What is Digg?106 Comments
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -9/+198If there's one thing that's made me smile regarding the DMCA since it's inception, it's this article. Essentially, Google's defense is that videos that violate copyright are removed as soon as they are reported, in compliance with the DMCA. Viacom can't effectively keep up with the illegal content that's posted. Their lawsuit is out of frustration, not violation. I think everyone agrees the DMCA gives copyright holders too many rights . . . this is the first time I've ever seen copyright holders view these rights as burdens, and I think it's funny. Keep suing Viacom . . . I'll keep posting Nacho Libre.
- growlzor, on 10/12/2007, -8/+167Clips from shows owned by Viacom only boosted their popularity, talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+98Why would they settle? Google is 100% protected by the DMCA.
Oh, and Nixon, you posting Nacho Libre to YouTube is the only way anyone will watch it.. One of the worst movies to come out in the past 10 years. - unknamed, on 10/12/2007, -16/+83I bet Viacom would settle for $50.00 and full use of the Google Employee lounge and cafeteria. Maybe even just discount vouchers at the cafeteria.
I can just imagine how this all came about.....
*fade into Viacom boardroom...
CEO: "Those bastards at Google have it way too good, all that gourmet food and free daycare crap... IT'S *****!!!"
CEO's sycophant: "Well what do you want to do about it sir? Upgrade our facilities?"
CEO: "HELL NO!!!! We'll sue, sue, SUE I SAY!!!"
CEO's sycophant: "For having better employee facilities than us sir?"
CEO: "No... we'll sue them for only taking down the copyrighted material we ask them to."
CEO's sycophant: "Ummm, how.. can.. we .. uhhh, sue them for not breaking the law?"
CEO: "Minor detail my little sycophant... now,how much should we sue them for? Nevermind, I know... we'll sue them for... (holds pinky to mouth) ONE BILLION DOLLARS!!!! MWAHAHAHA!!!!" - cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -4/+56I can't help but giggle like a 12 year old when I see the acronym "IANAL". Sorry, I don't care how immature you consider me, or how useful the acronym is, it's just bad.
- kripkenstein, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30"Everyone has legal grounds to sue . . . they don't have legal grounds to win."
Not quite, if you sue without reasonable basis, and with dishonest intent (I don't know the legal terms, IANAL), then you can be found liable yourself for bringing a fraudulent lawsuit. - TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30It should be noted, Viacom owns atom films and iFilm, both of which use the DMCA as protection against this kind of litigation. Google/YouTube does exactly the same thing as Viacom, but let's penalize only Google and not Viacom. Yeah, that makes sense.
Viacom felt they didn't get sweet enough terms when they were negotating with Google, so now they're trying to extort it out of them by filing this frivolous lawsuit. Hopefully Viacom's suit goes down in flames, and they'll be forced to come back to the negotiating table with their tail between their legs... to which Google will take them to the cleaners. "Hey Viacom, remember how we said we'd give you X percentage of banner ad revenues? Well, how about one-hundredth of that instead?" It will serve them right for suing like spoiled little brats. - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -9/+34Everyone has legal grounds to sue . . . they don't have legal grounds to win.
- Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28@wonboodoo
You are correct, however Google is not the provider of said material. It merely offers a service which CAN be abused, which is not the same as putting up the material yourself. Google is responsible to take down content when notified a user has put up copyrighted material, not for viewing and scanning every single one of its user's videos. - protogenxl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26New Viacom Corporate Slogan
Viacom, Burning the Bridge to the 22nd Century. - Iriel, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28Supposedly, the billion dollars is (partially) due to lost traffic on Viacom's sites. Actually, if people aren't hitting Viacom's sites, wouldn't that reduce their bandwidth bill? It's like free corporate video hosting courtesy of Google!
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20I have always been one to be crass, let me give you a few examples of simple forms of "crass" that people might actually understand:
kiss my ass
blow me
suck my balls
***** you
"suck parts that are not north" is a little too abstract. - onlyafterdark, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22I don't think Viacom has any legal grounds to sue. From what I understand of the copyright act in the U.S, if media is posted on a site that is in breach of copyright the copyright owner has to send a written letter to the company in breach. If the media is taken down within the time frame there can be no legal action.
It just so happens in this case it was costing Viacom too much money to pay people to sift through youtube and find breaching material.
Instead of waisting more money on legal action that is going to last years, why don't they just embrace it? Who cares if more people are viewing more clip of their shows from other channels? They still gain their publicity. Maybe they should spend more money advertising that they host the clips on their site, hell even pay youtube for links to their site for every video thats got to do with any of their shows? That IMO would be money better spent. - d3dm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15But then Google does offer a search feature on the YouTube site, so one could argue that they do have some reasonable idea of the content on their site.
