Google Slams Viacom For Secret YouTube Uploads

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Reuters: "Google, Inc. accused Viacom, Inc. of secretly uploading its videos to YouTube even as the media conglomerate publicly denounced the online video site for copyright infringement, according to court documents made public on Thursday." As "statements from the corporate counsel's office" go, this post on the YouTube blog is pretty hot reading.

Comments

Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has become quite outspoken. I guess they are big enough that they do not have to scratch anyone's back anymore. I like this approach - Google has the power to change people's perceptions of companies (and countries) seeing as how they do control a large chunk of the flow of information on the Internet.

Re:Wow.

[WrongSizeGlass]

While they do this they're changing people's perception of Google as well ... and not always for the better.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad they cannot just file that blog post (with a bunch of attached items to confirm their statements) as their legal response to the suit.

Re:Wow.

[PopeRatzo]

While they do this they're changing people's perception of Google as well ... and not always for the better.

Who would you rather have controlling a large chunk of the flow of information on the internet, Google, or Viacom?

I can understand the consternation that has sometimes arisen regarding Google, but I think some of it might be because we're not used to transnational corporations acting like anything but rapacious, greedy monsters who hate their own customers and would sell weapons to Al-Qaeda if it meant a 2% bump in quarterly profits.

Google may be far from perfect, but they're also far from your average transnational spawn of Satan.

Re:Wow.

[RobotRunAmok]

Who would you rather have controlling a large chunk of the flow of information on the internet, Google, or Viacom?

Tough Choice.

I don't trust Google.

Viacom wants to make money and protect its IP.

I'm not sure what Google wants...

Re:Wow.

[dr.newton]

Perhaps Google wants not to have billion-dollar lawsuits fabricated and leveled at them.

Re:Wow.

[einhverfr]

I would rather see the market decentralize.

Re:Wow.

[bertoelcon]

I'm not sure what Google wants...

Information. They get information on you to deliver targeted ads to you, and they are unlikely to give away this information easily because it is their core product and core source of revenue. Some see this as a bad thing and others don't really mind.

Re:Wow.

[UnknownSoldier]

... your data, and data usage patterns. There is a reason they call it "data-mining" ...

Re:Wow.

[master5o1]

Google wants your data to improve its targeted advertising.

Re:Wow.

[DerekLyons]

No, actually it's a *good* thing our legal system won't let you file rants and PR puff pieces as legal responses.

Re:Wow.

[WrongSizeGlass]

Who would you rather have controlling a large chunk of the flow of information on the internet, Google, or Viacom?

Luckily for everyone those aren't the only two choices. They happen to be the only two dogs in this race ... at least until more companies are exposed for 'Viacomming' or YouTube turns out not to be the only company Viacom did this to.

Stay tuned kids, this is just the first act in a loooong play.

Re:Wow.

[John Hasler]

> No, actually it's a *good* thing our legal system won't let you file rants
> and PR puff pieces as legal responses.

Actually it will, but the judge will make you _really_ wish you hadn't.

Re:Wow.

[WillDraven]

IANAL but it's my understanding that you can file just about whatever you want as evidence in a civil trial. Whether the judge will be impressed by it or not is a different matter.

Re:Wow.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

like this approach - Google has the power to change people's perceptions of companies (and countries) ...

All without so much as a speck of substantiating evidence. I'd especially like to hear how they plan to prove Viacom was sending employees to Kinko's to upload videos.

This turns my stomach on all counts. Google is attempting to force the courts hand by making this public, relying on the court of public opinion to win the case for them. Moreover, if these charges are indeed true, it is a testament to:

a) Just how much information and the ability to process it Google has and more importantly
b) how willing Google is to use this information to its own advantage when neccessary.

Knowladge is power, and power corrupts. Viacom's fate is but a taste of what awaits anyone who dares to cross Google in future. If Google decides to win a case against you in the court of public opinion, just think of how much rope you've already given them to hang you with.

Re:Wow.

[Skuld-Chan]

Ironically Youtube is one of the few websites helping do this. Never before in history has it been easier to broadcast your stuff to potentially millions of viewers.

I think last year when I realized there were shows on Youtube that I (and a lot of other people) literally couldn't wait to see the next episode of that proved this point.

Re:Wow.

[Kozz]

Perhaps Google wants not to have billion-dollar lawsuits fabricated and leveled at them.

And remember, folks, lawsuits fabricated is an anagram of aw! fast is lubricated.

Re:Wow.

[nacturation]

And remember, folks, lawsuits fabricated is an anagram of aw! fast is lubricated.

Or Saw fat? I'd lubricate!

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're joking, right? You do realize that this is the result of discovery in the lawsuit, don't you? The proof is there, and I'm sure they'll be more than willing to provide it in court.

Re:Wow.

[scubamage]

Um, actually most of what Google and their Counsel listed would not be hard to prove. A) Account is created originating from IP's owned by Viacom. These accounts also occasionally log in from Kinko's. B) Viacom owned material is uploaded from IP's owned by Viacom. C) Accounts accused of uploading Viacom owned material log in occasionally from Viacom owned IP's. Said accounts were created at Kinko's. D) There'd be a paper trail for all DMCA requests to have materials deleted. E) Requests from accounts created/used on viacom IP's requesting material to be restored. If such accounts had ever logged in from a Viacom owned IP or was created on a Viacom owned IP, it would show some potential for what Google is saying. This is especially true if all of the accounts ONLY uploaded Viacom related materials.

Now of course there is a possibility that Bob from accounting created an account and uploaded baby videos. But such videos wouldn't raise the ire of viacom, nor would they fall under a DMCA request. So that means Bob would have to be uploading Viacom property. As far as I know an employee stealing their employer's property isn't anyone's problem except the employer and the employee. You can't sue someone else for it - well you can, but you'll lose. So everything Google says makes sense, and I can guarantee that a company that makes its living off of tracking users has the logs. You're right, there's not a speck of evidence; there's a goddamned ocean.

Re:Wow.

[shentino]

Filing phony DMCA requests among other things should give Youtube grounds to recover damages just for the expense of putting up with their legal bullshit.

Re:Wow.

[h4rr4r]

Got a list of those anywhere?
Other than Chad Vader I have yet to see one.

Re:Wow.

