Youtube sued for 1 billion $$$ by Viacom.

Discussion in 'Movies, Books, TV & Media' started by playstopause, Mar 14, 2007.

  1. Ancestor

    Ancestor Contributor

    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    193
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    I do know, because I have an envelope full of information from the government about copyright and have taken two classes on internet law. Honestly, I don't really care about people posting movies or anything else online, because I have always made everything I recorded available for free. I think the internet should be about sharing information, not money. The point is that if you put a film (or piece of music) up on youtube.com that says "This is mine. I made it." That's probably a pretty good indication of copyright ownership.

    Also, just as ISPs can't be held liable for information posted through their service, I don't think youtube.com should be responsible either. You may see this, too, in the trial. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
     
  2. technomancer

    technomancer Gearus Pimptasticus Super Moderator

    Messages:
    25,233
    Likes Received:
    3,806
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Location:
    Out there, somewhere
    Late to the thread but what the hell.

    Ancestor is right by the way, Google can go for the common carrier defence. There's also the fact that
    1) as long as clips are less than 20 minutes in length they fall under fair use
    2) when asked by Viacom to remove clips, Google complied, which is FULL compliance with copyright law

    Unless the law REALLY gets bent on this case Viacom is shit out of luck. I'm all for copyright protection and enforcement, but Google was operating within the realm of copyright laws.
     
  3. Hellbound

    Hellbound €£¥€£¥€£¥€£•

    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    56
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Location:
    In the dark side of my mind
    FUCK MTV.:evil: that's all I have to say.
     
  4. Rev2010

    Rev2010 Contributor

    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    652
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    I'd like to know where you got this information from, if you have a link please share. I've heard people throw this same comment around each time with a different length. A friend of mine had a friend who worked as a radio DJ and he used to say bands are safe using movie samples in their songs so long as it doesn't exceed 15 seconds. All in all I read up on that and every legal site claimed quite the opposite. I did a quick lookup on Wikipedia and what's written there, in what I quickly squeezed in while here at work, seems to confirm what I've read before - that you can use material if you're including it in works of satire, acedemic value, news, research, etc. Here's a paragraph I pulled out:

    "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

    the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    the nature of the copyrighted work;
    the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

    Posting an episode of a TV show on YouTube does not fall under fair use. BTW, that last line there mentions market value. Well, media conglomerates argue of the loss of money in advertising.


    Rev.
     
  5. technomancer

    technomancer Gearus Pimptasticus Super Moderator

    Messages:
    25,233
    Likes Received:
    3,806
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Location:
    Out there, somewhere
    I appear to have been in error on this clause. I had thought it was in a judgement I had been reading, but upon going back I'll be damned if I can find it. This still leaves the common carrier defense, as well as the fact that Google complied when requested to move clips, which is all that is required by the law with regard to copyrights.

    It can also be argued that there was no loss in market value, as YouTube served to advertise the shows that were uploaded, but I'm not going into that whole can of worms as at the end of the day there are studies supporting both sides so it boils down to opinion and whose studies you believe.
     
  6. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,507
    Likes Received:
    1,956
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    An excellent point, actually. I'd just been thinking of it on the level that saying they were losing advertising revinue is one thing, but demonstrating it is another, but it's actually more complicated than I'd thought, it seems...
     
  7. Rev2010

    Rev2010 Contributor

    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    652
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Ah.... but the shows aren't what brings the money it's the commericals! Shows are free to watch, as a result the money used to fund making these shows comes through commercials (ie. - "This episode of Heroes brought to you in part by Honda!"). If all those clips on YouTube had the commercials included in the clips we probably wouldn't even be here discussing this cause it would be hard for them to argue monetary loss as their sponsor's advertisements would still be reaching the masses... shit... probably even more so!


    Rev.
     
  8. drshock

    drshock Street-good guy

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    14
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    rochester ny
    I will kill anyone who fucks with my Youtube.
     
  9. ibzrg1570

    ibzrg1570 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    46
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    Although I sympathize with Viacom, there really is no way of solving this situation, as piracy will always be around, no matter what companies do about it. That's why a lot of online music stores are thinking about getting rid of DRM because hackers will inevitably get around it. Viacom has the right to sue, but I don't think doing that will put them in a good light because lots of people with internet access use YouTube. Also, it's not like YouTube itself is posting these videos. If anything, users should be sued. If all the companies in the entertainment industry did this, they might as well have the internet banned by the federal government. This is completely impractical, so the best way to do it would be to innovate and find a way around it.
     
    Rev2010 likes this.
  10. Metal Ken

    Metal Ken Hates the Air Contributor

    Messages:
    21,002
    Likes Received:
    741
    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    Its like the thing that i used to see when i'd be into ROMs. "You have 24 hours to try this, if you don't own it, you must delete it." I later found out that no such clause exists and if you don't actually own the game you aren't legally permitted to download the rom at all to begin with. Its just something somebody came up with to make it look legit and has no founding in actual law.
     
  11. technomancer

    technomancer Gearus Pimptasticus Super Moderator

    Messages:
    25,233
    Likes Received:
    3,806
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Location:
    Out there, somewhere
    But to prove loss of advertising revenues they'd have to prove that they lost TV viewers to YouTube, which there is really no way to do. Like I said, unless the law gets MAJORLY reinterpreted in Viacom's favor they're throwing away a lot of money on this lawsuit.

    Also looking at the market caps I'm waiting for the announcement that Google acquired Viacom :lol:
     
  12. Rev2010

    Rev2010 Contributor

    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    652
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    :rofl: :lol: I wouldn't be surprised if in the not so distant future that actually happened! :yesway:


    Rev.
     
  13. leatherface2

    leatherface2 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    texas
    holy shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
     
  14. Ancestor

    Ancestor Contributor

    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    193
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    It could fall under fair use, but may not. U.S.C. 17, Sec. 107 has those four tests you quoted. First, why is it posted? To make a profit? To educate? Even teachers have been found in violation when copying large sections of books.

    Next, What is the nature of the material? If it's news footage, then it probably falls under fair use.

    Third, how much was used? A small portion is probably OK, but not the whole program.

    Last, what is the impact on the market value? In other words, if you're diminishing the value of copyrighted material, fair use doesn't apply.

    (Ferrera, Lichtenstein, Reder, and Bird, 2004)

    It's the fourth that seems to be the most important, which is why I say youtube posts are irrelevant to copyright. The quality always sucks. If it's something I really like, I'll buy it if it's available. Otherwise, I wouldn't buy it anyway. Damn, of course I'm not going to buy a copy of Prince's superbowl performance. Neither will I watch the game to see it. Ever. But I will check it out quickly just for reference. And that helps Prince.


    Reference

    Ferrera, G., Lichtenstein, S., Reder, M., & Bird, R. (2004). Cyberlaw Text and Cases. United States: West Legal Studies.
     

Share This Page