| more american competition at it's best 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? |
|
 CabalPremium
join:2007-01-21
Austin, TX
 ·Suddenlink
| said 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.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply 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.
--
I thought I made a mistake once but I was wrong |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply 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.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply 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.) 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. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply 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.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
|
|
| reply to pnh102
You'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. |
|
 brandonSome truth included in this post.Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS | reply to nasadude
said 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. |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | reply to Kearnstd
said 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?
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
 ff1324Everybody Goes HomePremium
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to russotto
said 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.
--
The funny thing about firemen...night and day they're always firemen
»www.stlfire.com |
|
| reply 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.... |
|
| reply to ff1324
There'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 HomePremium
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
| Considering 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.
--
The funny thing about firemen...night and day they're always firemen
»www.stlfire.com |
|
 manfmmdPremium
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX
·AT&T Southwest
·CMA Access
| reply 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.
--
huh? | AIM | The beauty of ignorance is indescribable. |
|
| But 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.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
·Frontier FiOS
| reply 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. --
Go Colts |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply 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. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply 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?
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown |
|
 FiLPremium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | reply to ff1324
for 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 TrollPremium
join:2002-07-01
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to russotto
suck it viacom |
|