[Roger W Moore]

Who would you rather have controlling a large chunk of the flow of information on the internet, Google, or Viacom?

Both...and more besides. Even if Google is benign now they are a company and so their directors and owners can change over time. If you have a good diversity of companies 'in control' then there is a greatly reduced possibility for one of them to misbehave because, if they do, people will move away from them. This is about the only thing that we can do to make a company sit up and listen and if we are unable to do this because there are no alternatives then we are in real trouble.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

literally couldn't wait to see

As opposed to figuratively not being able to wait to see? How did they literally not wait between episodes that hadn't been uploaded yet - board a time machine and travel to the future?

Re:Wow.

[negRo_slim]

I don't trust Google.

Exactly, once the current leadership is out it's anyones guess.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather see the market decentralize.

But freedom in the marketplace lends toward centralization.

This is a fundamental paradox of capitalism: in order for the benefits to manifest, everyone must compete, but no one can ever be allowed to win.

Re:Wow.

[dangitman]

Knowladge is power

Weird. I thought that Knowladge was Powar.

Re:Wow.

[clarkkent09]

I think the problem lies in thinking of companies as if they are individual human beings with their own personalities. In reality, Google is an entity owned and controlled by it's shareholders and the executive staff that those shareholders hire, just like Viacom is. All those groups, shareholders, the board and the executives can and do change all the time. Google shareholders (the major ones at least) may have decided to place a higher emphasis on ethical behavior but those people could change literally tomorrow. I think the whole idea of "trusting" Google more than for example Microsoft, say with a ridiculous amount of your personal information, is wrong as you have no idea who will be running it tomorrow.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are very outspoken, now they just need to grow a pair and act. Do what Apple did when NBC came to them with their lame bluff: aggressively do exactly what Viacom says they want. Let's see how they like it when Google really blocks all viacom media. Then when they come crawling back, as eventually they must, Google will have scored a real win.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I would rather see the market decentralize."

The internet doesn't work like this, internet tends to AGGREGATE what's important in a few places.

Re:Wow.

[Z00L00K]

The idea of Google is to provide users with linking information to other content providers rather than to produce anything themselves. They are more doing the "glue" or "pimp" work on the net than providing the end service.

And then - what's the real difference between Google and Pirate Bay? Both are search engines but with the distinction that Google is big and diversified while Pirate Bay is specialized. And Google do have a filter against material that can be seen as "offensive".

You don't need to trust Google all the way. Take your pick from the competition and you see that the main alternatives are either Microsoft Bing (Not Bing Carburetors) and Yahoo. There are others too, listed at This Wikipedia page. OK, Wikipedia can in it's own way be considered a search service. And then there are specialized search engines, but many of those provides only "special interest" result.

In any case - Google has been able to make money from their services one way or another and is for a large company relatively decent. If they are cutting something then it's probably more since they are worried about lawsuits than anything else.

Re:Wow.

[Hadlock]

I thought google didn't issue any voting stock to the public?

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Saw fat doesn't make a good lubricant. it tends to contain small peices of bone.

Re:Wow.

[sonicmerlin]

Just how long did you people spend coming up with those anagrams?

Re:Wow.

[sonicmerlin]

Yeah that's the main thing I'm worried about. In 30 years after Brin and Page step down, then what? Will they give their companies to their sons? The history of hereditary rule frowns on the likelihood of that turning out well.

Re:Wow.

[sonicmerlin]

You do realize Brin and Page alone control over 50% of the voting stock, and if you add in Schmidt it's evident no one has any control but the founders and Schmidt.

Re:Wow.

[Vintermann]

There is still the possibility of minority shareholder lawsuits. It's just a matter of time before someone tries throwing one at Google.

Re:Wow.

[sgbett]

Approx 17 seconds

http://www.ssynth.co.uk/~gay/anagram.html

Re:Wow.

[dalesc]

While companies are growing, waxing profitable and don't feel threatened, it is easy for them to be honest and straight forward. It's when they see market share suffering or competition gaining the upper-hand that they tend to resort to deceptions and shady practices. Big media feels threatened by YouTube and the wider copyright violation/pirating issues but are too fat, comfortable and lazy to innovate around it. They'd much rather litigate because it's easy and avoids all that messy thinking.

Re:Wow.

[SlothDead]

So, you haven't seen Mr Deity yet? Also, there's somegreybloke, Defenders of Steve and SMBC theatre.

Re:Wow.

[Saint Fnordius]

I think you encapsule the problem most people have with Google: we don't know what they want. Viacom, sure, that's the devil we know. They're in it for the quick buck, and only see things in terms of profit. Ethics are a mere afterthought, and only then because getting too amoral hurts profits.

Google, however, has been wildly successful despite acting as if profits were not so important. That confuses the heck out of people, because past behavior from Yahoo, Lycos, Microsoft, Apple and all the other companies have made us paranoid and cynical. That's why Google Buzz got such a poor reception, and why people are leery of giving Google as much information about themselves as they have their internet provider or telephone service.

Re:Wow.

[darthflo]

I'm not quite sure about Schmidt's stake, but Page and Brin are selling off the voting majority.

Re:Wow.

[Hurricane78]

Who would you rather have controlling a large chunk of the flow of information on the internet, Google, or Viacom?

Neither nor? As in: Nobody?
Heloooohoo? False dichotomy much?

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

literally couldn't wait to see

As opposed to figuratively not being able to wait to see? How did they literally not wait between episodes that hadn't been uploaded yet - board a time machine and travel to the future?

What you see is what you are, your a naked movie star. Thats how.

Re:Wow.

[Nikker]

These types of comments are like, "I would much rather have that guy kick me in the nuts he seems much cooler". When Google got into the race I was cheering for them because I didn't like Microsoft. Then I liked Google because I didn't like Apple. After all of this I just realized I didn't really like Google but I just hated everyone else. Google is not your friend they are a business and will continue to be this way (especially since Sergy and Larry sold enough of their voting stock). Now when Google does something "questionably evil" it's not Sergy and Larry but the share holders and share holders get to sit by one the sidelines and get none of the flack.

