YouTube won the lawsuit against Viacom
 

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/...st-viacom.html

Discuss. :Oh crap

Edit: Viacom is appealing of course.

I blame brazzers

cue gideongallery, the Delorian and a VCR in 5....4......3....

I just time shifted my pole and jizzed all over my tube script.

Lots not mentioned there ..inc Viacom admitting they upload a shit load of clips and stuff to leech youtube traffic and get exposure for thier shows......in fact they admitted they uploaded so much stuff they couldnt tell at times what they had uploaded and what they hadnt.....:1orglaugh

The case was rocky to start with so doesnt surprise me when the full case details are read.

Hopefully once it gets to the appellate level, the gray areas in the law will be clarified a bit.

The unfortunate thing is that this could have been a pioneering case to stop piracy, but because of Viacom's shitty tactics, this could set anti-piracy BACK quite a bit instead. Way to go assholes!

Just saw this...

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2...st-viacom.html

I hope so:2 cents::thumbsup

YouTube does have some rather advanced filtering and they do that thumb printing thing for studios - hard to uploaded piracy then. This makes it rather set in stone why they will never lose. Then as long as Google took down the legit complaints that made it through and of course had to filter through the bogus ones, they really had no chance of losing the case.

I agree...hence this case really becomes youtube v viacom......cant see any major benchmark/result getting set by its outcome. :Oh crap

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

Considering the recent news that Youtube original staff was uploading copyrighted videos to the site, I thought for sure the safe harbour wouldn't apply and Google/Youtube would lose this. I'm rather surprised.
WG

I'm not too shocked. I would imagine in the next few years we will see changes made to the DMCA safe harbor rules.

It's not over until the appeals process is exhausted. This lower court decision is BS.

me too. me too. :pimp

This is a great victory for those that create nothing yet like to believe they know what's best for those that do.

i agree, that is a law, and what else we can say?

I agree with WG. They even admitted it. That judge is an idiot.

rogue employees :upsidedow

the simple fact that an opinion was rendered is a benchmark, the legal term is precedent.



pending appeal, of course.

are you sure your not misrepesenting "knowledge" with "action"

viacomm did leak emails where one of the founders argued that business was built on copyright infringement, but choose to ignore the response that pointed out the fair use (non infringing ) nature of the upload.


or are you attributing viacomm hidden self upload as something that youtube was doing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8575666.stm

Lol @ DMCA. That fucking law basically sunk the world.

Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! If youtube finally wins this, it's a win for all those stealing tube sites as well.

I wouldn't say that. Big companies like Viacom don't like to lose. I think Biden's press conference earlier this week about their supposed upcoming war on piracy shows how these big companies influence policy. I would guess that there are lobbyists hard at work trying to get lawmakers to change the DMCA. It won't surprise me to see major changes to the DMCA made in the next few years.

Without it, the internet as we know it wouldn't exist. There could be no message boards, article commenting, user uploading, facebook, twitter, youtube etc.

:1orglaugh

you really believe that the fabricated claims of loss that the MPAA studies claim are happening are going to survive discussion periods for the law

especially when their own studies " determined that some of those lost sales would have required a person to jump on a plane and fly half way around the world to buy the product."

and

the fair use economy that is threatened with such a change in the law is currently 10-15 times as big as the fabricated economic loss.

Youtube has many videos of live taped music performances and full music videos of music bands such as Yeah Yeah Yeahs.

I believe that big, powerful companies don't like to lose. When they play by the existing rules and lose they often then set out to change those rules. Viacom played by the rules and lost (some of it due to their own mistakes). I would not be shocked to hear they that and other media companies are pressing lawmakers to modify the rules.

We saw Biden and his press conference a few days ago declaring war on piracy. When the well connected, well paid lobbyist for Viacom sit down with various senators and members of congress they can make a very good argument why the law needs to be changed. I would venture to guess that most members of the house and senate have never even heard the term fair use. They don't care about fair use. They will hear Viacom tell them how much money they are losing and they will act.

It may not happen, but it won't surprise me at all if it does.

well it will be the first time that it does

every time such a law is proposed they have a congressional hearing to allow people who have a legitimate gripe with the law to put in their input

they can't simply ignore it because viacomm bribes them too, that would be a major political scandal.

go back and look at the original dmca before the congressional hearing there was no safe harbor provision. That was specifically put in to protect fair use and free speach.

and the fair use lobby is getting better

the current monopoly penalties for fair use abuse is one such proposal.
It actually a good one, because while copyright holders object to it (see how many times people said it was unfair when i brought it up)
the fact that it only applies if you abuse fair use, means that only copyright holders who want to use the new laws to destroy fair use have to worry about it.

can you imagine , viacomm stands in front of congress saying we need to change the law to make google responsible.

and google points out over 2k people who were "accidentally" taken down by viacomm DMCA takedown purge.

and that if the law changes to force google to use viacomm definition of infringement thousands of people will be censored.

The balance that would be fair, is that if you screw up and take away someone right to speak, you should lose that right to do that every again (put the content in the public domain)

if there is no insentive to be careful, then viacomm has proven they will send out shoddy notices.

i don't think your going to get the changes you want.

blame the TUBES, haha

in fact odds are you will end up bitching about the balancing clause in the new act.