Posted on 07/03/2008 8:27:18 AM PDT by LibWhacker
Oh, and I hope someone puts those final moments on Youtube and calls it “The first shot in the second civil war”.... because I’ll be damned if I let someone raid my home over something as idiotic as that. LOL
MPG=MP3
And yet, according to the Wall Street Journal today:
“Google Won’t Be Forced
To Turn Over Source Code
July 3, 2008; Page B6
“A federal judge has denied a request to force Google Inc. and Google’s YouTube unit to turn over the computer code at the heart of their search functions in a $1 billion copyright-infringement lawsuit by Viacom Inc. In an order Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton in Manhattan granted Google’s request for a protective order barring the disclosure of the source code, which controls the YouTube.com search function and Google.com’s Internet search tool. Google contends the source code is a trade secret and can’t be disclosed without risking the loss of business.”
Source code and viewer log, two very different things.
They are going after the Johns not just the hookers? Also Google/You Tube are the pimps.
If someone is posting Lord of the Rings videos on You Tube I think they/Google/You Tube should be held accountable.
Yes, of course, thank you. Nothing like being condescended to before lunch. I just thought people who read these kinds of stories might be interested in more of the specific details, rather than just the broad gist of what happened as reported by the BBC, which didn’t even bother to identify the court or the judge. But I guess I was wrong. Silly me. Who knew context was a no-no?
That's fine. It will just keep some artists from ever being heard by anyone but themselves and their manager.
There is simply no limit to how dumb the music industry can be. They want to kill all of that free advertising for their product. They want to punish their best customers. They are just stupid with a capital S.
According to the article, "Viacom said it wanted the data to 'compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing videos.'"
Which seems silly -- there are other ways to get that information. Their actual motives are undoubtedly different. For instance, they may see it as a way to cost YouTube viewers and money.
But Rick Astley is probably owed a lot of royalties by now!
Oh stop. I understand what you’re saying. The two cases = apples and bowling balls.
Viacom is a HUGE licensor. I’ve had much experience with them in the past regarding their “intellectual property” and the rag biz. Things have slowed considerably in the license fee generation department, across the board.
You’re right. Viacom is fishing.
It’s interesting to see how many folks on this thread don’t really seem to care about piffling stuff like copyright laws...
OK, it’s bad that Viacom gets the log. But isn’t it JUST AS BAD that Google HAS the log, which means Google already was tracking all of your viewing habits?
Google’s Legal and PR teams are going to learn the hard way just like MSFT did.
They supposedly don’t care about each individual. What they want to do is compare the viewing habits of all the individuals. They want to be able to show how many times their stuff was viewed, and also compare the relative number of views for their stuff vs other stuff.
What they want to show is how many people google allowed to view their copyrighted material, probably so they can claim a per-view fee. And they want to show that a substantial number of views were for copyrighted material, to suggest that 30% of google’s business (for example) was directly derived from Viacom’s property.
The purpose there I presume is to claim that percentage of Googles total ad revenue, plus damages.
They want to show that Google is personally benefitting from allowing the Viacom copyrighted material.
One thing is pretty much undisputed — there was a LOT of copyrighted material put on YouTube.
Good thing this isn't China. Google would be squealing like a pig.
It is the same case.
Google also keeps such tabs on google searches. Why?
The only way to not be forced to hand over such information is not to collect just notes on users’ habits to begin with.
The same could be said of the bookstore that had records of what books were sold to what customers.
It came into play a decade ago when Starr requested the records of what books Monica Lewinsky had purchased, to help confirm a detail from one of the phone calls, if I recall.
Privacy rights advocates vented against Starr. I don’t recall any privacy rights advocates taking the bookstore to task for doing the same thing they accused Big Brother of doing.
Their staff has ENCOURAGED posting of MTV programming content to YouTube without individual approval. They wanted "water cooler" moments spread through viral email networks (you get it, laugh, and send it to a friend).
(MTV) Video Awards Seek Jolt From Crowd and Internet (hoping for anarchy and chaos?) (NY Times Published: August 24, 2006 By BEN SISARIO)
“He should be encouraged at all points to storm the stage and to create a television moment that people will talk about at the water cooler the next day,” said Hamish Hamilton, one of the producers. “Or even better, that people will download and put on YouTube the next day.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.