Viacom's YouTube suit threatens freedom


Recommended Posts

NEW YORK - A $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit challenging YouTube's ability to keep copyrighted material off its popular video-sharing site threatens how hundreds of millions of people exchange all kinds of information on the Internet, YouTube owner Google Inc. said. if Google's lawyers made the claim in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan as the company responded to Viacom Inc.'s latest lawsuit alleging that the Internet has led to "an explosion of copyright infringement" by YouTube and others.

The back-and-forth between the companies has intensified since Viacom brought its lawsuit last year, saying it was owed damages for the unauthorized viewing of its programming from MTV, Comedy Central and other networks, including such hits as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."

In papers submitted to a judge late Friday, Google said YouTube "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works."

It said that by seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for Internet communications, Viacom "threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression."

Google said YouTube was faithful to the requirements of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, saying the federal law was intended to protect companies like YouTube as long as they responded properly to content owners' claims of infringement.

On that score, Viacom says Google has set a terrible example.

In a rewritten lawsuit filed last month, Viacom said YouTube consistently allows unauthorized copies of popular television programming and movies to be posted on its Web site and viewed tens of thousands of times.

Viacom said it had identified more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of copyrighted programming ? including "SpongeBob SquarePants," "South Park" and "MTV Unplugged" episodes and the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" ? that had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times."

The company said its count of unauthorized clips represents only a fraction of the content on YouTube that violates its copyrights.

It said Google and YouTube had done "little or nothing" to stop infringement.

"To the contrary, the availability on the YouTube site of a vast library of the copyrighted works of plaintiffs and others is the cornerstone of defendants' business plan," Viacom said.

Source: Yahoo

Shouldn't Google/YouTube be covered under the safe haven parts of the DMCA? YouTube can't be expected to watch every video before it's put on the site, the most they can be realistically expected to do is to remove the offending content when they're notified (which they do, hence complying with the law)

And I can see why Google/YouTube don't want an automated infringement checker, a few wrong detections (i.e. this video of your cat is detected as the james bond movie) and they could screw up their "reputation" with uploaders and viewers.

You can't even imagine Youtube's or Google's infrastructure, can you? :rofl:

So I forgot an s, I'm so very sorry I forgot Neowin has people like you so I have to check spelling everytime.

Still the point is valid, since Youtube also sports data centers across the world - simply move the entire operation overseas and dump what's left of the fascists states of usa behind to do business elsewhere.

Edited by daPhoenix

And what the hell is GoogleTube supposed to do about all the copyrighted material that's on the site. As long as users continue to upload more than a few videos a day, YouTube cannot monitor all the content that goes onto the site, but they do comply with removal notices (therefore complying legally with the DMCA). The fact is that YouTube is not breaking the law, and Viacom couldn't win in an ideal world... but this isn't an Ideal world

Oh my god, poor Viacom is losing SO much money off of David Letterman clips of band performances on teh intraweb!11

Like seriously, I can understand full episodes being ripped/upped, but a lot of the clips their panties are in a bunch about are at most 3 minutes long from programs they'll NEVER AIR AGAIN.

I would never want to watch full episodes or movies on youtube because the quality is so bad. On the other hand when there is a awesome clip of a show which is only a few minutes long, instead of waiting for it to be shown on tv as a repeat I can just go on youtube and watch it which only makes me want to watch or buy the show even more.

nice sig power out :punk:

Shouldn't Google/YouTube be covered under the safe haven parts of the DMCA? YouTube can't be expected to watch every video before it's put on the site, the most they can be realistically expected to do is to remove the offending content when they're notified (which they do, hence complying with the law)

And I can see why Google/YouTube don't want an automated infringement checker, a few wrong detections (i.e. this video of your cat is detected as the james bond movie) and they could screw up their "reputation" with uploaders and viewers.

but they DO have an automated infringement checker, I believe, especially when it comes to viacom. Viacom stuff is promptly removed

I would never want to watch full episodes or movies on youtube because the quality is so bad.

All Viacom need to do is put tickers across the bottom of the screen with "messages from the sponsor", and the problem would be solved. In fact they could offer it as a bonus to those advertising on their stations.

Now stuff ripped off from publicly funded broadcasters such as the BBC is a different matter. But funnily enough they have one of the best quality "iplayer" on the web! www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer

Google said YouTube "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works."

Is that the same way Google has gone "far beyond" to "enhance" user's Internet experience with advertising? Or the same way they have gone "far beyond" to protect privacy by analyzing (reading) it to deliver even more advertising?

I suppose if Google actually did remove offending content they that's all you could expect them to do. Either the offending videos are not being taken down after notifying Google or Viacom can't hire enough people to scout out YouTube and find and report any offending videos. So, which is it?

How do these company bosses think money is being made from 30 sec clips of their shows on tv. The South Park episode got the whole thing spot on.

There could be a plus side to this, Google may be forced to remove any ads from YouTube.

warm_cup_STFU.jpg

And here's what they did in return :rofl: : http://www.crn.com/it-channel/208400285

Even if they do win the case, suing a company backed by one of the richest companies in the world won't do much :) (although I guess that doesn't include restrictions)

  • 1 month later...
Google said YouTube "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works."

Is that the same way Google has gone "far beyond" to "enhance" user's Internet experience with advertising? Or the same way they have gone "far beyond" to protect privacy by analyzing (reading) it to deliver even more advertising?

I suppose if Google actually did remove offending content they that's all you could expect them to do. Either the offending videos are not being taken down after notifying Google or Viacom can't hire enough people to scout out YouTube and find and report any offending videos. So, which is it?

VIACOM content on youtube gets deleted a lot faster than any other copyrighted material. Remember britney at the VMAs? I bet someone spent the whole day deleting videos, they didnt last too long.

