Google: YouTube 'Completely Sustained By Pirated Content'
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_539672.html
"Before it bought online video service YouTube, employees of Google Inc. believed YouTube's business was risky because it relied on pirated content and recommended pursuing a different strategy, newly released documents showed Thursday."

Who was saying illegal tubes will last? If Youtube gets skewered this could easily create a domino effect.
Viacom will get Google on this, there is no doubt.

Cue gideongallery in 5...4.....3....

Sig.

heh, i looked at the last few pages and did not see a post on this, apparently released today (thursday) but Google is going to take a beating..how severe is anyone's guess.

The repercussions could be HUGE.

lol this will be interesting, gonna make popcorn

me thinks not for long.

Google also owns Google Videos - there is some interesting stuff on there, too. It is very similar to Youtube Videos.

I like bings tube http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...s=n&sk=&sc=2-4

This should be interesting. The big boys going at it.

Unless they completely change the laws Google doesnt have a chance, these new docs show they actually ADMIT to using pirated material from Viacom! haha

copyright law is copyright law and i think we are going to see some major movement on this issue in the next few months. They have now admitted to not paying royalties or having any kind of license for the content for years...

youtube is a mockery when it comes to copyright ... everyone puts whatever they want there, movies, music video clips, concerts, etc.

tubes took our jobs!

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Tubes make so many paysite sales, its unbelievable.

Viacom's now probably thinking "damn, we shoulda sued for more money".

Or "Damn, we should have paid our lawyers more, so at least someone makes money"

I believe they will settle out of court.

interesting

:1orglaugh

as i pointed out the last time some gfy idiot pointed to this news and claimed it was the death nail to the google case

viacomm is taking half the conversation and attempting to paint it as if it proof

for example the internal communication where the google employee asserted YouTube's business "is completely sustained by pirated content."

has a response that viacom employees themselves were releasing videos on "YouTube to generate buzz for their shows and to reach new audiences" and that there was no way to tell the difference between those legitimate uploads and the infringing ones since to make it look like a "grassroots fan based support" they did so under fake user accounts.


and that all before google can make the arguement that "quest crew is the greatest check out orquestra as proof" is legitimate fair use of commentary.

the fact that viacomm must use bogus one sided arguements in the press does not bode well for chance of winning.

thats nuts..

also don't forget that viacomm doesn't produce almost nothing inhouse everything is simply content licienced for distribution. so the original production company "randy jackson production" and their promotion companies "2 much hype" could also be submitters trying to create buzz.

only a world class moron would believe that half of the conversation deliberately ignoring the legiitimate answer is going to be the bases of a win

They put a dollar amount when they filed? That was stupid.

Ah fuck... google is still one of the biggest theives on the net which we all love to use They love their google ads all over the file sharing sites .. but we dont support sites that steal ..or do we ?

:1orglaugh yes thats going to hold up in court, buy a clue numbnuts. google is going to pay in court or out of court.

Yes we do. How many can say they never look a Tubes?

idiot look at the transcripts of debates when the DMCA was being argued in the congress.

This type of "accidental" censorship is exactly the reason that safe harbor provision was put in the law to counter the "takedown request"

remember before the DMCA the content stayed up until copyright holder went to court and got a court order to remove it.

something had to balance the potential censorship effect of letting the copyright holder pull down content without valid court ruling independently verifying that the take down was infact legitimate.

with licienced content, the non public contract. hidden from googles legal team would determine weather or not randy jackson production company or their publicity company could submit the videos to build a buzz for their show (they were the actual content creators nor viacomm)

google would have no way of knowing the context of that contract
the cost of attempting to find out would be insanely cost prohibitive (lawyers having to review the contracts before every single submission)
and blanket ban would act as the type of censorship the safe harbor provision was specifically put in place to prevent

ya i was wondering why they dont blacklist torrent sites from the rankings. torrents usually rank higher for most porn searches.

google doesn't care about copyright/dmca - only ad revenue.

note to gideon - u dont have to write in HUGE letters. if someone wants to read the illiterate opinions you write, they will.

its amazing how gideon uses english words, but i have no clue what he is saying. I guess i'm stupid. :(

i will make it simple for you

safe harbor good abuse of takedown request bad

DMCA is a balanced act.

fact viacomm own lawyers sent takedown request for content that they later acknowledge was fair use/legitimately authorized for submission

fact viacomm want google to police the submission even though google would be an order of magnitude more likely to mistakenly take down legitimate content (because they don't have access to the contracts)

fact viacomm knows this because the second part of the "evidence" points these problems out

fact viacomm is covering up those documents to get press

fact that type of cover up does not work in a court of law

fact viacomm is going to lose unless they have real proof that google knowingly infringed on copyright material.(which this is obviously not)

Okay, grasp firmly and pull your head from your ass. Viacom is going after Google. Do you understand this concept? They don't give a crap about safe harbor laws, we are talking VIACOM lawyers here. They will win and they will collect. Period.

