Google Slams Viacom For Secret YouTube Uploads 307
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Reuters: "Google, Inc. accused Viacom, Inc. of secretly uploading its videos to YouTube even as the media conglomerate publicly denounced the online video site for copyright infringement, according to court documents made public on Thursday."
As "statements from the corporate counsel's office" go, this post on the YouTube blog is pretty hot reading.
Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
Google has become quite outspoken. I guess they are big enough that they do not have to scratch anyone's back anymore. I like this approach - Google has the power to change people's perceptions of companies (and countries) seeing as how they do control a large chunk of the flow of information on the Internet.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who would you rather have controlling a large chunk of the flow of information on the internet, Google, or Viacom?
I can understand the consternation that has sometimes arisen regarding Google, but I think some of it might be because we're not used to transnational corporations acting like anything but rapacious, greedy monsters who hate their own customers and would sell weapons to Al-Qaeda if it meant a 2% bump in quarterly profits.
Google may be far from perfect, but they're also far from your average transnational spawn of Satan.
Google rising. What does Viacom stand to gain? (Score:4, Interesting)
As long as that's remembered, Google's movements are actually pretty predictable.
I don't see what Viacom has to gain over this, long term.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who would you rather have controlling a large chunk of the flow of information on the internet, Google, or Viacom?
Both...and more besides. Even if Google is benign now they are a company and so their directors and owners can change over time. If you have a good diversity of companies 'in control' then there is a greatly reduced possibility for one of them to misbehave because, if they do, people will move away from them. This is about the only thing that we can do to make a company sit up and listen and if we are unable to do this because there are no alternatives then we are in real trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps Google wants not to have billion-dollar lawsuits fabricated and leveled at them.
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps Google wants not to have billion-dollar lawsuits fabricated and leveled at them.
And remember, folks, lawsuits fabricated is an anagram of aw! fast is lubricated.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Funny)
And remember, folks, lawsuits fabricated is an anagram of aw! fast is lubricated.
Or Saw fat? I'd lubricate!
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Informative)
Approx 17 seconds
http://www.ssynth.co.uk/~gay/anagram.html [ssynth.co.uk]
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Interesting)
I would rather see the market decentralize.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As opposed to figuratively not being able to wait to see? How did they literally not wait between episodes that hadn't been uploaded yet - board a time machine and travel to the future?
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure what Google wants...
Information. They get information on you to deliver targeted ads to you, and they are unlikely to give away this information easily because it is their core product and core source of revenue. Some see this as a bad thing and others don't really mind.
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Informative)
Viacom wants to make money and protect its IP.
The intellectual property doesn't belong to Viacom; the US Constitution says it belongs to everyone, and Viacom merely holds a limited time monopoly on it. It's like a rented house - the renter doesn't own the house, he merely has a limited time monopoly on it.
Viacom wants to protect itself from us using our IP without its permission.
OTOH, Disney does own Mickey Mouse, since that's trademarked (although we own the cartoons). You can own a trademark but merely hold a copyright.
I know it sounds pedantic, but it's a serious distinction that most people misunderstand and that the media companies want you to misunderstand.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, actually it's a *good* thing our legal system won't let you file rants and PR puff pieces as legal responses.
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
> No, actually it's a *good* thing our legal system won't let you file rants
> and PR puff pieces as legal responses.
Actually it will, but the judge will make you _really_ wish you hadn't.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now of course there is a possibility that Bob from accounting created an account and uploaded baby videos. But such videos wouldn't raise the ire of viacom, nor would they fall under a DMCA request. So that means Bob would have to be uploading Viacom property. As far as I know an employee stealing their employer's property isn't anyone's problem except the employer and the employee. You can't sue someone else for it - well you can, but you'll lose. So everything Google says makes sense, and I can guarantee that a company that makes its living off of tracking users has the logs. You're right, there's not a speck of evidence; there's a goddamned ocean.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's funny is that the Viacom employees engaging in this amateur cloak-and-dagger stuff apparently thought Google* wouldn't be able to piece together the evidence. What were they thinking?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Filing phony DMCA requests among other things should give Youtube grounds to recover damages just for the expense of putting up with their legal bullshit.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Funny)
Knowladge is power
Weird. I thought that Knowladge was Powar.
If Viacom wins (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If Viacom wins (Score:5, Funny)
If Viacom wins there isn't anything that cannot be bought.
Even double negatives.
Re:If Viacom wins (Score:5, Informative)
It's not as cut and dry as you might think. YouTube has done its share of dirty deeds in this whole fiasco [arstechnica.com].
