Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL
| reply to 81399672
Re: He is dreaming
I'm sure Viacom's legal team is both larger and better paid than Google's.
And once again, whether you all want to admit it or not, Cuban is right on the money.
--
I have a shaved head, a goatee, and tatoos. Don't you realize the rules don't apply to me. |
|
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA
1 edit | And I'm sure you're wrong in both counts.
Google's lawyers can beat up Viacom's lawyers.
They'll settle. This is no different than Linksys vs Apple over iPhone. Negotiations stall, prompting a lawsuit. The fact that Viacom was in negotiations shows they aren't "that" pissed about the videos getting posted. They just want more money than what Google is offering and faster deployment of the filters. |
|
Lord_Black
join:2006-07-08
Walnut, CA
| Google's lawyers can beat up Viacom's lawyers.
And you base this on what?
They'll settle.
Grave mistake for Google if they do settle; it could open the door to many more settlements as other litigious companies will file lawsuits against them in the hopes of a quick settlement. |
|
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA
| Based on that Viacom's willingness to negotiate. Viacom wants a deal otherwise they wouldn't have bothered negotiating in the first place.
It's certainly not a mistake for Google to settle. That is how these price negotiations work. If it goes to trial and Viacom for some reason loses, their position to negotiate is forever over. Viacom isn't going to risk that. The lawsuit is only to push Google back to the negotiating table.
--
There's only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
|
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD
| Isn't Viacom one of the biggest busniess' in the world? As in the top 5 most powerful?
I know their a conglomerate, thats certainly true. I laughed when I read Jon Stewart's school text-book on world politics; naming Viacom one of the 5 companies that own the world...heh. Yea, Google can stand up to them!
But its not about that though...its about Google ALREADY complying with their requests to take down content. They TRIED, but your not going to be 100% succesful.
Even then, doesn't Viacom need to send INDIVIDUAL requests on each infraction? I thought that was the law regarding this matter? |
|
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA
3 edits | Google is the world's largest media company worth some $140 billion; far larger than Viacom at under $30 billion.
And with Google having 2X the profit margin as Viacom it is likely to stay that way.
Viacom doesn't need to make requests at all...they can sue right out of the box.
--
There's only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
|
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD
| Yea, but under DMCA and the Safe Harbor provision, and Im being specific to the content and actions taken to bring down said content, EACH infraction needs paper work to go along with it. Otherwise Goog can say "we ARE taking ish down" and Viacom can say "they AREN't doing a damn thing".
So with that said, each infraction needs that notification, something Viacom hasn't done. Essentially they can only sue on infractions they informed Goog and YT about. |
|
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA
1 edit | If Viacom wasn't interested in a deal they would simply sue. They would go around the DMCA right to Title 17.
--
There's only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
|
bac522
join:2003-08-04
Manchester, NH | reply to Wills
Lets see Viacom's Mkt Cap is $27.54 Billion, Googles is Mkt Cap: $139.31 billion. Wow you're right Viacom should have no problem outspending Google on lawyers  |
|
anomus
@rr.com
| reply to RideRed
It will settle somehow. Look at that vicious nasty fight between Blackberry and that fly by night patent holding company. The Judge persistently ordered both sides to settle until it finally happened. Both sides know if they hold out and force a judge to do some work, he will be pissed most at the more intransigent holdout. Verison has more to loose here since they are the agressor so a deal will ultimately be struck and Cuban is just a side line pain in the arse just like he is in the basketball games. But Cuban just wants to make more money so more power to him if his antics somehow actually fatten his payday. But he failed to discredit Youtube before the sale so smart people tend to see thru his trash talk. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Wills
As much as I hate many of the provisions in the D.M.C.A. one of the provisions, more-forward thinking then usual from our Congress-Critters, was the "Safe Harbour" provisions of the DMCA which basically protect ISP's, websites etc FROM LIABILITY DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF THE USERS.
Basically, under the DMCA YouTube is NOT responsible for copyright infringement as long as they comply with the provisions of the law which state that when notified about an offending clip, they remove it. WHICH THEY DO.
Viacom and others are just saying "Take down all our copyrighted stuff! Or We'll Sue!" and are not following the DMCA legal procedure for notifying YouTube of offending clips. Well actually, they are... they are forcing YouTube to pull clips, but at the same time they are saying "YouTube must never allow anything copyrighted to appear in the first place" which is far overstepping the bounds of the DMCA.
Personally, I don't see this as a lost case by any means. These challengers will have to prove that Google is willfully infringing to be able to win, and that seems hard to do given the videos posted are user submissions that are automatically posted much like posts on this message board.
Should BBR be liable because someone puts an copyrighted image as their avatar for example? Look over this site, you see it all the time. The answer is NO.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
