-filtering... am I reading that wrong?
Edit to add: the article I am reading says google agreed to remove the clips you are talking about pixiest.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I recall - very possibly incorrectly - that Google did take down those clips. Someone will post the complaint on the web soon, and we can get the facts (as presented by Viacom).
If Google is required to pre-filter, they're screwed, at least for a while. Many speculate that Google part YouTube in part to control this case, which was bound to come, because the precedent will affect many other Google services.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I'm not sure Viacom can win, if the court is reasonable. They're claiming that YouTube is a business model based on ripping off copyright. But it's actually a business model based on people posting stupid stuff they did; or clips from TV news programs that don't care. This should be much like Sony v. Universal Studios (appeal), in which Universal claimed that the VCR's *only* function was copyright infringement. The court gave a detailed opinion, saying that VCR's could be used for timeshifting programs (fair use), copying things like Mr. Rogers that don't care if you archive them, home movies, whatever.
They'd do better if they showed that Google did not take down the clips when notified, or didn't do it quickly enough.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
...one BILLION dollars. [/Dr. Evil]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
:lol:
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
They did take down a lot of videos. I know because I did some investigation of my favorite TV shows, and found them missing. Purely done for scientific purposes, of course.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I saw an opinion on Slashdot today that made a lot of sense. Basically, they said that Google might have made the Youtube purchase precisely because they were anticipating this lawsuit. The idea was that Google was already making some strong moves to get into the internet video distribution arena with Google video, and that they wanted to make sure that the sort of important precedents that would be set in the likely inevitable Youtube case would be more firmly under their control.
I don't know how realistic this actually is, but it does seem to present a fairly compelling picture.
Posted by Sean (Member # 689) on :
Mark Cuban has been pushing the theory that YouTube must be proactively screening content (or it'd be full of porn), and this disqualifies them from having Safe Harbour protection. No clue if this makes sense legally...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
KQ: Glad to know I wasn't the only one with Dr Evil in her head at "One BILLION dollars"
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: Mark Cuban has been pushing the theory that YouTube must be proactively screening content (or it'd be full of porn), and this disqualifies them from having Safe Harbour protection. No clue if this makes sense legally...
That is an interesting argument, and I suppose it would change things if they could prove it. Still, Google has got to have a fairly huge legal team, and it's hard to believe that they could let such a seemingly simple error slide.
Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
I find it funny that they are trying to stop this, when it cannot be stopped. YouTube is only one of many sites that host videos. Try as they might I do not think they will ever be able to stop it, sure they might crush some people, kill a few websites, and perhaps sue several websites but they can't stop the signal.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
90% of the youtube I watch is legal. I think Viacom will lose.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Every time I've tried to watch something from Viacom on Youtuve I've gotten a notice that says something like "removed at the request of Viacom" or something like that.
Looks to me like Youtube is making a good effort, there's no way Viacom will get a billion dollars, if they get anything at all.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*Prepares his Googlefu*
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
out of curiosity does anyone have any rough numbers on how much money viacom (or something similar) makes in say a year? I'm just thinking that 1B seems like an awful lot (i.e. if they're sueing for 50% of their nominal income then that's just rediculous)
or if anyone can correct me in thinking that this value is rediculously high I'm more than welcome to that revelation.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
In the large corporate scheme of things, 1 billion in gross revenue is not very much.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: Mark Cuban has been pushing the theory that YouTube must be proactively screening content (or it'd be full of porn), and this disqualifies them from having Safe Harbour protection. No clue if this makes sense legally...
Go look at video.google.com and compare it to youtube and you will find google is already practically overrun with porn and it used to be such a fun website.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: In the large corporate scheme of things, 1 billion in gross revenue is not very much.
I beg to differ. 1 Billion is a TON for any organization. Microsoft would sit up and take notice at a Billion dollar hit.
For comparison, Google's (record for them) FY06 gross earnings were 10.6 billion. For most companies, I imagine, losing 10% of their gross annual earnings would be a death warrant.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: In the large corporate scheme of things, 1 billion in gross revenue is not very much.
I beg to differ. 1 Billion is a TON for any organization. Microsoft would sit up and take notice at a Billion dollar hit.
For comparison, Google's (record for them) FY06 gross earnings were 10.6 billion. For most companies, I imagine, losing 10% of their gross annual earnings would be a death warrant.
? Of course they'd take notice. A billion dollars is a lot of money. But it's not the end-all be-all amount of money that it sounds like to Joe Average.
And a 10% loss in gross revenue is really, really not a death warrant for most companies. Three of the major manufacturers I work with on a daily basis posted at least a 25% loss in gross (yes, gross, not net) revenue this year due to competition from Chinese manufacturers. There were some layoffs and some organizational changes as each is working to compensate, but it was hardly a death warrant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In case anyone is interested in how each side is likely to structure its case:
quote:Does YouTube have "knowledge" of copyrighted material on its site? Does it have the "right and ability to control" the content? Yes and yes. If the public knows what's there, then YouTube's management surely does. YouTube's own terms of use give it clear rights, notably the right to take anything down. YouTube actively monitors its content. For example, its managers remove pornography and hate content and, as was recently reported, claim they can detect and remove "spam." Without knowledge and control, how could YouTube create "channels" and "featured videos" sections on its site? YouTube has even offered to find infringing content for copyright owners -- but only if they do a licensing deal first.
Is it fair to burden YouTube with finding content on its site that infringes others' copyright? Putting the burden on the owners of creative works would require every copyright owner, big and small, to patrol the Web continually on an ever-burgeoning number of sites. That's hardly a workable or equitable solution. And it would tend to disadvantage ventures such as the one recently announced by NBC Universal and News Corp. that are built on respect for copyright. Under the law, the obligation is right where it belongs: on the people who derive a benefit from the creative works and are in the position to keep infringement out of their businesses.
quote:Content-hosting sites such as YouTube, Craigslist and MySpace that want to take advantage of the DMCA's safe harbors must promptly remove infringing content if the copyright owner so requests, giving owners a quick remedy that doesn't require going to court. Copyright owners, in return, have the responsibility to identify infringing material they want removed. Viacom's lawyers helped craft this law but apparently don't like it, after all. They want to shirk the responsibility Congress gave them.
Placing that burden on hosting platforms would turn the DMCA on its head.
Viacom is attempting to rewrite established copyright law through a baseless lawsuit. In February, after negotiations broke down, Viacom requested that YouTube take down more than 100,000 videos. We did so immediately, working through a weekend. Viacom later withdrew some of those requests, apparently realizing that those videos were not infringing, after all. Though Viacom seems unable to determine what constitutes infringing content, its lawyers believe that we should have the responsibility and ability to do it for them. Fortunately, the law is clear, and on our side.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Great rhetoric both sides! A debate between two wizards of the English word always is exciting, and both sides are certainly weighing each word with excruciating precision.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: ...one BILLION dollars. [/Dr. Evil]
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
and it used to be such a fun website.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)