Some choice excerpts include the YouTube cofounders discussing how 80% of the site traffic depended on pirated videos. So, they pretty much did whatever they had to get a massive user base so that they'd get bought out. From the article -
Now, arguably, YouTube at that time does not equal Google, and one could argue that things have changed. However, don't be so quick to decide without hearing both sides of the story.
Re:If Viacom wins (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll also add this. What was Google's business case for buying YouTube? You think they didn't know that YouTube was rife with pirated content? The article also talks about how little documentation Google produced on the whole deal. Both sides knew what they were doing (*wink*, *wink*).
Busted (Score:5, Funny)
Viacom - the verb (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the words of Jon Stewart... (Score:2)
COCK [thedailyshow.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Aye!
Re:Viacom - the verb (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Strauss, Erwin S. How to start your own country, ISBN 0-915179-01-6
Youtubeland, I'd move there.
Re:Viacom - the verb (Score:4, Insightful)
Synonyms: RIAA, NBC
Re:Viacom - the verb (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Viacom - the verb (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Viacom - the verb (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's worse than that:
For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom.
It seems that Viacom purposefully uploaded these files to invalidate the whole concept of YouTube. "See how much of our stuff is uploaded! They can't filter it out! They have to be shut down!"
It's almost like dumping a much of random nails in the street and then suing the government for not cleaning the streets properly.
This article is definitely worth reading.
Re:Viacom - the verb (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that Viacom purposefully uploaded these files to invalidate the whole concept of YouTube. "See how much of our stuff is uploaded! They can't filter it out! They have to be shut down!"
Nope. Viacom realized the value of marketing their shows on youtube, which HELPS VIACOM MAKE MONEY. By having lots of people uploading clips of their favorite shows, it boosts the popularity & coolness of the show.
Since this was a secret astroturf [wikipedia.org] project, Viacom had to have their regular DMCA people prowl youtube to remove the clips.
This is not unlike payola, where a record label pays a radio station to promote sales of music. Except without the payment. Maybe I need a car analogy...
Car analogy? (Score:4, Insightful)
No need for car analogies here because it's typical of what every person involved with sales do. Offer the thing to everybody, but always claim it's not really for sale, it's too precious to sell.
Like when you go to a used car lot and the salesman [wordpress.com] tells you he cannot hold that car for you unless you close the deal right then and there, because there are so many people ready to take that car at a much higher price.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not unlike payola, where a record label pays a radio station to promote sales of music. Except without the payment. Maybe I need a car analogy...
So many made up words, so little meaning. The term 'fraud' has been around since the dawn of the English language.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is very different.
It's dishonest. Advertising is distinguished from editorial. "And now a word from our sponsor..." Payola is a subversion of editorial, when the broadcasters play music because they've been paid to, while lying that it's because of popularity. If they present the show as "New music from the Sony Corporation" that would be fine. When they call it "Top Hits" or something similar
Re:Viacom - the verb (Score:4, Funny)
Car analogy:
You drive Toyota Prius and press the accelerator all the way down. Then you call 911. You enjoy speedy ride. The police does not pull you over. You thank them for saving you life. Then you sue Toyota.
Oblig quote (Score:5, Funny)
Croupier: "Your winnings, sir.
Re:Oblig quote (Score:4, Funny)
*AA Lawyer: "Round up the usual suspects."
Oooh I've got an idea! (Score:5, Funny)
Dirty thief!
Re: (Score:2)
Three cheers for good writing (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. Facts aside, this is the clearest, most straightforward legal/PR writing I've read in years. Makes the point with no dodging and evasion, no complicated jargon, it's short, clear, and on point.
Kids, if you ever wonder why English 101 is mandatory at your college, this is why: so maybe someday you'll be able to write like this.
Re: (Score:2)
The primary factor in the clarity of this story is most likely that it's all true.
Things get weird when people are trying to bend light around the facts to hide them.
Re:Three cheers for good writing (Score:5, Interesting)
Off Topic, but whatever. If a mod wants to waste his points on this post, go right ahead. I maxed out on karma a decade ago.
English 101 doesn't teach you how to write.
I have never ever had an English class where I was taught how to write. It was always by the seat of my pants. All writing in high school was geared at writing the "term paper" resulting in my complete inability to write anything but the most boring, stultifying, coma-inducing drek on the planet. Indeed, we were taught something called the "term paper method." The only thing this taught me is that I could never have an original opinion unless I could cite someone else saying it, parrot it, and leave a listing in the bibliography.
This left me literate but crippled.
None of it was geared to how I could express myself. I had to be out of school for 5 years for that to happen; writing every day in the Marquis De Sade school of writing known as BBS networks (Fight-O-Net) hanging out in the debate oriented message bases. I can also credit the local BBSes that had things like "The Never Ending Story."
