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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Indeed (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Anonymous Coward FTW

  • About time. Now back to getting REAL high quality clips from bittorrent instead of crappy Youtube quality and annoying comments.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Reilaos (1544173)
      Yeah. If I want annoying comments, I can just skulk around /. while my torrents... torrent.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @05:41PM (#32671234)

        If slashdot comments are the inane ramblings of semi-literate retards... then I don't know what words remain to accurately describe youtube comments.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Illiterate brain dead idiots? I don't even want to call them human. I consider "frist-rost" comments to be a higher level than that of YouTube comments, and that's just sad.
        • by _Sprocket_ (42527)

          If slashdot comments are the inane ramblings of semi-literate retards... then I don't know what words remain to accurately describe youtube comments.

          The sampling of 50,000 individuals from a million monkey typing pool.

          • If slashdot comments are the inane ramblings of semi-literate retards... then I don't know what words remain to accurately describe youtube comments.

            The sampling of 50,000 individuals from a million monkey typing pool.

            I think the number of monkeys in that typing pool is off by a factor of 20.

        • by Jesus_666 (702802)
          To quote Penny Arcade, "the braying and neighing of barnyard animals"?
    • Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @05:43PM (#32671260)

      Or better yet, stop trying to sue your potential customers and instead offer a cheap, high quality, DRM free, and above all legal download option and actually make money off of it instead of losing money in litigation costs. Personally, I very rarely download things that I can legally acquire some other way, but if there was an option for unlimited downloads of the things I watch for a fair (think ~$5 per month) cost I'd jump all over that and kiss my cable subscription goodbye.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        "Oooo! $5! Right away sir!" - MPAA

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

        by RulerOf (975607) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @06:15PM (#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]

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          >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

          • by Swiper (1336263)
            You mean, their 55" LED Samsung is an outdated computer monitor with a resolution from the early 1990s.......
            • by Coren22 (1625475)

              Exactly. If that 55" screen was truely a computer monitor, you wouldn't be able to see the text on it. 30" monitor = 2560X1600, what would a 55" computer monitor handle? Computer monitors are designed to be used from 3ft away, anything more and you can't read it, a 55" computer monitor would cause you to move your head too much. I already move my head quite a bit with a 20" and 30" at work, and dual 24" at home (1920x1200, get away from my computer monitors 1080!)

              I have no desire to use a giant TV as a

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          I can buy a DVD at walmart for five bucks, and that purchase entails warehousing, shipping, stocking, sales clerks, and a host of other things that a brick and mortar has to pay for, while a download costs pennies. If the movie has any financial value at all, it made its money back plus profit in the theaters; DVDs and downloads are just gravy.

          $5 is by no means too low, especially if there are ads. I'm paying thirty for cable now, it would have to be both cheaper and better than that to get me on board.

      • Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @06:25PM (#32671616) Homepage

        if there was an option for unlimited downloads of the things I watch for a fair (think ~$5 per month) cost I'd jump all over that and kiss my cable subscription goodbye.

        So you pay for cable. On top of that they make money on cable ads, that'd quickly be removed from such a service. On top of that you probably pay for some DVD box sets of TV shows. Possibly a DVR subscription on top. I bet that totals up to more than $5/month, particularly the money not coming out of your pocket but the advertisers. You know what I hear as a corporation? "Blah blah blah blah please sell your products for 10% of the money you make today blah blah blah". I guess you can always ask, but if you want it to save a lot of money and make them lose a lot of money I'm not surprised they're unenthusiastic.

