What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Audition for 2009 Holiday Campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy0 - The making of Best Buy's holiday campaign. Real employees 'Jingle Belling' their way to a stardom.
35 Comments
- w3bslinger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32Serves Viacom right!
- judsond, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27"Because Viacom aren't enlisting and paying teams of people to do YouTube's job?"
Why do you think it's YouTube's job to protect someone else's intellectual property? Is it your local government's job to make sure you don't make a mickey mouse birthday cake? Is it the icing manufacturer's job? Duncan Heinze? Duncan Heinze does enable copyright infringement I suppose, since it's possible to violate copyright with their products.
Please don't buy in to the propaganda. People have a right to free speech, and if other's are curtailing that right they need to make sure they are correct, if not there may be repercussions. - judsond, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25"It's fair to assume some % of the 100,000 are going to be false positives, quite reasonable to expect it even."
Um, we're not catching spam here, or at target practice. These are legal actions which curtail people's constitutional right to free speech. If Viacom doesn't have the time to make sure they are correct, they shouldn't file the motion. There are some situations where being mostly right isn't enough. Filing a false takedown notice is illegal, and has repercussions, regardless of whether the other 100,000 were legal. - nullx42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Bitch
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Payback is a .....
- Nudar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Finally the good guys are hitting back.
- primehifi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Get 'em boys...
- NtHammer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10no, its not reasonable.
- dmason, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I completely agree. It's easy to ignore voices... it's nice to see some action.
- V1ncent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think this whole thing is generated by The Colbert Report itself. Good job, Stephen!
- schleppo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Viacom, you're on notice!
http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5049389 - RAEP, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Kitten?
- CrazedGeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm just gonna assume you missed the [reply] button.
- kualla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@judsond
I wish more people thought like you, the world would be a much better place. - ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4half decent but nothing spectacular Mel Gibson movie.
- mhii, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@fkr3
Because a DMCA notice is under the "penalty of perjury." In other words it is a statement under oath the same as if you were giving testimony in court. If you are going to make an assertion under oath you had better be damn sure it is truthful whether you are John Q. Public or Viacomo. Theoretically (although very unlikely) there could be a criminal prosecution for perjury here. - mhii, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@fkr
Viacom has legions of in-house and out-house lawyers who are on the payroll. They clearly have the capacity to review each notice before it is submitted to determine whether it is "fair use." Instead, they chose to file a blanket takedown notice without doing their homework. Now they will have to face the consequences. I hope the EFF hires the damndest pack of rapacious lawyers that satan ever whelped to pursue this to the eternal vexing of Viacom. (credit to The Onion for this reference!). http://www.theonion.com/content/node/25938 - BHRecon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Piece of lightly buttered toast.. how could u guys get this so wrong. ;)
- offspring06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nice to see the DMCA come back to bite Viacom in the ass.
- geekuskhan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I dont know about you bit i dont pay for viacom products advertisers do.
- loker269, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1IT WAS A JOKE!
- adage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0...dish best served cold?
- loker269, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2schnozagiz....watch the video it becomes exceedingly clear its a joke attack ad...."BECAUSE WE HAVE SOMETHING BETTER, ONLINE PETITIONS!"
it is an awesome parody.... - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1While I am glad to see the EFF going after those who are abusing the DMCA, the video by MoveOn makes me wonder. Are they being serious, or being sarcastic, just as Colbert is? Parts of the video give the feeling of sarcasm, while others don't.
- fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0And that cost doesn't trickle down to us?
- SCHNOZAGIZ, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1ok... MoveOn is taking a blow at something that is obvious... THE COLBERT REPORT IS A PARODY ON THE NEWS.
it is not meant to be taken seriously as a news source as most things are distorted for entertainment purposes. - TKmac02, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Is it just me, or was the video from moveon pretty dumb. Everybody knows the Colbert Report is fake and Steven isn't representing the news with truth. I especially loved the "Editor X" who claims that he was ordered to distort the truth. Well Duh, that's pretty obvious if you've ever watched the show. Steven insn't trying to represent the news with truth, he's represnting the news with truthiness.
- ousthouse, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1serves them right... but the video in question (http://falsiness.org/) sucks.
- coldphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I
- harrier666, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0really bad movie?
- fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1Meh .. digg me down all you want guys. It doesn't change the fact that Viacom have a right to protect their property and that the only viable method to locate possible infringements has a good chance for innaccuracies - especially when you're talking about 100,000 items.
YouTube can and should be doing more (or even something) in which case situations like this simply wouldn't occur. Viacom could have employed people to sift through every single video to locate only real offenders, in which case we'd all be paying more because they'd need scores of people to police a handful of sites who virtually encourage piracy because it increases their popularity. - fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1It's a takedown notice, and as is seen in this article if they're inaccurate they can be contested. They're not designed to block free speech and I doubt that was the intention. I would be amazed if Viacom went through all 100,000 urls, watched the videos and made a decision on whether or not it was their property.
I really think ARS is hyping it up for attention which is a shame, I've always held that site in high esteem. I also think you guys are being conned into reading too far more into it than there really is.
Edit:
And it's YouTube's job because they're the one's profiting off it, and they're the ones who pull a video down when forced and then allow users to reupload the same video 5 minutes later.
It's not Viacom's job to stop people shoplifting dvds from Best Buy, it's not their job to stop people uploading illegally to YouTube. When you make it their job you end up with a farcical situation like we have with the RIAA. - banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3MoveOn.org: Democracy Inaction!
MoveOn ***** sucks, I hope they choke on a horse ***** and die slowly. - fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -18/+1Why isn't it reasonable? Because Viacom aren't enlisting and paying teams of people to do YouTube's job? Why should Viacom have to do that? The best option financially and time-wise for anyone who wants their copyrighted materials removed from YouTube is to use a search term that'll return the majority of them and submit the list.
It's 1 out of 100,000. That's not a bad effort at all. I bet there's a higher percentage than that wrongfully imprisoned.
If anyone's to blame it's YouTube. - fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -23/+2I don't think there's actually a "bad guy" in this particular scenario.
Viacom's just trying to defend their property and probably used automated means to generate the list of 100,000 videos to take down - the onus should not be on them to pay a staff solely to manually identify and collate infringing video lists on youtube.
It's fair to assume some % of the 100,000 are going to be false positives, quite reasonable to expect it even.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is