Viacom: "Youtube ruling will destroy copyright"

[Saucycarpdog]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/viacom-copyright-youtube/

Basicaly, Viacom tried to sue youtube for $1 billion for having copyright material on its site but was unsuccessful with judge saying the below.

internet companies, even if they know they are hosting infringing material, are immune from copyright liability if they promptly remove works at a rights holders request

Now Viacom is trying to overturn the ruling and is saying that if the ruling stands, copyrights will be much harder to enforce.

We should be sure to watch this case carefuly for its impact on internet sites.

 

[Space Spoons]

Viacom hasn't got a chance. Even if they do somehow manage to take down YouTube (or whatever it is they're after), there are a thousand more places just like it, with more cropping up every day.

Like most pre-Internet telecomm companies, Viacom's made a critical error in underestimating the sheer size and constantly changing nature of the Internet. It simply cannot be controlled... At least, not by traditional means.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Kudos to the judge for dealing with the situation in a level-headed manner. Given how many videos are uploaded to Youtube (I heard on NPR that it's 24 hours worth of content every MINUTE), it's pretty amazing they're able to remove videos that violate copyright infringement on a fairly regular basis.

Now if only Warner Music Group would stop obsessing over every video that's even tangentially related to their products and muting them all (ever hear of fair use?!).

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Viacom hasn't got a chance. Even if they do somehow manage to take down YouTube (or whatever it is they're after), there are a thousand more places just like it, with more cropping up every day.

Like most pre-Internet telecomm companies, Viacom's made a critical error in underestimating the sheer size and constantly changing nature of the Internet. It simply cannot be controlled... At least, not by traditional means.

They just want to set an example for any other file sharing sites by suing youtube.

 

[Retal19]

In my personal opinion, Viacom is a whining little *****.

 

[SimuLord]

Here's to the judge. But it's sad that it's actually newsworthy when a corporation can't impose its will on the public---normally we're simply asked to lie back and think of England when we get involuntarily fucked by Corporate America.

 

[RobCoxxy]

In my personal opinion, Viacom is a whining little *****.

Pretty much.
And I don't think the internet people will care if copyright dies.

 

[bob1052]

There are too many videos to pre-screen by a human to prevent copyrighted material from getting on Youtube. But even if Youtube is 100% compliant with removing content that doesn't comply with copyright laws Viacom thinks they should still be held responsible.

The $1 billion isn't even the worst part. Youtube would need to completely restructure their whole system to prevent it from happening again. Article should be, "Viacom wants to destroy Youtube with overturning ruling".

 

[Atmos Duality]

Viacom wants to destroy a powerful source of coverage...why?
Oh right. Because people who are watching Youtube aren't watching Viacom media on Viacom channels. That means no data for Nielson numbers, and thus, less advertising revenue.

So this probably has less to do with enforcing copyright directly, and more to do with Viacom eliminating potential competition.

 

[Tdc2182]

Viacom needs to go.

Their enforcements on copyright material ruined a business of someone I know without them doing anything.

 

[drbarno]

Viacom isn't dead yet? Either way, they still want to enforce obsolete copyright laws.

From what I know they own Nickleodeon and they're still running.

 

[Lonan]

I'm not quite sure if I understand. I see music removed from videos all the time because of a rights holders request. Does Viacom want to be able to sue Youtube if a user uploads a video with copyrighted music? If so, that's completely absurd.

 

[Erzengel]

"Youtube ruling will destroy copyright"
God I hope so. It's just another in a long list of laws that hurt their supposed benefactors more than help.

 

[Kagim]

As long as the company is willing to remove copyrighted material at the holders wishes they don't really have a case. Youtube is very good for removing copyright material when it gets reported. Viacom doesn't have a case.

The ruling won;t harm copyright at all. I don't think many people really understand the purpose of copyright anymore...

 

[Jack and Calumon]

Viacom tried to get everyone done for copyright, including Cory "Mr Safety" Williams, a legend of a man. They went after his ORIGINAL song "The Mean Kitty".


He responded after the claims with...


Awesomeness. Plus there are other claims on Youtube that Viacom have gone after Random Youtube videos. I really don't like them.

Calumon: Maybe they need money 'cos no-one likes them? : (

 

[Booze Zombie]

Ha, what a joke.
These idiots in suits are going to get the self-importance spanked outta them.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Someone's a little mad about ACTA not getting passed.

I thought that bill was still in the negotiation stage. I never heard about it not getting passed.

 

[skips]

I can't even explain how happy this makes me. Now if only they abolish copyright for music...

 

[SenseOfTumour]

What gets me is takedowns on music videos.

They do understand that a music video is an ADVERT, that youtube are hosting and distributing for free to people who are actively interested and seek out what that advert is trying to sell?

Contrary to the popular belief of every tool in a suit, most of us don't find a music video on youtube, favourite it, then boot up our PC and go to youtube every time we'd like to listen to a horribly lo fi version of that tune, we tend to go buy the album. (or torrent it, but either way youtube isn't your main problem guys.)

 

[Zaik]

Youtube is *so* good about taking stuff down, you can actually make completely baseless claims that are obviously made up with a youtube account that was made 23 seconds ago and they will immediately remove anything you want.

The uploader can later repeal it and it will easily be overturned, however the repeal process is a lot more difficult than the takedown process, and repeatedly taking down the same video with new accounts doesn't seem to make the takedown process any more difficult.