CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Has everyone heard about the billion dollar suit against google / youtube for "copyright violation?"

Viacom starting threateing youtube by demanding that over 10,000 videos would be taken down. Thing is, many of those videos were NOT viacom owned content. Often times, they were simply people's personal videos with no copyrighted content who used titles of copyrighted works in their tags...

Viacom is now sueing Youtube and its new owner, Google, over this content. The lawsuit? 1 billion dollars. I don't usually buy in to conspiracy theories, but considering the loose nature of the copyright "violations", and the size of the lawsuit and permanent injunction against Youtube and google, which both actually cooperate with every media head to take copyrighted content off, I think they see their end is near...

They're realizing that these internet stars on Youtube are starting to be as popular as the stars they made on MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, Paramount, reamworks... There is even less reason for them to take youtube down than the Napster and Kazaa lawsuits in the past, as Youtube is actually used primarily for amateur shows and FAN CONTENT, not for the display of
copyrighted material. Other media companies have worked with Youtube, including Turner Media. They realize they just need to change with the times and work with the new technology, rather than try to fight it. Viacom is another company stuck in the past who can't adjust to the changing market, and they deserve to die a horrible death for trying to take down something as diverse and worthwhile as Youtube.

I know some may scoff at my calling youtube "worthwhile" It does seem to be filled with garbage, but then again, so is the internet as a whole. Youtube created the next level of the internet, by allowing users to upload video to stream off their site for free. Many depend on it and Viacom seems to think it's only one giant piracy tool. I'm sure they'd shut the internet down, too, if they could... Anyhow... This whole thing isn't right... I say Boycott Viacom... That's my view...

Yes, I've heard all about this ridiculous state of affairs. I never liked Viacom anyway, now I have even more reason not to support them.

that doesn't mean that Viacom isn't right tho... I mean, Youtube DID say they would remove the vids.

Slater wrote:that doesn't mean that Viacom isn't right tho... I mean, Youtube DID say they would remove the vids.

And, um, they DID remove the vids... Many of them weren't even viacom properties... Youtube removes all vids that have copyright claims leveled against them. Without question. Youtube is bending far too far in favor of companies like viacom when they remove videos that are 100% legal like that. Youtube trampled on its users to work with Viacom, and Viacom sues them for a billion dollars for it. Sounds like Viacom was in the right all right.

So, no, that's total BS. Viacom is not in the right. Not for taking down fan content. Not for taking down parodies. Not for taking down content entirely free of viacom properties. Not for being complete whiny brats. Not for any of it.

Uh... from what I read from numerous news sources, Viacom identified over 50000 videos that they held copyrights to still on Youtube...

Slater wrote:Uh... from what I read from numerous news sources, Viacom identified over 50000 videos that they held copyrights to still on Youtube...

That's because users put them back up as quickly as they're taken down. Viacom needs to start targeting those 50,000 users instead of YouTube if they're that worried about it.

YouTube is just the transfer medium - just like P2P networks, it can be just as easily used legally as illegally. Put it in terms of the ocean-going pirates of yesteryear - it'd be like Britain saying that they wanted to crack down on pirates so they were going to ban shipping. Makes a whole lot of sense, yes? Stops them dead in their tracks if no one can use the ocean.

Reasonable people realize that you target the pirate, not the method of transport.

Slater wrote:Uh... from what I read from numerous news sources, Viacom identified over 50000 videos that they held copyrights to still on Youtube...

It's amazing how you, um, don't read... Didn't you see when I said how many of those videos they "identified" by simple tag scavaging were not viacom properties at all? Yeah... Viacom had videos and users shut down who had nothing to do with the posting of copyrighted material. Just stop... Now... While you're behind. You keep defending them but have no idea what they've actually been up to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAd_vpsufRU

Visit this video and watch the whole thing before you respond. I'll know if you didn't.

While we're at it, how about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE2IpIwEGmE

Parody doesn't fall under the realm of copyright violation. Viacom didn't even check these videos to see if they violated copyrights, they simply did keyword scavaging. They looked for keywords like "daily show" or "southpark" or other big shows they run, and shut down all matching hits without checking the actual content of the videos... Their "50,000" titles is erroneous.

