Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Businesses Google

YouTube AntiPiracy Policy Likened to 'Mafia Shakedown' 103

Posted by Zonk
from the i-hear-that's-a-growth-industry dept.
A C|Net article discusses reactions to YouTube's newly proposed antipiracy software policy. The company is now offering assistance for IP holders, allowing them to keep track of their content on the YouTube service ... if they sign up with the company for licensing agreements. A spokesman for Viacom (already in a fight with YouTube to take down numerous video clips) called this policy 'unacceptable', and another industry analyst likened it to a 'mafia shakedown.' YouTubes cites the challenges of determining ownership of a given video clip as the reason for this policy, and hopes that IP owners will cooperate in resolving these issues. Some onlookers also feel that these protestations are simply saber-rattling before an eventual deal: "'The debates are about negotiations more than anything else--who's going to pay whom and how much,' said Saul Berman, IBM's global media and entertainment strategy leader."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube AntiPiracy Policy Likened to 'Mafia Shakedown'

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    That you can use mafia tactics on the mafia? The media companies have been at this much longer.
  • by Buran (150348) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @02:15PM (#18061218)
    Every time I see a story like this, it just upsets me. It's going against our culture, which values sharing and building upon others' work, and making use of what we already have to create new things. What's the point of this? It's just tilting at windmills -- those values are so ingrained in us that they're not going to go away.
    • by PhysicsPhil (880677) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @02:59PM (#18061498)

      Every time I see a story like this, it just upsets me. It's going against our culture, which values sharing and building upon others' work, and making use of what we already have to create new things. What's the point of this? It's just tilting at windmills -- those values are so ingrained in us that they're not going to go away.

      I agree with you, but if you log on to YouTube many uploads there are nothing more than TV broadcasts stripped of commercials. Uploaders aren't creating anything, they're just engaging in copyright infringement. I think copyright laws need to be a little more relaxed about "clip-and-snip", where people genuinely create something new by piecing together other (copyrighted) stuff, but I have no patience with people whose idea of "sharing" is just wholesale redistribution of copyrighted material.

      • Every time I see a story like this, it just upsets me. It's going against our culture, which values sharing and building upon others' work, and making use of what we already have to create new things. What's the point of this? It's just tilting at windmills -- those values are so ingrained in us that they're not going to go away.

        I agree with you, but if you log on to YouTube many uploads there are nothing more than TV broadcasts stripped of commercials. Uploaders aren't creating anything, they're just en

    • by jfengel (409917) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @02:59PM (#18061502) Homepage Journal
      Another important feature of our culture is property rights: the idea that you can get rich by being smart in what you own. Laws ensure that if others want to use what they own they have to pay you, and because you're certain of that you'll invest in making and acquiring stuff. It's the essence of capitalism, and that investment in both intellectual and physical resources makes people rich.

      The term "intellectual property" incorporates both aspects of the culture and gets to the crux of the conflict: we share our intellect but do not share our property. But as intellectual property can be shared without rivalry, the process is upended.

      That's the answer to your question "What's the point?" We have two traditions in our culture: building on each other's work, and owning (and getting rich from) property. The easy sharing of information brings those two cultural values into conflict.

      Those who claim that the argument has already been settled in favor of sharing over property are (IMO) missing the fact that property has always been a crucial driver of innovation and investment. Many intellectual things are expensive to create, movies most obvious among them, because they incorporate physical elements (sets, cameras, lights) before they become mere bits to be shared. The movie industry continues to believe that they can make money off their "intellectual property" on the basis of selling it like traditional property. If you manage to convince them that they're wrong, it's more likely that they'll stop making movies than that they'll produce them and expect to be unable to recoup their expenses.

      The conflict of the two values will eventually produce a shift to a new order, and I don't know what that's going to look like.
      • by neax (961176) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @04:37PM (#18062156)

        I guess the confusion here lies in the distinction between physically property and intellectual property. Is is really fair that someone can have exclusive rights to an 'idea' or should they just just be able to make money out of the application of this idea? Copyrights inhibit growth. They discourage people from reusing good ideas and building on top of them. They encourage people to rebuild their own type of wheel. so where does this fit with IP? People need to be able to make money out of the work that they do, but perhaps the current system is flawed. No matter how much they fight piracy and sharing it will always exist, it is the nature of humans to share things. "hey John have you heard this great new album by band X? its great, ..no.... you can't listen to mine go buy your own".

