Viacom Takes YouTube Lawsuit Into The Court Of Public Opinion
from the and-rewrites-the-DMCA-in-the-process dept
The Washington Post has handed over column space to Viacom's general counsel Michael Fricklas to explain the company's position in its lawsuit against Google/YouTube. It seems like Viacom is realizing that plenty of people seem to think it's making a pretty big mistake here (including some of its own employees), and thinks that a little explanation can sway public opinion. It's unlikely to help. Fricklas explains why Viacom thinks that the DMCA's safe harbor provisions don't protect Google -- something some legal experts disagree with. However, Fricklas may damage his own case towards the end where he talks about how unfair it is to put the burden of tracking the content on companies like Viacom, noting how difficult it is: "Putting the burden on the owners of creative works would require every copyright owner, big and small, to patrol the Web continually on an ever-burgeoning number of sites. That's hardly a workable or equitable solution." Yet, somehow it's "workable and equitable" to expect Google to do the same thing? The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA are there for very good reasons: to keep the platform providers from being responsible for what their users do. If Viacom is upset that fans are promoting their shows for them (and we still haven't quite figured out why), then why don't they do what the law says they should, and sue the fans uploading the content?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If Viacom stopped to think about this for a minute, they might see that there's a big chance to score some PR points. Deal with the "problem" and come up with a simple solution that benefits everyone - and that includes the viewers for a change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like going into mcD's and asking $15/hour with no experience. You may think you are worth it but McD' business model won't support it.
Of course, you could pull a Viacom and start your own Hamburger stand. But I doubt u will make money paying everyone $15 per hour
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Battle
I mean, they've already hurt their image by making such a fuss over YouTube. The fans aren't going to think any less of them then they already do by suing everyone over this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Battle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
restraint
I SUSPECT that it's because they've seen what results the MAFIAA's have had. Uploaders who think they'd get sued for uploading would instead move over to more "conventional" P2P services so that the distribution model then changes and it becomes harder to figure out who to sue. Moving to P2P would also probably get entire episodes uploaded instead of 10 minute clips making them even more furious.
I think right now they're showing an INCREDIBLE amount of restraint with the uploaders; I'm not saying I support their position but they're not sharing Metallica's*** kneejerk reaction at least.
***we call them "Woodica" around here since they ceased being "metal" long ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: restraint
Remember: Alternative music isn't. Alternative is just Mainstream 2.0.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To the life rafts!
Let's see, how do you get out of this situation? Oh that's right, you just explain your self. That always helps when there isn't a misunderstanding...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
I am no lawyer, but it does seem that YouTube doesn't qualify under a few provisions.
That being said, I doubt it will ever get to court. As for going after the people who upload the content, why should they? Sometimes its better to drain the swamp rather than just swat at flies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am not a lawyer, either, but it would appear to me in reading this, and your take on it, that you have missed a certain conjunction at the end of paragraph 2. Said conjunction, 'or,' indicates that they must only meet the qualifications under ONE of the three paragraphs, and they certainly do meet it under paragraph 3. They do not question DMCA notices, but act upon them almost immediately. That is what they are legally obligated to do. No more. No less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
They are generating ad revenue while the content is there ... I guess defining the word 'ability' is the key sticking point ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
They don't meet this criteria. YouTube tried the best they could to disable access to Viacom content, but in the end they couldn't get rid of ALL Viacom content. That paragraph is pretty clear that YouTube was to get rid or disable access to ALL of Viacom's content, not just make a reasonable attempt to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Techdirt continues to spin this as "Viacom getting promotion". The fact of the matter is that Viacom creates content to make money from it. They own the content. Only they have a right to control its distribution and use. YouTube clearly assists people in violating Viacom's property rights and they make money doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Most people are using Microsoft Windows software to upload/view the content on YouTube. Therefore, Microsoft clearly assists people in violating Viacom's property rights and they make money doing it.
