  Mike
Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA |
Mike
Mod
2007-Mar-13 10:23 am
Oh darn.Opened at $85, first sale at $100.
IT LOST 61 CENTS... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! | |
|
 |  RockCake
Premium Member
join:2005-07-12
Woodbridge, VA |
RockCake
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 11:07 am
Re: Oh darn.Another week, another lawsuit. What else is new? | |
|
| |  NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working?
MVM
join:2003-02-18
San Jose, CA |
Re: Oh darn.Probably some more American Idol/[Insert mindless TV show here] episodes on YouTube.  | |
|
| | | Relic (banned)
join:2003-09-29 |
Relic (banned)
Member
2007-Mar-13 11:43 pm
Re: Oh darn.There were, for example, plenty of South Park, Daily Show, and Adult Swim videos on YouTube, which were all promptly removed, citing Viacom copyright.
I see Viacom possibly winning a lawsuit, but for nothing even remotely close to a billion dollars, since that is beyond excessive for any supposed "copyright infringement". | |
|
| |
Oh my.........Way to go!! | |
|
1 recommendation |
more american competition at it's bestalright! twice on the same day - perfect example of the american way of doing business: don't compete on price, product or service, sue their @sses!
ain't America great? | |
|
|  Cabal
Premium Member
join:2007-01-21 |
Cabal
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 10:44 am
Re: more american competition at it's bestsaid by nasadude:don't compete on price, product or service, sue their @sses! Which category does illegally using the copyrighted works of others for profit fall under? (Note: for reference, this is still theft.) Just because someone is stealing from your store doesn't mean you business model is flawed. It means you put a big guy with a baseball bat at the front of the store and protect your assets. | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: more american competition at it's bestsaid by Cabal:Which category does illegally using the copyrighted works of others for profit fall under? (Note: for reference, this is still theft.) Just because someone is stealing from your store doesn't mean you business model is flawed. It means you put a big guy with a baseball bat at the front of the store and protect your assets. Bzzzzzzzztttt! Sorry, wrong answer - copyright infringement is infringement, not theft. What got "stolen"? Did the appearance of a clip on youtube make the clip disappear from viacom archives? I'm not arguing viacom doesn't have the right to take legal action, just pointing out that this appears to be the current, default action that all the big media companies take in these circumstances. And I'm also sorry, but it does appear big media business strategy is flawed for the digital age. The sooner they realize that and stop suing the bejesus out of anyone that does something they don't like, the sooner they will start making MORE MONEY. | |
|
| | |  brandonSome truth included in this post.
Premium Member
join:2003-03-31
Ocean Springs, MS |
brandon
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 1:36 pm
Re: more american competition at it's bestsaid by nasadude:I'm not arguing viacom doesn't have the right to take legal action, just pointing out that this appears to be the current, default action that all the big media companies take in these circumstances. You might have a point if Viacom didn't first try to reach an agreement with Youtube, and then try to have them set up content filtering, and then demand that they remove everything from the site that belonged to Viacom BEFORE they decided to sue. This was hardly the "default" action. They gave google plenty of opportunity. | |
|
| | |  manfmmd
Premium Member
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX |
to nasadude
said by nasadude:said by Cabal:Which category does illegally using the copyrighted works of others for profit fall under? (Note: for reference, this is still theft.) Just because someone is stealing from your store doesn't mean you business model is flawed. It means you put a big guy with a baseball bat at the front of the store and protect your assets. Bzzzzzzzztttt! Sorry, wrong answer - copyright infringement is infringement, not theft. What got "stolen"? Did the appearance of a clip on youtube make the clip disappear from viacom archives? I'm not arguing viacom doesn't have the right to take legal action, just pointing out that this appears to be the current, default action that all the big media companies take in these circumstances. And I'm also sorry, but it does appear big media business strategy is flawed for the digital age. The sooner they realize that and stop suing the bejesus out of anyone that does something they don't like, the sooner they will start making MORE MONEY. What got stolen? Copyrighted works. Ask around the DI Forum and ask them if they consider the "theft" of their photographs to be stealing? 