Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dueling Summary Judgment Motions In Viacom v. YouTube

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the well-we-did-do-the-nose-and-the-hat dept.

Google 89

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Eric Goldman, an Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law, has an excellent analysis of the dueling summary judgment motions in Viacom v. YouTube. Basically, both sides have been trotting out the most damning things they can find and asking the judge to rule against the other party. Viacom is mad that Chad Hurley, one of YouTube's co-founders, lost his email archive and couldn't remember some old emails. Worse, YouTube founder Karim once uploaded infringing content. But then Google points out that only a very small percentage of the users are engaged in infringing activity (some 0.016% of all YouTube accounts have been deleted for infringement), one of the clips Viacom is suing over is only one second long (what about fair use?), and most of YouTube's content is non-infringing, including the campaign videos which all major US presidential candidates posted to YouTube." (More below.)"But the worst thing they found is that Viacom can't make up their mind. They spent $1M advertising on YouTube and tried to buy it. And even though they demanded that YouTube remove videos containing Viacom property on sight, Viacom had a complex internal policy authorizing some clips, including ones disguised as 'leaks' and put out by their marketers. Viacom was so conflicted internally that their very expensive lawyers couldn't figure out what Viacom had authorized to be uploaded even after doing extensive research as required by court rules, only to discover that some of the clips Viacom was suing over were ones Viacom uploaded themselves. The lawyers then had to go to court and drop those clips from their case — twice. They missed some the first time."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GNAA unveils new wiki-based corporate website (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31564780)

Sunday, March 14, 2010

GNAA unveils new wiki-based corporate website

Today GNAA President weev shampooed his neckbeard, put on a greasy Linux t-shirt and left the warm glow of his spamcave to unveil the new GNAA corporate website in a keynote speech. "Inspired by the success of wikis like Wikipedia as platforms for spreading misinformation and infuriating trolls, we decided to transition our corporate webpage to the wiki format," said weev in between gulps and disgusting chewing noises as he stuffed his face with summer sausages and snack cakes to gain the calories needed to satiate his anxiety at being confronted with other human beings. "Jimbo Wales and his team of basement dwelling pedophiles have really taken the wiki platform leaps and bounds in propagating biased, inflammatory garbage. You can log on Wikipedia at any given moment and start or join some inane troll battle that amounts to semantics. They even manage to present defending child molesters as an encyclopedic pursuit while making active [cydeweys.com] pedophiles [valleywag.com] who host child pornography [gawker.com] paid members of their staff. I can't think of anything more offensive. I'd like to take a minute to recognize Wikipedia as one of the most wildly successful troll organizations on the planet."

Weev went on to deride the agents of Zionism on the Internet. "Of course, we couldn't possibly go with MediaWiki. Everybody knows that PHP is run by the Mossad. As a consistent promoter of racial equality we couldn't let our Wiki be subverted by Zionist control." He went along to praise the python-based framework the site now operates on. "We went with Trac primarily because it is written in Python. As you all know, Python is a fascist with whitespace. As an organization of black men, we do believe that whites need to be regulated in their spaces very carefully. All hail the prophet Mohammed, and the messenger Malcolm X." At this point weev made a fist in the air before switching his comfort food to fried chicken and watermelon. "May Allah bless us, and bring us to the day when we may see constant troll edit wars on our wiki, just like Wikipedia.

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. You can download the movie [idge.net] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [wikipedia.org] on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.eu, and apply for membership.

Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.eu as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.eu [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Al-Punjabi
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_al_punjabi@gnaa.eu [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2006 Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.eu]

Re:GNAA unveils new wiki-based corporate website (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31564942)

irc link doesnt work

Re:GNAA unveils new wiki-based corporate website (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31565172)

Why hasn't slashdot implemented a filter that eliminates GNAA asshats? I don't think it would be all that complicated.

now mod me offtopic

Re:GNAA unveils new wiki-based corporate website (0, Offtopic)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31565198)

Call me old fashioned but i find GNAA hilarious because of the question; are there this many people trying to get into the GNAA association?

Re:GNAA unveils new wiki-based corporate website (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31565356)

"Why hasn't slashdot implemented a filter that eliminates GNAA asshats? I don't think it would be all that complicated."

because GNAA was here before you had internet you fucker.. show some respect..

slashdot already lost my support.. dont wish for others trolls to go too...

Re:GNAA unveils new wiki-based corporate website (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31565392)

Actually, the earliest GNAA references I've been able to find online are from more than ten years after I first got internet access. I'm amazed at how long it's been going on though, I'm guessing the whole thing is run by either a bunch of really dedicated trolls or new teenage boys continually replace the old ones as the older ones realize that trolling slashdot is fucking pointless.

