Mininova
Pirate Bay

…They can pay up.

Second to the stock market, and the firing of federal prosecutors who serve at the discretion of the President and can be fired at any moment with or without cause (which we suppose would make this story third, not second,……

- The Cat

- The Cat

B. It will backfire hard on Viacom and they will lose a lot of rights.

ok. that’s just bogus.

A company that created the content in the first place can’t lose rights to it … period. That is of course, unless they SELL those rights, or trade them off.

Viacom and other companies like them could easily legally obliterate youtube in this case, and if they line up there won’t be much of youtube left to parcel out for the buzzards.

Easier negotiations?

yeah. I think that’s probably where this is going. That’s the only way youtube is going to survive. If they really try to fight this down to the wire

They’re toast.

I’m ok with that though.

:-)

Sweet, sweet. Google spent north of a billion to acquire YouTube. Now they’re hit with a billion dollar lawsuit. YouTube is nothing but infringement. Without infringement, there is no YouTube. Allah makes good sense in explaining why YouTube is doomed…

A. “Exit question: How much will Viacom settle for?” For a stake in the company.

B. It will backfire hard on Viacom and they will lose a lot of rights.

Just like with the whole MP3 sharing thing . . no one has been able to stand up to them yet. Google has a lot to lose on their side, not just with YT but with their linking to images and everything else. It’ll get bloody.

- The Cat

P.S. Oh I see, kinda like what kaltes on March 13, 2007 at 2:19 PM said hehe

I say this because YouTube DOES review material and remove what it considers to be “objectionable” as we know based upon its own internal criteria. One of the concepts of “safe harbor” is to protect providers who are unaware that contributors are uploading copyrighted material. By reviewing the contents of their archives for whatever reasons, I think they have damaged if not eliminated any claim to safe harbor.

If YouTube’s owners (Google) are reviewing the contents of their archived, then I do not see how they can claim to be unaware that copyrighted material owned by Viacom are being uploaded by 3rd parties. And given the fact that they do remove materials based upon(apparent) political content, it is prima fascia proof that they ARE aware of the content of their archives.

If they rely upon safe harbor as a defense, I would not be surprised to see a court award that $1 billion to Viacom, or a comparable amount based upon the number of violations that Viacom can substantiate.

Suppose I have a friend who uses a video capture device to save a TV documentary to his hard drive. He then edits the video and uses part of it in his own documentary, which he posts to his video blog. Is this a criminal act? What is his liability?

What do you think HOT AIR does?? LOL. Allahpundit is saving video to his hard drive all the time then editing it and posting it up here.

Of course it is not criminal. It is probably fair use, but it depends. Fair use is not black and white. Generally, the less material you use, the more commentary/analysis you provide, etc the better off you are. Hot Air and AP err on the side of caution. They could go a good bit further and still be ok under the law.

So what are we left with? 17 USC 512. The copyright holders can send youtube notices, identify the exact videos that are infringing, and youtube has to check those videos and, if they are, take them down. If anything, I think these notices are probably defective, and youtube is going above and beyond the requirements of 512 in proactively sweeping the site for content based on search words, which is why you will see ALL south park clips from the new episode wiped out at a given time. If youtube was doing the minimum under 512, the time delay in the notices being sent and complied with would ensure that infringing videos were always up.

So all this could backfire. This could piss youtube off into saying “Look, we have done your dirty work up till now, but since you wanna fight us, we are going to reject all your improper notices, and take a ‘reasonable’ time complying with the proper ones, so we arent going to be doing your dirty work for you any more.” The end result will be that users will be able to load up infringing clips far faster than youtube will take them down, and the copyright holders will be forced to try to sue individual uploaders.

eventually, an additional widget would be built in to the embeddable player that would let you “edit” inside the window

Maybe I’m being pessimistic, but I don’t think the media sources would like this. Because the first thing everyone would do is remove the 10 second commercial.

Fair Use doctrine would be operative in that scenario.
birkel on March 13, 2007 at 1:09 PM

Can you (or anyone) enlighten me on that? The two documentaries are unrelated in subject matter. The first is a nature documentary. My friend used a portion on natural symbiosis (ants and caterpillars) to illustrate a point about Islamization.

/sarc

P.S.: “Ka-CHING!”

Suppose I have a friend who uses a video capture device to save a TV documentary to his hard drive. He then edits the video and uses part of it in his own documentary, which he posts to his video blog. Is this a criminal act? What is his liability?

It’s not criminal, its civil. But yea, he could get sued.

Update: Commenter JayHaw Phrenzie thinks GooTube’s got no choice but to go to the mattresses. A settlement will have everyone lining up at the trough. Maybe — or maybe it’ll just give media companies vastly more favorable terms on which to negotiate licensing deals with YouTube.

It will definitely be one of those two. They are not going to walk away from this thing unscathed.

It wasn’t hard to see this coming which is why Google’s purchase price blew me away given the potential liabilities.