What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
37 Comments
- NX910a, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I'm about ready for Congress to put that DMCA right where it belongs: the wastepaper basket
- brwright, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10What more do they want? Google/YouTube to sift through every video before making it public?
- randyzaia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"Viacom sucks. All they can think about is money."
As opposed to what? Puppy dogs and ice cream? They're a corporation you d-bag. - invader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You'd better start saving up if you want that to happen.
Lawmakers today are more expensive than ever. - Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4google images, google video, google books, google scholar and google blogs, all forms of media services that google owned long before it took over youtube
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would comment about Microsoft's YouTube competitor, Soapbox.... If I could see it!
(Displays a blank page for FF users) - bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@30Trip
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. They have video filters in place, which obviously barely work at the moment since filtering user content is in its early stages still. As with most sites, there are options for every person to report them as copyrighted works, and they comply with every valid DMCA takedown notice they get. Where have you been living? Under a rock? Even Viacom has admitted that they remove content that they send a DMCA notice about. I find it ironic that you show up and call everyone idiots, yet you don't even know these things.
Viacom doesn't have a chance in this suit, plain and simple. - locojones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"If we didn't have amazingly ambitious software companies like YouTube and Google pushing forward, we wouldn't have access to all the fabulously useful content that has been created by individuals..."
What 'fabulously useful content' would that be? Lonelygirl? Please...
Without the copyright infringement, Youtube is nothing more than a haven for emo kid videos. - Feej, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And of course, Google doesn't think about money at all, right?
Google is not an IT company, they are an *advertising* company. Search, Gmail etc are all just means to an end, which is advertising $$$. - locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"GOOG can even buy VIA if they really wanted to"
Great to know we have a Wall Street Analyst on staff here, considering market cap != cash on hand. Duh. - takeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nice, I'm also getting nice BSOD-like (blue) page on Opera...
They are trying so hard to lock websites only for IE users...
Fortunately this only seems to hurt them :) - ZachPruckowski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Honestly, the DMCA is on Google's side here. The one good aspect of the DMCA is that it allows service providers immunity as long as they take videos down. And seeing as Viacom and friends practically wrote that law (through the RIAA/MPAA and WIPO), their issue here isn't that Google is breaking the law, it's that the law isn't strict enough for them, and they want the courts to tighten it.
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Like atomfilms, where user-generated content is actually made by the poster and worth watching.
Instead, youtube gives us...obese teenage girls stripping. - randyzaia, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6YouTube filters for porn; filters for copyrighted material exist (YouTube previously said they were going to roll out a filter late last year, nothing happened). YouTube could eliminate copyright infringement on its site. It chooses not to, because copyright infringement is profitable.
- seneyr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mmmm.... This is gonna be a nasty fight. I think this is the fight people have been waiting for since the Napster days. Even if Google doesn't have a good case to stand on, this is gonna be highly watched.
- pjsk8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sure.....I'll take a job.
- Swivelstick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed and if Viacom wins every community driven website is in trouble, did those who "dug down", think of that or do you want the corporate world to dictate what you see and read?
- yossarian24, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@iocojones... honestly? a few emo kids? how many times are you redirected to youtube from digg alone?
- bicycleman, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1What is Viacom worth as a company? Google should just buy Viacom and fire the idiots at the top. Larry & Sergei & Eric, if you read this, please buy Viacom and kick those nut jobs in ....the nuts.
- takeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Before they bought YouTube, how were they a media company AT ALL?"
I think you should probably ask what kind of services they provide that ISN'T media related. - ElMoselYEE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1breaking news: site sells for $1.6 billion, kid on social website claims site's "execution" is horrible. could he do better?
- ktomb03, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"They should be going after the users POSTING the infringing videos, rather than the people helping remove the infringing material."
Quoted for truth. - takeda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1they just want to get some of Google's stocks :)
- inactive, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1If it hadn't been for YouTube I would have never watched a lot of the shows that I watch now, including the Daily Show. I don't think anyone would be uploading clips to YouTube though, if Viacom provided a service that was as good. The video player they do have is bloated and slow, plus it only works about 20% of the time (in Firefox, at least).