Repeat after me, "This is not high school anymore, this is real life, real companies want to make real money, real companies will do what ever they have to to make said money"

Google is up against companies like Microsoft and most advertising firms, do you really think just because Google has fanboys these companies will make it easy on them? These companies are big enough to make Google make tough choices and some of those choices will definitely be "evil", just wait for the honeymoon to be over.

As a consumer all we can do is demand what we want and realize we are the ones holding the proverbial worm on the hook, don't be fanboys and apologists. The less you care about the flowery shit the more in control you will be.

Re:Wow.

[riegel]

And remember, folks, lawsuits fabricated is an anagram of aw! fast is lubricated.

I liked this one...

audible fascist wart

Re:Wow.

[Ironhandx]

They will still control 48%, which means they will still effectively control the company as someone else would have to A) buy 49% of the vote and make sure not enough of the remaining 3% vote with Page and Brin, which is going to be a daunting task to say the least, B) buy 50.1%, even closer to being impossible than the 49%, or C) get greater than 92.3% of the votes NOT directly controlled by Page and Brin to back them. Given that a single investment firm controlling investments from perhaps hundreds or thousands of people could back Brin and Page and nullify anything anyone else could do, I don't think we have to worry too much about Brin and Page losing control any time soon.

Re:Wow.

[mcgrew]

Viacom wants to make money and protect its IP.

The intellectual property doesn't belong to Viacom; the US Constitution says it belongs to everyone, and Viacom merely holds a limited time monopoly on it. It's like a rented house - the renter doesn't own the house, he merely has a limited time monopoly on it.

Viacom wants to protect itself from us using our IP without its permission.

OTOH, Disney does own Mickey Mouse, since that's trademarked (although we own the cartoons). You can own a trademark but merely hold a copyright.

I know it sounds pedantic, but it's a serious distinction that most people misunderstand and that the media companies want you to misunderstand.

Re:Wow.

[mcgrew]

WTF? Viacom is uploading videos to youtube and threatening to sue Google for copyright infringement, and this makes Google evil?

Too bad there's no law that would strip Viacom of all its copyrights. Google isn't evil (at least in this case), but Viacom is as sleazy as you can get without actually killing anyone.

I hope one of slashdot's lawyer readers can say whether Google can sue. I hope they can, and I hope whoever made this decision at Viacom has something bad happen to them.

Re:Wow.

[hey!]

What's funny is that the Viacom employees engaging in this amateur cloak-and-dagger stuff apparently thought Google* wouldn't be able to piece together the evidence. What were they thinking?

Re:Wow.

[jgagnon]

In 30 years the current "Internet environment" will have changed drastically. It is impossible to say at this point if Google, in any form, will be around in 30 years (or even relevant, for that matter).

Re:Wow.

[Hatta]

I'm not sure what Google wants...

Information.

Whose side are you on?!

Re:Wow.

[Tubal-Cain]

IANAL but it's my understanding that you can file just about whatever you want as evidence in a civil trial.

Jack Thomson agrees.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you lost an S.

Re:Wow.

[easyTree]

There is always the possibility that 'do no evil' is the dominant culture within google; making it self-regulating, comparable to a well-balanced person. Contrast this with your average corporate egomaniacal bully.

Re:Wow.

[jesset77]

I know it sounds pedantic, but it's a serious distinction that most people misunderstand and that the media companies want you to misunderstand.

Mmm, I like the cut of your jib. Note that the "limited time" you cite has not yet legally elapsed, and we can count on this administration to continue extending it interminably, I would very much like to evict all renters of copyright from their monopolies at the earliest convenience.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but THEY ARE NOT PAYING THE RENT THEY OWE by releasing their materials to enrich the public domain.

Re:Wow.

[mabhatter654]

I think Google is growing balls. They've been policing YouTube for a long time.... we all know media companies are hiring contractors to "poison the well" in many cases, then the parent swoops in and sues. Google's not stupid. You can't surf anywhere and not have them keep tabs.... Google has ways of knowing who's connected and probably has enough evidence at this point to start taking these companies with threats to the mats now.

Re:Wow.

[mcgrew]

You are quite right, and we souldn't let people forget that they are not, in fact, paying their rent. They already act as they own the property, and we shouldn't let them convince us that they are, in fact, stealing from US and that they owe us big time.

Re:Wow.

[StikyPad]

Better a fabricated lawsuit than a lubricated fatsuit, I always say...

Re:Wow.

[StikyPad]

The judge will just throw you in jail for contempt. It's the guy on Cell Block B who does the real work of changing hearts and minds.

If Viacom wins

[Blackneto]

If Viacom wins there isn't anything that cannot be bought.

Re:If Viacom wins

[clintonmonk]

If Viacom wins there isn't anything that cannot be bought.

Even double negatives.

Re:If Viacom wins

[evilviper]

If Viacom wins there isn't anything that cannot be bought.

Yes, poor little Google doesn't have the money to defend itself against the big, bad, Viacom.

For Viacom to win, Google will have to do something horribly, horribly wrong in the court.

Re:If Viacom wins

[metlin]

It's not as cut and dry as you might think. YouTube has done its share of dirty deeds in this whole fiasco.

Some choice excerpts include the YouTube cofounders discussing how 80% of the site traffic depended on pirated videos. So, they pretty much did whatever they had to get a massive user base so that they'd get bought out. From the article -

The basic argument here is a simple one. YouTube's founders hoped to build a massive user base as quickly as possible and then sell the site. "Our dirty little secret... is that we actually just want to sell out quickly," said Karim at one point.

Now, arguably, YouTube at that time does not equal Google, and one could argue that things have changed. However, don't be so quick to decide without hearing both sides of the story.

Re:If Viacom wins

[metlin]

I'll also add this. What was Google's business case for buying YouTube? You think they didn't know that YouTube was rife with pirated content? The article also talks about how little documentation Google produced on the whole deal. Both sides knew what they were doing (*wink*, *wink*).

Re:If Viacom wins

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had mod points for you.

Re:If Viacom wins

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to buy a triple negative.

Re:If Viacom wins

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA gives them safe harbor. Unless they can prove that Google was somehow inducing the infringement, they haven't got much of a case, IMHO. They're not required to act as copyright police, after all, and that's a good thing.

Re:If Viacom wins

[Anonymous Coward]

Although it is the usage of a double negative, the sentence places emphasis on bought. It adds strength to his statement and is a literary device.