For instance, searching for "Seinfeld" results in over 1800 hits and of the first few pages of those that I looked at, the majority contain copyrighted content from the popular sitcom. - bobbagoose, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I started watching the Daily Show (didn't realise it was available in the UK) after seeing the clips on YouTube. So surely that is positive for Viacom. Now I'm an avid fan.
YouTube doesn't have high enough quality for me to rely on it solely for my video entertainment, but it does allow me to sample new things. Some of these I like and others I don't.
Without Viacom's clips on YouTube then I will be sampling other media from other companies. The BBC and NBC have both taken steps in the right direction by using YouTube for what it is, an online digital video sampler and promotional tool.
IMHO Viacom is absolutely going to lose out in the short term, and also damage their reputation in the long term. 70 million people can't be wrong after all.... can they? - farzadb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@wonboodoo
> You assume the only way to check incoming videos is through a direct file comparison. Google staff could quite easily check them before they make them available, plus the headings/tags associated with each upload would give an idea of the contents. This is by no means infallible but it is a "reasonable" expectation a court will expect from Google considering that they have been previously officially warned that they are hosting infringing material. You and I know a Daily Show video is infringing, so why is it unreasonable to expect Google to know it?
Based on your comment then, your ISP should also be responsible for checking all content that is uploaded to their user's webpages, should it not ? - What about blogs, etc.
Also, consider this: What if I create a parody on a show like Seinfield and upload that to YouTube with the tags Seinfield Parody ? - Legally I'm the Copyright Owner of said material and I choose to allow YouTube to host my video. Is this not legal ?
> Would an ad on a page be clicked if the infringing material was not there? Good luck using that argument as a defense.
Potentially, yes. It all depends on the material being displayed. At the end of the day, the ads are based on the tags provided for the content, not the content itself.
For example, I could upload a Video to YouTube that I created and that I hold the copyright for and associate tags that a popular and not necessarily related, just to get hits to my video (see example above).
Lastly, don't forget that YouTube hosts a lot more amature videos and legal content. It's general use is perfectly legal. Yes, others can upload infringing material, however, this is not something that Google can control, other than to comply by a DMCA take down notice (to which they have). - Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Because corporations, like most people, don't like paying out large sums of money, but they like receiving them...? Just a thought.
- johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Actually, what Google is talking about is an interesting provision of the DCMA.
There is a part in the DCMA that protects the holder and transmission of the copyrighted material. When Napster started getting the bejesus sued out of it, telcos were worried that just because the server hosted at, say, johnhummel.att.net, a copy of Star Wars, then AT&T would be sued.
So they put a little provision in there saying you can sue the person who provided the copyrighted material *but not the ISP for storing or transmitting it*.
Google knew this when they bought Youtube. Unlike Napster, which *tells you* where the copyright material is, Youtube actually *stores* the material - and lots of other material that is not copyrighted by major studios but just people like you and me. As long as they comply with the "give us a notice and we'll take it down" of the law, then Youtube is not liable.
What will be interesting is if Verizon can use the Grokster case of "Well, they advertised that people would put illegal stuff on here and you could find it". Youtube has done nothing of the sort, and even made every effort to promote independent video and dissuade material not copyrighted by the poster.
Much of this is really posturing by Verizon, probably to get a better payoff from Google to be left alone. And in a way, Verizon *has* to do this for the sake of their shareholders and the old "if you don't defend it then you lose it" part of trademark law. I'm willing to bet in six months to a year this will all dissolve, both parties will reach some sort of agreement, and it will fade into the woodwork.
Then again, I could be wrong. - PhantomRogue, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Google doesnt fail A(i) because they dont know what content is being uploaded. To their servers, its a bunch of 1's and 0's, and has no way of knowing that clip 3 of the 500,000 that were uploaded, is copyrighted and not some home movie.
And Google doesnt fail B because the clip itself does NOT generate the revenue, the page and the page ads do. The clip itself, does not in any way influence what ads are clicked and how much revenue is earned. - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"The DMCA has served as the legal standard defining U.S. copyright law in the digital age. It limits liability for firms that act quickly to block access to pirated materials once they are notified by copyright holders of specific infringement."
so people can host anything they like as long as Viacom doesn't tell them to take it down? - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Joost will do great if it can offer an experience superior to television and roughly as good as pirated P2P video. The quality will have to be outstanding if they expect average people to sit at their computer desks to watch shows. If there are intrusive advertisements people will simply download ad-free pirated copies.
My prediction is that Joost would have been much better if it wasn't tied to a media megacompany. Viacom will be greedy and force people to watch unskippable ads. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wish there was a way to ban those ***** hippy chain-letter/comments that are going round. Pisses me off.
- cheesegrits, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Think Joost will do well? (It is owned/developed by a Viacom unit). Supposedly, Joost will be expanding their beta users in a couple of weeks.
