YouTube Begins Defense, Seeks Depositions
eldavojohn writes "YouTube has begun their defense against Viacom by first calling on 30 depositions from people like Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert. While the article mentions that YouTube has not revealed what they hope to gain in these depositions, I think Jon Stewart's opinions will weigh in favor of YouTube. Comedy Central's parent company, Viacom, objects to YouTube's hosting of their content. Comedy Central hosts many Daily Show & Colbert Report clips on its own site, bringing in its own ad revenue."
Google needs to make the case that brief exposure to copyright violation (while Viacom staff hunts down the content and issues formal complaints to You Tube) has not had a negative impact on the programs that have been infringed. They also need to show that they've been prompt in responding to concerns about copyright violations on their site.
If they can make those two points, they'll have a start to a workable case. The real question is how much effort Google can realistically be asked to put in to make sure that their users don't upload copyrighted material. The answer to that question will have far-reaching impacts on every site (mine included) that allow users to contribute their own content whether text, audio, video or something else.
this is a "deposition". Before the trial, there is a process called "discovery" where lawyers interview people who might have relevant facts (or sometimes they submit a written deposition). There's a lot more leeway than when calling a witness at the actual trial.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Jon Stewart can be very serious as well. Should check out his appearance on Crossfire. It's brutal.
Comedy Central's video isn't just crappy, it doesn't work. Starting about two weeks ago most video clips have not been watchable because the menu for selecting them is messed up.
A-Bomb
Google is contending, I believe, that they do what they can do police their users by allowing them to police themselves, and by responding to copyright holders who have complaints. Showing that doing so has limited any financial loss to the copyright holder could make the point that they're doing a sufficient job, even if, at any given time, you can find something that violates copyrights on You Tube.
This would not work for someone who was actively violating copyright (say, distributing a song on your own Web site), but when you're a service provider, there has to be some reality-check for the fact that you simply can't police all of your thousands or millions of users all the time... you have to show a good faith effort and work with the copyright holders to a reasonable degree, but ultimately, it's just not your fault that little Timmy uploaded an episode of The Daily Show.
While the "MotherLoad" player sucks, I watch the Flash feed version on each of the shows' main pages every day that they're available, usually in a corner on my desktop at work. I have flashblock on, so I only turn on the flash video that contains the video, and the clips just play in order they appeared on the show.
Occasionally, there's an annoying ad, but I just mute it for the 15 or 30 seconds that it plays, then turn the volume back on.
For me, it's a lot easier than having to search through a bunch of YouTube clips to find the right ones from the right day, hoping that I don't get one that duplicates one I've already seen, or get one with the volume really low, then the next one uploaded by someone else with the volume way up high.
Given the price, I'm satisfied with ComedyCentral's offerings (though I'd appreciate a more complete set of clips, since I have no TV!)
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!