USMCBillsFan Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Suing for 1 BILLION!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 good for them. Google has shown time and time again that they really don't care much about the concept of copyright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 good for them. Google has shown time and time again that they really don't care much about the concept of copyright. What's Google supposed to do about it? They provide a transmission medium, they don't claim ownership to content. Next they can sue NEC because they make monitors which display pirated movies. Perhaps they can also sue Dell for making the computers that play the audio that people choose to download on their own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Google should have known better than to buy YouTube for $1.65B, when it was allowing the unauthorized use of copyrighted content. This was evident to me years ago. But then again, Viacom might have just waited for someone big to buy them, before suing for $1B. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 This is far too complicated an issue to discuss intelligently here. Let me just say, since the Google acquisition, YouTube has eliminated a LOT of copyright protected content. Due to this, Youtube is now nearly useless to me. Metacafe.com Dailymotion.com vidilife.com grouper.com get much more of my traffic, now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 This is far too complicated an issue to discuss intelligently here. Let me just say, since the Google acquisition, YouTube has eliminated a LOT of copyright protected content. Due to this, Youtube is now nearly useless to me. This is far from "too complicated." YouTube still, and especially prior to Google's acquisition (and yes they've removed a lot of copyrighted content, but it's "too little, too late") is and was showing copyrighted material without permission. End of issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 This is far from "too complicated." YouTube prior to Google's acquisition (and yes they've removed a lot of copyrighted content, but it's "too little, too late") was showing copyrighted material without permission. End of issue. If you think it's that simple of an issue, you are the best evidence of my original statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 If you think it's that simple of an issue, you are the best evidence of my original statement. I agree, it's not simple at all. My opinion is that Google/YouTube is providing a medium or a forum for public display of video. At the end of the day, the participants in that forum are responsible for what they decide to make publicly available (they know the risk when doing so). Google's removal of copyrighted material is really a gesture of goodwill and willingness to cooperate to the extent that they reasonably can, without enduring what in there eyes is unnecessary hardship. It's going to a very interesting case and will set a precedent. At the end of the day, though, I think the only thing that will come of this whole thing is more regulation. At that point, these types of sites will simply move overseas. Dedicated server or 12 in Sealand, anyone? http://www.sealandgov.org/ Edit: I'm no way a lawyer.... but if anyone here is, I'd love to hear some opinions on this one. Close to my line of work. -Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 This won't be a simple case but at it's heart it's simply a matter of stealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 This won't be a simple case but at it's heart it's simply a matter of stealing. But who is doing the stealing? No one's questioning whether or not posting copyrighted material is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 But who is doing the stealing? No one's questioning whether or not posting copyrighted material is wrong. Actually, there are questions of shared ownership and "fair use". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 What's Google supposed to do about it? They provide a transmission medium, they don't claim ownership to content. Next they can sue NEC because they make monitors which display pirated movies. Perhaps they can also sue Dell for making the computers that play the audio that people choose to download on their own? Google could have a solution to prevent copyrighted content on the site by next week but they choose not to (notice how you can't find boobs on youtube - they obviously have filtering capability). Instead they put ads on other peoples content, create market share using other peoples content and then try to bully the media companies into making deals with them - all on the backs of the content they paid hundreds of millions to create. They did the same things with books - they scan entire copyrighted books without permission and then say "if you don't want us to do it just tell us". Gee, YOU ARE GOOGLE - why don't you let people opt-in to your service. mcjeff - this is a far cry from a dell monitor - this is someone making a business off of someone elses stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Google could have a solution to prevent copyrighted content on the site by next week but they choose not to (notice how you can't find boobs on youtube - they obviously have filtering capability). Instead they put ads on other peoples content, create market share using other peoples content and then try to bully the media companies into making deals with them - all on the backs of the content they paid hundreds of millions to create. Its not filtering technology. People can report anything as inappropriate, and YouTube has a 24/7 staff which reviews this as they come in. They do a prompt job of removing such videos. The one filtering technology that might