When I did eventually go back to school, I took College Writing and found all I had to do was defenstrate some bad habits to get an A on a paper. Thanks Fidonet!
--
BMO
Re:Three cheers for good writing (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed, we were taught something called the "term paper method."
When I was in high school, we were taught to write essays using the "three-pronged thesis" method. The main reasons for this are because it produces short essays, the essays are easy to grade and it encourages creativity in coming up with bullshit to fill the third paragraph when used in situations where the third paragraph should be unnecessary.
Three-pronged thesis statements produce short essays because they encourage the writer to produce 5 paragraphs. One paragraph is used for the introduction to the essay. The next three are used to expand upon each "prong" of the thesis, one paragraph per prong. The final paragraph is used to conclude the essay, and usually is nothing more than the introductory paragraph re-worded.
In addition, these essays are easy to grade because teachers can check the essay by scanning it for key parts. Many teachers grade these essays by checking to see if the introductory paragraph does have a three-pronged thesis and that the opening sentence of the next three paragraphs each refers to one prong of that three-pronged thesis. Unfortunately, teachers who rely on this cursory grading may overlook that their students had inserted off-topic references to bananas in their essays.
Finally, three-pronged essays encourage making up bullshit like this paragraph when the essay's subject matter just doesn't require three paragraphs to cover. Seriously, who needs three paragraphs to explain why the kid in The Scarlet Ibis died? Kid had a weak heart and died of a heart attack. It was sad, the end.
In conclusion, three-pronged thesis statements lead to short essays that are easy to grade and full of bullshit. I spent entirely too long writing this thing, and if I never write anything like this again, it will be too soon.
Re:Three cheers for good writing (Score:4, Interesting)
That was brilliant.
By the time I got to the end, I began twitching.
Somebody help me.
--
BMO
Re:Three cheers for good writing (Score:5, Funny)
87 B+
Overall solid essay, clearly written and well organized. Needs a stronger introduction: lead with your thesis statement, not just a topic sentence. Needs citations! Can't get into A-range grade without citing your sources (Wikipedia, or really any encyclopedia, doesn't count). Seemed to go off on a tangent at one point about bananas--was this a typo? Proofread! Argument got weak toward the end--could have used some direct quotes to reinforce your position regarding Doodle's death. A straightforward reading is acceptable, but I think it would have been better if you could have expanded on the context leading you to this interpretation? It may be that the literal causal story is less important than the intent of the author--what emotions in the reader did Hurst try to evoke by telling the story with Doodle dying in the end?
Love,
Your TA
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The English language is derived from two main sources. One is Latin, the florid language of ancient Rome. The other is Anglo-Saxon, the plain languages of England and northern Europe. The words derived from Latin are the enemy—they will strangle and suffocate everything you write. The Anglo-Saxon words will set you free.
How do those Latin words do their strangling and suffocating? In general they are long, pompous nouns that end in -ion—like implementation and maximization and communication (five syllables long!)—or that end in -ent—like development and fulfillment. Those nouns express a vague concept or an abstract idea, not a specific action that we can picture—somebody doing something. Here’s a typical sentence: “Prior to the implementation of the financial enhancement.” That means “Before we fixed our money problems.”
Believe it or not, this is the language that people in authority in America routinely use—officials in government and business and education and social work and health care. They think those long Latin words make them sound important. It no longer rains in America; your TV weatherman will tell that you we’re experiencing a precipitation probability situation....
...Those long Latin usages have so infected everyday language in America that you might well think, “If that’s how people write who are running the country, that’s how I’m supposed to write.” It’s not.
- Writing English as a Second Language [theamericanscholar.org] by William Zinsser
I don't agree with everything Mr. Zinsser says, but I agree with this much: we're all taught to use English very badly. Journalists and government officials set a bad example; teachers teach us the wrong things. It's a wonder there are good writers at all.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't necessarily think that writing complex sentences (or using long winded words) is a bad thing. If anything, the push for shorter sentences and easier words (with "flexible" spelling) probably encourages poor language and lowers the bar for everyone.
You should read Joseph Schumpeter -- his writing is complex, and you'd often take a good five minutes to read just one paragraph (his Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy is particularly beastly). But so much was conveyed so well in his one paragraph that y
The money paragraphs (Score:3)
That combination right there is going to be very powerful, and there are at least two arguments to be based on it: first, if even the copyright owners can't figure out what material is supposed to be there, how are we expected to do so? A followup offer might be "Your honor, if you'll instruct Viacom that they must allow Google and its legal team to index and have access to all of their internal communications and financials, we'll use that information to remove only the Viacom-owned items that Viacom didn't upload or cause to have uploaded."