        There will always be free riders looking for a free lunch.....as i have been in the past...and sometimes i still am. But i believe that ultimatley it is only good for the artist / producer or whatever it is that is getting ripped off. If you were a band, that made an album or a video clip, would you rather sell 10,000 albums and have 10,000 fans with no one sharing your material, or sell 10,000 albums and have them sharing your work and have 1 million fans? what is better for your music and your future in the industry? I think that being know and getting noticed counts more than actual sales. It will always eventually lead back to sales, ticket sales for concerts etc. Even if only 5,000 people bought the album because the rest copied it, if they share it they are promoting your band which is basically free marketing. That will always lead to sales.

        • by jfengel (409917) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @05:58PM (#18062652) Homepage Journal
          There are several different kinds of intellectual property. The closest thing to owning an "idea" is a patent, not a copyright. Patents are a whole different story; the idea is dubious, and the US patent office implementation of that idea is criminally negligent.

          Copyright is owning a particular work: a book, a song, a recording of a song, a movie. And you need to be very careful about making up your numbers here. It's very simple: I'd rather have 10k fans buy 10k albums than have 1,000k fans buy 5k albums. If the word-of-mouth advertising is so great, why did I sell half as many albums?

          Especially given the first thousand albums just go to the cost of recording. Studio time is expensive. Engineers are expensive. Mastering is expensive. Album art costs money, screen printing CDs costs money. And getting those first 10k fans to buy any copies of the album at all is expensive. Put an album out there on the web for free and nobody will download it until you play a few hundred gigs in which your money for the night MAYBE covers the gasoline it took to get there. (And god forbid the drummer should have a few beers.)

          Why yes, I have been a rock band promoter, and I do know where these numbers come from. If I want to PAY the band, God forbid, I have to sell 10k albums.

          Most of the things that are downloaded are things that somebody spent a LOT of money promoting in the first place. Most bands of the kind I've worked with would pay you to download their album.

          There's a lot to be said for developing new models; DRM is simply holding back the ocean with a broom. But I implore you, when justifying your downloading to yourself, not to pretend that you're somehow doing the band a service until you've looked at the economics a lot more closely.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by balloonhead (589759)
            Yes, your figures make sense. But why do unproven bands have money chucked at them (though not in their pockets) for tone-sided deals anyway? The recording time, engineering, mixing etc. don't have to be so expensive when they are essentially an unknown quantity. The fact that there is a large (and growing) number of bedroom sound engineers attests to the fact that, although the quality may not be quite up to the same standard, it can get pretty close - close enough that sales don't suffer (e.g. Daniel Bedi
      • by esme (17526) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @07:53PM (#18063248) Homepage

        Those who claim that the argument has already been settled in favor of sharing over property are (IMO) missing the fact that property has always been a crucial driver of innovation and investment.

        This isn't actually true. Our system of copyright is rather new, as the idea is only about as old as our country. Large scale works (opera, architecture, large paintings, manuscripts, etc. in those days) existed for centuries before copyright was invented.

        The old system relied on patronage. People with money and power supplied the capital needed for large projects, and hence called the shots on their production. I think this system could be resurrected pretty easily, since there are already a number of government and non-profit organizations that fund film and television productions now. I don't know if we'd ever have patronage-funded $100M-budget blockbusters, but I'm not sure that's an argument against the system.

        Also, and more broadly, our experiment with copyright started with a 14-year term. Given that the last works to enter the public domain were produced before my grand-parents were born, I think we've effectively established infinite copyright terms at this point. So I think the media conglomerates have effectively forfeited any moral right to copyright they may have had by stealing the public domain from us. After all, the enrichment of the public domain is the only excuse for giving creators a temporary monopoly in the first place.

        -Esme

      • Those have existed in their current form for about 15 years.

        And I'll believe that copyrights and patents are "property" right around the time that they're taxed the way real property is taxed.

        Until then, it's a load of crap.
      • by Arker (91948)
        Only rivalrous goods can properly be property.