- wonboodoo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8The relevant section of the DMCA (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act) you are referring to is below. Google fails clause "B", and in my opinion fails "A(i)". You can disagree that they fail "A(i)" but just search on their site for "Daily Show" or "MTV" and see what comes up. We all know that any Daily Show footage we view on YouTube is owned by Comedy Central, so it is unreasonable to assume that Google doesn't know it's infringing. And remember, the "we don't know what is infringing and what is not" defense failed for both Napster and Grokster, and Google is in a worse position than those two because it is hosting the infringing material and the other two were not. Google is on the losing end of this.
DMCA says:
“(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users.—
“(1) In general.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—
“(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
“(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
“(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
“(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
“(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity. - foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Google should have removed all traces of Viacom's material from Google Search... that will teach them!
- thewump, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If I were Viacom I would do the same because at the end of the day, this is what it might take to change the current laws - even if they loose the case.
Whether you agree with the law or not here, it's frustrating for those who own copyright. Why should they have to pay full time staff to sit there and make lists of content on Youtube to have it removed? All they are doing is searching for keywords. It is completely fair that people like viacom would prefer YOUTUBE to impliment the same searches when people try to add content.
Having their copyright infringed AND having to bear the cost of policing it is too much. - chhuparustam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5There's a new comment system?
I just wish I could get my comments to line up under the comments that I reply to. Oh, and that each comment had a 'reply' link so I can reply to specific comments. - stephenson3745, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5No. This provision only covers hosting sites (and blogs, ISPs, etc) where other people can post to the site. If you intentionally and knowingly post copyrighted material to your own website, then you are responsible for that material. (eg. You can't post Nacho Libre to your website and say, "hey everybody, come download this movie!") - IANAL, yada, yada, yada
- blujaded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Using my DVD recorder, I am unable to record much of the content broadcast on my satellite receiver because of their copyright protections. Viacom channels are some of the very few channels that I can record from. If they are so concerned about their content, why don't they use some of the same protections that HBO, Showtime etc. have been using for years?
- R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Anyone else digg daza up simply because willdiggforfood is a jackass?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is not the case. The case is the person running the server has to be notified by someone and it also has to have been uploaded by a user unrelated to the staff. Otherwise you are knowingly uploading copyright material and even if you take it down you can easily lose a lawsuit.
- mojee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm no fan of corporations. But as someone who creates short films, I'd like to believe I have control over the content I produce. If I want to put my videos up on GooTube, that should be my choice. Not someone else's, fan of my work or not.
Now when you scale that argument up to the corporate level there isn't a whole lot of sympathy. But legally, Viacom should be able to decide what it wants to do with its content.
If they want to be idiots and pull their content off the internet and lose possible new viewers, that should be their choice. It's their content.
I think what makes this case really interesting to me is how exactly GooTube handles porn that's posted. Porn videos aren't up very long, if at all. (Pun unintended.) How do they get taken down so quickly? I can't believe that all porn posted to GooTube is taken down because of an end user reporting it. I wouldn't complain about found porn on GooTube...
So I have to believe someone screening for porn vids. And if that's the case, GooTube can't fall under the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA. Because if Google has someone screening for decency violations, it could just as easily have someone screening for other violations of its Terms of Service, like copyright violations.
Just my two pennies, but I really think this will be the crux of Viacom's case. - o2o2o2o2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2>> "We will never launch a product or acquire a company
>> unless we are completely satisfied with its legal basis
>> for operating," Macgillivray told Reuters in an interview.
LOL. Google response is just like every other corporation. NEVER ADMIT YOU MESSED UP UNLESS A COURT OF LAW SAID YOU DID AND YOU LOOSE ALL APPEALS.
I can see it now YouTube is going to drain so much money out of google. You cant infringe on anothers' copyright and not expect to pay the consequences. I like Google, but I dont think they will win this. But it will be an interesting court case. Might not even go to court, it will proubably be settled. This may just be a way to up the royalty prices by Viacom - tackle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I cannot believe there are people who think Google is not at fault. When some poor college kid can get sued by MAFIAA for sharing a movie for no personal gain, Google should definitely be sued for making profits out of pirated videos.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5How can I trust the opinion of a man who calls it the 'DCMA'?
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Being sued by the RIAA or MPAA does not mean you are guilty of anything. Ditto for Viacom. They sue because there is the chance the defendant will fold and pay a settlement, not because something unjust has been done to them.
The RIAA has a team of ordinary temp workers answering the phones of the legal hotline listed on their subpoena letters. Now they have a website where you can simply turn yourself in. Out of the over 10,000 lawsuits the RIAA has threatened people with, only about 5 have involved an actual lawyer.