Re:GNAA unveils new wiki-based corporate website (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31565520)

You might find the "members" page on http://gnaa.eu/ [gnaa.eu] interesting.

Re:GNAA unveils new wiki-based corporate website (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31566236)

Freedom of speech. I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Censorship, no matter how small, is wrong.

Where is godzilla when we need him? (1)

voodoo cheesecake (1071228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31564834)

This is so damn ridiculous.

Re:Where is godzilla when we need him? (2, Informative)

thephydes (727739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31564840)

Godzilla is just like the rest of us - he doesn't know wtf is going on but suspects viacom is a pack of arseholes and google is in fact doing evil.

Re:Where is godzilla when we need him? (2, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31566532)

But don't forget, Google's motto is "don't be evil", not "don't do evil." If doing evil is the same as being evil, then we're all evil. It's just that some people are more evil than others, and some corporations are more evil than others, too. "Try not to do evil" isn't a very good slogan, and compared to most corporations, Google doesn't do much evil at all.

Plus, I fail to see how they're doing evil here.

Re:Where is godzilla when we need him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31566030)

Godzilla lives on Rizon.

Re:Where is godzilla when we need him? (1)

SmackTheIgnorant (985978) | more than 4 years ago | (#31566836)

Godzilla lives on Rizon.

You don't get that big off of Ramon (noodles), that's for sure.

Re:Where is godzilla when we need him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31567154)

god it Ramen geeze some nerd you are.

Re:Where is godzilla when we need him? (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 4 years ago | (#31567446)

You don't get that big off of Ramon (noodles), that's for sure.

Have you see how much fat is in half a pack (one serving)? And I normally eat two packs at a time. Not to mention how much sodium......but still probably the best $$/serving ratio you can find. 10 packs for $1 = 20 servings = 5 cents per serving. And that's grocery store prices, I'm sure the warehouse club prices are even cheaper.

Re:Where is godzilla when we need him? (1)

keithpreston (865880) | more than 4 years ago | (#31569542)

Well godzilla (Godzilla, King of the Monsters) was on youtube, until viacom sent a DMCA notice to take it down.

Its not about the content. (5, Interesting)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31564880)

This is about being the gatekeeper to media content. It has nothing at all to do with piracy per see. Youtube is the place to be if you want content to spread, like traliers, new bands etc.

If Youtube becomes the place to be for content Viacom and the rest of the leeches gets taken out of the equation as distributors. Its the same fight the RIAA is making. Its not about piracy, its about deciding what you watch, listens to and buys.

Re:Its not about the content. (1, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31564936)

Its the same fight the RIAA is making. Its not about piracy, its about deciding what you watch, listens to and buys.

When has RIAA decided for you what you should watch? Sure, if you like bands under the labels that work with RIAA, those labels might go towards more popular music. It doesn't mean they're deciding what you can listen - you're free to go to any local pub, event or even look for indie music on the internet. There are a lot websites for non-signed artists to release their music and RIAA has no saying over that since the artists haven't given them permission to do so. You do know that RIAA doesn't just blindly attack sharing of any music, but only music by artists who have (or their labels have) authorized them to do so.

Re:Its not about the content. (5, Informative)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31564968)

You do know that RIAA doesn't just blindly attack sharing of any music, but only music by artists who have (or their labels have) authorized them to do so.

This is not true, the fines imposed on blank media for example are all going to big labels. I think the chance of my blank CD-R being used to burn some legally bought indie music is much larger than ever being used to illegally copy the latest Lady Gaga CD, but nevertheless the money goes to this mafia. I would call this 'fined for being guilty of infringement whatever the circumstance' a blind attack on one method of sharing music, and it also negates the second part of your claim since indie artists have never authorized the big labels to collect (and keep) this fine for them.

Re:Its not about the content. (2, Interesting)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31566080)

Simple solution, don't buy music CDRs? Does your country impose a tax on all blank media? The US doesn't, they have "special" music CDR media, which is no different then regular CDR media, it just costs more.

Re:Its not about the content. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31566592)

The US doesn't, they have "special" music CDR media, which is no different then regular CDR media

Music CD-R carries a specific flag in the pregroove that a desktop PC's internal CD-RW drive ignores. But CD recorders that aren't part of a "computer system" require it. Besides, the safe harbor for non-commercial copying of sound recordings under 17 USC 1008 isn't guaranteed to hold unless you use a suitably taxed "digital audio recording medium".