        "IP" is not a branch of property, but a branch of privilege.
      • The whole point of copyright is that your work becomes public domain in exchange for a short (7-14 years originally) period when you are granted a privilege of its exclusive distribution. The notions that consumers should accept unnatural restrictions for their lifetime simply for the privilege of buying your stuff for whatever price you set is ridiculous and against our tradition of not having privileged aristocracy. Everyone should feel free to simply ignore copyrights and patents until some balance betwe
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FLEB (312391)
      Building upon != simply reposting
    • It's going against our culture, which values sharing and building upon others' work, and making use of what we already have to create new things.
      Which culture is this? You should have learned by now to post to slashdot.org *while* keeping in mind that your audience is *American*...
    • Your use of the phrase "Tilting at Windmills" is registered trademark The Estate of Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, and you are hereby required to cease using this phrase forthwith. Failure to comply will result in legal action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2.
  • Microsoft (Score:3, Funny)

    by BGatesFan (1065072) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @02:17PM (#18061238) Homepage
    I don't like YouTube because it doesn't Digitally Manage My Rights. I'd prefer YouTube if I had to do some sort of verification before watching every movie. This verification would ensure that I am using my Dell PC Solution running Windows Vista. Hopefully Microsoft will buy YouTube so that you'll only be able to access it using Internet Explorer 7/Windows Vista.

    Dude, You're Getting a Dell!
    • by LocalH (28506)
      Ok, can we have a (-1, Stupid) moderation option? I'd much appreciate it, thanks.
  • by plasmacutter (901737) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @02:18PM (#18061244)
    Funny, everyone else has to pay for their own enforcement.

    The public has to pay for police work in taxes, the government has to pay employees for studies, every major corporation has to pay their security guards and in most cases security system contractors to keep their buildings secure.

    The media industries should be no different. If they want others to be looking out for their interests, they should be paying those people for their troubles.
    • You do know that corporations pay taxes, right? And to top that off, they are owned by people, who pay taxes. Of course, the enforcement of rights has nothing to do with paying taxes. The police will still help protect you if your stuff is stolen even if you have owed very little or no taxes. That's the way it should be. Everyone certianly does not pay for their own enforcement any more directly than corporations do.
    • The media industries should be no different. If they want others to be looking out for their interests, they should be paying those people for their troubles.

      The owner of a copyrighted video is not and should not be obligated to make deals with every damn video sharing site just for the priviledge of having that copyright honored. It's quite obvious that as long as it is illegal to host those videos without permission from the owner, the sharing sites are alone responsible for their "troubles".

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Ansoni-San (955052)
        You have no idea of what you're talking about. This isn't about Youtube charging people before they'll comply with the law. The law says the media companies have to name everything they want taken down (also if I remember correctly with links to the offending material).

        The media companies want Youtube to do their work for them and blanketly take down any and all of their content because they don't want to have to search themselves.
        The law doesn't legally allow for this kind of copyright enforcement so Yo
    • They do they are called congressmen
    • Why the hell is this modded insightful? The whole point is that they are being forced to pay someone they shouldn't have to pay for protection, how did you miss that?

      I hate viacom, because I myself like to watch clips of TDS and TCR on youtube, but this is a shakedown. Corporations (at least L's like viacom) do in fact pay taxes, and they are supposed to have the protection of the law. They would have that even if they didn't pay taxes, i.e. S corporations don't suffer on that count.

      So if I, a taxpay

    • This is funny! YouTube is doing to Viacom and RIAA what RIAA has been trying to do to the rest of us!!
    • If they want others to be looking out for their interests, they should be paying those people for their troubles.

      Uh, isn't that exactly what the ??AAs are? I believe they are a private club for all practical purposes. So far, they're getting a pretty good bang for the buck. Somehow that sentiment makes me feel...dirty. I think I need a drink.
  • Irony? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Phil246 (803464) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @02:27PM (#18061304)
    Irony : Media companies complaining about mafia-like tactics.
    Or is it hipocracy?
    • by DrYak (748999) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @03:15PM (#18061598) Homepage

      YouTubes cites the challenges of determining ownership of a given video clip as the reason for this policy, and hopes that IP owners will cooperate in resolving these issues.


