Dueling Summary Judgment Motions In Viacom v. YouTube 89
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Eric Goldman, an Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law, has an excellent analysis of the dueling summary judgment motions in Viacom v. YouTube. Basically, both sides have been trotting out the most damning things they can find and asking the judge to rule against the other party. Viacom is mad that Chad Hurley, one of YouTube's co-founders, lost his email archive and couldn't remember some old emails. Worse, YouTube founder Karim once uploaded infringing content. But then Google points out that only a very small percentage of the users are engaged in infringing activity (some 0.016% of all YouTube accounts have been deleted for infringement), one of the clips Viacom is suing over is only one second long (what about fair use?), and most of YouTube's content is non-infringing, including the campaign videos which all major US presidential candidates posted to YouTube." (More below.)
"But the worst thing they found is that Viacom can't make up their mind. They spent $1M advertising on YouTube and tried to buy it. And even though they demanded that YouTube remove videos containing Viacom property on sight, Viacom had a complex internal policy authorizing some clips, including ones disguised as 'leaks' and put out by their marketers. Viacom was so conflicted internally that their very expensive lawyers couldn't figure out what Viacom had authorized to be uploaded even after doing extensive research as required by court rules, only to discover that some of the clips Viacom was suing over were ones Viacom uploaded themselves. The lawyers then had to go to court and drop those clips from their case — twice. They missed some the first time."
infringing content (Score:5, Funny)
Test your /. age by reading the summary... (Score:5, Funny)
After reading the summary (seriously, do this first or this won't work at all), gauge your reaction to the article that you won't be reading to determine how long and for what purposes you read /.
If you are surprised by any of the summary, you must be new here.
If you aren't angered by the summary, you have been here too long.
If you mentally insert else statements between each of these lines, you are sleep deprived DBA. Go take a nap.
If you question Eric Goldman's credentials, but haven't done any research to to discredit him, you are a /. troll.
If you just went to research Eric Goldman's credentials so that you could respond with research to discredit him, you are a /. pedent.
If you just tried to correct the misspelling of pedant in the previous line, you are a grammar nazi.
If you instead thought that discrediting Eric Goldman wouldn't take much effort but that doing so isn't pedantic, you have a valid point, and thus, would be modded down for pointing it out.
If you just thought to yourself 'who is Eric Goldman?,' try reading the summary next time.
If you can remember another /. article that pointed out that a company ended up suing themselves (and losing), so do I.
If you read the heading of this post and thought ' this is stupid, you can gauge someone's /. age by the number of digits in the UID, its probably a valid point, but makes this entire post worthless, so keep that to yourself.
I can has lawsuit? (Score:5, Funny)
Your trolling, no way would they sue a kitten. That would be like sueing a grandmother, or a disabled person... oh wait.
Re:Test your /. age by reading the summary... (Score:1, Funny)
"If you just tried to correct the misspelling of pedant in the previous line, you are a grammar nazi."
That wouldn't be grammar... that would be a simple typo. Not knowing the difference between they're | their | there would be grammar related.
-Reality Checker