Re:Its not about the content. (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31568126)

Yeah, sadly here in Europe we pay the tax no matter what, even if you just use the CDs to burn linux install discs. The tax on a music CD is about three times the tax on a data CD. Music CDs are only used rarely, even the old CD players in cars handle the normal CD-R perfectly well so there is really no point...

Re:Its not about the content. (3, Insightful)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31565060)

If you for one second think what you hear on the radio is decided by the radio station itself you sir are very gullable. Its very hard getting aired unless you have a big contract not matter how good your music is. On the rare occasions it happens RIAA is defacating themselves because you cant write slave contracts with an already successful artist.

Re:Its not about the content. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31570960)

If you for one second think what you hear on the radio is decided by the radio station itself you sir are very gullable. Its very hard getting aired unless you have a big contract not matter how good your music is. On the rare occasions it happens RIAA is defacating themselves because you cant write slave contracts with an already successful artist.

I know my radio station chooses because it's funded by the public (Thank you NPR!)

Re:Its not about the content. (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31565118)

When has RIAA decided for you what you should watch? Sure, if you like bands under the labels that work with RIAA, those labels might go towards more popular music.

Both you and I know that the bands "working with RIAA" are promoted and slammed down our throats. In addition the radio stations that you can listen to are (with the very rare exception of a few I know in Minnesota) pretty much forced to play RIAA only songs. I live in DC and aside from bands like The Bravery that are already on a large label, I have never heard an unsigned local band showcased or even played on the radio. If you were to build a case for the RIAA deciding what you hear, there it is. They are the deciders on who gets played on TV and the Radio. And miffo.swe was pointing out that this fact is why the internet is a thorn in their side.

It doesn't mean they're deciding what you can listen - you're free to go to any local pub, event or even look for indie music on the internet.

You can't use that last point about the internet because that's what is being debated here. That's what we're talking about annoys the hell out of the RIAA. It annoys them because I'll never hear acts like Joanna Newsom [youtube.com] at "any local pub or event." I depend on the internet for it because no radio station in my area has the balls to play it even at 2am.

There are a lot websites for non-signed artists to release their music and RIAA has no saying over that since the artists haven't given them permission to do so. You do know that RIAA doesn't just blindly attack sharing of any music, but only music by artists who have (or their labels have) authorized them to do so.

This particular discussion isn't about file sharing, it's about promotion and distribution channels and consumer awareness. The accusations are that the RIAA enjoy limiting consumer awareness. They don't want to lose 20% of their purchases to acts like Joanna Newsom or hundreds of other bands that you might actually like but you'll never know because there's this great system set up to protect you from <evil voice>Something Different!</evil voice> Do you have any idea how difficult it was for me to hear about Matthew Hemerlein [indiefeed.com] despite the fact that I live in DC? Thank god for the internet and the new distribution channels it provides. I agree with miffo.swe that the RIAA is a bit annoyed that I'm going to be sending money directly to labels like Drag City and Afternoon Records instead of the "Big Four."

Re:Its not about the content. (0, Redundant)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 4 years ago | (#31565282)

You may be listening to the wrong stations, then... Admittedly, the Clearchannel stations are told by the RIAA what they're going to be playing, but there *are* indie/alternative stations in most major cities that will play indie music and promote local artists.

Here's the one I listen to the most: http://live885.com/ [live885.com]

Re:Its not about the content. (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31565370)

You may be listening to the wrong stations, then... Admittedly, the Clearchannel stations are told by the RIAA what they're going to be playing, but there *are* indie/alternative stations in most major cities that will play indie music and promote local artists.

Here's the one I listen to the most: http://live885.com/ [live885.com]

Don't get me wrong, there are some good bands here ... and especially the international ones are good. I have CDs of Arcade Fire and We Were Promised Jetpacks but let's not kid ourselves, Pearl Jam has some albums on UMG. Red Hot Chili Peppers is on EMI. From a quick glance at the playlist, a lot of these bands aren't directly on big labels but they're on labels like Island Records [wikipedia.org] which is now owned by UMG. Even the renowned subpop walks a fine line with Warner's half ownership [wikipedia.org] .

If you want a good idea of what I'm talking about, check out the programming at my old college's radio station [umn.edu] . It even appears that Minnesota Public Radio [publicradio.org] has a better mix of both indie and big four than live 885. When I listen to these channels on the internet, I find that I am constantly writing down acts and constantly going directly to their pages to send them $8-$10 for an album. I wish more people took this organic approach to finding out what your music tastes are instead of being force fed commercialized music or trying to align your tastes with your friends'.