      Daring fire-style translation :

      No, we won't let you just pipe the results of your auto-suit-bots into our database.
      Identifying actual copyright infrigment, from fair use, from complete false-positive is a very difficult job and if we botch it, people are going to make fun of all of us including YouTube, like it hapened before with the tutorials. So please now pay for the actual work force needed to perform what you ask.
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @02:28PM (#18061308) Journal
    YouTube is arguably one of the largest video sites on the Internet and people are upset when they want to charge for the service of policing the world's multimedia efforts?

    Sure, they host them, and perhaps can or do check them, but the law doesn't say that people need to check for IP rights before using something (IIRC) and that it is the IP holder's job to request the violator change their use of the IP or take it down.

    If YouTube did this free, they would become IP policemen, and that can't be cheap. Why wouldn't they charge for this service? To me, this doesn't sound like mafia tactics so much as it sounds like business tactics. Offer a service and charge for it. I am thinking that Google et al haven't figured out how to generate ad revenue from this service so they want to charge for it.

    Sounds like simple business practice to me. I might be wrong though.
    • by pilgrim23 (716938)
      Where is it written that Youtube is the ONLY place to host video?
      If YouTube has a policy like this the answer seems simple: go elsewhere . Long before they became the clearinghouse of film, folks hosted things on sites all over the net. We got by. Many of the things you find there today, first were found on some other site.. Also, I see another phenomena here; when slick Hollyweird stuff is out there in this sort of venue, right next to non-commercial or commercial and outside the mainstream, and y
      • I sent several letters about purchasing "licensing agreements" to distributors. If they pay, I won't release their IP on P2P networks. Needless to say, I have not received any payments so far.

    • Sure, they host them, and perhaps can or do check them, but the law doesn't say that people need to check for IP rights before using something (IIRC) and that it is the IP holder's job to request the violator change their use of the IP or take it down.

      Actually, the law pretty clearly says that only the creator has the right to make copies or derivitive works. Surprisingly, this is called copyright law.
      • by Nicholas Evans (731773) <OwlManAtt@gmail.com> on Sunday February 18, 2007 @04:27PM (#18062086) Homepage

        Unfortunately, copyright law is not that simple. YouTube is a 'safe harbour' under the DMCA 512(c). 512(c) is a magical section of the law that grants an online service provider which hosts content from users on their own servers immunity from IP infringement provided that they meet certain criteria.

        To summarize, YouTube has to designate an agent [copyright.gov] to receive notice of infringement, publish their copyright infringement policies [google.com], disable access to repeat offenders, and respond reasonably to takedown / counter notices.

        So just as long as they're processing those DMCA takedowns and tossing users out, the DMCA (in theory) shields them from litigation. So, eh, surprisingly, this is copyright law.

        Disclaimer: IANAL. Go read copyright.gov/onlinesp/ or ChillingEffects.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by stubear (130454)
          Safe Harbors are not for online service providers, they are for internet service providers. It is a way to protect ISPs from being sued for the content they host. YouTube is not an ISP, they provide a place to store videos, not host connections. If YouTube was protected by the Safe Harbor loophope in the DMCA then anyone could also make the same claim and distribute intellectual property to their heart's content.
          • Assuming you are right, how long do you think it is going to be before YouTube (and by proxy) Google loses a court case on this, and decides to turn around to the government and buy a law like the parent describes?

            People forget that if the media companies can buy laws, then so can search engines, and Google ($143.88B) has a bigger market capitalisation that Time-Warner (83.75B).

            Corruption works both ways and it is reaching the point where Google can just as easily end a political career as Fox can.
          • by makomk (752139) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @07:44PM (#18063194) Journal
            Safe Harbors are not for online service providers, they are for internet service providers. It is a way to protect ISPs from being sued for the content they host. YouTube is not an ISP, they provide a place to store videos, not host connections. If YouTube was protected by the Safe Harbor loophope in the DMCA then anyone could also make the same claim and distribute intellectual property to their heart's content. You do realise that if the Safe Harbour provisions don't protect YouTube, then by the same argument they also don't protect most web hosting providers (as well as picture hosting sites such as Photobucket, blogs, forums, etc), and they are equally vulnerable to being sued over content they host?
            • by stubear (130454)
              Yes, I am well aware of that. I'm glad to see sunlight is starting to dawn on some of the marble heads around here.
          • by Danse (1026)

            It is a way to protect ISPs from being sued for the content they host.

