YouTube Fires Back At Viacom 183
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "As we say in the legal profession, 'issue has been joined' in Viacom v. YouTube. In its answer to Viacom's complaint (PDF), filed Friday, YouTube says Viacom's lawsuit is intended to 'challenge... the protections of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") that Congress enacted a decade ago to encourage the development of services like YouTube.' It goes on to say that the suit 'threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic expression.'"
FP? (Score:2, Insightful)
-uso.
Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is the first place I go to find clips of a show? Youtube. After that I head off to google in hopes of finding it somewhere else.
Would I go over to Comedy Centrals website? SpikeTV? MTV? No, because these sites are cluttered with garbage and intrusive AD supported video players. I usually get lost at these sites anyway.
Also, I'm 22, the perfect demographic for these opportunities and you've seem to have alienated us over the years with your garbage websites.
Viacom's case (Score:5, Insightful)
The only other point Viacom has is that YouTube transfers all video into their own 'proprietary' format and then 'copies' it (by which, I assume, they mean "show it on multiple instances of XYZ web browser"--or maybe backups). This is akin to saying that WordPress has its own proprietary format for blogs, by which it copies and distributes information. What a joke!
And things get funny toward the end of the response, too. YouTube denies point #24, which reads: If you can't even get that right, you may as well just give up!
My prediction (and hope) is that Viacom loses this one quickly and effectively.
In the end they will simply pay a license fee. (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The best part was left out... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Viacom's case (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious. Let's say ChoicePoint decides they'd like to do more business. So what they decide to do is establish a website called ReportOnConsumers.com. Where anyone can upload a document about anyone. Of course they want to make it possible for people to properly police their information and control who gets access to it, so they provide a nice email where all you have to do is drop them a line proving that you're the person identified in a particular posting and they'll go ahead and remove it. Of course anyone can reupload it immediately. All you have to do to control it is continually review every posted report and submit a proper takedown request.
Still think like the idea of the responsibility being yours?
Re:FP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot = idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
So, they are basically saying they don't have enough control of the internet, and that such situation should be declared as unfair by the congress, so that everyone making a site with thumbnails has to totally screen out every thing submitted by any user for copyright infringement.
So, copyright is not enough to them, they also want the world to police their own copyright for them.
They will probably win that argument, because it's clearly true.
Besides of how "true" it "clearly" is, the fact remains that the entertainment industry is spoiled and cannot stand a channel of distribution they cannot control, so they are wrong in my book. Also, what the heck? How is youtube or any web site supposed to know something is copyrighted? It should seriously be the author's responsibility to protect his own imaginary property.Youtube Scares Viacomm Shitless (Score:4, Insightful)
First the lawsuits will start. I suspect those will fail. The next thing that happens after that is that someone will try to create a competing web site that completely misses the point and puts restrictions on users uploading content and tries to add DRM and advertising to any videos that do get uploaded. Then some gigantic media conglomerate will try to buy and bury Youtube. If all that doesn't work, they'll likely just give up and live with it. Not many companies make it past all that harassment though.
Re:The best part was left out... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the point was that a jury will not always decide what we expect they would, or should, decide.
Re:Is the goal destruction of the DMCA safe harbor (Score:3, Insightful)
Just one more reason.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The best part was left out... (Score:4, Insightful)
No Big Deal (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think Viacom stands a chance... they need to show "willful, intentional, and purposeful" infringement. The case rests on data as a percentage basis, how many views turned out to be infringing content? 60%? 30%? 10%? 2%? IMO, if the answer is 60%, Viacom should win. If it is 2%, they should lose.
Re:Youtube Scares Viacomm Shitless (Score:3, Insightful)
If I steal your car, it is wrong because you no longer have it.
If I press a button and make a copy of your car; you still have it and are in no way harmed.
Re:The best part was left out... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What nonsense (Score:2, Insightful)
The founders had enough experience with corrupt judges to not blindly trust them....
Re:FP? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a sad state that most businesses have obligations to shareholders, but to suggest that all businesses only care about cash must, by extension, mean that this is true of all people.
I'll grant you "most", but the way you (and others like you) are wording this makes it an excuse. It's not, especially for a company which claims "Don't Be Evil." Shame on Google, shame on YouTube, and shame on you for giving them an excuse.
Re:FP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientology is a complete fraud... no argument there.
Re:FP? (Score:4, Insightful)
They are associating with the PRC, so maybe guilt by association, but it's not as though the PRC would stop just because Google refused to censor. They'd just block Google, and everyone there would use Baidu instead.
Re:FP? (Score:5, Insightful)
(a) an individual can choose, in any given moment, between self interest and trying to help someone else, but
(b) a corporate board of directors and corporate officers are pretty much required to choose the corporation's self interest. So a corporation -- if not closely regulated -- is essentially a sociopath with perpetual life.
Whitelisting vs. Blacklisting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Searching by tags and title is no guarantee, since some videos are blatantly fake (i.e. latest anime series X episode Y that actually have a previous episode - the comments in these ones are hilarious to read) or can contain fair use material. Perhaps they're parodies which redub the entire episode, so even developing a "video fingerprint" for these wouldn't be accurate.
So how is youtube going to implement a filter for copyrighted stuff? The answer is simple: They just can't.
So the only choice to determine whether a video is an illegal copy of a copyrighted work or not, is to watch it.
So - viacom complains that there are tons of copyrighted videos in youtube. Could you please explain how youtube, with its limited human infrastructure, keep in pace with all the copyrighted videos uploaded daily - no, every minute?
So yes, there is something youtube can do to improve the situation - disabling accounts which repeatedly upload illegal videos. But how to handle situations where a company doesn't like a video ABOUT them and post a DMCA complaint (i.e.e Scientology, creationists)? Will the uploader be banned just by using free speech? Clearly, each case needs to be handled separately, and that takes a lot of time.
In the end, it only comes to two choices: Check each video before it's made available on youtube (yeah right), or keep the current approach of taking down videos on every DMCA complaint.
So this is not about youtube "assisting piracy", it's about viacom not wanting to spend a penny in hiring people to search youtube and file DMCA complaints.
While I usually agree with your posts ... (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, I would say that being a good corporate citizen is in the best interests of the shareholders. Of course there is plenty of room for many opinions here, because the phrase "best interests" is open to as many interpretations as there are people. While some interpretation are clearly wrong and illegal, there is still a very wide range of perfectly valid opinions.
It is statements like yours that give companies the excuse to be as bad as they want, and I for one disagree with that stance.
I will now be prepared to see you blast all of my reasoning out of the water.
Re:While I usually agree with your posts ... (Score:3, Insightful)
And of course there are many examples we could give of the opposite; corporations which were supposedly acting in the shareholders' best interests, but their behavior got them into trouble with the law, and ultimately led to their ruination.
But I was just describing the reality of the American legal system, which basically instructs directors and officers that the one duty they have -- in their capacity as directors and officers -- is to their shareholders, and which does not recognize any other duty they might have to other 'stakeholders', such as (a) employees, (b) venders, (c) customers, and (d) society.
If you were installed as the head of a large insurance company sitting on a bunch of money, and started giving it away to help society, you watch what would happen to you. It wouldn't be pretty.