Live 885 has some good stuff and is way more palatable to the average listener but if you could point out a Radio K or even The Current for the DC area where I now live, I would thank you endlessly.

Re:Its not about the content. (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 4 years ago | (#31565432)

The thing being, in order to be successful commercially, a station has to play what people want to hear. That means that while they can, and do, support local acts (there's a number of local bands that got started on Live, some of which are actually making waves internationally now), they still have to play what's popular, too. They're about the only station in town who'll play Green Day or Offspring, though, both of whom are independant.

Take a look at some of the contests they run... the thing about Live is that they own a nightclub, too... the radio station is really an adjunct to the nightclub, rather than the other way around... they have open mic nights and have discovered some very good local talent through that. And if you look at the "Big Money Shot" contest on the website, that's a battle of the bands type contest they do every year, and give away $250,000 in funding to the winner (not to mention prizes for each round leading up to the final).

Re:Its not about the content. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31565698)

They're about the only station in town who'll play Green Day or Offspring, though, both of whom are independant.

No, no they are not. Green Day's last album was on Reprise which is owned by Warner Music Group! The Offspring is currently releasing albums on Colubmia ... owned by Sony Music Entertainment!

In what reality do you live in where those bands are considered at all independent?!

Re:Its not about the content. (1)

AnEducatedNegro (1372687) | more than 4 years ago | (#31578296)

you don't get umd's radio station? ilad, imperial china, us royalty etc. have all had air time there. i suspect you don't follow the indie scene in dc

Re:Its not about the content. (4, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31565390)

Can I interject here? the phrase ' ... but there "are" indie/alternative stations in...' is one of the most offensive ideas that I've actually listened to in a while. It at once sounds like you are both excusing the desperately bad situation by offering alternatives and trying to ignore the wrongfulness that is the current music industry.

It might be better said as 'even though the RIAA and music industry in general are evil bastards who want to control every aspect of the artists' content without properly compensating the artists, some people have rebelled and work through indie/alternative radio stations. The best way to tell the RIAA how you feel is to go see local artists in concert, pay for any self pressed CD's they have.

Go away, you're not 21 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31566646)

The best way to tell the RIAA how you feel is to go see local artists in concert

Unless you happen to be a high-school-age or college-age fan of a band that happens not to play at all-ages venues.

Re:Its not about the content. (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31566158)

Try 98 rock instead of DC 101... 98 rock hosts a indy artist event and plays indy music on certain nights of the week. You might be able to find a college radio station that plays indy music as well, and I would love to hear about it if you do.

Re:Its not about the content. (1)

goopie (547816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31571410)

You can't use that last point about the internet because that's what is being debated here. That's what we're talking about annoys the hell out of the RIAA. It annoys them because I'll never hear acts like Joanna Newsom [youtube.com] at "any local pub or event." I depend on the internet for it because no radio station in my area has the balls to play it even at 2am.

This has got to be the first time I've been introduced to new music via /.

Thanks.

Re:Its not about the content. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31565146)

So, let me get this straight -

Viacom invests money in creating things like the daily show and other programs you like to watch.

A major or THE major chunk of youtube revenues comes from the ads that youtube shows on infringing clips from the time they are uploaded to the time they are taken down. Viacom, the creator of the material, gets none of the money.

And yet, in your view, Viacom is the 'leech'.

So, remind me again, when you part with somebody over there in bizarro world, do you say "bad bye" or "hello"?

Re:Its not about the content. (2, Informative)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31566274)

I think the part you are missing is that Viacom is perfectly willing to use Youtube, but freaks out when they see clips they uploaded on it.

Re:Its not about the content. (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31568688)

Which is completely reasonable from a legal POV. It may be evil, but leveraging your copyrights to make sure you're the only one that gets to upload it is completely legal.

Filing a frivolous lawsuit against youtube for clips that you DID authorize, however, is not.

I do hope Viacom gets spanked by the judge for abuse of process. Even if it was done by accident, uploading clips and then suing youtube for hosting them is a low blow.

If viacom is doing that on purpose then there should be hell to pay.

Honestly, in this case I'd call for sanctions.

Re:Its not about the content. (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31569616)

Agreed.

Re:Its not about the content. (2, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31570746)

Even if they didn't foolishly sue over the clips they themselves uploaded, it still wouldn't matter.