        For me the selling points are convenience, simultaneous worldwide release, maximum quality and freedom to watch it under any OS, on any hardware from anywhere on my own schedule for all time. I don't expect them to go for anything that's less profitable than what they have today, they're a corporation and per definition is profit-seeking. It's not going to be like I don't watch 80%, so my bill would get cut 80%. They know you won't watch everything and that's priced in, if they split it up they'd have to raise prices on each item to have the same income. It's the same as with the people that started when iTunes went up, for 10 cents/song they'd buy but not a dollar as if 90%+ of the cost was printing the CD.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by bjourne (1034822)
          Well, you are right. 5$/month is unrealistically crazy cheap. Then make it 100$/month for unfettered access to any movie. If I could download any movie in dvd quality at any time, watch it on linux without having to go through bullshit drm and not be bothered by ads, I'd pay a lot for that service. That is the kind of deal that would make me put my pirating days behind me. But it is not being offered by any legal entity.
      • Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)

        by zenasprime (207132) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:42PM (#32673068) Homepage

        The viewer is NOT the customer. The Advertisers are the customer. You are just an inconvient reality of their business model. ;)

    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      I dunno. YouTube has decent quality nowadays and, for me, the ease of starting to watch while downloading outweighs all but the most disturbing of quality issues. As for the comments; I simply don't read them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, YouTube's 720p and 1080p videos are excellent quality. I'd still download a 1080p Blu-ray rip of a movie I wanted, but to generalize by saying YouTube is crappy quality isn't correct. There IS a lot of crap, but there's a lot of very nice looking stuff as well.

      As for YouTube comments.... I got nothin'. They're horrible.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        >Actually, YouTube's 720p and 1080p videos are excellent quality.

        Are they?!?!

        When I click on "HD", the window stays the same size. So how is that HD? It seems to me all the 720p button does is upgrade the compression.

        Also, YouTube is terrible at caching, constantly re-streams even if you've downloaded the whole clip, isn't very good at fast forwarding, rewinding, or seeking, and in general has terrible sound quality. And I haven't seen anything longer than 10 minutes, either.

        • Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Alphathon (1634555) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @08:36PM (#32672658)

          When I click on "HD", the window stays the same size. So how is that HD?

          What do you mean the window size? If you mean the box on the page, it shouldn't stay the same size.

          It seems to me all the 720p button does is upgrade the compression.

          In a lot of cases it does seem that way; that is not YouTube's fault though. A lot of cameras that will save in HD resolutions don't have HD sensors so use interpolation and various tricks to increase the res. Even those that do have HD sensors often don't look HD due to poor focusing etc. I'm also pretty sure some people who capture in SD upscale before uploading. I have seen some really good HD uploads onto YouTube, be it in 1080p or 720p, but most of them, as you say look little different than 480p (or sometimes even 360p)

          • by Bryansix (761547)
            Which is why I shoot my HD with my Canon 5D Mark II so it doesn't have to interpolate.
        • by vonmeth (656965) *
          Try maximizing it .....
        • You know there is a button to enlarge the video. Also, there aren't many videos longer than ten minutes because there's a limit of ten minutes unless you're a YouTube partner.
        • normal resolution videos work perfectly through one run, while 720p and 1080p videos often hang after playing a few minutes; forcing to re-stream (a few times).

          An annoyance even worse than the spinning ball of death through Flash applications.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @05:36PM (#32671178)

    But viewers of Viacom remain at great risk.

  • Not Sure? (Score:5, Informative)

    by value_added (719364) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @05:40PM (#32671222)

    From a randomly selected article [cnet.com]

    We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act," Viacom said in a statement. "We intend to seek to have these issues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible."

    • Re:Not Sure? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mwvdlee (775178) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @05:54PM (#32671400) Homepage

      Seems like Viacom would prefer to have the power to force companies to do it's dirty work AND sue them afterwards.

    • Re:Not Sure? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AnEducatedNegro (1372687) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @05:54PM (#32671402)
    • Re:Not Sure? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dgatwood (11270) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @06:31PM (#32671664) Journal

      What I'd like to see is for Google to grow some cojones when it comes to dealing with the big media conglomerates. The second Viacom tried to sue to get YouTube's safe harbor status taken away, Google should have immediately:

      • blocked Viacom's corporate IP range from access to all Google services, including search.
      • removed all Viacom properties from Google's search index, including their TV networks' pages.
      • mass-scrubbed all pages from third-party sites that reference Viacom properties (e.g. TV.com pages about shows on Nickelodeon).
      • sat back and waited for Viacom to stop being morons.
      • Re:Not Sure? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dragoniz3r (992309) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @06:52PM (#32671832)
        And subsequently lose potential searchers to Bing or Yahoo because they couldn't find what the wanted to find on Google? Uhhhhh, let's just stick with items #1 and #4.
        • by dgatwood (11270) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @06:59PM (#32671880) Journal

          Or flag it as a virus site. People will find the site and be horrified.