Re:If Viacom wins

[Laurence0]

I'd never not sell you a double negative.

Re:If Viacom wins

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd never not sell you a double negative.

Yo no sé nada.

Re:If Viacom wins

[Compaqt]

Their business case is simply that somebody or another is going to control online video, and they'd rather it be Google.

Re:If Viacom wins

[Anonymous Coward]

In the event that Viacom wins, I think the quote you're looking for is:

"If this is justice, I'm a banana."

I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[unity100]

isnt one.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[dotancohen]

isnt one.

A wedding picture with the tampoon string hanging out. Definite oops. Or this.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Anonymous Coward]

xkcd is painfully unfunny.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[larry bagina]

you misunderstood; posting an xkcd link is the "oops."

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC was probably a wise decision.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Anonymous Coward]

xkcd is painfully unfunny.

and you're painfully retarded. seriously, it hurts even to think about how retarded you are.

like, you're making Trig Palin look very, very smart by comparison.

This is the sort of shit that people who read xkcd find amusing.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Anonymous Coward]

What an insightful post. Thank you for blessing us with your wisdom.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[u38cg]

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Words...they fails me.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[causality]

xkcd is painfully unfunny.

and you're painfully retarded. seriously, it hurts even to think about how retarded you are.

like, you're making Trig Palin look very, very smart by comparison.

This is the sort of shit that people who read xkcd find amusing.

Eh, there's a difference between reading it and finding it amusing ... and feeling a need to bring it up in every possible discussion and work it into every conversation, like some kind of obsession. I think what you're talking about applies to the latter and not the former.

Xkcd is pretty good, and for the most part I can appreciate its humor. However, it's not so good that I want to see it in every single Slashdot story. If anything, that's a great way to make me not want to read it. Turning something into another mindless meme is not a great way to promote it. This thread indicates I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Tom9729]

It's times like these that make me wish for modpoints because I am 100% in agreement with you. Xkcd is one of the few webcomics I read (along with Penny Arcade and Dinosaur Comics) but I'm starting to wish the editors would just post the "obligatory xkcd" along with TFS to get it over with.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[h4rr4r]

You're welcome. I always try to help those less fortunate.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's right. Compare the first 80 strips to the newer ones, you'll see that it was funny on the start but it isn't anymore (or at least wasn't, I don't read it anymore).
I blame the memes and internet fame.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the dimwitted AC.

Says the flamebaiting child from the safety of his parents' basement.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Toonol]

Xkcd is a pretty good and generally clever comic, and I suspect you hate it for non-rational reasons... but that's neither here nor there.

I agree that the GP's insult of Trig Palin gives him away as an idiot. It's a type of humor that only the insecure utilize.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Toonol]

Xkcd itself made a (slightly oblique) comment on this, when he criticized people who found amusement in quoting line after line, verbatim, from Monty Python. They're great, but it's a weakness in creativity to endlessly repeat the same funny lines. That type of rote mimicry is exactly NOT what made Monty Python great in the first place.

Douglas Adams receives the same treatment.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Tanktalus]

Words...they fails me.

They "fails" you?

uh oh... now I've made Viacom angry.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[ColdWetDog]

Words...they fails me.

Of course - YouTube is videos.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Dragonslicer]

I suspect that most of the people at Comedy Central understand this whole Internet thing better than most of the executives in the other divisions of Viacom. As for The Daily Show and Colbert Report, I'm not sure why people would go to YouTube to watch them anyway, since you can already watch them for free on the shows' web sites.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what you mean by "free".

Speaking for a lot of people, I watch videos on Youtube because I trust Google more than Viacom. Web video via Flash is still a privacy and security nightmare. Google's done pretty well on this front; if there is a choice about where to watch something, Youtube is safer.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[TheRaven64]

As for The Daily Show and Colbert Report, I'm not sure why people would go to YouTube to watch them anyway, since you can already watch them for free on the shows' web sites

For given values of 'you' where 'you' is a person with a US IP address.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Anonymous Coward]

And ironically, I've seen people rote quote that *exact* XKCD, and I'm not sure if they were aware of the irony of what they were doing. - Jimmy

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[djdavetrouble]

I disagree, I like to think that there is a simpsons or futurama quote, a seinfeld episode, or a xkcd strip that is applicable to almost
every situation in life, or every slashdot discussion

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Skrapion]

Yeah, annoying licensing restrictions.

Luckily, the Canadian license holder is CTV, and they're also pretty progressive with their online streaming.

I still get screwed over with sites like Hulu, though, and it's probably going to be a long time before broadcast corporations shed the vestiges of regional licensing.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Scrab]

Or access to google, and the ability to edit browser settings...

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Anonymous Coward]

thedailyshow.com and colbertnation.com work fine from Germany, with moderate advertisements (30 seconds before the full show, mostly for other comedy central shows). Where can't you access those sites?

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[JoelMeow]

They also work fine in Japan. However, when I was in France on a trip, I got the "this content is not available in your location" message. So some locations are blocked off, but it's not just non-U.S.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, mindless meme promotes you!

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[chenjeru]

I can watch Colbert Report, Daily Show and South Park just fine in the Netherlands, direct from Comedy Central's official sites. No trickery required (unlike Hulu).

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Painted]

Except the US site is far, far, far better. The Official site has every episode, ever, if I understand correctly. In Canada, they host back 1 year only... I found out that in 1998 the Daily Show had a guest on that I'd love to see, but due to geography and esoteric MPAA restrictions, I can't see it.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[Yamata no Orochi]

It wouldn't be involved as often if it didn't cover such a broad range of topics discussed here.

The reason it comes up so much is there's almost ALWAYS someone reading these articles that can specifically recall a funny, related xkcd strip.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[mcgrew]

Turning something into another mindless meme is not a great way to promote it. This thread indicates I'm not the only one who feels that way.

In Soviet Russia OW! OW! STOP HITTING ME!

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[u38cg]

The UK is blocked off. Anywhere the shows have local licensing deals, I imagine, or at least if your IP is recorded as being from such a place.

Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this

[easyTree]

I'm starting to wish the editors would just post the "obligatory xkcd" along with TFS

Crazy talk! The editors should attach a 'most-relevant xkcd' poll to TFS.

