Everybody Nagging About YouTube - GoFuckYourself.com

wootpr0n · 05-27-2008, 12:55 AM

Unauthorized copyrighted videos make up only a small percentage of the videos on YouTube, and account for negligible traffic or revenue.

Viacom can't expect to win this case. They just think that they can force Google to settle. But it's never going to happen.

Even with Google having hired 14 lawyers, each at at least $500 per hour, their legal fees will be nothing compared to either the amount of money that YouTube is making, let alone the $1 billion that Viacom expects to obtain.

You can't expect to win suing somebody because they "hide behind the law". That's what the law is for.

You can't argue that YouTube encouraged infringement because it doesn't. And it responds to DMCA notices properly. And it disables access to repeat infringers. And although it is not obligated to, it won't let you re-upload a video that has already been disabled for copyright infringement. That covers the poorly-defined part of the DMCA that makes OSPs liable if they are specifically aware of infringement without being notified.

So if anything, YouTube should win, and be awarded its legal fees.

Viacom is arguing that YouTube encouraged people to upload infringing videos and that it did so for financial benefits.

Ultimately, YouTube can't be spending more than $50,000 per month on attorneys. And it's going to take 2-3 years before it even gets to trial, if ever. I think that YouTube could even win on summary judgement, because this case is a no-brainer.

Even Jon Stewart was making fun of this on his show (which is on a Viacom-owned channel). And he is going to be deposed. He portrayed Sumner Redstone as some guy saying, "my clips! they stole my motherfucking clips!"

YouTube is the internet's #3 website, and you can't argue that it got there because of television shows. There are plenty of websites that have entire seasons of television shows and movies and in much better quality than YouTube, and they don't have nearly as much traffic.

And people like Google. Google is nice and colorful. And it's run by cool people who wear jeans and eat Kraft Dinner. But Viacom is evil and it is run from a blue office tower in New York. And the head is Sumner Redstone, some 85-year-old who spends most of his time on vacation at some Miami resort and eats Filet Mignon for breakfast. And he wants to take away our entertainment.

There will be a jury, and all of the people on that jury will have heard of YouTube way before they came to the trial. And like the millions of other people who visit YouTube every single day, none of them think that YouTube is infringing. Most of them are watching some guy put a Mentos into a glass of coke. And the other 1% are watching tv/movie clips, which are either put on by the television studios (in which case they aren't infringing), or by some fan who made them into a video (in which case they aren't infringing), or by some fan who just posted them (in which case they may be infringing, but the average person watching them doesn't think so).

malfo · 05-27-2008, 12:56 AM

"Unauthorized copyrighted videos make up only a small percentage of the videos on YouTube"
hummm not sure...

Odin · 05-27-2008, 12:58 AM

There is no way Google/Youtube. I agree, they comply with the law, and it has a massive legitimate use outside of copyrighted stuff.

kane · 05-27-2008, 01:21 AM

While you make some good points I would argue a few of them are off base.

First that "Unauthorized copyrighted videos make up only a small percentage of the videos on YouTube, and account for negligible traffic or revenue." That may be true now. Hell, I have better things to do than to surf Youtube all day and decide what is authorized and what isn't and what makes them money and what doesn't. That doesn't change the fact that when it started out there was a ton of unauthorized stuff on. Hell, The Daily Show was one of the people that went after them because you could watch entire episodes of The Daily Show on Youtube before they even aired on the west coast. There were a lot of companies that were very unhappy and complained and while much of their content has been taken down and the site has been cleaned up, it shouldn't make them immune from their past. I think them having a ton of TV shows, clips and other unauthorized stuff on the site is what helped make them who they are today. I think Viacom is trying to send the message that it isn't okay to use other people's content to grow your site and make a ton of money off of it even if you do clean it up later.

Sure part of the appeal of Youtube is that you can watch a trailer for a new movie, then watch some guy hurt himself while skateboarding and then see some chick dancing in her underwear and then watch a music video all within a few clicks of each other. It is TV for the ADD generation. As you said there are plenty of other sites that were not as big as Youtube that offer full shows on them, Youtube did it a little differently in that they just didn't upload the stuff themselves, they let the users control the content of the site so it became mob rule and the mob decided what they wanted to see and share no matter who owned or authorized the use of the content. That is one of the reasons it grew so fast. They have gotten better, but I think, if nothing, this suit might send a message to the clone sites that if you are going to run a site like this you better be prepared to defend yourself and maybe it will encourage others to not share unauthorized content.

I do agree with you that Google will eventually prevail in the case. They have a gray area law on their side and most people don't really understand the harm in sharing content.

SmokeyTheBear · 05-27-2008, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wootpr0n

Unauthorized copyrighted videos make up only a small percentage of the videos on YouTube, and account for negligible traffic or revenue..

ummm . what youtube are you talking about ? the youtube i have seen is loaded with copyright videos , and made its name giving them away.

SmokeyTheBear · 05-27-2008, 01:45 AM

go look at the "most viewed videos" on youtube , you will find the majority are copyright videos, many of them have now made deals with youtube to display their videos , but this wasnt the case when they made their claim to fame.

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 05-27-2008, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malfo

"Unauthorized copyrighted videos make up only a small percentage of the videos on YouTube"
hummm not sure...

Totally LOL, thats funny shit right there.
Youtube is youtube only because stolen content. There is no gray on the matter. Content theft is content theft its black and fucken white. It is no other color in the eyes of the law unless of course you happen to be a media giant fighting a media giant then there will be exceptions LOL!

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 05-27-2008, 01:47 AM

Honestly the law needs to be enforced to its fullest extent. Period.
The law applies to everyone, corporations are no exception.

Only reason this has played out like it has is largely because there are attornies getting paid. The law is very specific about content theft.
Very fucking specific, there is no need for this sort of thing to goto court. If violations are sited people need to be fined and filed on for infringement. US law is cut and dry about the matter. It is just not enforced for some reason...

JamesK · 05-27-2008, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlienQ

Totally LOL, thats funny shit right there.
Youtube is youtube only because stolen content. There is no gray on the matter. Content theft is content theft its black and fucken white. It is no other color in the eyes of the law unless of course you happen to be a media giant fighting a media giant then there will be exceptions LOL!

What he said

Captain Kawaii · 05-27-2008, 03:54 AM

Viacom's dick is bigger... Good luck to youtube...

05-27-2008, 12:55 AM	#1
wootpr0n Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 250	Everybody Nagging About YouTube Unauthorized copyrighted videos make up only a small percentage of the videos on YouTube, and account for negligible traffic or revenue. Viacom can't expect to win this case. They just think that they can force Google to settle. But it's never going to happen. Even with Google having hired 14 lawyers, each at at least $500 per hour, their legal fees will be nothing compared to either the amount of money that YouTube is making, let alone the $1 billion that Viacom expects to obtain. You can't expect to win suing somebody because they "hide behind the law". That's what the law is for. You can't argue that YouTube encouraged infringement because it doesn't. And it responds to DMCA notices properly. And it disables access to repeat infringers. And although it is not obligated to, it won't let you re-upload a video that has already been disabled for copyright infringement. That covers the poorly-defined part of the DMCA that makes OSPs liable if they are specifically aware of infringement without being notified. So if anything, YouTube should win, and be awarded its legal fees. Viacom is arguing that YouTube encouraged people to upload infringing videos and that it did so for financial benefits. Ultimately, YouTube can't be spending more than $50,000 per month on attorneys. And it's going to take 2-3 years before it even gets to trial, if ever. I think that YouTube could even win on summary judgement, because this case is a no-brainer. Even Jon Stewart was making fun of this on his show (which is on a Viacom-owned channel). And he is going to be deposed. He portrayed Sumner Redstone as some guy saying, "my clips! they stole my motherfucking clips!" YouTube is the internet's #3 website, and you can't argue that it got there because of television shows. There are plenty of websites that have entire seasons of television shows and movies and in much better quality than YouTube, and they don't have nearly as much traffic. And people like Google. Google is nice and colorful. And it's run by cool people who wear jeans and eat Kraft Dinner. But Viacom is evil and it is run from a blue office tower in New York. And the head is Sumner Redstone, some 85-year-old who spends most of his time on vacation at some Miami resort and eats Filet Mignon for breakfast. And he wants to take away our entertainment. There will be a jury, and all of the people on that jury will have heard of YouTube way before they came to the trial. And like the millions of other people who visit YouTube every single day, none of them think that YouTube is infringing. Most of them are watching some guy put a Mentos into a glass of coke. And the other 1% are watching tv/movie clips, which are either put on by the television studios (in which case they aren't infringing), or by some fan who made them into a video (in which case they aren't infringing), or by some fan who just posted them (in which case they may be infringing, but the average person watching them doesn't think so). __________________ Sig too big http://www.gofuckyourself.com/gfy_faqs.html Want to use a large banner in your sig??? Contact Eric about getting on as an advertiser - eric AT adult.com

05-27-2008, 01:21 AM	#4
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	While you make some good points I would argue a few of them are off base. First that "Unauthorized copyrighted videos make up only a small percentage of the videos on YouTube, and account for negligible traffic or revenue." That may be true now. Hell, I have better things to do than to surf Youtube all day and decide what is authorized and what isn't and what makes them money and what doesn't. That doesn't change the fact that when it started out there was a ton of unauthorized stuff on. Hell, The Daily Show was one of the people that went after them because you could watch entire episodes of The Daily Show on Youtube before they even aired on the west coast. There were a lot of companies that were very unhappy and complained and while much of their content has been taken down and the site has been cleaned up, it shouldn't make them immune from their past. I think them having a ton of TV shows, clips and other unauthorized stuff on the site is what helped make them who they are today. I think Viacom is trying to send the message that it isn't okay to use other people's content to grow your site and make a ton of money off of it even if you do clean it up later. Sure part of the appeal of Youtube is that you can watch a trailer for a new movie, then watch some guy hurt himself while skateboarding and then see some chick dancing in her underwear and then watch a music video all within a few clicks of each other. It is TV for the ADD generation. As you said there are plenty of other sites that were not as big as Youtube that offer full shows on them, Youtube did it a little differently in that they just didn't upload the stuff themselves, they let the users control the content of the site so it became mob rule and the mob decided what they wanted to see and share no matter who owned or authorized the use of the content. That is one of the reasons it grew so fast. They have gotten better, but I think, if nothing, this suit might send a message to the clone sites that if you are going to run a site like this you better be prepared to defend yourself and maybe it will encourage others to not share unauthorized content. I do agree with you that Google will eventually prevail in the case. They have a gray area law on their side and most people don't really understand the harm in sharing content. Last edited by kane; 05-27-2008 at 01:22 AM..

05-27-2008, 01:45 AM	#6
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	go look at the "most viewed videos" on youtube , you will find the majority are copyright videos, many of them have now made deals with youtube to display their videos , but this wasnt the case when they made their claim to fame. __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

05-27-2008, 01:47 AM	#8
AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE best designer on GFY Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: IALIEN.COM - High Definition Video and Photographic Productions -ICQ 78943384 Posts: 30,307	Honestly the law needs to be enforced to its fullest extent. Period. The law applies to everyone, corporations are no exception. Only reason this has played out like it has is largely because there are attornies getting paid. The law is very specific about content theft. Very fucking specific, there is no need for this sort of thing to goto court. If violations are sited people need to be fined and filed on for infringement. US law is cut and dry about the matter. It is just not enforced for some reason... __________________ NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo! \| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily \| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 \|ICQ: 78943384 \| Last edited by AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE; 05-27-2008 at 01:50 AM..

05-27-2008, 12:56 AM	#2
malfo Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 130	"Unauthorized copyrighted videos make up only a small percentage of the videos on YouTube" hummm not sure...

05-27-2008, 12:58 AM	#3
Odin Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: au Posts: 2,545	There is no way Google/Youtube. I agree, they comply with the law, and it has a massive legitimate use outside of copyrighted stuff.

05-27-2008, 03:54 AM	#10
Captain Kawaii So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 6,748	Viacom's dick is bigger... Good luck to youtube...