        • Uuum, there’s still the production studios’ own sites. Like southpark.com.
          And for everything else, there still is The Pirate Bay and btjunkie.org.

          I don’t see the problem.
          It will take even Joe Sixpack only about five minutes to solve that problem. (Yes, they all know about file sharing.)

      • What do you mean “big” media conglomerates. Actually the whole media industry is a relatively tiny industry. I’m too tired to do the calculations now, but I would not be surprised, if Google alone surpassed the whole “traditional” industry.

        You know what would happen if that whole industry would die?
        Nobody would care.
        Creatives would still create.
        Consumers would still consume.
        Business people would still try to make money out of it.

        The market doesn’t just go away.

        And because

      • Re:Not Sure? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Guppy (12314) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @11:59PM (#32673580)

        What I'd like to see is for Google to grow some cojones when it comes to dealing with the big media conglomerates.

        I respectfully disagree with the listed tactical options, however. "Don't be evil" is a main reason that Google gets a pass on its dominance in the search market and online advertising space. A refusal to use its market power to punish adversaries is part of that -- it is an essential part of what makes the difference between a legal and illegal monopoly.

    • by jbengt (874751)
      For a not-so-randomly selected [google.com] opinon.
      Read and judge for yourself.
    • Is it just me, or have news sites forgotten the meaning of "paragraph"? I mean, you look at the article, and (almost) every paragraph is made from 1-2 sentances (mostly just 1). From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

      A paragraph (from the Greek paragraphos, "to write beside" or "written beside") is a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea. Paragraphs consist of one or more sentences.

      I know that you don't have to have literary masterpieces with wonderfully woven paragraphs made from many interlocked sentances, but give me a break, you could at least consolidate some of those paragraphs in the "randomly selected article" into one paragraph. Example:

      U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton, overseeing the longtime copyright fight between Viacom and Google over YouTube, on Wednesday granted summary judgment for the search company.

      "The court has decided that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) against claims of copyright infringement," Google said on its site.

      "The decision follows established judicial consensus," Google continued, "that online services like YouTube are protected when they work cooperatively with copyright holders to help them manage their rights online."

      /off topic
      Sorry, had to get it out of my system.

  • Viacom has partial content ownership, yes? So, the more Viacom squirms, the more they lay waste to the argument that copyright law is (functionally and intentionally) to protect the creators.

    In this case it can only be seen to protect the intermediary party -- what do you think the artists say about this? I'm sure they're appalled with the new Youtube policies. Many of you have already seen this [ted.com]

    .

  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Adrian Lopez (2615) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @05:47PM (#32671316) Homepage

    Not only should YouTube not be liable for what its users choose to post online, YouTube shouldn't even have to provide copyright holders with any special tools for handling infringing content.

    If we as citizens are required to live with the DMCA's restrictions, it is only fair that courts give Viacom no special treatment either. Google's only responsibility is to take down infringing content when properly requested to do so by copyright holders. As long as it continues to do that according to the terms of the DMCA, YouTube should not be expected to do anything more. Viacom should consider itself lucky that YouTube goes beyond the DMCA's requirements and provides them tools such as content detection and a streamlined process for getting rid of allegedly infringing content -- they are not entitled to any of that under the law.

    • by robcoop (1205410)

      If the real crime is sharing, technically speaking, then all that participate in the crime of sharing are culpable, this includes ISPs, uploaders, and content hosts in the direct line of fire.

      I don't like IP, but legally speaking, is Youtube "most complicit"? What exactly is Viacom charging?

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)

        by MarkvW (1037596) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @06:46PM (#32671780)

        Your post does not accurately state a general principal. Often a person can "participate" in a crime and not be culpable of that crime. It is not right to say that "all that participate in the crime of sharing are culpable." Sometimes, people can be held VICARIOUSLY liable for the acts of others, but only if the legislature explicitly makes it so. The legislatures do not always do that.