DMCA takedown provisions were written for this exact case. See an infringing work? Write a take-down letter! Google complies with DMCA to the letter, and they will take that content down. As such, they're not liable.

Re:Its not about the content. (2, Insightful)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 4 years ago | (#31568432)

It's also about controlling the entire chain of production, from studio to screen. That's why Viacom tried to buy Youtube, and why they have this convoluted scheme of suing infringing uploads while uploading illicitly themselves, apparently designed solely to undermine Youtube legally. You control the entire chain, you get to dictate the terms to every link. It's that simple.

Youtube is the final link between the studio and the viewer, and Viacom wanted to be the first to control it. But Google made a better offer, and Viacom is now in "if I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!!" tantrum mode.

Re:Its not about the content. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31579470)

I'm hearing "it's too big to fail" somewhere in all this. #bailouts

When juggernauts try their hands at new ideas (3, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31564892)

Viacom learned that this "viral marketing" thing is kinda good PR, and cheap too! 'cause people don't like marketing and ads when they see them, especially when it comes to music and anything targeted at teenagers, who by default despise everything their parents (or any person over 30) think is a good idea. So they thought it would be spiffy to put up some of those videos in some sort of "clandestine" operation, probably with some astroturfing going along, and hey, I'm pretty sure it even worked!

"But those damn kids should buy our crap, not listen to it for free!", decried some other department, probably the beancounters this time, who, by their very nature, don't really talk that much with the loonies from PR. So put up takedown notices.

Watch a company battle itself. It's actually pretty entertaining.

Re:When juggernauts try their hands at new ideas (4, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31565260)

Watch a company battle itself. It's actually pretty entertaining.

    No. Not when I'm paying for it because they're doing it through the court system - a system that tells me I have to wait 2 years for my case because of the backlog of cases. A system whose original intention was to prevent the little guy from being screwed by the strong but has turned out to be too expensive for the average citizen. It's not funny at all.

Re:When juggernauts try their hands at new ideas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31565534)

Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

I might have more sympathy for you if you weren't hurting cute, innocent, little puppies [top-dogs-names.com] while posting!

Re:When juggernauts try their hands at new ideas (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31573882)

I might have more sympathy for you if you weren't hurting cute, innocent, little puppies while posting!

      Considering I've made over 4600 comments, that's a lot of harmed puppies! I am the puppy equivalent of Joseph Stalin...

      No but seriously, I like puppies (especially on toast with a bit of marmalade). I have nothing against puppies. I do have something against political correctness and people who try to manipulate others by feigning to be shocked, offended and outraged. Thus the puppy signature. I figured it was the easiest way to piss off any politically correct/pseudo-sensitive people who read my posts.

      However I really wouldn't hurt a single puppy. In fact I had one fall asleep on my lap last weekend and he complained (without waking up) when I put him in his basket after an hour or so on my lap. My wife thought it was very cute to hear this puppy "grumbling" over being so "mistreated" as to be taken off my lap and covered with a blanket. But shhh! Don't tell anyone :)

Re:When juggernauts try their hands at new ideas (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31568792)

And why we need to go to loser pays by default.

Making people eat the costs of a bum lawsuit, or a bum defense will make people think twice before clogging up the courts.

Re:When juggernauts try their hands at new ideas (1)

iSzabo (1392353) | more than 4 years ago | (#31569812)

I disagree; There's a very different culture in the United States compared even to Canada with respect to how people view lawsuits. In Canada you don't threaten lawsuits lightly because you know it's going to be costly, however I've been threatened with lawsuits from shady apartments here. I really think that having the ability for a lawyer to agree to work for a portion of the settlement leads only to frivolous lawsuits. With that said, dragging out an individual's livelihood in years of cases until they can't afford to represent themselves is irresponsible; and I admit I have no idea how to prevent that.

infringing content (5, Funny)

MancunianMaskMan (701642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31564914)

hey, your kitten walking on the piano keyboard was playing a song owned by SonyWarnerEMI. We'll sue the whiskers off him!

I can has lawsuit? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31565028)

Your trolling, no way would they sue a kitten. That would be like sueing a grandmother, or a disabled person... oh wait.

Re:I can has lawsuit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31566230)

What do being old or gimped have to do with anything? You distribute copyrighted works without consent of the rights holder, you're committing an offense under the law. Unless there's some secret provision that old people and the disabled are exempt. I must've missed that part.

Re:I can has lawsuit? (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31566684)

You distribute copyrighted works without consent of the rights holder, you're committing an offense under the law.