The second argument could easily be that Google made a strong effort to remove copyrighted materials but that their efficiency in doing so was severely degraded by Viacom's uploading materials in ways that effectively contaminated the identification of infringing materials. Remove all the red ones! OK, here they are. Whoops, I really meant all the red ones except this one, that one, that other one, the one over there and maybe a few more. And how are we supposed to know which ones you want removed? Figure it out yourselves or we'll sue you for one billyun dollars!
Safe Harbor (Score:4, Insightful)
> Figure it out yourselves or we'll sue you for one billyun dollars!
That is exactly the situation Google would be in were it not for the DMCA Safe Harbor clause (except, of course, there would be no YouTube. And no low-cost Web hosting. And no blogs.)
The very definition of unclean hands (Score:5, Insightful)
If these allegations are true, it is the very definition of unclean hands...
And people wonder why we need net neutrality. This should shine a bright light into why it is so needed.
Re:The very definition of unclean hands (Score:5, Interesting)
If these allegations are true, it is the very definition of unclean hands...
Sounds like typical marketing/advertising companies. Apparently they do this all the time with the TV stations, trying to find any reason not to pay for the commercial, even though it was aired.
RTFA, perhaps? Nah, then you can't just say BS. (Score:5, Informative)
"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."
Re:RTFA, perhaps? Nah, then you can't just say BS. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:RTFA, perhaps? Nah, then you can't just say BS. (Score:4, Interesting)
If Viacom were just retracting their requests, Google's lawyers wouldn't be making the statement they did. It'd have to be one of Viacom's people writing Google saying "Hey, what happened to the videos we uploaded? The page says it was taken down because of a DMCA complaint.". And Google going "Oh reeeeeeally. That's odd, the DMCA complaint was from Viacom too. Left hand and right hand not talking much?". Followed by Google's lawyers getting together with Google's engineers to do a little data mining.
Re:RTFA, perhaps? Nah, then you can't just say BS. (Score:5, Informative)
Viacom employees have made special trips away from the company’s premises (to places like Kinko’s) to upload videos to YouTube from computers not traceable to Viacom. See Schapiro Ex. 47 (158:2022); see also Schapiro Exs. 48, 49.
Re:RTFA, perhaps? Nah, then you can't just say BS. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
he is probably both smoking crack, and doing these things, just like many of those who read these pages.
Re:Smells like bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
At the very least they'll have copies of the requests from Viacom to restore the videos that Viacom demanded be taken down, and most likely Google required that those requests state exactly why Viacom has the authority to make that video available. They also probably traced the IP addresses, odds on more than a few times somebody slipped up and uploaded videos from an IP traceable to a machine belonging to Viacom or one of it's marketing companies. The marketers have no dog in this fight, if Google's gone to them with apparent proof that they've been uploading Viacom's videos the marketers won't have any qualms about pulling out their authorization from Viacom to cover themselves.
Google hires some pretty good lawyers. I doubt they'd be making such a strong statement in a legal action if they didn't already have what they needed to back it up.
Re:Smells like bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Never, ever screw with a company that's in the business of collecting information. Heck, that's Google's *ONLY* business.
The crunching sound you hear is viacom stepping on its own dick.
Re:Smells like bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
The old saying goes, "never get into argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel."
Maybe we should update it to say: never get into an argument with someone who writes programs that run on whole data centers.
Re:Smells like bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
Never, ever screw with a company that's in the business of collecting information. Heck, that's Google's *ONLY* business.
No kidding, can you imagine the resources Google's legal team has to build a case. It's not just the support they get for customized searches of case law. They can get a report of all search terms used by Viacom's legal team. They can see every page loaded that's using adsense. God forbid if viacom is using gmail, google docs, or google voice.
I really take perverse pleasure in imagining Google serving customized goatse ads to Viacom's legal team. "Oh I'm sorry our advanced algorithms determined based on your browsing history that it was relevant to your interests"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that it's nearly impossible to determine if the person who uploaded the files was authorized. Youtube (apparently) has evidence that they purposefully tried to obscure the source of the upload, making the files look like they were pirated.
Youtube is simply pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy in all this.
call me naive (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:call me naive (Score:5, Funny)
As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.
You should be quite used to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the PR profession needs a good PR person
Re:call me naive (Score:5, Funny)
As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.
You know what your industry needs? A good PR person to spin your image for you.
Re: (Score:2)
you know what I need? a screen a few dozen pixels taller so I wouldn't repeat jokes off the cuff...