work is from Audible Magic Corp., which late last year obtained rights to a system for scanning video clips and looking for signature vectors -- such as a unique digital fingerprint -- to compare with vectors stored in a database. MySpace is currently testing this. And how the hell is google "bullying" anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Google could have a solution to prevent copyrighted content on the site by next week but they choose not to (notice how you can't find boobs on youtube - they obviously have filtering capability). Instead they put ads on other peoples content, create market share using other peoples content and then try to bully the media companies into making deals with them - all on the backs of the content they paid hundreds of millions to create. They did the same things with books - they scan entire copyrighted books without permission and then say "if you don't want us to do it just tell us". Gee, YOU ARE GOOGLE - why don't you let people opt-in to your service. mcjeff - this is a far cry from a dell monitor - this is someone making a business off of someone elses stuff. They actually have a full staff of people handling reports, it's not a "find the boob in the video" filter. The books thing? I see that differently. They could easily lose a lawsuit there as they are providing the content as well as the medium. YouTube, though? It's just a forum. They themselves aren't providing anything and they've done a respectable job at policing their community. Yep, going to be interesting!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Actually, there are questions of shared ownership and "fair use". Go on..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Google could have a solution to prevent copyrighted content on the site by next week but they choose not to (notice how you can't find boobs on youtube - they obviously have filtering capability). Instead they put ads on other peoples content, create market share using other peoples content and then try to bully the media companies into making deals with them - all on the backs of the content they paid hundreds of millions to create. They did the same things with books - they scan entire copyrighted books without permission and then say "if you don't want us to do it just tell us". Gee, YOU ARE GOOGLE - why don't you let people opt-in to your service. mcjeff - this is a far cry from a dell monitor - this is someone making a business off of someone elses stuff. What is wrong with that? They seem to be following the rules? Like the article said, not really sure if it is true, they are complying with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act... Alexander Macgillivray, associate general counsel for products and intellectual property at Google, said YouTube was protected under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which gives online service providers protection from copyright lawsuits so long as they comply with requests to remove unauthorized material. I guess the lawsuit will determine how they interpret that the act... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Is this rumor true? That the 1998 act was actually helped put in place buy none other than Sony... Hence now Viacom... And is it true that most of this goes back to the Beta/VHS war? Not sure where I heard this... But, it would seem it is biting Viacom in the arse... They don't like the rules Sony help put in place... So they will sue to get it changed... If all this past lineage is true... Why are they whining?... Just man-up to it... They want their cake and eat it too? Somebody fill me in... Too lazy to confirm this... I wouldn't find this rumor all too shocking... Since it seems be the very standard/dishonorable way (what Viacom is doing with its lawyers) to "work" the system in your favor... Who's zoomin' who?... Of course I may be all full of schit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Hey! What did I say? Stop this discussion NOW! OK, you guys won't listen to me. I'll monitor this thread for a laugh (or, perhaps, insight) and to throw an occasional log into the fire. So here we go: Remember that Google did not create YouTube, rather they recently acquired them. Google did not initiate the questionable YouTube practices...but, they knew what they were getting when they bought it. There's no "Good Guy"/"Bad Guy" here, I don't believe. Both of these companies engage in questionable practices and use power and intimidation to bully other companies into deals. It's interesting, IMO, that Viacom sat relatively silent while THOUSANDS of copyrighted shows and clips were uploaded onto YouTube (some might even believe they were complicit/involved in some of that uploading). Then, YouTube (a minor independent company) was acquired by the giant Google...and all hell broke loose. Look, I'm no expert on this situation. What I know about this you could drink out of a shotglass. But, I do know that this is a VERY complex situation that seemingly has copyright protection at its core...but is really not about copyright violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 And how the hell is google "bullying" anyone? step 1) they turn a blind eye to copyrighted content that they could easily remove or filter. step 2) they create a huge user base, largely on the backs of unauthorized content paid for by other people setp 3) they try to bully media companies into signing deals with them, using the "there is no other game in town" angle. Mark Cuban has a very good take on this: http://www.blogmaverick.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 simple solution..have google channels...ie viacom channell, nhl channel, nfl channel etc and share revenue...sounds easy to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts