Originally Posted by gideongallery

when you misrepresent copyright infringment as theft you can and in most cases ignore fair use, or previously licienced rights.

When you properly represent copyright infringment as fraudlently claiming a "right to view" the first question you have to answer is did they buy or were given a "right to view" because if have then there IS NO FRAUD.

that being said commit if fraud is worse, because their is no ambeguity (sp) about it, you have no wiggle room, if you have proof they never bought or were given a "right to view" your are stone cold guilty, no if no buts.




we are currently in the discovery phase of the trial, which means viacomm is still within the phase of being able to prove that youtube is a willing participant in the copyright infringement (outside the scope of the safe harbor provision).

we are a long way away from the motion to dismiss part of this case.