I had a hard time finding spongebob's opening song once, because it's viacom and it wasnt easy finding.

I find it outrageous that they are requesting the information of the people who watched those videos. It's certainly not neccessary.

Viacom's YouTube suit threatens freedom

Oops! No, the only thing it threatens is the ability to illegally make media available on YouTube. It has nothing to do with freedom, not even a little.

it's threatening freedom because they are requesting the data of the people who watched the videos, which is irrelevant information, since the ones who watched the videos did not engage in any copyright infringement

So I forgot an s, I'm so very sorry I forgot Neowin has people like you so I have to check spelling everytime.

Still the point is valid, since Youtube also sports data centers across the world - simply move the entire operation overseas and dump what's left of the fascists states of usa behind to do business elsewhere.

You have a real attitude problem.

So I forgot an s, I'm so very sorry I forgot Neowin has people like you so I have to check spelling everytime.

Still the point is valid, since Youtube also sports data centers across the world - simply move the entire operation overseas and dump what's left of the fascists states of usa behind to do business elsewhere.

Google could move the servers to the moon but it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference, Google is an American company and as such is subject to the laws and rulings of the USA.

And seeing as you seem to have such a problem with the USA, why don't you boycott Google?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Glad these prices are starting to come down, but that is still crazy. I bought the 2TB 9100 Pro (slightly more expensive version with PCIe 5.0) last year for $240.
    • The 2TB Samsung 990 PRO NVMe SSD hits lowest price in over three months by Sayan Sen Yesterday, we covered a really good deal wherein you can get a 4TB TeamGroup T-FORCE G50 NVMe PCIe Gen4 SSD for a low price of just $400 with a special discount coupon. That's just $100 per TB, making it a very good offer during these hard times. The deal is still live, so you can check it out in its dedicated article here if you do not want to miss out. Meanwhile, if you don't have that kind of budget but still wish to buy an SSD for a good price, the 2TB variant of the TeamGroup SSD at $280 its lowest price in over three months. Meanwhile, those seeking 2TB but faster performance can check out Samsung's 990 PRO, which has hit the lowest price also in the last quarter or so, as it's on sale for $370 (purchase links under the specs table down below). Thus, you want a faster drive, get the 990 Pro, or you want more capacity, grab the TeamGroup 4TB linked in the first para. The 990 PRO is a PCIe Gen4 NVMe SSD and still one of the fastest drives available today for under $500. Speaking of fast, sequential reads and writes are rated at 7450 MB/s and 6900 MB/s, respectively. The random throughputs for reads and writes are 1400K IOPS and 1550K IOPS, respectively. The 990 PRO is based on Samsung's 7th Gen V-NAND flash, and it too is TLC. It packs 2 gigs of LPDDR4 DRAM cache, which helps the random performance. The endurance rating for this is 1200 TBW (terabytes written), which should be sufficient for most users. The Samsung 990 PRO is compatible with the PlayStation 5, but if you are going to use the 990 PRO on a PC, check out the Samsung Magician app that lets you track your drive's health, update its firmware, customize various settings, and more. The tech specs are given below: Specification TeamGroup T-FORCE G50 2TB Samsung 990 PRO 2TB Interface PCIe 4.0 x4, NVMe 1.4 PCIe Gen 4.0 x4, NVMe 2.0 Form Factor M.2 2280 M.2 2280 Controller InnoGrit Controller Samsung In-house Controller NAND Flash 3D TLC 3D TLC DRAM Cache None (HMB supported) 2GB LPDDR4 Sequential Read (Max) 5,000 MB/s 7,450 MB/s Sequential Write (Max) 4,500 MB/s 6,900 MB/s Random Read (4K) Up to 600,000 IOPS Up to 1,400,000 IOPS Random Write (4K) Up to 700,000 IOPS Up to 1,550,000 IOPS TBW (Endurance) 1,300 TBW 1,200 TBW MTBF 3,000,000 hours 1,500,000 hours Operating Temperature 0°C to 70°C 0°C to 70°C Storage Temperature -40°C to 85°C -40°C to 85°C Shock Resistance 1,500G / 0.5ms 1,500G / 0.5ms Heatsink Patented Graphene Heat Spreader No Get them at the links below: Samsung 990 PRO SSD 2TB (MZ-V9P2T0B/AM): $369.99 (Sold and Shipped by Amazon US) TEAMGROUP T-Force G50 2TB SSD (TM8FFE002T0C129): $279.99 (Sold by TeamGroup, Shipped by Amazon US) Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • If you can't spell a simple word that 2nd graders learn, your entire argument is suspect.
    • And here goes the "Won't someone think of the children" brigade. Get stuffed mate. This has NOTHING to do with making the internet safe. It's about tracking adults, spying on your online activity, and sending the boys around when they don't like something you post. Also, again, parliament have voted TWICE against this, and Starmer is going ahead anyway. THAT is anti-democratic bullsh**. They will use this law to track you, they will use this law to control you, and they will use this law to punish you if they don't like what you do, even if it's legal. And your data? Say bye bye to that. It'll be on the darkweb in weeks. I'm not some rando online. I've been an IT professional for 40 years, many of it in security. I know exactly what this means and what will happen to your data. I do not consent and I will not comply.
    • "...but it may not be Microsoft's fault" seems like a reasonable way to tease what is going on without leaving the user with a false impression that an update is the problem. A title isn't a summery, it is meant to entice the user to read the article. It should not contain a misleading premise; which this title does not. You could maybe complain that the first paragraph should have included that detail. The writing style popularized over 100 years ago in newspapers will cover the most important information as soon as possible with details and nuance added later; the idea being that with each new paragraph you have less of the reader's focus.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Jocimo earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      suprememobiles48 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      Prasann earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Prasann earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      520
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      174
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      90
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      81
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!