Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Privacy The Courts Youtube Your Rights Online

YouTube Granted Safe Harbor From Viacom 107

Posted by timothy
from the can't-they-all-merge-and-then-shut-up? dept.
eldavojohn writes "It's an old case, but there was an interesting development today when a judge ruled that YouTube is protected from Viacom by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, since YouTube helps rights owners manage their rights online and works cooperatively with entities like Viacom. Google's calling it a victory, but I'm not sure if Viacom will take this without a fight."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Granted Safe Harbor From Viacom

Comments Filter:
  • Re:About time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RulerOf (975607) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @05:15PM (#32671558)

    fair (think ~$5 per month)

    Too low.

    Even though I'd prefer cheap/free over something that costs money, I highly prefer legitimate sources over illegitimate ones.

    To get a fair price, add up the minimum amount of money you'd have to spend to get all the content you like, and let's pretend for argument's sake that you can get HBO and Showtime and Starz without having a $100+ cable package to throw it on top of.

    Broadcast TV = Free, HBO/Showtime/Starz = $10/mo each, Movies = $10/mo via Netflix.

    So let's say $50/month when you throw out terrestrial broadcasts' commercials because paying for them is bullshit. Now cut it in half. $25/month minimum to $50/month maximum depending on your package with a la carte options available at each tier AND... AND... you can bundle it with your internet connection and telephone line for better savings. And seeing as how Comcast owns NBC these days, it's a win/win for them.

    But that would make sense and be immensely profitable, but not as profitable as the packages people pay for these days but never use so we'll never see it happen. Oh well.

    [rant]
    While we're at it, why don't we try to get a connection that solves the bandwidth problem by selling bandwidth caps instead of transfer caps, but that would make sense too.
    [/rant]

  • by MarkvW (1037596) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @05:26PM (#32671624)

    This is just Chapter One. Google can only win at this stage if you consider all of the facts in Viacom's favor and, given those facts, rule that the law requires that Google must win.

    The upcoming appeal to the federal circuit court is the really big next act. If Google wins there, it may portend total victory. Otherwise, it's back to the federal district court for more litigation (and more money for the lawyers!!!).

  • Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tolkien (664315) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @05:32PM (#32671672) Journal

    It actually is within Google's best interest to provide these detection tools. Only however in that if they weren't provided, Viacom et al would produce their own detection tools which inevitably would resemble some form of automated digital/analog screen/audio scraping/capture of Youtube videos, which would needlessly waste far more Google (and intermediaries) bandwidth than would be necessary with Google-provided tools.

  • Re:Good (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Alanonfire (1415379) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @05:48PM (#32671796)
    The case was about the inventers of youtube purposefully uploading copyrighted content to boost its user-rate to get offers to sell. It also stated that Google knew what was going on when they bought it. Not just that "oh Joe in Jersey uploaded clips of Thundercats."
  • Re:About time (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OrangeCatholic (1495411) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @06:57PM (#32672334)

    >But that would make sense and be immensely profitable, but not as profitable as the packages people pay for these days but never use so we'll never see it happen.

    Oh it'll happen. Right now probably 95% of customers are still happy paying for TV the old fashioned way. By "happy" I mean that they do it.

    Internet customers are a niche market and still poorly understood. Compare to DVR customers five years ago - we existed, but not on anyone's radar. Right now all you get on the internet front are trial balloons like on-demand or YouTube, just curiosities really.

    But once internet becomes dominant, they will have to post more. Example, I still have not seen any customers hook up their computer to their TV. Even though their 55" LED Samsung is, in fact, a computer monitor. Once it clicks in people's heads that they are watching a computer, they will start looking there for content.

  • by _Shad0w_ (127912) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @03:18AM (#32674952)

    Google/YouTube does what the DMCA requires them to do: it takes down content when a copyright holder points it out and asks them to do so; that is why the judge has reaffirmed that they have protection under the safe harbour provisions of the DMCA.

    Viacom is, I suspect, whining because Google is easy to sue and have lots of money, whereas the people who are actually uploading copyrighted content are hard to find and probably don't. They are more interested in doing what is easy, rather than what is correct.

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...