| 9:51 am on Jul 12, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Frankly, they should tell both Viacom, and the judge, to "shove it".
| 2:08 am on Jul 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Interesting letts not forget google (the owners of youtube) are too a giant corparation ( yes I seen the propoganda video on youtube claiming it is against individuals but thats crap).
What viacom appear to be saying is that by youtube displaying there logo on video's and music that are owned by viacom they are breaking copyright. And they are!
Days before youtube were aquired by google they insisted the rules were changed to say youtube owned the copyright of all content uploaded and googles defence has been in my opinion to deliberately allow an explosion in copyright theft.
Viacom are not the bad guys here google are. They have grown into a multimillion pound company off the back of other peoples websites that they search. They seek to gain a media company by allowing the upload of video and music that they are aware is not copyrighted to them and claim copyright just because it was uploaded to youtube and pay the creators nothing.
Every person who has had there website scraped hijacked copied or otherwise should support Viacom. Every actor muscian director writer should support Viacom.
| 4:28 am on Jul 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Vivo, Google is making no such claim to the copyright of Viacom's material That of course would be a ludicrous. Futhermore I'm no lawyer but AFAIK they can't even claim copyright to videos legitimately uploaded. I haven't read their EULA but the gist of ones I have read from other similar services is you're granting them a "soft licesnse" for the content. Copyrights need to be legally transferred between two parties.
| 5:18 am on Jul 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Viacom 2 - Google 0
| 1:03 pm on Jul 14, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I have had sites' scraped hijacked copied or otherwise... I do not support Viacom in this.
I have videos I have uploaded to YouTube, and I have marked some as private for family and friends only.... what twisted logic do you believe exists that gives Viacom rights to all that info? I don't think what I have is their business.... sorry wait.. I KNOW that what I have uploaded to YouTube is none of their business.
YouTube is a multimillion dollar company not off the backs of others... but for providing an excellent portal to heaps and heaps of unique content.... Just cause some of Viacom clips end up on there doesn't account for any of YouTube revenue... Viacom wishes they were that popular.
This is like Highscool, Vicom thinks there might something in 1 person's locker so they violate every students rights to privacy and forces everyone to empty their locker and book bags for an inspection....
Sorry I would rather drop out of school then submit to an illegal search of my property.
| 3:00 pm on Jul 14, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I KNOW that what I have uploaded to YouTube is none of their business. |
If you uploaded content that is protected by copyright and owned by Viacom, then I would say that it IS their business. But yes if you haven't in fact done that, then I agree that Viacom has no right to your data.
In this case, I would say that Viacom is wrong for asking for the ENTIRE user log, rather it should be asking for FULL information on the users that uploaded the videos that infringed on their copyrights, and going after them individually. After all, this is what the RIAA did with illegal downloaders and as far as I can see it worked for them pretty well.
| 3:38 pm on Jul 14, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|some of Viacom clips end up on there |
Like 150,000? (Viacom sent takedown notices for 150,000 clips prior to the lawsuit. I'd say, this is a "significant" amount.)
|Viacom wishes they were that popular. |
Weird logic. It's rather the other way around. Because the clips are so popular, they ended up on Youtube. And Viacom (as the rightful owner) clearly sees the presence of those clips as not useful for their business goals (whatever these may be). It's not for Youtube or the individual users to decide what happens to Viacom content. It's Viacom.
|Vicom thinks there might something in 1 person's locker so they violate every students rights to privacy |
How else could they determine what is in the lockers? They have to take a look to estimate the real number of violations, and the real damage.
Ciacom have made clear that they are not going to go after individuals. They are after Google. That's where the money is.
| 11:05 pm on Jul 14, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Just wait till the discovery material Google hands over to Viacom ends up in the public court documents. Anyone willing to pony up the court copying costs will have a field day with your surfing habits.
| 5:34 pm on Jul 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
150,000 is a teeny tiny percent of the total number of videos on YouTube.
Maybe Viacom stuff is popular on there, it still doesn't justify the scope of the data they were asking for.
And they don't get to see what is in all the lockers. If you think someone is doing something wrong then do some investigating without destroying basic freedoms.
I guess if there was a criminal living on your block it would be ok for the police to search all the houses in your neighborhood right? How else are they to determine what is in the houses?
I am looking at the numbers and the damage and I see no real damage. They assume for every view of their material on Youtube that it is minus one view on their network and that isn't the case at all.
Just another civil liberty stomped on and you are cheering.
| 6:56 pm on Jul 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
A more accurate analogy would be to suppose there was a criminal living in your dorm room.
|I guess if there was a criminal living on your block it would be ok for the police to search all the houses in your neighborhood right? How else are they to determine what is in the houses? |
It's not up to you to see the damage - you don't have access to the information Viacom has.
|I am looking at the numbers and the damage and I see no real damage. |
I don't know that they're assuming that. What they seem to be assuming is that *if* you're going to watch some of their material, it ought to be on their network. And that's a valid assumption.
|They assume for every view of their material on Youtube that it is minus one view on their network and that isn't the case at all. |
|Just another civil liberty stomped on and you are cheering. |