99.99% of them will come back and tell you that it IS "theft". Just because the copyrighted works are owned by "BIG BUSINESS", doesn't mean that they're not protected. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: more american competition at it's bestBut you can't just throw out the word 'theft', when a COPY does not deprive the original owner of a work. The correct word is 'infringement', and the supreme court ruled that infringement is NOT THEFT. They are two totally different things, and trying to describe it as 'theft' puts a negative connotation on an act that is truly victimless. Let's call it what it is, copyright infringement, not theft. The penalties for copyright infringement are ALWAYS civil, not criminal. Trying to make a civil crime into a criminal crime is just not right. | |
|
| | | |
3 recommendations |
to manfmmd
said by manfmmd:What got stolen? Copyrighted works. Ask around the DI Forum and ask them if they consider the "theft" of their photographs to be stealing? 99.99% of them will come back and tell you that it IS "theft". Just because the copyrighted works are owned by "BIG BUSINESS", doesn't mean that they're not protected. Well as much as you would like it to be theft and as much as the media industry would like it to be theft, IT IS NOT THEFT. The law says it is copyright infringement (assuming it meets the req'ts and is not parody, comment, educational or other fair use). If you want to call it theft, get the law changed. and a pirate is a person that robs people on the high seas. | |
|
| |  cdruGo Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN |
to Cabal
said by Cabal:Which category does illegally using the copyrighted works of others for profit fall under? (Note: for reference, this is still theft.) Technically I believe Google's responsibility is to comply with a DMCA take down notice. Google themselves did not post the video, a user did. If Viacom submitted a DMCA request and it wasn't followed, then we have a case. | |
|
| |  jap
Premium Member
join:2003-08-10
038xx |
jap to Cabal
Premium Member
2007-Mar-18 5:18 pm
to Cabal
said by Cabal:Which category does illegally using the copyrighted works of others for profit fall under? (Note: for reference, this is still theft.) Suits are civil, theft is tried in criminal courts. As of last year, overt filesharing of copyrighted material (within the US) is a crime, but by the endusers sharing the files, not by hosting servers. Hosts are exposed on the civil side if they they fail to exhibit due-diligence in notification and take-down. People have been abusing the distinction *way* to much of late. | |
|
| | |
to nasadude
said by nasadude:alright! twice on the same day - perfect example of the american way of doing business: don't compete on price, product or service, sue their @sses! ain't America great? Agreed. It's a lot easier that way. Plus, you don't have to get off your dead asses to do anything. Just pick up the phone and call your lawyers. | |
|
|  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
to nasadude
This is a pretty open and shut case. Viacom owns the content in question and can direct how said content should be distributed. | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: more american competition at it's bestYou're right that it's open and shut, but not for Viacom. Google has safe harbor protection under DMCA section 512 provided they respond to takedown requests. So Viacom can pound sand. | |
|
| | |  ff1324Everybody Goes Home
Premium Member
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day |
ff1324
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 2:13 pm
Re: more american competition at it's bestsaid by russotto: provided they respond to takedown requests. Which Viacom has made and YouTube has not complied with those requests. You might remember where YouTube was supposed to filter their content to catch Viacom content? Yeah...they aren't. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: more american competition at it's bestThere's no requirement in the DMCA to filter any content to take advantage of the safe harbor. It's up to the copyright holder to send a takedown notice for each alleged infringmenet. | |
|
| | | | | ff1324Everybody Goes Home
Premium Member
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day |
ff1324
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 3:25 pm
Re: more american competition at it's bestConsidering that YouTube agreed in early February to remove all of Viacom's material and to enact filtering software to prevent posting of Viacom's content...it would seem that Google has been given notice. | |
|
| | | | | |  FiL25
Premium Member
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD |
FiL25
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 7:53 pm
Re: more american competition at it's bestfor MAYBE a couple of clips...but Google/ YouTube isn't above the law.