Busted

[longacre]

I always suspected lonelygirl15 was actually Andy Rooney. This seems to confirm it.

Viacom - the verb

[CdBee]

This story illustrates a whole new sort of corporate stupidity. I propose from now on that such an action should be known as Viacomming, drawn from a new verb. To Viacom. Definition - to stab yourself in both feet by litigating against your own principal shopfront.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[WrongSizeGlass]

I do hereby second this motion. Can we get a floor vote?

Re:Viacom - the verb

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting yea. "Viacomming" has a great ring to it.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[dunezone]

Viacomming - failing to adapt to new technology and current trends of a growing demographic.
Synonyms: RIAA, NBC

Re:Viacom - the verb

[brennz]

Would you happen to know of a bathroom nearby, I think I need to take a SCO.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[HungryHobo]

Aye!

Re:Viacom - the verb

[Anonymous Coward]

and Viacumming is what then?

Re:Viacom - the verb

[krou]

I shall only agree to this when I get proof of the Second Viacomming.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[larry bagina]

floor votes are so pre-hope and change. Let's just deem it.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[raddan]

Oh, but Sony's been doing it for years!

Re:Viacom - the verb

[c 0xFF]

I think it's worse than that:

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom.

It seems that Viacom purposefully uploaded these files to invalidate the whole concept of YouTube. "See how much of our stuff is uploaded! They can't filter it out! They have to be shut down!"

It's almost like dumping a much of random nails in the street and then suing the government for not cleaning the streets properly.

This article is definitely worth reading.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[dimeglio]

Strauss, Erwin S. How to start your own country, ISBN 0-915179-01-6

Youtubeland, I'd move there.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that Viacom purposefully uploaded these files to invalidate the whole concept of YouTube. "See how much of our stuff is uploaded! They can't filter it out! They have to be shut down!"

Nope. Viacom realized the value of marketing their shows on youtube, which HELPS VIACOM MAKE MONEY. By having lots of people uploading clips of their favorite shows, it boosts the popularity & coolness of the show.

Since this was a secret astroturf project, Viacom had to have their regular DMCA people prowl youtube to remove the clips.

This is not unlike payola, where a record label pays a radio station to promote sales of music. Except without the payment. Maybe I need a car analogy...

Re:Viacom - the verb

[Presto Vivace]

Viacom has unearthed a bunch of compromising emails. This lawsuit could produce lots of entertaining internal documents.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[Anonymous Coward]

fixed it for you:
Synonyms: RIAA, MPAA, NBC

Re:Viacom - the verb

[multisync]

I propose from now on that such an action should be known as Viacomming

I wonder what Rick Santorum would think of that idea.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[bill_mcgonigle]

Viacomming, drawn from a new verb. To Viacom.

Perhaps 'to Google' will be redefined to mean 'get your ass handed to you by a company who has mountains of money, logs everything, never throws away data, and has a team of Ph.D's to counter your illegal prosecution'. If not for permanent corporate charters, somebody at Viacomm would be going to jail.

On the other hand, I was told last week to 'google for the restaurant on your Tom-Tom'. I had a full 10 seconds of 'WTF?' before I realized it now means 'to search for something on an electronic gizmo' to some. I had just begun to understand the 'use any Internet search engine' colloquialism and now this...

Re:Viacom - the verb

[AmberBlackCat]

Wouldn't that would be Murdoching?

Re:Viacom - the verb

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is definitely worth reading.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! We'll forgive you since you're new, but saying stuff like that quickly gets you modded perma-troll. This is your first warning.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like they're sneaking in and painting their logo on the side of a racing car then suing the team for trademark violations.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more like spilling water on the floor at Wal-Mart and then purposely slipping on it and faking an injury. Those people get prosecuted, right?

Re:Viacom - the verb

[KillShill]

They already have a name for it...

It's called a False Flag. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

Re:Viacom - the verb

[syousef]

This is not unlike payola, where a record label pays a radio station to promote sales of music. Except without the payment. Maybe I need a car analogy...

So many made up words, so little meaning. The term 'fraud' has been around since the dawn of the English language.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[nine-times]

It seems that Viacom purposefully uploaded these files to invalidate the whole concept of YouTube. "See how much of our stuff is uploaded! They can't filter it out! They have to be shut down!"

Nope. Viacom realized the value of marketing their shows on youtube, which HELPS VIACOM MAKE MONEY.

Worse than that: I think it was both. They basically got viral advertising at the same time that they were able to damage the credibility of the Internet as the future of media distribution. Big media companies like old forms of media distribution.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[Angst Badger]

Maybe I need a car analogy.

Okay, it's like parking your car in your neighbor's driveway and then accusing them of stealing it.

There's actually nothing complicated here. Viacom planted evidence of a crime, and then tried to hijack the court system to finish off the fraud. If I was a Viacom attorney right now, I'd be telling my employer to look for a new attorney and quite possibly threatening to sue them.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[dangitman]

So many made up words, so little meaning. The term 'fraud' has been around since the dawn of the English language.

How is "payola" fraud? It is no different than paying to have advertisements run on the radio. It is paying for an advertising service.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[gordguide]

" ... So many made up words, so little meaning. The term 'fraud' has been around since the dawn of the English language.

How is "payola" fraud? It is no different than paying to have advertisements run on the radio. It is paying for an advertising service. ..."

It's a fraud perpetuated on the public. And it is quite clearly different than paid advertising on the radio, because paid advertising is legal while payola was made a crime 50 years ago.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[$0.02]

Car analogy:

You drive Toyota Prius and press the accelerator all the way down. Then you call 911. You enjoy speedy ride. The police does not pull you over. You thank them for saving you life. Then you sue Toyota.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[Anonymous Coward]

NBC has Hulu

Re:Viacom - the verb

[dangitman]

It's a fraud perpetuated on the public

How so?

And it is quite clearly different than paid advertising on the radio, because paid advertising is legal while payola was made a crime 50 years ago.

But payola is not materially different than advertising. So, if payola is a crime, then why isn't advertising?