Most people are using Dell Computers to upload/view the content on YouTube. Therefore, Dell clearly assists people in violating Viacom's property rights and they make money doing it.
Most people are using Cisco routers to upload/view the content on YouTube. Therefore, Cisco clearly assists people in violating Viacom's property rights and they make money doing it.
Shall I go on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: by squik
So any medium which may help assist someone in violating a law is now at fault? You might want to think about that one. That's like saying that a bank is at fault if someone uses them to hold money they have obtained illegally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: by squik
Bank of America paid a $38 million fine for actions its customers undertook. IDB just paid a $12 million fine. RBS paid a big fine.
Of course they are held at fault when their customers use them to hold or transfer money for illegal purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Sometimes its better to drain the swamp rather than just swat at flies."
Just because something is better or easier doesn't make it legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the DMCA
That platform offerers cannot be held accountable for how people use it.
It does make perfect sense.
No matter what goes out into the world, somebody will find a use for it the creator never thought of. That just seems to be how it is.
I like that little bit.
It should just be a simple one line sentence, but apparently it is a huge legalese tangle largely open to interpretation, how sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users.—
(1) In general.— A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—
(A)
(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
Doesn't seem to me that its a pick one and your safe, looks like you have to do all of them to qualify for safe harbor.
Its sad, but I have read articles with statements quoting law experts stating both sides.
The best question could be why doesn't the government write laws that can be undersood?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 possible reasons:
*The marketing and PR people are starting to feel the job insecurity
*Fans promoting stuff means viacom don't control how the show is promoted, which for control phreaks like them is highly distrubing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In my legal opinion, I have no idea if YouTube qualifies for safe harbor(probably because I am not a legal expert). If they don't, they can be held financially responsible for what its users put up on their site.
Understanding what the law says isn't easy, I asked our corporate lawyer and he had no clue and said you would have to talk to IP experts and such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Substantial non-infringing use
In order to cover bandwidth/support costs, YouTube will put up advertisements on their web site.
Notice that no ads are actually on the pages with video...
Also,
The "or" applies to i, ii, and iii. The "and" applies to A, B, and C.
So, that YouTube obeys A-iii clears the A clause.
The B clause is covered because they aren't making direct financial benefit from the infringing videos. After all, minus copyrighted content, there is still traffic to YouTube. You can't show that the copyrighted content is the only reason YouTube gets traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But nonetheless, there are laws about it, and the instant somebody creates a law about something, somebody somewhere starts picking it apart, trying to find loopholes to use to their advantage. Viacom is doing just that. Uploading their content to YouTube is in no way claiming that somebody other than Viacom created said comment. There is no profit from sharing the content on Google, unless you count the income from advertisements on the website, which is arguable at best. If anything, Google and Viacom need to work out a deal for how to split that income.
Viacom has an oppurtunity for its content to be hosted and promoted completely free of charge, and even make some money at it in the meantime. I'm not a business strategist, but that sounds like a pretty smart idea to me. After all, I thought the phrase was "money talks." How they going to come out ahead on this moneywise?
Instead they seek to ruin their reputation in the marketplace and alienate their customer base, all for maintaining their precious little copyright. And in fact they are breaking the law while doing all this, and they need to be brought into court and shot down once and for all. Hopefully that will serve as an example for all. Even if they do somehow win the lawsuit, their reputation will be damaged beyond repair for the forseeable future. I will mention one more time how this is a perfect example of an utter lack of common sense. You gotta wonder how these lawyers sleep at night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think Viacom is doing a wonderful job protecting their assets by pulling their property of Google. The only thing they could do to diminish their PR rating is by making a deal with Google. They need to get a judgment, not settle.
Anyone who advocates uploading copyrighted materials, or the failure to police such uploads, is like a squatter. They take over another person's house, use it as their own, always claiming they have a right to so because of some imagined "wrong" done by the owner , the government or "society."
If people were moral and ethical they would report all all copyright infrigments themselves to Google, then there would be no need for lawsuits like this one.
