Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Viacom Looks For Google Staff Uploads in YouTube Logs

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the behold-the-data dept.

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."

13 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. Pointless... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What Viacom is doing is absolutely pointless. Want to make money? Have free downloads of *all* your shows on your website. And upload a bunch on YouTube too, why? Because YouTube is an easy way to watch videos, and I believe that Google will pay you to have ads in your videos.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Pointless... by mark72005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would someone download video clips with embedded ads if there were another source for the same clips without the ads?

      There's going to be a showdown here, because i don't think the internet ads model generates a lot of revenue. Naturally Viacom wants people watching their programs on TV only so they can keep ratings up and TV ad revenues up.

      I'm not a fan of Viacom's behavior either, but it seems strange to suggest that they would make more money that way.

    2. Re:Pointless... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would someone download video clips with embedded ads if there were another source for the same clips without the ads?

      Why would someone use an OS that is proprietary and expensive when there is a free OS that is open source and costs nothing? Convenience. Same idea here, people will go where it is convenient, be it Viacom's site, YouTube or TPB.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Pointless... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What Viacom is doing is absolutely pointless. Want to make money? Have free downloads of *all* your shows on your website. And upload a bunch on YouTube too, why? Because YouTube is an easy way to watch videos, and I believe that Google will pay you to have ads in your videos.

      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?"

      Maybe Viacom (and anyone else) want to be able to decide where their work shows and how much money it makes.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    4. Re:Pointless... by Captain+Hook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think the internet ads model generates a lot of revenue. Naturally Viacom wants people watching their programs on TV only so they can keep ratings up and TV ad revenues up.

      I've always wondered about that. If internet advertising doesn't work, why does TV advertising? I suppose it could just be audience size, but if advertisers are so good at their job, why can't they produce more tailored ad campaigns for a more fractured audience given how much more (potentially at least) they know about the person seeing the ad.

      The one thing Internet advertising has given ad managers is more accurate information on response rates. How do you measure TV response rate, the number of people phoning a number asking for a product after a advert goes out? that would seem to give vague numbers at best.

      Perhaps it's just more honest response rate which are harder to hide that ad managers dislike about Internet advertising.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    5. Re:Pointless... by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He is suggesting no such thing.

      Viacom bought the relevant law: the DMCA. Now they are mad because
      they have to use it in order to get stuff purged from YouTube.

      Viacom is upset because they have to use the law that they bought
      and paid for. Boo hoo.

      This is NOT about letting the shoplifters run amok in the candy store.

      This is about Cadbury going house to house with stormtroopers.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  2. Good! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I dislike the action, it gives Google (and ever other major corporation) a reason to care about my privacy rights. Hate the means; love the ends.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  3. common sense by caffeinemessiah · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Now I'm no expert, but it seems like if your company is involved in a lawsuit with Corporation X, you probably shouldn't patronize the services of Corporation X, or you might lose your job.

    Common sense aside, uploading copyrighted videos is clearly against any corporate internet use policy. Why should Google be held liable for the illegal actions of its employees? It's not like Google encouraged its employees to upload the Daily Show. If that doesn't hold up in court, you just got yourself a convenient way to screw your employer (convenient if, for example, you were planning on leaving the country).

    --
    An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
  4. Why a potentially explosive aspect? by free+space · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it was uploaded by Google's staff as part of their paid job, then yes, Google is intentionally infringing their copyright.
    But why would Google be blamed for an employee acting on his own to upload something?

    1. Re:Why a potentially explosive aspect? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I want to know is how many Viacom owned clips were uploaded by Viacom employees. I bet there were more uploaded by Viacom employees than Google employees.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  5. Staff posting? by Wowsers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Would staff be posting Viacom material from their work place? More likely if any video was posted to Youtube, they would do it from their homes, which are NOT under googles (or any other employers) control. Viacom could therefore go jump at making tenuous connections between being employed by company x, and company x endorsing some behaviour.

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
  6. Re:How about looking for Viacom employees? by jdunlevy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Contraire: if material that Viacom says infringes were shown to have been uploaded by Viacom, Google could argue that either it doesn't infringe, or that Viacom was, in essence, trying to entrap Google/YouTube...

  7. information you don't have by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is information you don't have to protect.