Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Viacom Vs. YouTube, Beyond Privacy

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the well-isn't-that-special dept.

Corrupt writes "As Viacom is granted access to YouTube user records, a bigger threat to user-generated sites emerges: The law is increasingly siding with rights owners."

7 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The "law" is increasingly siding with "rights owners."

    So?

    1. Re:Hmm by lazyDog86 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I disagree strongly. The "law" is always picking winners and losers. Often we all agree: muggers should be the losers and their victims should be the "winners," albeit not the best win you'll ever get seeing a guy who robbed you sent to prison. It's the best the legal system can do for you.

      But, as you get into more commercial areas, the law is picking winners and losers all of the time in ways that there is not so much general agreement as to who the winners and losers should be, often skewing things in favor of existing players. I meant who writes the law? Politicians. And, as near as I can figure, it's axiomatic here on /. that they're all as corrupt as humanly possible. So the "law" favors whoever gives them the most money.

      Now I do tend to agree with you that we still do a pretty good job when it comes to the adjudication of the law that judges should be, and are usually neutral. And they with usually result in fair rulings under the law. But the laws were written by politicians and that is the problem.

      --
      my insights may be modded Funny, but at least some of my jokes are modded Insightful
  2. It's the golden rule... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The one with the gold makes the rules... or rulings in this matter.

  3. Re:Huh? by Sen.NullProcPntr · · Score: 3, Informative
    This isn't about Congress and it's not limited to the US.
    From TFA;

    Increasingly, however, the courts are siding with rights owners and ruling that Web sites are responsible for illegal submissions.

    And;

    A French judge ordered eBay to pay Louis Vuitton handbag manufacturer LVMH (LVMH.PA) $61 million in damages. In doing so, the judge rejected eBay's argument that it is not responsible for illegal items sold by users because it provides tools to request removal of infringing goods and takes them down once notified.

  4. Re:Huh? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Informative

    As TFA points out, the DMCA -- as unlikely as this seems -- is actually on the side of the angels in this one. It's a bad law, but one of the few good things it does is provide a measure of immunity to content-hosting sites, as long as those sites comply immediately with takedown requests. Viacom et al., having managed to get pretty much everything they wanted written into the DMCA a while back, are now arguing against the immunity provisions therein. These bastards just never quit.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  5. Grossly exaggerated by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Informative

    > As Viacom is granted access to YouTube user records...

    Viacom has not been granted access to YouTube user records. Experts to be hired by their outside attorneys have. They are under court order not to disclose any user identifying information to any one, including Viacom. They, the lawyers, and Viacom are also under court order not to use any of the information for any purpose other than that specified in the order (which excludes using it to identify people to sue).

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  6. Re:Heard this before by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mod parent back to Ontopic. Here is the YouTube video the parent was referring to. The Viacommie discussion starts at the 2:00 mark.

    --
    We are all just people.