This is going to happen, and it will happen relatively soon.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

so your stupid enought to think the laws don't apply simply because viacom has lawyers

if the safe harbor provision makes googles actions legal
no amount of money spent on lawyers is going to win

because the act is legal idiot

btw another proof of the censorship effect of the DMCA

of the two possiblities the safe harbor provision getting strengthened to maximize the damages for false request

or safe harbor being invalidated and the already abusive censorship being made an order of magnitude worse

i would bet the former is going to happen rather than the later.

So how does the judge determine which clips were uploaded by viacom themselves to award damages? Although there are some smoking guns I have a feeling there won't be a definitive judgement.

I will put this as simply as possible for you to comprehend-
Lawyers, Smoking Guns and Money

Viacom has the goods, they will win.

as you would put it.:winkwink:

if the safe harbor provision makes googles actions legal
no amount of money spent on lawyers is going to win

you have the reading ability of a 1st grader

you actually quoted the above with your insanely stupid response.

1/2 the conversation presented as "evidence" is not nore will it ever be a smoking gun especially when the hidden half proves that claims are wrong.

viacom and licienee uploaded/fair use authorizes clips are a defence not a complaint they don't get damages

btw viacom admitted to 50 mistakes themselves and courts recognized multiple that they "honestly believed" were infringement

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/02...et-let-us-know

they allow youtube to claim that their actions are legal and fully protected by the safe harbor because they can't tell the difference until AFTER the takedown process has run it course.

btw it not just youtube who are making such arguements but free speech organizations

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/04/12

unlike the business vs thieves light that has been used to cloud the rulings

this one doesn't have that ability

independent free speech organizations are standing up for google

which means it

greedy corporation vs peoples right to express themselves

Viacom will lose, thats obvious. But they got some good press, I guess they calculated it will be cheaper to sue google than to buy other types of advertising. And their stock is going up, too.

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/3894/image1aq.jpg

Case closed.

didn't realize it was helping their stock price so much

amazing guess it one of the biggest pump and dumps that has ever happen

almost feel sorry for the idiots who make investment decisions on 1/2 thr evidence fluff articles like this one.

Maybe not stupid if the amount sued for would be the amount used to grant "treble damages". I don't know how that works in all the different states/federal court; but
if certain conditions are met in a lawsuit the judge can triple the amount the jury
awarded.

Also if you don't put an amount you will at least have to explain to the
jury how much money is involved and then the jury may calculate triple damages and
reduce their award so that it comes out "right" when treble damages are applied meaning
you got less then you could have.

Not saying this is the case, but just wondering myself how that works.

Get the fuck out here. :1orglaugh

You're the greediest of all bro.
You're not using this content for personal use; you're trying to make money.

Buy a $600 camera and go ahead and be free to express the fuck out of yourself
with your own content. You can't produce anything worth a shit yourself so you
argue to abuse what others create under some bullshit claim of "your rights".

anyone who thinks this is an open and shut case is fooling themselfs. i think google will win.... and i also recall that there was wording in the sale of youtube to google that the seller would foot the first $XXX,XXX,XXX worth of legal fees out of their proceeds if google were later sued for things that happened before they purchased the company.

does anyone own safeharbortube.com
I kinda like that!

No matter what google does no one is going to hurt them, they collect tons and fucking mega tons of personal information on every citizen 24/7/365 and people vounteer for them to do it the govt is never going to let anything happen to them. :2 cents:

This thread delivers LARGE text.

right so goodbye parody
goodbye commentary

this is the exact type of greed corporation bullshit i am talking about
your only allowed to express yourself if you create something from scratch

total utter crap.

btw i am teaching content creators who to monetize the new distribution channel
to be completely fair use friendly and make MORE money than this kind of bullshit attitude
there is no attempt to make money from other peoples content.

Guess I'm like that other poster, because you did type English but I have no
clue of WTF you mean.

Oh wait, i'm getting some of it now.

Please show me the parody you made.

BULLSHIT!

Change your nick to "gidiotgallery".

maybe that because you having the reading and comp of a 1st grader

what exactly about the statement

there is no attempt to make money from other peoples content.

do you not understand