While that is in part true, YouTube and Google have a responsibility to monitor the content that gets passed to their site. It's like that woman who died in that "Hold you Wee for a Wii" contest; even though there are disclaimers involved to the users (uploaders), that doesn't simply remove all responsibility from YouTube's management... especially since they implicitly claimed responsibility for keeping Viacom's stuff off the site 2 months ago (by appologizing to Viacom and claiming to remove the material, that is).

Bobtheduck wrote:It's amazing how you, um, don't read... Didn't you see when I said how many of those videos they "identified" by simple tag scavaging were not viacom properties at all? Yeah... Viacom had videos and users shut down who had nothing to do with the posting of copyrighted material. Just stop... Now... While you're behind. You keep defending them but have no idea what they've actually been up to.

Even if 3/4 of the targets are completely wrong, that doesn't change the fact that there is still Viacom-copyrighted material on YouTube, which is forbidden. Or are you claiming that 0 of YouTube's videos are owned by Viacom?

Slater wrote:especially since they implicitly claimed responsibility for keeping Viacom's stuff off the site 2 months ago (by appologizing to Viacom and claiming to remove the material, that is).

Yeah... You just keep talking. Without reading. You'll get by just fine, slater. Read my last post. Watch those two videos.

Slater wrote:Even if 3/4 of the targets are completely wrong, that doesn't change the fact that there is still Viacom-copyrighted material on YouTube, which is forbidden. Or are you claiming that 0 of YouTube's videos are owned by Viacom?

*sigh* Once again, it's not youtube's responsibility to monitor every single video. They remove all videos without question when a company like viacom asks them to. They did remove videos, people put up more, and fact is, many of them they had no right to take down. How can you sit there and keep defending them?

Bobtheduck wrote:Yeah... You just keep talking. Without reading. You'll get by just fine, slater. Read my last post. Watch those two videos.

Could you quit insulting me and show me how my posts are wrong? You bolded something I said without saying why it was wrong

Edit: You edited your original post

Slater wrote:Could you quit insulting me and show me how my posts are wrong? You bolded something I said without saying why it was wrong

Like I said, youtube removed every single video they were requested to remove. Therefore, there is nothing true about "claiming" to take them down. For pete sake, READ what I post before responding. That's what the bolded response was about.

Bobtheduck wrote:For pete sake, READ what I post before responding.

Like I said, you edited your post after I made mine. My posts are no more retroactive than yours are


Alright, I watched the videos. I don't see your point; what I see is defense of my point; that is that Youtube has to defend their material propperly.

It was YOUTUBE who pulled the plug on those videos, and without screening them as they should (like I said). Just because Viacom sent notices to Youtube on videos doesn't mean that YouTube was required to remove them. That's the danger of blanket-removal techniques. I understand that Youtube was under a lot of pressure at the time, but that doesn't give them the right to not screen what they're removing first.

Any way you look at it, the whole scenerio could have been averted had YouTube worked on their reviewing of user material better... hired more screeners and etc.

And for the record, I do believe that the pirates who continue to upload Viacom material should be punished... only problem is that it can be fairly difficult to weed them out. There'll always be some...

Youtube/Google should not be held responsible for the actions of their users. That's like suing a gun company because some kid accidentally shot himself. I mean, how do you expect a company to micromanage a site with billions of users all over the freaking planet? Viacom obviously doesn't understand what they're dealing with. They might as well be trying to shut down the entire internet.

Also, if YouTube goes down during the fight, there will be several other sites that spring up to take its place. That's the nature of it.

Slater wrote:Any way you look at it, the whole scenerio could have been averted had YouTube worked on their reviewing of user material better... hired more screeners and etc.

Ok. I'll start with this. This is completely wrong.