Re:Viacom - the verb

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know what payola is? It's a company secretly paying a radio station to play songs so they become popular and sell records. If they disclose that a song is sponsored it isn't payola. Viacom didn't technically pay to have their videos watched to make them popular, they had people pretend to put videos up with the intent to get their broadcast shows more viewer... so maybe it is not exactly the same as payola but still fraud in my opinion.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/PayolaRules.html

Re:Viacom - the verb

[dangitman]

Do you know what payola is? It's a company secretly paying a radio station to play songs so they become popular and sell records.

Yes, I know this, but how does it constitute fraud against the listener? It's not like anybody who listens to commercial radio would expect the music to be untainted by commercial interests.

In any case, this still happens, and nobody is being prosecuted for it, which brings into question the illegality of the practice.

But ultimately, I wonder why there are different standards for different mediums. Why is payola (sometimes) illegal on the radio, but it's perfectly legal for companies to pay for product placement on TV shows, without disclosure to the viewer? As I said earlier, there is materially no difference between the two actions.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[1u3hr]

But payola is not materially different than advertising. So, if payola is a crime, then why isn't advertising?

It is very different.

It's dishonest. Advertising is distinguished from editorial. "And now a word from our sponsor..." Payola is a subversion of editorial, when the broadcasters play music because they've been paid to, while lying that it's because of popularity. If they present the show as "New music from the Sony Corporation" that would be fine. When they call it "Top Hits" or something similar, it's not.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[mcgrew]

floor votes are so pre-hope and change. Let's just deem it.

I'd just deem the floor swept and throw away the broom, but my ex-wife needs it for transportation.

More seriously, 75% of "demon pass" has been done by Republicans; it's not post-hope&change thing at all.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[Zerth]

But ultimately, I wonder why there are different standards for different mediums. Why is payola (sometimes) illegal on the radio, but it's perfectly legal for companies to pay for product placement on TV shows, without disclosure to the viewer? As I said earlier, there is materially no difference between the two actions.

Compensated product placements are disclosed for TV, they just bury them in the credits. Usually the part that gets shrunk and sped up until it is unreadable. Ditto for movies, it is usually after the music credits and before the "any smoking was necessary and not paid by Big Tobacco" disclaimer.

See http://www.aaf.org/default.asp?id=349

The writers guild has been lobbying for "while it happens" disclosure, but the FTC is working on eliminating any disclosure.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[fulldecent]

It's good to have friends at the NSA so Google can make allegations like that with certainty.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[AK Marc]

Since this was a secret astroturf project, Viacom had to have their regular DMCA people prowl youtube to remove the clips.

If someone uploaded them with Viacom permission, then the copyright is owned by Google (or something close to that, I haven't read the TOS for YouTube). If they demanded them taken down, then they broke the law. They, in bad faith, requested the take down of something they know they didn't have the right to take down.

It doesn't matter if the right hand didn't know what the left was doing, Viacom is a single legal entity, and they gave permission, transferred rights to Google, then hit them with a legal action full of false claims.

If this was some adult using MySpace to abuse a minor, they'd have filed hacking charges against them. But because it was a corporation, there will be some bitching and moaning, and not much else.

Re:Viacom - the verb

[gordguide]

" ... Yes, I know this, but how does it constitute fraud against the listener? It's not like anybody who listens to commercial radio would expect the music to be untainted by commercial interests. ..."

Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of "Payola". I will only comment on the obvious difference: Payola is a kickback paid in secret to a staff member of the radio station; advertising is a contract for promotion with the money going to the corporate entity.

Payola is more akin to "coke and hookers" and although it's certainly not unheard of for "coke and hookers" to be part of a company to company "arrangement", it too would be illegal.

Legally speaking, "Payola" is an illegal bribe.

Oblig quote

[PPH]

Captain Renault: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
Croupier: "Your winnings, sir. ."

Re:Oblig quote

[Penguinshit]

*AA Executive: "Our business model has been shot!"

*AA Lawyer: "Round up the usual suspects."

Re:Oblig quote

[Adambomb]

Viacom: Frankly my dear, i don't give a damn.

Smells like bullshit

[Locke2005]

What proof does YouTube have that any videos were actually uploaded by Viacom?

Re:Smells like bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't be any worse than the proof Viacom has that YouTube maliciously left them up.

Re:Smells like bullshit

[Todd Knarr]

At the very least they'll have copies of the requests from Viacom to restore the videos that Viacom demanded be taken down, and most likely Google required that those requests state exactly why Viacom has the authority to make that video available. They also probably traced the IP addresses, odds on more than a few times somebody slipped up and uploaded videos from an IP traceable to a machine belonging to Viacom or one of it's marketing companies. The marketers have no dog in this fight, if Google's gone to them with apparent proof that they've been uploading Viacom's videos the marketers won't have any qualms about pulling out their authorization from Viacom to cover themselves.

Google hires some pretty good lawyers. I doubt they'd be making such a strong statement in a legal action if they didn't already have what they needed to back it up.

Re:Smells like bullshit

[newcastlejon]

Their IPs? I'm assuming they weren't stupid enough to have Viacom for their u/n...

Re:Smells like bullshit

[cptdondo]

Never, ever screw with a company that's in the business of collecting information. Heck, that's Google's *ONLY* business.

The crunching sound you hear is viacom stepping on its own dick.

Re:Smells like bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

sure sounds like viacom is well hung

Re:Smells like bullshit

[amicusNYCL]

Exactly how smart do you think the PR people at Viacon, excuse me, Viacom, are?

Re:Smells like bullshit

[Dan667]

actually, if you are a lawyer working for Google this has to be really fun. Google is providing information to not just win, but to stomp viacom mercilessly for weeks. Lawyers enjoy about nothing else more than that.

Re:Smells like bullshit

[c 0xFF]

The point is that it's nearly impossible to determine if the person who uploaded the files was authorized. Youtube (apparently) has evidence that they purposefully tried to obscure the source of the upload, making the files look like they were pirated.

Youtube is simply pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy in all this.

Re:Smells like bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can prove it was Viacom that uploaded the material then legally those particular copies were by definition, authorized. We've seen that in other court rulings. But yes, the point here is to demonstrate bad faith on the part of Viacom.

Re:Smells like bullshit

[hkmwbz]

I would have thought that the sound of that would be more of a soft, limp, squishy one...

Re:Smells like bullshit

[QuoteMstr]

The old saying goes, "never get into argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel."