But people are not moral or ethical, people are corrupt. Their lives are so empty that they see something and they automatically think they own it and are free to share it.
The reality is that it takes serious money to create media and companies have a right to control that media so they can make money to produce more projects and to make a profit.
Those who think:
- there is a loophole to ownership,
- that companies who give away products are doing themselves a favor,
- distribution can't be controlled
are just wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-Money Laundering, Know Your Customer, Customer Identification Programs, these are all laws that hold financial institutions responsible when their customers break the law.
Bank of America paid a $38 million fine, IDB just paid a $12 million fine. It goes on an on. Sure, YouTube has a lot of video's uploaded, but think its more than the number of financial transactions that go on each and every day?
Anyone holding or transmitting funds are held to these standards. I recently saw that eBay was hiring an AML expert. From PayPal to Bank of New York, they are all held responsible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get with the 21st century!
"Anyone who advocates uploading copyrighted materials, or the failure to police such uploads, is like a squatter. They take over another person's house, use it as their own, always claiming they have a right to so because of some imagined "wrong" done by the owner , the government or "society."
You can't compare squatting on actual physical property with reproducing digital media and uploading it. They are not even close to the same.
"If people were moral and ethical they would report all copyright infrigments themselves to Google, then there would be no need for lawsuits like this one."
Yes, everyone should protect corporations interests because corporations are always protecting our interests LOL.
"But people are not moral or ethical, people are corrupt. Their lives are so empty that they see something and they automatically think they own it and are free to share it."
Great generalizations! Considering all people are corrupt then of course the whole idea of "owning" art and media must also be completely corrupt.
These corporations that think they can own a millions of individual works of art and media that they had little or nothing to do with other than buying them are insane. They prey upon humanity's natural ability to create art and then expect the people who created the culture in the first place to pay for it.
I will make this plain and clear, a closed copyrighted society only benefits the top 2% of people. It is an unfair system that gives a minority group of people an advantage in acquiring wealth and manipulating popular culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get with the 21st century!
LOL??? This isn't funny. This is tragic! It is the heart of the matter, however. It's not so much about being ethical as individuals and holding corporations to a high ethical standard, it's all about negative rants against corporations, isn't it?
This is a kind of "cultural communism." Those people I mentioned previously... whose lives are so empty that they see something and they automatically think they own it and are free to share it (you know who you are out there!)... can't produce, so all they can do is bitch at those who do, in this case corporations like Viacom.
If you think capitalism is " insane" Reed, then you need to visit Cuba, almost the last place on the planet where property rights mean almost nothing. Everyone "shares" everything, that's why nobody has anything.
Corporations are an essential element of society. There are good ones and bad ones. In this case it is my opinion that Viacom is the good one, Google is the outlaw for not supporting intellectual property right of individuals and corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Get with the 21st century!
"This is a kind of "cultural communism." Those people I mentioned previously..."
Insert buzzword communism here!? It is hard to take you seriously when you try to bring non-relevant things into the discussion. Sounds like you like to spread FUD more than talk sanely about an issue.
"Corporations are an essential element of society. There are good ones and bad ones. In this case it is my opinion that Viacom is the good one, Google is the outlaw for not supporting intellectual property right of individuals and corporations."
If they are so essential then why did we do fine for so long without them? Corporations are only about profit. If you actually understand corporate law then you would know that officers in a corporation are legally bound by law to put the profits of the corporation above even things like public welfare.
Try watching The Corporation if you want to understand the other side of the argument. Here is a link to it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y
It is not about black and white or capitalism and communism. These are just propaganda terms invented to confuse and distort the real issues at hand. By the way, welcome to the United Corporations of America, I hope you enjoy the fact that profit is more important than any moral value in existence.