        Easy examples that come to mind are statutory rape and abortion. The victim of a statutory rape is a non-culpable participant in the rape. The woman seeking the abortion is often not criminally liable for the abortion, but the doctor is.

        Our legislatures are entitled to make fine distinctions. That's a good thing. Rigid adherence to general principles leads to injustice.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Kirijini (214824)

          Sometimes, people can be held VICARIOUSLY liable for the acts of others, but only if the legislature explicitly makes it so.

          Vicarious liability developed under common law [wikimedia.org]. This means that it is a judge-made law, and statutes are not necessary for its enforcement. In fact, the US Copyright Act of 1976 doesn't include vicarious liability, and yet courts do find some defendants vicariously liable.

          The following is taken directly from Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. [wikimedia.org], 464 U.S. 417, 434-35 [google.com] (1984):

          "The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another. ...The absence of

          • by MarkvW (1037596)

            Yup, you're right. But common-law crimes don't exist in most of the United States.

    • Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tolkien (664315) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @06:32PM (#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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Bryan3000000 (1356999)
      Really? Google directly profits from YouTube (at least, that's the business idea). Citizens don't, at least not commercially. I think it makes perfect sense to have Google responsible in some way, and I think this safe harbor provision makes perfect sense, if we're talking about commercial activity. When we're talking about non-commercial activity, none of it makes sense. But remember, if it's YouTube, it definitely IS commercial activity for Google, even if the users are not engaging in commercial act
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Alanonfire (1415379)
      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."
      • 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."

        You forgot the part where Viacom saw YouTube was the "hot" marketing thing and started uploading its own content there disguised as pirated media. And then they often couldn't figure out they had authorized the material and sent Google a DMCA takedown for their own uploads.

        There are two sides to this case. I'm waiting for the discovery evidence of Viacom's behavior to become part of the pleading in a private infringement case:

        "But Judge, we've seen in Viacom vs. YouTube that Big Media upload their own conte

    • by fermion (181285)
      They are not entitled to that under the law, but neither does Google has the responsibility to host arbitrary content. It is there servers, and the point of the Youtube is to generate a profit, not be a cost center. Therefore if the content providers are willing to have pay for the removal of content, rather than google paying for the content, that is a good thing.

      I think the mistake people make is seeing Youtube as right and not a service. They think just because they post a video on YouTube it automa

  • by 91degrees (207121) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @05:48PM (#32671340) Journal
    This does seem to be pretty much what the safe harbor provisions are about.

    Okay - really it was written at a time when people actually paid for web space, and it was to protect the providers from the copyright infringement of their paying customers rather than their free users, but in principle this is what the provisions are for.
  • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @05:50PM (#32671352)

    I can't understand most of the PDF posted there, anything in there about how Viacom uploaded their own material so they could bust youtube for it? It would be nice if that bit of douchebaggery came back to screw them over, though I expect that's too much to ask from justice.

    • by FrostDust (1009075) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @06:51PM (#32671820)

      Summary judgment means the judge sided in favor of Google based on their DMCA argument alone, before the full trial began. Other aspects of this case, such as Viacom uploading their own stuff, or Google's internal emails, weren't considered in the scope of this.

      While some may have wanted to see them held responsible for their "douchebaggery," I feel this is a better result. This strongly affirms the use of the DMCA's Safe Harbor as defense against copyright infringement, instead of mucking it up with other details.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jbengt (874751)

      . . . anything in there about how Viacom uploaded their own material so they could bust youtube for it?

      No, no need to. In fact, in order to find in favor of Youtube's summary judgement motion (which decides the case without a trial) the judge had to assume all of the disputed facts in Viacomm's favor.
      Summary judgement cannot judge matters of fact, only matters of law. The judge decided that the safe harbor provisions of law [chillingeffects.org] do not allow Viacomm to sue even if what they alleged is true.
      (note, however, that the judgement implied that there might still be other issues left open for trial)

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Calling Viacom "douchebags" is an insult to the feminine hygene industry.