They still have to comply with how the rules. Meaning every infraction Viacom sees has to be a accompanied with a notice of removal. Thats prolly thousands of infringments, but still, they each have to have notices. Hence why it was said "Viacom can pound sand" and Google's in a safe harbor. They DID in fact TRY to filter out content, ven content they weren't "notified" about. Yep, pound away. | |
|
| | | | |  GodTHE Dslr Troll
Premium Member
join:2002-07-01
Colorado Springs, CO |
to russotto
suck it viacom | |
|
| | | | |
to russotto
Wouldn't Viacom have to prove they lost revenue due to these clips being on YouTube? No, I don't know.. that's why I'm asking.... | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ |
to nasadude
because people watching on Youtube is just so harmfull, whats viacom going to do next? sue Tivo because downloads and Tivo both remove ads. | |
|
| |  RayW
Premium Member
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT |
RayW
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 1:54 pm
Re: more american competition at it's bestsaid by Kearnstd:whats viacom going to do next? sue Tivo because downloads and Tivo both remove ads. Did not someone try something like that a few years ago? | |
|
| fiberguy2My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20 |
to nasadude
What I don't understand is why do they always go for the un-reasonable amounts of money.. haven't they heard of restraining orders these days? or are they only reserved for the living together out of wedlock white trash I got pregnant and my dead beat boy friend is beating me class of citizens? | |
|
| |
I should be able to sue Viacom for emotional damageAfter hearing these news I almost went into shock. I'm suing them tomorrow for 1 Trillion in massive emotional damage. It is all BS.  | |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
1 recommendation |
morbo
Member
2007-Mar-13 10:34 am
corporate jealousyyes, youtube must get their act together to appease viacom, but it's hilarious how all the existing players despise google and their unique approach to the market. not just youtube but all their offerings. it's like corporate peer pressure/jealousy. the corporate GREED that google and their stock price and value generates is amazing.
the people like google and their "do no evil" policy. how many people can say the same for AT&T and their "spy on everyone for the NSA" policy? | |
|
|  Jehu
Premium Member
join:2002-09-13
MA |
Jehu
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 11:36 am
Re: corporate jealousysaid by morbo:yes, youtube must get their act together to appease viacom, but it's hilarious how all the existing players despise google and their unique approach to the market. I'm not sure profiting from other people's copyrighted works is really "unique." I'm also not sure it's "greed" on the part of viacom to say "hey google, stop stuffing your pockets with cash based on our stuff." If there's one thing the Google is great at, it's perpetuating the popular delusion that they are some kind of non-profit org. | |
|
| | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 |
morbo
Member
2007-Mar-13 12:34 pm
Re: corporate jealousyyoutube aside, google is doing most everything right in the market.
it is funny that you believe the public is somehow delusional in their belief that google is a good company.
until they violate my privacy by giving the NSA unfettered access to phone and internet traffic for [wink wink] merger approval, then i trust them. violate that trust and all bets are off. | |
|
| | | Jehu
Premium Member
join:2002-09-13
MA |
Jehu
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 4:19 pm
Re: corporate jealousysaid by morbo:it is funny that you believe the public is somehow delusional in their belief that google is a good company. It's funny that you think I said that. And, of course they don't give away unfettered access to internet traffic. You have to pay them to get that kind of information. | |
|
| | | | FiL25
Premium Member
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD |
FiL25
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 7:58 pm
Re: corporate jealousy"It's funny that you think I said that"
uhh...you DID say that. Proclaiming "everyone thinks their a non-profit" really means people percieve them to be a 'good' company, or is there some other meaning as to why you would say "non-profit"?
w.e.
All I know is Google is one of those companies that really looks out for its employees and has helped transform the net into the powerful beast it is today. Or am I delusional? | |
|
| | | | | Jehu
Premium Member
join:2002-09-13
MA |
Jehu
Premium Member
2007-Mar-14 11:15 am
Re: corporate jealousyyes, non-profit is not a qualifier of a good or bad company, just what the business agenda of a company is.
Google is a for-profit company. Their interests are to make money for Google. This does not make them a bad company. Google's money-making-mechanisms are so "transparent" that few average joes stop to think how they are bursting with cash.
Here's one way, throwing ads on a site (you tube) that Viacom alleges is infringing.