I understand this. But if I write a song, how do I make sure that its melody isn't already copyrighted by someone?

Re:I can has lawsuit? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31568808)

Exactly, it's not like the melody has been patented after all...

Re:infringing content (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31565180)

Youtube/Google has brought in hundreds of millions of dollars for itself in advertising revenue due largely to the draw of infringing content. Sure, they take it down eventually once somebody goes through the DCMA hoops, but just as quickly the process starts again as another uploader sends the same content. The actual creators / rightsholders are uncompensated while google makes off like a bandit for this sleight of hand. Your kitten analogy, however 'funny' just serves to muddle further this issue. Yes, I like the fact that I can watch, say, some clip from the daily show on youtube. i'd like it more if the creator of the clip was actually compensated fairly for it, perhaps after a negotiation with youtube. at the very least, youtube should have a policy of paying the advertising monies collected on infringing clips to the rightsholders, but, well, of course you'll have to go through a lot of lawyers before that will ever happen.

Re:infringing content (2, Insightful)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 4 years ago | (#31565384)

And yet I've had my own clips taken down because the radio was on in the background and some content provider complained to youtube.

So I can post a unmodified 1 minute video on youtube simply because the radio was on and some filter decided that was too much infringement.

Re:infringing content (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31570330)

And yet I've posted clips from a commercial radio station, received over 1,000 'views' and they are still there, untouched. I even stated "These are from Talksport". Still there.

Re:infringing content (2, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31570820)

Youtube/Google has brought in hundreds of millions of dollars for itself in advertising revenue due largely to the draw of infringing content. Sure, they take it down eventually once somebody goes through the DCMA hoops, but just as quickly the process starts again as another uploader sends the same content.

DMCA was put in place for a reason. And, as far as I recall, it was vigorously supported, and the need for it defended, by those very same companies that now whine about how Google "makes money off stolen content" while abiding to DMCA to the letter.

No sympathy whatsoever from here, sorry (and I am generally pro-copyright, unlike many on Slashdot). What they are essentially asking for is to place burden of determining legitimacy of posted copyrighted material on service providers, which is unfeasible and unreasonable for obvious reasons.

Make no mistake - Google is no different from your ISP here, and if they succeed in suing Google, your ISP will be next on the line, for letting you upload those nasty pirated bytes to YouTube over their pipes.

Re:infringing content (1)

lavardo (683333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31570490)

And chop off the cat's claws.

Test your /. age by reading the summary... (5, Funny)

kramerd (1227006) | more than 4 years ago | (#31564954)

After reading the summary (seriously, do this first or this won't work at all), gauge your reaction to the article that you won't be reading to determine how long and for what purposes you read /.

If you are surprised by any of the summary, you must be new here.

If you aren't angered by the summary, you have been here too long.

If you mentally insert else statements between each of these lines, you are sleep deprived DBA. Go take a nap.

If you question Eric Goldman's credentials, but haven't done any research to to discredit him, you are a /. troll.

If you just went to research Eric Goldman's credentials so that you could respond with research to discredit him, you are a /. pedent.

If you just tried to correct the misspelling of pedant in the previous line, you are a grammar nazi.

If you instead thought that discrediting Eric Goldman wouldn't take much effort but that doing so isn't pedantic, you have a valid point, and thus, would be modded down for pointing it out.

If you just thought to yourself 'who is Eric Goldman?,' try reading the summary next time.

If you can remember another /. article that pointed out that a company ended up suing themselves (and losing), so do I.

If you read the heading of this post and thought ' this is stupid, you can gauge someone's /. age by the number of digits in the UID, its probably a valid point, but makes this entire post worthless, so keep that to yourself.

Re:Test your /. age by reading the summary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31564972)

You must be new here.

Re:Test your /. age by reading the summary... (3, Insightful)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31565078)

If you aren't angered by the summary, you have been here too long.

Either that, or you've simply worked in a larger company for a while and realized that schizophrenia is pretty much the ground state of being.

Apropos Goldman's credentials (2, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31565222)

Any "law professor" who says "attorney generals" instead of "attorneys general" might want to consider going taking a course in Law 101 rather than teaching it.

Grammar alert! (1)

Comboman (895500) | more than 4 years ago | (#31566258)

That would be a grammar course, not law. While we're on the topic; what would be the possessive form of attorney general? Would you write "the attorney general's office" or "the attorney's general office"? And if the plural form doesn't match the possessive form, I'd sure like to hear your explanation for it.

Re:Grammar alert! (0, Offtopic)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31566336)

Did I write the article in question? Do I style myself a professor of law? I must have forgotten that.