Youtube DOES have screeners. They have screeners that screen out porn. That's all they do. Looking through those videos one by one is a monumental task, even for a team of people. Watching them all completely is impossible What they must do is scan through the videos and look for pornographic content and delete the offending videos. This alone, an easy task compared to doing the same for copyrights, is a monumental task.

Now, for the 50,000 videos that Viacom CLAIMS violated copyright, many of which did not, these claims didn't amount to 50,000 videos of people posting copies of the Daily show... Even these videos were often short clips for people to discuss. These clips brought viewers to the shows, but that's getting off course. I'm not here to discuss those more blatant copyright problems

Viacom was seeking out videos that used any song they owned, any character they owned (which they don't technically have the right to do, since their are legitimate uses of their characters that are not illegal), any title they owned. Searching for these things in videos is a much more difficult undertaking than looking for the porn. You have to be keenly familiar with what things are copyrighted and what aren't. You have to judge fair use. You have to make many judgements on its reliability, and THEN you STILL have to make sure the owner of that channel isn't an undercover promoter from one of those networks or music companies, because that does happen. Therefore, videos can only be shut down at the request of copyright holders.

Slater wrote:It was YOUTUBE who pulled the plug on those videos, and without screening them as they should (like I said). Just because Viacom sent notices to Youtube on videos doesn't mean that YouTube was required to remove them.

I take it you haven't read the entire TOS, or for that matter, legal regulations on the matter? That's PRECISELY what they are required to do. A user can serve counter-notification, and then YT will re-instate it, and they can take it off the site (read: courts).

This is the official policy, and it's being tried in the courts right now. Just because you feel reality should be one way, doesn't necessarily make it worth arguing with others over.

Here's a crash course for you. This one is ALL OVER the DMCA activist sites:
http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/13/my_first_dmca_takedown.html

I don't get what you're saying. You're saying that if someone had their movie removed when it was not owned by Viacom that the only way to get it put back on the site is through a law-suit?

Mithrandir wrote:Here's a crash course for you. This one is ALL OVER the DMCA activist sites:
http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/13/my_first_dmca_takedown.html

So wait... the copyright notice video is against copyright laws?? ROFL!!

Now that would be ironic if it were.
There are probably other similiar sites that do the same as Youtube but since Youtube is the most popular it's the one that's getting hit with all the legal problems.

Read the article, and read the whole DMCA. It really is kinda funny.

I'm sorry, but seeing as I support a free internet (Is it an untypable offense to say I support free music/movies?) so I'm rightly steamed about this mess.


Slater, I see your opinion, but I honestly don't think Viacom has anything. I don't want "pirates" banned. I don't think anything should be changed at all. Viacom will not win this, because if they do, they will use and abuse precident.

I`m sick of You Tube. I was banned from there twice XD

How'd you manage to do that.I thought that you could post just about anything there as long as it wasn't pornograhic in nature.

Seriously. Unless they thought you were seriously violating copyright, or trolling the discussion areas.

>.<

I'm not trying to troll here, but I just can't manage to arouse much empathy towards the plight of big businesses.

Further more, I look at downloading as a sort of Ocham's Razor (sp?) for the Entertainment Industry. It'll cut away alot of the crap, as big name artists lose money. I forsee a great many people walking away from the music scene...and alot of people coming in to it.

Come on, guys. It wasn't always about making money. My favorite artists are mostly indie anyway, so this won't hurt them. Most of them use downloading as advertisement anyway, or charge minimal fees.

Get hip with the program, Viacom. That hand that is tapping on your door is Fate come calling, and if you don't react well...well, it'll be the end of your largesse.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. I find it odd that you are focusing your frustration toward a company, which is following the laws.

If I were in your position, I would be focusing my frustration toward the legal system. *THAT*'s what created this whole fiasco in the first place.

Mithrandir wrote:If I were in your position, I would be focusing my frustration toward the legal system. *THAT*'s what created this whole fiasco in the first place.

Here here... We live in "Hot coffee is supposed to be cold, right" land... The legal system needs a reform, but people lost sight of the "spirit of the law" long ago... Letter of the law will always breed corruption and misuse.