  • by srussia (884021) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @05:51PM (#32671360)
    As defined by DMCA, practically anyone can be an OSP and claim safe harbor:

    (A) As used in subsection (a), the term "service provider" means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.

    (B) As used in this section, other than subsection (a), the term "service provider" means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes an entity described in subparagraph (A).

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by DragonWriter (970822)

      As defined by DMCA, practically anyone can be an OSP and claim safe harbor:

      Not true. As the excerpt you pasted makes clear, almost anyone can be an OSP. Claiming safe harbor, however, requires both being an OSP, and complying with the requirements of the safe harbor provision, which essentially only apply to content posted by those to whom the OSP provides services, where the OSP doesn't review them in advance, and where the OSP complies with the take-down provisions of the DMCA safe harbor.

    • by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @07:04PM (#32671924) Homepage

      That's probably less than half true, there are four exceptions to USC 17512 and each have their own requirements. The two first paragraphs are easy to achieve that cover routing and caching, like for example if you have a home router for some tenants or an open wifi. However, the material question in such cases will be who did it, and the DMCA will only protect you if the court finds it probable it was somebody else. Then and only then are you protected from liability from routing or caching it.

      The third paragraph which is for hosting and among other things require that you have a designated agent registered with the copyright office, most people will not qualify. The fourth is for search engines, and also have a fair amount of limitations but less than for hosting. Your hand edited collection of links will certainly not be protected under this paragraph, you have to operate something far more automated where you don't have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing and is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent. And for both of those, you must have a DMCA takedown process in place and follow it.

  • by MarkvW (1037596) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @06:26PM (#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!!!).

    • I'd like to say on behalf of my fellow sharks^W lawyers: woohoo!

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Otherwise, it's back to the federal district court for more litigation (and more money for the lawyers!!!).

      To misquote the outlaw Josey Wales, "Lawyers gotta eat to, same as worms."

  • by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdotNO@SPAMhackish.org> on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @06:57PM (#32671860)

    Veoh won some of the first strong precedents in this area, and the current case cites its cases prominently (see pp. 24-27). The cost of the litigation sent them into bankruptcy [wired.com] soon after winning, though.

    Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, this time they seem to have picked an opponent who is very hard to beat in a war of attrition.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by John Whitley (6067)

      Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, this time they seem to have picked an opponent who is very hard to beat in a war of attrition.

      No kidding. GOOG's market cap is about $153.53B [google.com] right now, while VIA.B's is $21.42B [google.com]. Google has about $26B in cash and short term investments. Viacom has $358M. Google's gross profit is >3x Viacom's.

  • by mykos (1627575) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @08:17PM (#32672506)
    Maybe they should just show their films and TV shows in a secure underground bunker to viewers who are patted down and forced to watch the movie wearing handcuffs, blindfolds, and ear plugs. After "watching" the film, they must submit to a mind wipe on the off chance that they detected some copyrighted detail.

    There, now your copyright is safe!

    Wait, scrap that. Let's just cut out the middleman and send thugs to beat money out of people directly if they are suspected of thinking of watching a movie.
  • The best bit! (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Good Jim (642796) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @03:34AM (#32674740)

    From the Guardian...

    "Most embarrassingly for Viacom, court documents revealed in in March that at the same time that it was suing Google and YouTube, Viacom was itself uploading its content in secret and trying to make it look stolen - so that people would be more interested in it.

    One excerpt from the documents filed by YouTube was particularly notable for the embarrassment caused: "Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jun/23/youtube-wins-viacom-lawsuit [guardian.co.uk]

    So Viacom were being pretty dodgy about IP in the first place, then complaining!

  • I foresaw this as the prime reason that Google bought out youtube. Simply so it could bring the brunt force of it's moneybags to bear and defend not just youtube, but user-uploaded video on internet. With this ruling, they have kept the internet free to the people, and assholes like viacom will have to police their own shit, rather then control the pipes.

    It's a win for google, and it's a win for the netizens. Horray!

This login session: $13.76, but for you $11.88.

Working...