Google is a shining beacon in a world of dark and destruction corporations. It is sad you would portray them in such a negative light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Musings
YouTube does NOT DIRECTLY profit from Viacoms videos, it does not charge anyone to view the videos. It does make money by selling ads, but those ads are NOT directly attributable to the Viacom videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Musings
Couldn't disagree with you more, Not a Lawyer. All law is (or must be) based on ethics and morality. The separation of "morality" and "law" is at the root of the decay of American culture. Nothing is about right and wrong anymore, it's all about "me" and "how I feel."
There are a million examples of how divorcing morality, ethics from law is ruining America, but I'll provide just one: The Iraqi war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Customer service reps for cable and telco companies? They would be perfect, they can talk for days and say absolutly nothing that the caller could understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube != 'Safe Harbor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YouTube != 'Safe Harbor
Youtube is nothing like a TV Channel,
With TV channels nothing they did not authorize will appear.
With YouTube unless they have a reason to take it down and know about it, they maintain no control over the content
If you want to compare youtube to something try Citizens' band radio, but maintained by a private for profit company
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While my heart can agree with your sentiments my head cannot, especially on the "morality" side.
Why? Because if you grab 10 random people and sit them down and discuss what they consider moral vs immoral on a wide range of subjects you will 10 very different sets of answers
For a good example, some consider homosexuality immoral and think that it should be made illegal, while others consider it immoral that homosexuals don't have 100% equality to hetros in all aspects of their lives
Hell part of reason the law systems of the world are in such a mess is because so many laws were based on morals that existed at the time and ten get amended time and time again as societies morals keep changing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get with the 21st century!
Fact is, we didn't do fine without them.
If you actually understand corporate law then you would know that officers in a corporation are legally bound by law to put the profits of the corporation above even things like public welfare.
You are wrong. The corporate officers have a fiducial responsibility to act according to the law and to implement the interests of the shareholders. Laws, which de facto serve the public welfare, cannot be ignored merely because greater profit can be made by violating them. Further, if the shareholders want the corporation to use only renewable energy sources, though that might reduce profits, then it is incumbent on the officers to do exactly that, lest they be removed from their positions by the board.
"Maximize shareholder value" was indeed the mantra of b-schools in the 1990s. This might lead you to believe corporations are only about profit. However, service to the customer and society is not necessarily the antithesis of profit. A 21st century understanding of "maximizing shareholder value", is to give the best possible service to the customer.
By following law and meeting customer demands, a corporation serves the public welfare and maximizes shareholder value. Companies which fail in one or both of these tasks fail to maximize shareholder value.
Google is a shining beacon in a world of dark and destruction corporations.
Google is actually not a shining beacon. It violates copyright laws for its own monetary benefit, an act which will eventually catch up to it. Money it spends fighting lawsuits and posturing detract from shareholder value. Money it will pay in settlement will also reduce shareholder value. Violations of the law are diametrically opposed to public welfare.
But, perhaps worse, Google assists the Chinese government in censoring political speech by altering search results to comply with the communist government's world view. If totalitarian governments are your preference, then I suppose you would find Google a shining beacon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Get with the 21st century!
"Fact is, we didn't do fine without them. "
The whole industrial revolution happened without corporations as we know them today. Your falling into a line of argument that corporations have used for many years to justify and create their outrageous privileges in our society. I don't buy their arguments at face value though!
"You are wrong. The corporate officers have a fiducial responsibility to act according to the law and to implement the interests of the shareholders. Laws, which de facto serve the public welfare, cannot be ignored merely because greater profit can be made by violating them"
Your so full of crap your eyes are turning brown (if they aren't already :). Corporation willfully and constantly violate laws in the pursuit of profits. You must have some real special sheep blinders on to ignore this fact.
"Google is actually not a shining beacon. It violates copyright laws for its own monetary benefit, an act which will eventually catch up to it. "
Once again I will point out this is the 21st century world and we have entered a post-copyright era according to most of the influential experts. We must begin to re-think how we deal with intellectual property in order to balance the unfair system that exists.