Maybe we should update it to say: never get into an argument with someone who writes programs that run on whole data centers.

Re:Smells like bullshit

[newcastlejon]

Exactly how smart do you think the PR people at Viacon, excuse me, Viacom, are?

Is that a trick question?

Re:Smells like bullshit

[Missing_dc]

I saw an article recently that claimed that 11.something % of ALL web traffic was related to do-no-evil Google.
An astonishing number (also astonishing is Facebook's 7.07%).

With even 5% of web traffic able to be collected, categorized, linked, crosslinked and inferred through traffic heuristics...
Holy Shit what a force to be reckoned with!

It almost makes me feel bad for the average chump (Corps included, staffed as they are by AFCs), since they willingly give all this info to the bots.

A properly paranoid person would ask for a search anonymiser(sp) to act as a proxy and hunt down random crap to obfuscate the real results.... Anyone know of a service like that I can use?

Re:Smells like bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The crunching sound you hear is viacom stepping on its own dick.

I wish I could step on my own dick. :(

Re:Smells like bullshit

[Stray7Xi]

Never, ever screw with a company that's in the business of collecting information. Heck, that's Google's *ONLY* business.

No kidding, can you imagine the resources Google's legal team has to build a case. It's not just the support they get for customized searches of case law. They can get a report of all search terms used by Viacom's legal team. They can see every page loaded that's using adsense. God forbid if viacom is using gmail, google docs, or google voice.

I really take perverse pleasure in imagining Google serving customized goatse ads to Viacom's legal team. "Oh I'm sorry our advanced algorithms determined based on your browsing history that it was relevant to your interests"

Re:Smells like bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

(Viacom has very short legs)

Re:Smells like bullshit

[bertoelcon]

Youtube is simply pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy in all this.

So they are using the Phoenix Wright Methods then?

Re:Smells like bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has an app for that...

Re:Smells like bullshit

[sootman]

Crunh? You know, there's not actually a bone in there--that's just a figure of speech.

Re:Smells like bullshit

[wiredlogic]

The account logs are surely how Google is able to connect the dots. It's more likely an account used to upload from a Kinko's was also used for viewing videos from an IP traced to Viacom. That's the problem with malfeasance. You make one simple mistake and you're bound to get caught. Better luck next time Viacom.

Re:Smells like bullshit

[Kompressor]

I think that's what http://scroogle.org/ is all about.

Re:Smells like bullshit

[ratboy666]

Which is why we have scroogle.org Of course, you have to take scroogles word that they erase logs after 48 hours... And, just for grins, use the FireFox "TrackMeNot" plugin, which throws random requests.

And, yes, Virginia, you SHOULD be that paranoid.

Re:Smells like bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Fighting Google about information on the internet is like fighting a pig in a pig sty... Or something like that. The end result is funny either way.

Re:Smells like bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only true of humans and some higher animals. Many lower forms of life do have a bone in there. And Viacom execs are nothing if they're not a lower form of life...

Re:Smells like bullshit

[daveime]

You must be ginning like an idiot as you randomly get logged out of all your favorite forums and messageboards.

Just get a tin-foil hat or stay the fuck off the internet if you're that paranoid.

Re:Smells like bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Never get into an argument with someone who builds entire data centers to help run one of their programs ;)

Re:Smells like bullshit

[ratboy666]

Just a quick dive -- You live in England, use Redhat Linux, have done some systems programming with Perl but not recently. You likely use a Nokia phone, likely an N800.

And, hey, I'm not Google.

Re:Smells like bullshit

[daveime]

Not bad. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with server logs, IP addresses or cookies, and everything to do with the fact my username daveime is fairly unique and I use it in a lot of forums and messageboards etc.

Barack Obama has 53.6 million hits on Google, are you going to blame that on "privacy" concerns too ?

Re:Smells like bullshit

[fulldecent]

-or-

Never try to bullshit someone who owns all your base.

Can they have it both ways?

[Anonymous Coward]

So YouTube is saying we don't know who put this stuff here, but we know *you* put that stuff over here. I'm not defending Viacom, but it seems at odds to say "We can't be held responsible because we are confused about who did what or who is authorized to do what, but we know every little detail about how Viacom uploaded content, even when they did it from Kinkos." Doesn't make sense to me.

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[grumbel]

The problem isn't that Youtube doesn't know who uploads stuff, but that they can't tell if the person that is uploading stuff is authorized to do so.

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[h4rr4r]

I am going to bet they found the evidence in emails/records during discovery or they have an inside source.

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[Parallax48]

Further - they cannot afford to do this sort of investigation on every single one of the millions of videos on Youtube.

http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/20/every-minute-just-about-a-days-worth-of-video-is-uploaded-to-youtube/

I imagine that they have only had the resources to investigate a sample of the alleged videos well after the fact.

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. As they point out, even the video of your cousin's wedding is subject to copyright. If I take the video and post it, no problem. If you copy the file off my computer and post it, problem. How is YouTube to know who the copyright holder is?

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave it to Viacom executives to conduct company business using their Gmail addresses. Doh!

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[Dan667]

if the account has a viacom ip address or a marketing company ip address and there is a pattern it will be pretty evident.

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[mea37]

I don't see any contradiction. They've had years to research Viacom's complaints. As they investigate individual incidents, and find funny business related to some of those individual incidents, they compile them and form the basis for this filing. That's a far cry from being able to produce similar details comprehensively about every upload in real time.

We don't know how long it took to document any given incident. We don't know what expense was involved. We don't know what lucky breaks they needed; it could well be that for every incident they have documented, another - or 10 more, or 100 more, etc. - might exist where they couldn't get any evidence of what really happeend.

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[NeutronCowboy]

I think that if even Viacom can't get its act together and figure out which one of its own properties is supposed to be on Youtube, it's illogical to demand that Youtube should figure it out.

To get back to the example of the GP, the technical side of figuring out who uploaded something is entirely feasible. The problem is that that information has little to no bearing on whether that person was authorized by the copyright holder to upload the content in question.

I'm getting the impression that this is indeed nothing more that Viacom going on a legal fishing expedition. I'd love to see them slapped with a counter-suit, but am not holding my breath.