Google is not an Internet innovator (beyond a fine search engine), they are an advertising, analytics, trend, marketing innovator for Internet traffic. | |
|
 decadent7
Premium Member
join:2002-04-02
Piscataway, NJ |
decadent7
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 10:41 am
How to become millionaire?Buy YouTube ... | |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
2 recommendations |
Anyone not see this coming?Gee, I know I wasn't the first person to say that YouTube would be a target if they were bought out. No one sued YouTube before because they didn't have anything. Now that Google has them, and they have a ton of cash, they are going to be a target of opportunity. | |
|
|
••••• |
| |
aboottime
Anon
2007-Mar-13 10:54 am
About timethese companies were taken to task on their shameful business practices.
I hope Viacom gets the entire 1 Billion. | |
|
|
| fiberguy2My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20 |
Re: One BEELLION dollars!!!You better remove this picture... I'm sure it's copyright owners will be knocking on your door very soon for a beelion dollars. | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ |
to koitsu
yea but for one picture you can tell them to blow it out their ass. | |
|
jyc76
join:2006-10-18
Beverly Hills, CA
1 edit |
jyc76
Member
2007-Mar-13 11:01 am
Gilmore Girls/Youtube suedThis just happened on Gilmore Girls too..
"
``The growth of YouTube, the growth of online, is so fundamental that these companies are going to be forced to work with and in the Internet,'' Schmidt said in an interview on ``Conversations with Judy Woodruff'' at Google headquarters in Mountain View, California.
"
The things is that these old media companies want it all locked down with DRM, usually Windows Media and restricted to Microsoft Windows XP or Vista. Oh you have Windows 98? Sorry...
When was the last time anyone actually watched a video on MTV's website since Youtube came out, without Digital Restrictions Management? On top of that, it was restricted to deny access to anyone outside of the US. | |
|
|
••• |
| |
siouxmoux
Anon
2007-Mar-13 11:15 am
WTF Youtube an for-profit organization ??When did Youtube Current Business Model made a Profit for Google?? | |
|
2 recommendations |
what is 'massive inentional'The only way I could buy that line, is if youtube actually told the kids to post copyrighted stuff. Otherwise, youtube is just a service, and deserves the safe harbor provisions. If Viacom wants to PROTECT their intellectual property, then they need to go through the proper channels, and file a DMCA request for EVERY SINGLE 'infringing' use. As long as youtube responds and deletes said requests, they are in the clear. They GOT the DMCA, now they have to live by it. It's NOT YOUTUBES job to filter stuff, it's VIACOM'S job to monitor, and respond to infringing materials. | |
|
| brandonSome truth included in this post.
Premium Member
join:2003-03-31
Ocean Springs, MS |
brandon
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 1:41 pm
Re: what is 'massive inentional'said by karlmarx:The only way I could buy that line, is if youtube actually told the kids to post copyrighted stuff. Otherwise, youtube is just a service, and deserves the safe harbor provisions. If Viacom wants to PROTECT their intellectual property, then they need to go through the proper channels, and file a DMCA request for EVERY SINGLE 'infringing' use. As long as youtube responds and deletes said requests, they are in the clear. They GOT the DMCA, now they have to live by it. It's NOT YOUTUBES job to filter stuff, it's VIACOM'S job to monitor, and respond to infringing materials. And it's because of the ridiculousness of requiring Viacom to police YouTube that the DMCA will be altered or this case will be an exception that goes in favor of Viacom. | |
|
Matt9
join:2004-01-29
New Bedford, MA |
Matt9
Member
2007-Mar-13 11:33 am
...No offense, but I agree with the lawsuit. I use YouTube everyday. I go there for music videos, TV clips, etc. etc. But I do recognize that it is illegal and it is copyright infringement. And so far, besides removing videos at the companies request, YouTube has really made no considerable effort to eliminate copyrighted videos; because that's how it makes its profits. I can easily see how this could be argued in court. | |
|
|  KAD ImagingJust Shoot It
Premium Member
join:2002-09-21
Hialeah, FL |
Re: ...said by Matt9:No offense, but I agree with the lawsuit. I use YouTube everyday. I go there for music videos, TV clips, etc. etc. But I do recognize that it is illegal and it is copyright infringement. And so far, besides removing videos at the companies request, YouTube has really made no considerable effort to eliminate copyrighted videos; because that's how it makes its profits. I can easily see how this could be argued in court. Uh...HOW exactly is YT making profits off video clips?? Last I checked, uploads were free, downloads were free and no $$ changes hands at any time. They only option they have is the sidebar ads that are being blocked anyway?? I seem to be confused here. I've not given YT a cent since their inception. That's like saying BitTorrent is profiting off their torrents??  | |
|
| | Matt9
join:2004-01-29
New Bedford, MA |
Matt9
Member
2007-Mar-14 6:43 pm
Re: ...Traffic. Website hits. The advertisements all over YouTube's pages bring Google millions. The same way MySpace makes it's cash.