            What makes one content host protected and another one not protected? Seems clear to me that they are talking about web hosting providers, which YouTube is, just as much as Yahoo! or AOL.
          • er... Youtube isn't an Internet Service Provider?

            Odd, it certainly looks to me like they are a hosting service. You know, a service they provide over the Internet.

            How does that not fall under the definition of Internet Service Provider?
        • I knew as soon as I made that post that there would be more than one way of interpreting it.

          I interpreted "people" as end users. It is up to end users to make sure that they aren't using something that is copyrighted in the videos that they upload to Youtube, or else they can be found liable for copyright infringement.
  • Screw YouTube... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MsGeek (162936) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @02:29PM (#18061314) Homepage Journal
    ...there are other places to post video. I hope they don't wind up the iTunes of online video.

    A friend of mine's Daria fan animations (no they aren't hentai) got taken off of YouTube. Viacom has been approving of fan films in the past, the most elaborate of which being the Star Trek: The Original Series continuation "The New Voyages," hosted at http://www.newvoyages.com/ [newvoyages.com] . The fan films got swept up in the Viacom/YouTube dragnet. This pissed me off because quite a few people from the Daria fandom were involved, and they really were nicely done.

    Hopefully an appeal to have the fan films reinstated will be successful.

    The screwed thing is that unless you take a lot of trouble with 3rd party apps you cannot download a YouTube .FLV. And the resulting file is pretty crappy looking no matter what you do, because .FLVs are so intensely compressed and lose so much in the lossy compression process. I mean WTF? Big Media is getting FREE PUBLICITY even with the copyrighted stuff. They are using YouTube as a promotional tool on the one hand, then on the other they are screwing the fans.

    There are alternatives. Metacafe, Ning, Revver...all excellent choices for showing your stuff. And there is always BIT TORRENT for something a bit higher quality and a bit more permanent.

    Big media needs to grow a brain. YouTube needs to grow a spine. Everyone wins when content is up on YouTube. Everyone loses when these silly fights start up.
    • by garcia (6573) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @03:12PM (#18061574) Homepage
      ...there are other places to post video. I hope they don't wind up the iTunes of online video.

      They are going to become the Napster of online video... An awesome service when it was all free and full of pirated stuff. Now that it's going legal and making deals with the industry, it's probably going to suck.
    • by NYYz (1063406)
      There are web sites that allow easy download of youtube et al videos. http://javimoya.com/blog/youtube_en.php [javimoya.com] http://www.youtubex.com/ [youtubex.com]
    • by Monkier (607445)

      If you are happy to host the video yourself, create the FLV with FFmpeg [mplayerhq.hu], there's a tutorial on it here: FLV encoding with ffmpeg [gwikzone.org].

      ..and use Jeroen Wijering's Flash Video Player [jeroenwijering.com] for playback.

      • If you are happy to host the video yourself, create the FLV with FFmpeg, there's a tutorial on it here: FLV encoding with ffmpeg.
        I noticed that the tutorial you linked uses a Bourne style command line to pull sources from SVN and compile them. Is there a tutorial that does not require a second PC to run *BSD or an installation of Cygwin?
        • by Monkier (607445)
          I think grabbed the EXE that comes with the "Super" (http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html) frontend for FFMPEG..
      • by MsGeek (162936)
        There are easier ways to skin this particular feline, particularly on Mac OS X. I like VisualHub [techspansion.com]. Which reminds me, I gotta register my copy. Yes, I know you can use free commandline tools if you are uber-geeky. But VisualHub is the most Mac-like way to do it.

        I got VisualHub to convert XviD/DivX material to DV so I could burn DVDs, but I noticed just recently that it can do .FLV as well.

        If worst comes to worst, I'll put my stuff up on my own space.
    • I encode my video using a special low bitrate matrix and get somewhat better quality on youtube..
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      The screwed thing is that unless you take a lot of trouble with 3rd party apps you cannot download a YouTube .FLV. [ ... ]
      The Fast Video Download plugin for Firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/3590/ [mozilla.org] will grab your FLVs easily. I have no Flash plugin for my platform, so this plus mplayer is the only way I can watch the stuff.
    • by delinear (991444)
      This makes me wonder if their main concern is not that the videos are posted, but that so many people will happily accept such lossy, poor quality videos in the first place. It flies in the face of the big push for HDTV (which in turn brings with it the associated DRM fun and games). If people are willing to watch such low quality videos then why buy shell out a ton of money on a bunch of DRM encumbered technology and buy all your content again...
  • One morning, we'll wake up and find out the media companies spent the weekend writing and setting up their own video site, with ads intact. YouTube will have a pile of takedown notices for 99% of the pirated content on their site and cops seizing their servers. Only a matter of time.