Google is a shining beacon because it puts the value of information first and foremost ahead of all the money grubbing corporations that would have us be spoon fed by their media conglomerations. Google isn't perfect, but compared to the values of other corporations it seems almost saintly!
Get with the 21st century and stop coming at this discussions with 20th century propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Questions....
On the Viacom side there seem to be:
On the Google side there seem to be:
Those who want what they want no matter what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love the Viacom troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Questions....
Here is attempt two:
Should Youtube be protected?
Well, I am no law expert. Laws are mostly written by lawyers is such a manner as to exclude any now lawyer from truly understanding them. But Morally I have questions, and an opinions on the answers.
Are there uses for Youtube, other than unauthorized, Copyrighted material?
Clearly, since there is non-copyrighted material up there.
Is Youtube making a profit from advertising?
Well, revenue, certainly, profit, don't know.
Does some of the money come from viewers who visit expressly to see copyrighted material?
Of course. It can't be separated.
Do people choose to post material for which someone else holds a copyright, without the express permission of YouTube?
Also Clearly.
Does this benefit the Copyright holder in any way?
In some cases yes, but while they may indeed be foolish to withhold permission, that is their right. While I also agree that copyrights, patents, etc are often abused by the owners, until such time as the laws are changed to permit such things, posting clips, without the owners consent is not allowed.
Does Youtube endorse Copyrighted material posting?
Not that I can see. Just because it happens, and Youtube benefits from the traffic does not prove endorsement of it.
But, the key question is,
What can YouTube do to prevent people from posting copyright material, while permitting non-infringing material?
Not much as I can see it. There is literately no automated way for Youtube to ID copyrighted material. Given that people are recording video in dozens of ways, editing it, rescaling etc. The computing power is not there. Nor could they possibly employ human beings for this purpose. Yes people could possibly ID some things. But never all. Even Humans could easily mistake Legal things (like parity) for Copyrighted material. For this reason, the law was written requiring the Copyright holder to ID the material, then once ID'd, Youtube must remove it. As long as they follow this, it seems to me that they are obeying the law as best they can. And therefore are entitled to protection, under the law as written. This seems within the spirit of the law. Forgetting all the moral issues, the law is the law. You don't like it (either to tough, or to lenient) change it. Don't play games with courts, trying to get laws re-interpreted to mean something else, that suits you better, change it. Courts, even judges are far to swayed by personal opinion and misunderstanding. I once had a Judge tell me to my face that he did not care what was allowed by law, he did not approve, and therefore I he would not permit it. Fortunately, it was a minor financial matter, not worth appealing, so I did not fight, but it illustrates a problem with the court system, I have no better system mind you, on the whole it is the best I can think of, but opened to abuse.
As to what I would like to see happen.....
Viacom et. al. should reach an agreement with Youtube. It seems to be in everyones best interest that they do so. Some profit (profit mind you, not revenue) sharing scheme for viewing of such clips. Seems fair. The problem is neither side most likely wants to be fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Questions....
What would work, is FEAR.
What? Yes, fear, Youtube, should ask for every ones, address, phone #, track their IP, their ISP.
And CLEARLY point out that they are not allow to post copyright material.
And I mean big one, huge RED page.
And if they do post it, they too will be liable.
That will stop most people, and for the ones that it does not well then Google, should take them to court.
If we have no copyright or Int. Property laws that work, there will be less reason to invest personally or from a corp. in creating content, And what are you left with.......Mentos and diet coke...forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Storage issue
(1) In general.— A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—
Everyone is overlooking one of the core issues that YouTube/Google is going to have to address per the law. YouTube can finesse its way to show it meets the fairly loose definition of being an ISP. But notice that the above law protects "Information Residing". Then later "storage" and then again "resides". YouTube is able to claim immunity for "storage" fairly clearly under this definition. However, there is no provision or protections noted for the "rebroadcasting" that YouTube does. YouTube even throws in the software for the video viewer. Therein lies first major hurdle in court for Google. In fact, do you know of other ISPs that would be so sanguine about also providing all the video viewers and supplies that help in this "rebroadcasting"?
