Slashdot Mirror
Viacom Looks For Google Staff Uploads in YouTube Logs
Barence writes "Viacom wants to know which YouTube videos have been uploaded by members of Google's staff, in what could be a potentially explosive aspect of its copyright infringement claim against the search giant."
Well, SouthParkStudios.com proves this. But Viacom is not interested in looking for new business models. They are looking to protect their existing business models, and YouTube hurts these.
The thing is, it's not sharing clips that hurts Viacom's business. That probably helps, free publicity for programs.
What hurts Viacom is user-generated content: eyeballs going to watch stuff that is produced totally outside the normal distribution model.
So Viacom is not IMO trying to protect its copyrighted content. What it wants to do is scare people who use YouTube into thinking "my personal data ain't safe", to create a chilling effect that will stop user-created content.
Imagine if Viacom had been infiltrated by Scientologists and they could now get access to logs of who uploaded, and who watched, videos by Anonymous. It's not likely but the mere idea this could happen will drive some people away, fracture the community, and make passive TV watching seem safer again.
OTOH, Viacom, not being an Internet company, does not realize that this kind of attack on a community always has the exact opposite effect.
So the result will be a hundred new video sharing sites, and a much more difficult situation for Viacom, both for copyright takedowns, and for competition to their programming.
My blog
Let me try that again: So long as what they were doing was connected to work, (which uploading videos on their own service likely is,) or was a mere "detour," as opposed to an independent "frolic," Google could easily be on the hook. It's called vicarious liability, or respondeat superior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability
I read TFA, and according to the article, the logic goes something like this:
Viacom: YouTube shows our copyrighted material. Google, you own YouTube and a lot of money, give us some of your money or else.
Google: Safe Harbor defense! Under the DMCA, we can't be held liable if somebody else posts copyrighted material on a site we host, if we don't know that these strangers are posting copyrighted material.
So Viacom thinks that if they can show that Google employees knowing posted copyrighted materials to YouTube, then Google won't be covered by the Safe Harbor defense.
This is what TFA says. I have no idea if that is what Viacom is actually doing, or if it would even work. But it is interesting.
That's like a movie theater making an illegal print of a movie, showing it in their theaters, then sending a token $1 for each showing back to the theater. And when the studios complain, they say, "Shaddup. What are you complaining about? You're making money, aren't you?"
Oddly enough, this is exactly how radio works. As I understand it, anyone is allowed to play any song on any radio, so long as they pay their royalties through a system which has been established for this purpose.
I'm not going to say whether that's a good thing, just interesting.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Are you saying that Viacom is a bunch of whores? Dude, I like whores! The difference between Viacom and a whore is, whores are less dishonest.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_hands