Comments on: Viacom v. YouTube

By: Saffron Extracts

Saffron Extracts — Tue, 14 May 2013 03:20:53 +0000

We are a gaggle of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community.
Your site provided us with useful info to work on.

You have done a formidable task and our whole community shall be grateful to you.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 04:37:59 +0000

This is a complete invasion of privacy on the part of Viacom and our user information doesn’t have any relevance to their billion dollar lawsuit against Google. Google should be able to anatomize the user information before handing over 12 terabytes of personal information so my privacy and the privacy of millions like me are protected. I have a campaign that will force Viacom to allow Google/YouTube to protect us or 100,000 will boycott Viacom and all its subsidiaries: https://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/stop-viacom-from-invading-our-you-tube-privacy

By: Andrew Leonard

Andrew Leonard — Wed, 28 May 2008 03:12:12 +0000

Blah de blah. Two huge corporations arguing over cash. The internet democratizes the world in terms of visual and and audio works.

It used to be that actors and musicians got paid when they performed and not thousands of times over for one piece of work. If the initial investment outweighs the return it makes sense to not bother. Maybe this will save from all the garbage that is produced and peddled to us as entertainment. Personally I believe that any work that is good enough will make money.

Like it or not the genie is out of the lamp.

By: Erik Schmidt

Erik Schmidt — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:00:48 +0000

I've been covering the case at Tech LawForum, where we also have just added a video of a panel discussion held at SCU Law, in which the participants discussed the DMCA Section 512 "Safe Harbor" provisions and how they relate to the Viacom/YouTube case.

By: tekel

tekel — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:19:18 +0000

oop, found it:

http://news.justia.com/cases/337988/

By: tekel

tekel — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:16:37 +0000

Is anyone blogging the progress of this lawsuit? Does anyone know where I can find the pleadings that have been filed so far?

By: Bark Uban

Bark Uban — Tue, 01 May 2007 22:18:00 +0000

Why does Mark Cuban have credibility?
He got rich off the dot-com bubble, and his Broadcast.com content doesn't exist at all on the 'net anymore. It was popular for about two years, then vanished *entirely*. There's no trace left.

I really don't understand why I should take Mark Cuban seriously. Someone, please explain.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 06:12:51 +0000

I got as far as Joshua on the comments ("works that shine")and had to say something. The idea that

"Viacom doesn�t wish to wipe out your shiny content, they just want Google to stop trespassing on their rights of distribution."

is wrong in the broader picture. Viacom wants to control both distibution and content. As Fricklas stated in the Post:

"Does YouTube have "knowledge" of copyrighted material on its site? Does it have the "right and ability to control" the content?"

So what sort of content would we have under the policed system of which Viacom is a leading player; MTV? Fox?
YouTube and the plethora of video sites that it has spawned (yes the genie is of out of the bottle now and 1 billion dollars is not gonna put it back, de ja vu Napster) provides content that brings the cultural property of everybody as human beings to within reach of millions. I know as an English speaking father raising a family in a non-Englsih speaking country YouTube has allowed me to provide media content for language learnng for my children on a daily basis. Media where I can choose the content and which develop the values in my child which I hold myself: documentaries, art, science history and culture from around the world.
The money that Viacom is throwing at this is the cork which their sweaty hands are trying desperatly to fit back in the bottle of 18th century property rights ("DMCA to shift the burden of identifying infringing content on the author")

By: Erica C.

Erica C. — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:02:39 +0000

This is probably not a popular opinion, but until transmitted video can be encoded in such a way to prevent re-capture from its original format and redistribution without the copyright holder's permission, then sites like YouTube need to adopt policies like that of iFilm that review the video content before it is posted. I contend that YouTube does not qualify for the safe harbour clause in the DMCA and by refusing to take responsibilty for what is posted on their site they are opening themselves up not only to ethical scrutiny, but a lawsuit. Viacom is totally within its rights to seek damages and discourage the practice of turning a blind eye to illegal activity.

By: Patrick Baird

Patrick Baird — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:29:16 +0000

Prof. Lessig,
I can't help but see the irony in YouTube's tagline of "Broadcast Yourself", given the fact that their most heavily viewed content tends to be copyrighted material that they don't own and that is at the heart of the latest Viacom v. YouTube battle.
I must agree, this lawsuit is probably a strategic move after negotiations halted. I think it's unfair of the DMCA to shift the burden of identifying infringing content on the author, as it seems counterintuitive and against the goals of copyright law.
I'm fascinated to see what the results will be, particularly if this case goes to court and isn't settled.
As a suggestions, I think it would be beneficial for YouTube to create an "opt-in" system that content creators can use to post copyrighted materials, with some sort of revenue sharing component. YouTube has the technology and capacity to adequately provide the service it provides, and a logical next step would be to do it in an ethically sound model that respects authors and content creators and shares. Google is already doing it with their advertising programs for websites, it doesn't seem like a far stretch for them to provide revenue sharing for video content.

Best,
Patrick