Still, I guess a billion dollars is a more 'obvious' form of profit, rather than the (most likely) thousands of people who have been turned onto the show by YouTube and its competitors. - ElMoselYEE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@30Trip: i've never said this before on digg, as i feel it is usually pretentious, but you're an idiot. you don't make $280bil (or whatever rediculous amount of money google has amassed) by investing in numerous unprofitable ventures. Clearly, the majority of things google is doing is returning revenue for them. I highly doubt they would continue to buy out companies without intention of returning a profit.
on a related note, i wish you could flag certain users on your account, so when you read one of their posts, it says in big red letters, "WARNING! THE FOLLOWING POST INCLUDES OPINIONS OF AN IDIOT, APPROACH WITH CAUTION" - blastin311, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It is the copyright holder's responsibility to find people they feel are infringing. Google is doing them a service by sifting through millions of videos and removing ones that are infringing. (I know they host the material. That's not the point I'm trying to make.) They should be going after the users POSTING the infringing videos, rather than the people helping remove the infringing material. But, as we all know, they can never win that war.
- polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Google should just make a giant laser and bunker down with it. Then put the internet on lockdown because they pretty much have it all stored anyway. I think it's a great time in history to have a crazy super-villain. ***** all that *****......Lasers......
- locojones, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21 billion dollars cannot be justified? Are you serious?
17 USC 504(c)(1) - a court can award up to $30,000 for each act of infringement. The definition of an act of infringement is any act, done without a license or permission of the copyright holder, that violates the copyright holders rights to copy, prepare derivative works, publicly display, etc. So, for instance, Youtube's copying of a video from one server to another is one act of infringement. Displaying the video to each of it's visitors constitutes individual acts of infringement. And so on.
Assuming a $30,000 per infringement judgment, that's only 33,000 acts of infringement to amount to $1 billion. Considering Viacom said they have sent more than 100,000 DMCA take-down notices, the amount they're asking for seems perfectly reasonable.
Moreover, 17 USC 504(c)(2) increases the award of damages to $150,000 per infringement in cases where it can be shown that the content was willfully and intentionally infringed. At this rate, it only requires 6600 acts of infringement to amount to $1 billion.
In my opinion, the amount Viacom put in their complain is on the low end of what they could really get. - yossarian24, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2no one in this case is completely innocent, but I find it particularly appalling at Viacom's grose misuse of the court system. If protecting their copyright material was really what they had in mind, then they would be suing for a guarentee for future protection and maybe a small recompense...
$1 Billion can not be justified, this is an example of using the courts to make money - tuzziel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sure it is, Google cap is 140B. Viacom is going down.. at 30B ? Hell, GOOG can even buy VIA if they really wanted to.
- yossarian24, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2youtube's infringements have done nothing but help Viacom... jerks
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Actually, given that YouTube built its business off of the copyrighted materials of others, YES, I do expect them to go through every clip.
Sites like atomfilms, which try to generate their own content (or receive wholly unique user-created content) didn't grow nearly as fast as YouTube. The one difference? SNL, South Park, and anime clips, all owned by someone else, which proliferated on YouTube.
So basically, while the idea behind YouTube is nice, the execution is horrible, and deservedly opens them up to civil liability.
After all, if the movie theatre down the street profited by stealing your electricity, wouldn't you expect them to pay you? Or the grocery store, if it just took your backyard produce? Or the bookstore if it took your books and textbooks? - thesixthdesign, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Viacom sucks. All they can think about is money.
Who cares about what Viacom thinks about Google. - KuntaKinte, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1since when has google not been a significant media company
- dojonz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@30trip
Did YOU read it?.. its DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) not DCMA! - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Only 'about'? Do say...
- brandf, on 10/12/2007, -17/+8as opposed to hiding behind safe harbor when they know damn well much of the content is illegal? yes, I do expect them to sift through it.
would you be saying the same thing if a site knew they were hosting & indexing child porn?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is