Storage is one thing but actively helping with moving it out of storage with your own software viewer seems a little aggressive according to this law. The words "storage" and "residing" all strongly connote things that are kept private, not publicly displayed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re:reed
The industrial revolution created corporations. And corporations sustained the industrial revolution. The two go hand in hand.
Corporation willfully and constantly violate laws in the pursuit of profits.
Then stop electing corporatist shills into office. If a corporation breaks the law, then there is remedy for its violations. If you elect people who refuse to prosecute, or worse give the wink and nod to lawbreakers, then you have only yourself to blame.
we have entered a post-copyright era according to most of the influential experts
Name three. Though changes in media may demand changes in its implementation, copyright is here to stay.
We must begin to re-think how we deal with intellectual property in order to balance the unfair system that exists.
Viacom spends 100s of millions per year producing/commissioning video that people want to see. Viacom wants to retain the right to control its distribution and make money to pay its costs and make a profit. You call it fair to allow YouTube to strip the video of its value by providing it for free? Your "21st century" values were clearly described in the 19th century by Karl Marx.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re:reed
"Your "21st century" values were clearly described in the 19th century by Karl Marx."
I am sure Karl Marx understood the digital age and the ramifications of being able to store our entire history of ideas on a hard disk ...?
Sometimes ideas are more powerful than labels like communism or capitalism can explain. The idea of a community working together transcends what Karl Marx talked about and is seen in new movements like Open Source. Marx is only one of the more known writers to talk about this sort of thing and he is often used to stir up oppressive ant-communist feelings.
Are you rich from copyrights? If your not your playing a sad tune that was taught to you by your media conglomerations. Stop protecting the lie and free the knowledge and art so we can grow as a people instead of trying to cater to the conglomerations. Unless of course you think that protecting stolen ideas like Mickey Mouse for the next 100 years is a swell thing!
These laws no longer serve any purpose but serving a select percentage of the population by giving them special and unfair rights.
Experts for Copyright Reform:
Bruce Lehman, who now heads the International Intellectual Property Institute
Congressman Rick Boucher
Gigi B. Sohn President of Public Knowledge
There are tons of other people, but I am not sure if I can back up "influential" as people probably would disagree on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have used copyrights to protect software that I have written. I have used patents to protect inventions. Both have protected companies I have created from being ripped off by bigger companies. Those companies have made money for myself and investors. One company I started as a one man operation and grew to IPO. Had it not been for IP protections, that might not have happened.
So, I'm not singing a sad tune. I am a little guy who used the protections of the law to win in a business environment that would have otherwise chewed me up and spat me out.
As for your rhetoric about Mickey Mouse, I think Disney has had that franchise for a long time. I understand why Disney wants to continue to protect it. They created the value that is Mickey Mouse through massive investment over many decades. They built a media empire and several theme-parks around Mickey Mouse as their unifying logo. Without copyright protection, the unimaginative, uncreative peddlers of crap will use the image of Mickey Mouse as their selling gimmick and drain massive value from the character.
You may call Mickey Mouse a stolen idea, but it really wasn't. Steamboat Willie, the cartoon that propelled Mickey Mouse to popularity was a parody of a Buster Keaton film. Parody is permitted by copyright law.
In fact, Mickey Mouse was created by Disney Studio because their previous animated character "Oswald the Lucky Rabbit" was created for and owned by Universal Studios. Walt was a smart enough cookie to set about creating a character he owned and Disney Studio came up with Mickey Mouse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yeah, ok, my $0.02
YouTube, In my opinion, should be protected by safe harbor.
And here is what I think the ultimate response from google would be:
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070327
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright vs. public needs
There are many books, and many films, and many works of art, that I would not have known of, if they hadn't been spoofed, critiqued, or noted, in some other work.