Possessive is a clitic (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31566868)

While we're on the topic; what would be the possessive form of attorney general? Would you write "the attorney general's office" or "the attorney's general office"?

The possessive marker in English acts as an enclitic [wikipedia.org] , or suffix on the phrase. More than one "king of Spain" are "kings of Spain", but King Juan Carlos wears "the king of Spain's hat".

Re:Possessive is a clit (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#31571100)

King Juan Carlos wears "the king of Spain's hat".

Dang! Does the King of Spain know about this?

Re:Possessive is a clitic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31573822)

The clitic is real. I've seen it.

Re:Possessive is a clitic (1)

IndigoDarkwolf (752210) | more than 4 years ago | (#31575414)

So how would you make that both plural and possessive if there's one hat shared between several owners? "The kings of Spain's hat"?

Re:Test your /. age by reading the summary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31565396)

I move that this style of post be refined and made available in a form similar to the 'your plan to block e-mail spam will fail because' form.

Re:Test your /. age by reading the summary... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31565448)

"If you just tried to correct the misspelling of pedant in the previous line, you are a grammar nazi."

That wouldn't be grammar... that would be a simple typo. Not knowing the difference between they're | their | there would be grammar related.

-Reality Checker

Re:Test your /. age by reading the summary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31574260)

Actually, a typographical error is also a grammatical error.

Grammar is the study of how sentences are formed, along with usage and prescription of speaking and writing.

Re:Test your /. age by reading the summary... (1)

InfinityWpi (175421) | more than 4 years ago | (#31570186)

If you read the heading of this post and thought ' this is stupid, you can gauge someone's /. age by the number of digits in the UID, its probably a valid point, but makes this entire post worthless, so keep that to yourself.

Damn kid. Get off my lawn.

Everything else posted is pretty much 100% correct...

Viacom deserves to lose protections. (1, Insightful)

TheAlkymyst (1695930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31564986)

If you intend to use the copyright system as a means to cheat when you don't get your way, I feel you should be removed from the system and its protection. Viacom's copyrights should pass into the realm of public domain for their behavior in this case.

Re:Viacom deserves to lose protections. (1)

MacWiz (665750) | more than 4 years ago | (#31579828)

...some of the clips Viacom was suing over were ones Viacom uploaded themselves...

This merely confirms my suspicions.

Viacom's copyrights should pass into the realm of public domain for their behavior in this case.

Sadly, that's not how they do things. They'll pay out a few million to settle out of court, and do it without admitting guilt. Like it never happened.

Hypocrites (2)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31565016)

They (Viacom) look like a bunch of hypocrites, they want their cake and eat it as well. I am not saying Youtube is innocent. But I hope viacom get slapped, and get slapped hard.

Re:Hypocrites (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#31571138)

They (Viacom) look like a bunch of hypocrites, they want their cake and eat it as well.

Well I know if I had a cake I'd certainly want to eat it...

Wonder where microsoft is (0, Troll)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31565092)

Anytime you need litigation or potty-mouth chair-throwing, Microsoft will be there for you.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-02/ff_killgoogle [wired.com]
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-139743.html [zdnet.com]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/05/chair_chucking/ [theregister.co.uk]

Rule against both companies, in favor of authors (1, Interesting)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31565156)

Tell both Viacom and Google they have to supply equipment and training for the production of 500 original videos per day, to be copyrighted by the authors themselves exclusively. Modify copyright law so that most things produced become property of the people who actually work on it, not of the company who hired them, and in the future companies become forced to negotiate terms with actors, directors, and writers, constantly renegotiating terms of use with them and producing new things, rather than already owning all the content merely by virtue of having financed the work and written the contracts and imposed terms to their advantage.

Re:Rule against both companies, in favor of author (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31565290)

"Modify copyright law so that most things produced become property of the people who actually work on it, not of the company who hired them"

Wow. I've never read anything so blitheringly inept in my life. Congratulations.

Re:Rule against both companies, in favor of author (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31568956)

In which case the firms employing them can start charging the artists fees for the usage of their studios.

I agree with "work for hire" on principle since you are still getting a paycheck and are using the company's resources.

However, I think the answer here is education.

Make sure people know about work for hire.

Re:Rule against both companies, in favor of author (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31570532)

Thing is, in most cases, you'd need to be pretty naive not to know about it. I'm quite happy that just about any creative work I've ever worked on (at least the for-profit ones) has belonged to the company I worked for. That was pretty clear implicitly from the start.