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1587782&cid=31530124 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
but it is difficult to believe a corporate legal counsel would post something like that if he could not prove it six ways to Sunday. Indeed, while I am not a lawyer, I would think that Google has grounds to counter sue. As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.
Don't worry. In all likelihood, Viacom's PR staff will find a way to spin this and make them look like the good guys, whether they deserve that image or not, whether extremely one-sided presentation of facts, selective omission of facts, and heavy usage of weasel words is required or not. Then you can once again be proud of your profession.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how smart do you think the PR people at Viacon, excuse me, Viacom, are?
Re: (Score:2)
IP laywers in Hollwyood
youtube viacom
youtube cartoon network
youtube comedy central
youtube venture brothers
youtube venture brothers porn
venture brother porn
venture brothers dean naked
what state do judges hate youtube most
penis enlargers
are there any judges who hate youtube
judge who worked at viacom
youtube venutre brothers
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard about News Corp or Mr. Murdock?
Re:Can they have it both ways? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't that Youtube doesn't know who uploads stuff, but that they can't tell if the person that is uploading stuff is authorized to do so.
Re:Can they have it both ways? (Score:4, Insightful)
Further - they cannot afford to do this sort of investigation on every single one of the millions of videos on Youtube.
http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/20/every-minute-just-about-a-days-worth-of-video-is-uploaded-to-youtube/ [techcrunch.com]
I imagine that they have only had the resources to investigate a sample of the alleged videos well after the fact.
Re:Can they have it both ways? (Score:4, Insightful)
The real argument is that the DMCA safe harbour provisions should cover them. That coverage may be contingent on the practicality argument, and perhaps that is why the argument gets made. However in and of itself, being unable to afford to do something really buys you nothing in and of itself. If you can't afford to do something in a way compliant with the law then you just shouldn't do it. You have to have something more. In this case, it's the DMCA, and that is what the real argument is about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can they have it both ways? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that if even Viacom can't get its act together and figure out which one of its own properties is supposed to be on Youtube, it's illogical to demand that Youtube should figure it out.
To get back to the example of the GP, the technical side of figuring out who uploaded something is entirely feasible. The problem is that that information has little to no bearing on whether that person was authorized by the copyright holder to upload the content in question.
I'm getting the impression that this is indeed nothing more that Viacom going on a legal fishing expedition. I'd love to see them slapped with a counter-suit, but am not holding my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to bet they found the evidence in emails/records during discovery or they have an inside source.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any contradiction. They've had years to research Viacom's complaints. As they investigate individual incidents, and find funny business related to some of those individual incidents, they compile them and form the basis for this filing. That's a far cry from being able to produce similar details comprehensively about every upload in real time.
We don't know how long it took to document any given incident. We don't know what expense was involved. We don't know what lucky breaks they needed; i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.
Words...they fails me.
Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this (Score:4, Informative)
As for The Daily Show and Colbert Report, I'm not sure why people would go to YouTube to watch them anyway, since you can already watch them for free on the shows' web sites
For given values of 'you' where 'you' is a person with a US IP address.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this (Score:5, Insightful)
xkcd is painfully unfunny.
and you're painfully retarded. seriously, it hurts even to think about how retarded you are.
like, you're making Trig Palin look very, very smart by comparison.
This is the sort of shit that people who read xkcd find amusing.
Eh, there's a difference between reading it and finding it amusing ... and feeling a need to bring it up in every possible discussion and work it into every conversation, like some kind of obsession. I think what you're talking about applies to the latter and not the former.
Xkcd is pretty good, and for the most part I can appreciate its humor. However, it's not so good that I want to see it in every single Slashdot story. If anything, that's a great way to make me not want to read it. Turning something into another mindless meme is not a great way to promote it. This thread indicates I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Re: (Score:2)
It's times like these that make me wish for modpoints because I am 100% in agreement with you. Xkcd is one of the few webcomics I read (along with Penny Arcade and Dinosaur Comics) but I'm starting to wish the editors would just post the "obligatory xkcd" along with TFS to get it over with.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Douglas Adams receives the same treatment.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. ?
I'm certain at least some of those words were English, but those were not sentences.
Re:Two words for Viacom (Score:5, Informative)
http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unclean-hands/ [uslegal.com]
"The clean hands doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conduct relating to the subject matter of his/her claim. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant may claim the plaintiff has "unclean hands". However, this defense may not be used to put in issue conduct of the plaintiff unrelated to plaintiff's claim. Therefore, plaintiff's unrelated corrupt actions and general immoral character would be irrelevant. The defendant must show that plaintiff misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. The wrongful conduct may be of a legal or moral nature, as long as it relates to the matter in issue."