    YouTube is the kid running a lemonade stand trying to negotiate with the local Mafia boss.

    Oh, and when did YouTube remove all the English content, it's getting hard to find...
  • Viacom had their lawyers prepped & paid & retained, tassled loafers purchased, affidavids signed, slush funds sloshing and CxOs slinging dirt and for what? So that youtube could turn around and help them? Now it's going to looks really bad when the legal hit squad rolls with the pain. GOD DAMN YOU, YOUTUBE! WE'RE STILL GOING TO FUCK YOU UP ANYWAY THIS CHANGES NOTHING!
  • YouTube's "proposition that they will only protect copyrighted content if there's a business deal in place
    I see nothing wrong with this type arrangement. It is not up to the net to protect your work, if you want it protected, then get off your butt and protect it. This is net neutrality at work.
  • YouTube is dead (Score:3, Interesting)

    by svunt (916464) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @05:26PM (#18062486) Homepage Journal
    Ever since Google put a huge bag of cash into YouTube, the content's been getting weaker and weaker, thanks to takedowns. It won't be long until all that's left are camwhores, idiots getting hurt & mentos/coke videos. You know, all that "person of the year" winning material.
  • YouTube is on its way to becoming a has-been. The problems go far beyond copyright holders wanting to protect their property. Stupid message posting limits, "Recently added" videos that "aren't available" for several hours, and a few, for far longer, and other strange and annoying problems. Some of these have been around for a while, and have yet to be fixed. But still, YouTube expects me to sit and watch a stupid ad? Not even.
    • I was waiting a few days to be able to access a video that was put up. LiveVideo might just have a chance if YouTube keeps this up.
      • by symbolic (11752)
        Same here. Another thing that worries me is that YT is starting to round up the "talent" and turn it into something that churns out organized "productions". This is completely contrary to what YT is about. I subscribe to people because I like what *they* do - not what they do under the control of influence of some centralized entity. May as well call it YTTV.
  • Big Media is going to eventually sink YouTube. The irony is that if Google hadn't acquired them, that probably would not have happened.

    Enjoy it while you can, and remember that there'll still be archive.org, videobomb, and p2p. Participatory media in general won't die when YouTube does.
  • So, is this like a mafia shakedown?

    Yes. YouTube is shaking down the Mafia. Turnabout is fair play, though, since the ??AA has been shaking down elderly/juvenile/disabled/computer illiterate people for years now.

    But seriously, there's a huge difference between complying with the law for free (which YouTube is doing) and accepting an agreement to go above and beyond the call of duty (which YouTube is now offering).

  • What purpose does You Tube really serve? It seems to be nothing more than some place an average Joe Schmoe can upload some crap video shot on an even more crappier video medium; a service for the dumbass who can't figure out how to create their own blog and upload a video clip. Appeal to the least common denominator and they will come, along with those smart enough to know that a service like You Tube can be easily taken advantage of. Build it and they will come...
  • I noticed on most of the take downs on YouTube have this message: "..as a result of a third-party notification by Viacom (Baytsp) claiming that this material is infringing.." BayTSP was hired by Viacom to do the youtube takedown, I think. I've had my Internet disconnected by BayTSP for P2P infringement. Now they're getting their doing video sharing! FUCK THEM!
  • "We take this kind of statement very seriously. We have an organisational image which we strive to maintain, and we can't have people making this kind of spurious comparison. They need to learn that it's just not acceptable, even as a jest" said Mafia spokesman Vinnie "The Axe" Scapieri when contacted today.
  • In the good old days of copyright piracy, we had to sit there in our Usenet groups with our uuencode/uudecode command-line tools and about 25 different types of de-archiving program for "zip" files, "ace" files, "gz" files and "rar" files in order to get our "warez".

    Bloody kids these days don't know that they're born!

Your own mileage may vary.

Working...