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."
Re:Its not about the content. (Score:2, Insightful)
Its the same fight the RIAA is making. Its not about piracy, its about deciding what you watch, listens to and buys.
When has RIAA decided for you what you should watch? Sure, if you like bands under the labels that work with RIAA, those labels might go towards more popular music. It doesn't mean they're deciding what you can listen - you're free to go to any local pub, event or even look for indie music on the internet. There are a lot websites for non-signed artists to release their music and RIAA has no saying over that since the artists haven't given them permission to do so. You do know that RIAA doesn't just blindly attack sharing of any music, but only music by artists who have (or their labels have) authorized them to do so.
Viacom deserves to lose protections. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Its not about the content. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you for one second think what you hear on the radio is decided by the radio station itself you sir are very gullable. Its very hard getting aired unless you have a big contract not matter how good your music is. On the rare occasions it happens RIAA is defacating themselves because you cant write slave contracts with an already successful artist.
Re:Test your /. age by reading the summary... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you aren't angered by the summary, you have been here too long.
Either that, or you've simply worked in a larger company for a while and realized that schizophrenia is pretty much the ground state of being.
Re:Its not about the content. (Score:5, Insightful)
When has RIAA decided for you what you should watch? Sure, if you like bands under the labels that work with RIAA, those labels might go towards more popular music.
Both you and I know that the bands "working with RIAA" are promoted and slammed down our throats. In addition the radio stations that you can listen to are (with the very rare exception of a few I know in Minnesota) pretty much forced to play RIAA only songs. I live in DC and aside from bands like The Bravery that are already on a large label, I have never heard an unsigned local band showcased or even played on the radio. If you were to build a case for the RIAA deciding what you hear, there it is. They are the deciders on who gets played on TV and the Radio. And miffo.swe was pointing out that this fact is why the internet is a thorn in their side.
It doesn't mean they're deciding what you can listen - you're free to go to any local pub, event or even look for indie music on the internet.
You can't use that last point about the internet because that's what is being debated here. That's what we're talking about annoys the hell out of the RIAA. It annoys them because I'll never hear acts like Joanna Newsom [youtube.com] at "any local pub or event." I depend on the internet for it because no radio station in my area has the balls to play it even at 2am.
There are a lot websites for non-signed artists to release their music and RIAA has no saying over that since the artists haven't given them permission to do so. You do know that RIAA doesn't just blindly attack sharing of any music, but only music by artists who have (or their labels have) authorized them to do so.
This particular discussion isn't about file sharing, it's about promotion and distribution channels and consumer awareness. The accusations are that the RIAA enjoy limiting consumer awareness. They don't want to lose 20% of their purchases to acts like Joanna Newsom or hundreds of other bands that you might actually like but you'll never know because there's this great system set up to protect you from <evil voice>Something Different!</evil voice> Do you have any idea how difficult it was for me to hear about Matthew Hemerlein [indiefeed.com] despite the fact that I live in DC? Thank god for the internet and the new distribution channels it provides. I agree with miffo.swe that the RIAA is a bit annoyed that I'm going to be sending money directly to labels like Drag City and Afternoon Records instead of the "Big Four."
Re:infringing content (Score:1, Insightful)
Youtube/Google has brought in hundreds of millions of dollars for itself in advertising revenue due largely to the draw of infringing content. Sure, they take it down eventually once somebody goes through the DCMA hoops, but just as quickly the process starts again as another uploader sends the same content. The actual creators / rightsholders are uncompensated while google makes off like a bandit for this sleight of hand. Your kitten analogy, however 'funny' just serves to muddle further this issue. Yes, I like the fact that I can watch, say, some clip from the daily show on youtube. i'd like it more if the creator of the clip was actually compensated fairly for it, perhaps after a negotiation with youtube. at the very least, youtube should have a policy of paying the advertising monies collected on infringing clips to the rightsholders, but, well, of course you'll have to go through a lot of lawyers before that will ever happen.
Apropos Goldman's credentials (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:infringing content (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet I've had my own clips taken down because the radio was on in the background and some content provider complained to youtube.
So I can post a unmodified 1 minute video on youtube simply because the radio was on and some filter decided that was too much infringement.
Re:Its not about the content. (Score:5, Insightful)
Can I interject here? the phrase ' ... but there "are" indie/alternative stations in...' is one of the most offensive ideas that I've actually listened to in a while. It at once sounds like you are both excusing the desperately bad situation by offering alternatives and trying to ignore the wrongfulness that is the current music industry.
It might be better said as 'even though the RIAA and music industry in general are evil bastards who want to control every aspect of the artists' content without properly compensating the artists, some people have rebelled and work through indie/alternative radio stations. The best way to tell the RIAA how you feel is to go see local artists in concert, pay for any self pressed CD's they have.
Re:Where is godzilla when we need him? (Score:3, Insightful)
But don't forget, Google's motto is "don't be evil", not "don't do evil." If doing evil is the same as being evil, then we're all evil. It's just that some people are more evil than others, and some corporations are more evil than others, too. "Try not to do evil" isn't a very good slogan, and compared to most corporations, Google doesn't do much evil at all.
Plus, I fail to see how they're doing evil here.
always amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
I always find these legal battles so amusing. Not to bad mouth youtube/google but, the percentage of accounts that have uploaded "infringing content" is such a laughable statistic. I wonder what percentage of accounts have uploaded anything? More than 1 vidoe? More than 2?
My guess is, most accounts would fall into one of a couple of catagories:
1. People who made an account to post a comment, and never used it again
2. People who made an account to upload some stupid video from their phone, and never used it again after one or two such videos.
3. People who wanted to see a video that was only accessible to people who made an account because it had some "mature content"
4. People who would fall into catagory 1-3, but found they liked commenting or having personal playlists
5. Old accounts tied to old email addresses of people who currently are in 1-4.\
If those categories don't account for 70% or more of all accounts, I would be shocked.
-Steve
Re:Its not about the content. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's also about controlling the entire chain of production, from studio to screen. That's why Viacom tried to buy Youtube, and why they have this convoluted scheme of suing infringing uploads while uploading illicitly themselves, apparently designed solely to undermine Youtube legally. You control the entire chain, you get to dictate the terms to every link. It's that simple.
Youtube is the final link between the studio and the viewer, and Viacom wanted to be the first to control it. But Google made a better offer, and Viacom is now in "if I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!!" tantrum mode.