These lawsuits are simply trawling the waters.
So, tackle, to be sued means nothing. It's not good or bad. It means you have a dispute that you want the government to settle for you. It doesn't mean you're guilty of anything. - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Google's sole existance is to monitize other peoples content."
It doesn't take 8000 engineers to do that. Google's product is algorithms and user interfaces that showcase third-party content. Those user interfaces are monetized. Google is positioning YouTube as an open infrastructure, just like Internet Protocol. - bouche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Who made more money off of the clips on YouTube? Google (from adsense) or Viacom from a stronger audience and again, more advertising bucks?
- magnusdopus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed. The existing system is a complete failure. Look at all the crappy movies and music the United States outputs each year for the last 30 years. We need a system like China and Russian with minimal copyright protection. Those countries absolutely blow us away in terms of artistic and merit. And don't get me started with Sweden - Quentin Tarantino or Ingmar Bergman. Shut down hollywood. The world would be a better, more nihilistic place.
- appetite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@fleaflicker
Well, your analogy clearly doesn't work because police officers patrol for lawbreakers while Google is saying that Viacom has to report the infringing material to Google for it to be taken down. That's exactly what the case is about--Viacom is spefically saying that Google is pushing the burden onto copyright holders. The equivalent analogy would be if the Police chief only apprehended criminals after citizens reported and investigated them. And that's not how it works. Do some obvious Viacom searches on Youtube. If I walked out of my house and saw people snorting cocaine off the sidewalk in downtown right in front of the Police station, what would that say about the police chief? - locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Right...that's why they set aside $200 million before buying YouTube in order to defend against infringement lawsuits they knew were coming. Google knew fair well that YouTube was founded on copyright infringement.
- wonboodoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7> Google doesnt fail A(i) because they dont know what content is being uploaded. To their servers, its a bunch of 1's and 0's, and has no way of knowing that clip 3 of the 500,000 that were uploaded, is copyrighted and not some home movie.
You assume the only way to check incoming videos is through a direct file comparison. Google staff could quite easily check them before they make them available, plus the headings/tags associated with each upload would give an idea of the contents. This is by no means infallible but it is a "reasonable" expectation a court will expect from Google considering that they have been previously officially warned that they are hosting infringing material. You and I know a Daily Show video is infringing, so why is it unreasonable to expect Google to know it?
> And Google doesnt fail B because the clip itself does NOT generate the revenue, the page and the page ads do. The clip itself, does not in any way influence what ads are clicked and how much revenue is earned.
Would an ad on a page be clicked if the infringing material was not there? Good luck using that argument as a defense. - magnusdopus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1New free business idea : YouTube cop. Probably takes 2 seconds to watch a youtube video to determine its violating copyright. Hire a hundred people at $2 per hour. If anything looks like its copyrighted notify YouTube. Sell your services to the big media companies. This would shut down youtube faster than any lawsuit. Probably for much cheaper.
- wonboodoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@tony23
- The added cost could harm Google's business model as far as YouTube goes
They certainly have no problem keeping porn off.
- The person making the determination could be wrong
So what? Google's under no obligation to host anyone's video.
The point is the court is going to want to see a reasonable effort from Google. Their current attitude of pretending its not happening unless someone points them to it is not going to fly. - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@tony23 you clearly don't understand liability. Nobody is going to sympathize with Google for owning one of the highest traffic sites on the web. If they're breaking the law, then it can just get shut down. The court isn't supposed to be like "well, what if we lose Youtube? we won't have bulks of videos to watch online. Maybe we should rule in favor of Google since they tend not to be evil and, oh yea, MTV sucks". It's about whether they're violating the law or not. My guess is that they are. At best, it is unethical. It's a FOR PROFIT company. Why give them a pass?
- TBagwell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd love to hear what mark cuban has to say about this. Oh wait, no I wouldn't.
- mtekk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Uh, the last I heard Viacom was suing Google, not Verizon. They are different you know.
- appetite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Is there a way to keep 100% of Viacom's content off of Youtube every minute? Probably not. But the fact that on my first try I was able to find copyrighted Viacom material in the top 2 spots of a search makes it abundantly clear that Google's not even trying. Come on. Enough apologizing for Google. They have over $100 billion market share--they can't solve the problem? Get your head out of your ass. The fact is that they just don't care and they're going to have to pay for that thus far very lucrative apathy.
- AllIsMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here's even more news on the subject from all over the net, blogs and straight-up news sources via Wikio.com:
http://www.wikio.com/business/media/cable_tv_networks/viacom - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"And Google doesnt fail B because the clip itself does NOT generate the revenue, the page and the page ads do."
Man you are stupid. The clips get people to see the advertising. So I can show a movie on tv without paying the copyright holder? The ads made me money, not the movie. -
Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is