I believe the body of work that is YouTube does nothing more than promote otherwise forgettable works, through the parody of them. To obscure that living artform deprives Viacom of an audience, probably little missed by the audience, but, necessary to the employment of Viacom workers, and artists.
I see it simply as my own quest for knowledge, and I end up paying for the entire work, if I ever hear of it.
To me, YouTube is just a work of current art, ever changing, that exposes my brain to new works that I can quest after. Viacom is like Microsoft, the RIAA, and SCO, willing to sue it's own customers, in suicide mode.
How stupid can these executives be? Do lawyers control everything at a corporation? No wonder the lack of imagination and sparcity of new developments!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyers seem to lack passion for art.
In fact, the only food is bland pablum, as the only utensil is a wooden spoon!
The public doesn't go to Youtube or Google for full length books, or movies. We go to the Internet to get information about those arts, because it is a better form of advertising, criticism, and sharing of opinion. Not perfect, but fast, and usually balanced through a larger sampling.
Lawyers seem to be bland, stupid, dis-passionate, in reality. None appear as wonderful as those protrayed in books or movies, or on the TV.
Too bad. I like to watch passion play out. Blandness bores me. I run http://pclinuxos.com on my curbside donated computers, immune to all the "114,000 Microsoft Virus Definitions", and "outside the box" that the great felon Microsoft built. Now there is a lawyer run business with some great convictions, on several continents!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyers seem to lack passion for art.
In fact, the only food is bland pablum, as the only utensil is a wooden spoon!
The public doesn't go to Youtube or Google for full length books, or movies. We go to the Internet to get information about those arts, because it is a better form of advertising, criticism, and sharing of opinion. Not perfect, but fast, and usually balanced through a larger sampling.
Lawyers seem to be bland, stupid, dis-passionate, in reality. None appear as wonderful as those protrayed in books or movies, or on the TV.
Too bad. I like to watch passion play out. Blandness bores me. I run http://pclinuxos.com on my curbside donated computers, immune to all the "114,000 Microsoft Virus Definitions", and "outside the box" that the great felon Microsoft built. Now there is a lawyer run business with some great convictions, on several continents!.
that is total and absolute ...................RUBBISH
CNET (download.com's ) own stats say most popular downloads.......
#2............ bitcomet
#1............ Limewire
Over 80 million downloads.
and you say people dont download movies, or books
dude......GET REAL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dont you see where this is going.........
Google with its books, and youTube, break, even indirectly, copyright and int. prop rights, and laws.
Lots here complain about big bad corps.
But lets stop and think for a moment, if these infringements continue, and this combined with the bit-torrents of the world, and we say there are no repercussions to doing this (taking content) then where do we end up?
Am I going to spend my time creating content, at my expense, only to have it stolen? Would you?
Simply put, if your house was broken into many times, you would think about getting a better door, or more locks. Right?
The DCMA, and DRM, are such devices...
Google and YouTube, are only creating the REASON to make things more locked down, more restrictions, more more more.
But Ironically thats what you as consumers are complaining about too.
Again simply put, you cant have your cake and eat it too.
The more they (and you) infringe the more actions will be taken, again take a look at the levels of copy protection on HD.
And for smaller independent producers the cost of implementation eg HD restrictions is too great. But if they don't it gets stolen.
The upshot of this, is there will be less choice in the end. We'll be stuck with large "summer blockbuster" movies. And "mentos and diet coke" at the other end, and nothing else in between.
You better start thinking now, exactly what kind of world you want, and what kinds of entertainment you want, otherwise before you know it you wont have any choice at all.
Google too should take this into account, regarding their posters, and collect information from them, ip, isp, name, phone, city etc. And start informing them they too will be liable for illegal content posts. Thats the least they could do, and i mean make it clear, make it big, and make it red.
IF they don't do this, and you (the generic you) post copyrighted material, then get ready for a world of "mentos and diet coke".....................forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]