Everyone knows YouTube would die out if there was nothing but personal blog videos up there. They go there to see episode promnos, clips, music videos, things like that. That's all copyrighted. Remove that and nothing is left of YouTube. | |
|
 r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 11:47 am
????Why wouldnt YouTube just pull all the viacom content?
If viacom does not want the free advertisment then YouTube should just pull their crap so they do not have to pay 1 billion dollars. | |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
1 edit
1 recommendation |
Ok Viacom...... you struck a deal with Joost, where's the freakin content?
Lots of hype, no sunstance... WTF Chuck?
Start piping the ACTUAL content and just pound YT into the weeds.
I'll watch some of it... as long as it's worth a damn. | |
|
 pokesphIt Is Almost Fast
Premium Member
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
1 recommendation |
pokesph
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 12:14 pm
spew tubeAFAIK spewtube doesn't post copyrighted items, USERS do. so.. as said above, file a DMCA request to remove what belongs to viacom and thats that.
No need to sue.. oh wait, thats FREE (well less costly) advertising for viacom.. my bad | |
|
1 recommendation |
Cash or charge?Always nice to watch this stuff unfold. Could or would a judge just pull the plug?
There are so many youtube'ish sites out there. It seems like just yesterday I was going to Youtube for the first time and thinking "what a great site".
No viacom content on Joost yet. | |
|
| |
Says it all"YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google,"
Above says it all.
I hope Google is hammered over this. Google could have avoided this situation simply by taking a lesson from EBay. I am an EBay seller and had a drop in sales of wedding balloons. The problem was some dirt bag with dismal feed back rip off my listing photos. I contacted EBay and the offending listing was removed in hours.
I can sympathize with Viacom; they have every right to protect their property. In addition, I feel copyright issue, blatant narcissism, and plagiarism will be the downfall of Youtube. Not only users are ripping off Viacom but also each other, especially users of you tube who will take the same poor video insert their own splash screen and post it as their own work.
PS. Viacom should be careful MTV2* had ripped off a video form Anthrocon 2006 as part of their splash screen.
* I believe it was MTV2 (havoc?) or one of the other music networks | |
|
|
•••••••••• |
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06 |
Rick5
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 12:37 pm
I'm really still somewhat surprisedthat Google ever took on this kind of potential liability in acquiring You Tube.
To buy a business who's virtually in business for the sole reason of distributing others copyrighted works just seems like a VERY bad business decision from the start.
And then, to follow it up with what seems to be a whole lot of inaction in policing the site to remove these works seems even more bizarre a decision.
Obviously, Viacom now see's google as a potential target with their much deeper pockets. And Google has virtually set the stage for that to be the case.
Let's face it. You Tube wouldn't be much if it weren't for the copyrighted stuff they distribute. I doubt many really want to see someone else's kids birthday party videos. I guess that's why google has been so slow to act but how long can they until it catches up to them?
A billion dollar verdict against them might do the trick. | |
|
|
••••• |
| |
Ok...I'm sure this will change a lot of things... | |
|
|  Trinijoy
Premium Member
join:2005-09-12
Brick, NJ |
Trinijoy
Premium Member
2007-Mar-13 1:55 pm
Re: Ok...If this keeps up they are going to shut youtube.com down. | |
|
|
|