Re:Rule against both companies, in favor of author (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31577344)

1. Copyright laws are already written as you suggest above.

2. Read up on the history of trying to bring the WKRP tv series to DVD and you will see how keeping rights with the original authors creates a tangled legal mess that would likely PREVENT reissues of most multi-author media.

OR for that matter, look at the film credits of a major motion picture or even a video game like Grand Theft Auto. We're talking hundreds and hundreds of people creating media for the game or movie. You want it such that if they ever ported the game or re-released the movie 10 years down the road, that they would have to track down hundreds of rights holders and negotiated hundreds of contracts? In this scenario even ONE person can hold up or even prevent such a possibility.

Attorney generals? As Goldman says, "WTF?" (0, Offtopic)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31565206)

What kind of law professor doesn't know that it's Attorneys General?

Those who can, do. Those who can't, get tenure.

Re:Attorney generals? As Goldman says, "WTF?" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31567806)

What kind of law professor doesn't know that it's Attorneys General?

Those who can, do. Those who can't, get tenure.

Pray tell, wise sir, what doth thou call two of them? The king wore his hat, as had the king before him. The king's hat was the hat of kings.

Bad google (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31565410)

some 0.016% of all YouTube accounts have been deleted for infringement

Yes, under DMCA you have to post content frequently enough for the content holder to request an account takedown, as a result this is not even remotely indicative of the level of copyright violations on YT.

Anyway the issue isn't really about users posting copyrighted material (nor about content owners shrapnel approach to DMCA notices ignoring fairuse), it is about the fact Google has crowned itself guardian of all the worlds content and is basically saying to publishers "we will pay you what we want not what you think your content is worth but only if you tell us too, otherwise we will simply assume you permit us to make use of your content free". There are 5 major cases lined up behind the Viacom one waiting to see what happens, if two or three of these are found in favour of the content owners the cost to Google will be astronomical (in to the tens of billions is entirely possible).

Google should have never started with the attitude "We will use others content and seek their permission later", not only is it a disgusting attitude to take but it may ultimate set back useful IP reform decades.

always amusing (4, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31566926)

I always find these legal battles so amusing. Not to bad mouth youtube/google but, the percentage of accounts that have uploaded "infringing content" is such a laughable statistic. I wonder what percentage of accounts have uploaded anything? More than 1 vidoe? More than 2?

My guess is, most accounts would fall into one of a couple of catagories:
1. People who made an account to post a comment, and never used it again
2. People who made an account to upload some stupid video from their phone, and never used it again after one or two such videos.
3. People who wanted to see a video that was only accessible to people who made an account because it had some "mature content"
4. People who would fall into catagory 1-3, but found they liked commenting or having personal playlists
5. Old accounts tied to old email addresses of people who currently are in 1-4.\

If those categories don't account for 70% or more of all accounts, I would be shocked.

-Steve

You ins3Nsitive clod. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31568868)

NOT including (all) the campaign videos (1)

aegl (1041528) | more than 4 years ago | (#31572296)

I seem to remember that some candidates used copyrighted music as the soundtrack for their campaign videos without permission of the rights holder. Holding them up as a shining example of all that is good and right about non-infringing use of You-Tube clearly does not match with recent history.

Re:NOT including (all) the campaign videos (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31577454)

Ah, yes, campaign music...

However, as awesome as this particular campaign song [youtube.com] is, you have to see it including the clip. Right, Mrs. Clinton? ;-)

Copyrighted does not always equal Infringing (1)

BillX (307153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31579268)

"Worse, YouTube founder Karim once uploaded infringing content."

Hey, we get it - there were some emails from the early days of YouTube that make clear that they (pre-Google) were aware of copyrighted videos on the site, and decided on a case-by-case basis what to do about them (delete immediately, delete in a couple weeks when a viral traffic spike dies down, wait until someone formally complains). But was it ever ruled that any of these videos were actually infringing (and not e.g. fake-leaked videos by an authorized marketing company, or fair use)?

Scenario: Karim copies a 15-second CNN 'oops' clip in which a reporter's pants fall down during a live interview, from Break.com, or the early-youtube equivalent of Fail Blog, etc. Obviously, CNN has copyright ownership in it, maybe a lawyer could argue early-failblog has some derivative-work interest in it somehow (an early-failblog watermark stamped into the corner). But whether this is actual infringement, and to whom, is a matter only the court can decide. Until such a decision, I don't see how the "incriminating" Youtube emails are worth the paper they're printed on as proof of wrongdoing.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?