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[c 0xFF]

Except that, according the the article, Viacom sent employees to Kinkos to avoid exactly this. Viacom is trying pretty hard to make Youtube's job impossible.

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[zuperduperman]

I find "cannot afford" argument an interesting one. I want to do brain surgery but I "cannot afford" the proper equipment, liability insurance or to go to medical school. Does that make it ok for me to just go ahead and do it?

The real argument is that the DMCA safe harbour provisions should cover them. That coverage may be contingent on the practicality argument, and perhaps that is why the argument gets made. However in and of itself, being unable to afford to do something really buys you nothing in and of itself. If you can't afford to do something in a way compliant with the law then you just shouldn't do it. You have to have something more. In this case, it's the DMCA, and that is what the real argument is about.

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[NotBornYesterday]

Because when you get sued for a bajillion dollars by someone who wants to own you, it pays to go back throught you servers' IP logs and see if you can find exactly where all their copyrighted content actually came from. Gee, will you look at this; a lot of it comes from these 18 marketing firms. Hmm. They all list Viacom as a client. That's odd. And Kinko's? Hmmm. (Subpoenaing user CC information for workstation abc at Kinko's xyz on day/month/yr/time ... comparing to Viacom org chart ... *exact match*!)

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[einhverfr]

The problem isn't that Youtube doesn't know who uploads stuff, but that they can't tell if the person that is uploading stuff is authorized to do so.

The problem in this case is that Viacom seems as unable to determine how much is authorized as YouTube is....

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. As they point out, even the video of your cousin's wedding is subject to copyright. If I take the video and post it, no problem.

Oh, there's a problem alright. I knew there was something off about you. You're not a venture capitalist at all, are you?

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[Pichu0102]

The difference is that an average layman can perform video recording and uploading without causing harm a good deal, if not most of the time.
Brain surgery, not so much.

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[iphinome]

Maybe Viacom kept it in their gmail accounts.

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[GryMor]

"Afford" is extraneous. In general, you just plain can't tell if the person that is uploading stuff is authorized to do so. The information to do so doesn't exist for most content. You can't even determine that someone is authorized to specify that something ISN'T authorized, as this case is demonstrating.

Re:Can they have it both ways?

[bhtooefr]

Well, the reason for the safe harbor provisions is that it would make running ISPs and providing online services EXTREMELY expensive otherwise.

YouTube would have to charge thousands of dollars per month for access. Bandwidth caps would be in the tens of megabytes for ISPs charging under $100/mo.

RTFA, perhaps? Nah, then you can't just say BS.

[Anonymous Coward]

"As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement."

Incredible blunder for Viacom

[Presto Vivace]

they look like idiots.

In the words of Jon Stewart...

[copponex]

COCK

Two words for Viacom

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unclean Hands"

Actually those are the words Google's going to be using in front of a judge. Shit, they could have a pretty strong counterclaim. If what Google's saying is true, Viacom absolutely screwed the pooch on this.

Captcha: "owners". More like pwners.

Re:Two words for Viacom

[bmo]

http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unclean-hands/

"The clean hands doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conduct relating to the subject matter of his/her claim. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant may claim the plaintiff has "unclean hands". However, this defense may not be used to put in issue conduct of the plaintiff unrelated to plaintiff's claim. Therefore, plaintiff's unrelated corrupt actions and general immoral character would be irrelevant. The defendant must show that plaintiff misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. The wrongful conduct may be of a legal or moral nature, as long as it relates to the matter in issue."

Re:Two words for Viacom

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK we have something called "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice". Those convicted of it tend to go to prison for a very long time as the courts have a sense of humour failure about it.

call me naive

[Presto Vivace]

but it is difficult to believe a corporate legal counsel would post something like that if he could not prove it six ways to Sunday. Indeed, while I am not a lawyer, I would think that Google has grounds to counter sue. As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.

Re:call me naive

[h4rr4r]

As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.

You should be quite used to that.

Re:call me naive

[Anonymous Coward]

As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.

You know what your industry needs? A good PR person to spin your image for you.

Re:call me naive

[causality]

but it is difficult to believe a corporate legal counsel would post something like that if he could not prove it six ways to Sunday. Indeed, while I am not a lawyer, I would think that Google has grounds to counter sue. As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.

Don't worry. In all likelihood, Viacom's PR staff will find a way to spin this and make them look like the good guys, whether they deserve that image or not, whether extremely one-sided presentation of facts, selective omission of facts, and heavy usage of weasel words is required or not. Then you can once again be proud of your profession.

Re:call me naive

[Presto Vivace]

very droll

Re:call me naive

[blair1q]

the PR profession needs a good PR person

Re:call me naive

[blair1q]

you know what I need? a screen a few dozen pixels taller so I wouldn't repeat jokes off the cuff...

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1587782&cid=31530124

Re:call me naive

[Presto Vivace]

actually there are ways Viacom could have generated online activity without resorting to sock puppets.

Re:call me naive

[KillShill]

You're a little too late for that.

PR people are the lawyers of the 21st century (20th if you're keeping count).

Re:call me naive

[Ocker3]

Really? You're surprised that legal counsel would screw up such a Huge, Complicated, Highly Technical case, or that they perhaps weren't given all the information by their client? Or that perhaps the people tasked with working with the lawyers weren't given all the necessary information, because it was embarrasing? IANAL, but I watch them on TV, and I reckon I can see this kind of thing happening.

Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Viacom must be run by the biggest bunch of idiots around. They're trying to pull a fast on on a company that has, essentially, become the central corridor for information in North America. I'd be surprised if Google didn't know about it.

Re:Seriously?

[CorporateSuit]

Meanwhile, at Google, several workers are standing around the search logs from Viacom's business IP address, giggling:

IP laywers in Hollwyood
youtube viacom
youtube cartoon network
youtube comedy central
youtube venture brothers
youtube venture brothers porn
venture brother porn
venture brothers dean naked
what state do judges hate youtube most
penis enlargers
are there any judges who hate youtube
judge who worked at viacom
youtube venutre brothers

Re:Seriously?

[hrimhari]

Ever heard about News Corp or Mr. Murdock?

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember News Corp et al doing a lot of huffing, puffing, and hand-wringing, and then... nothing. Not a thing. Murdoch's chest-thumping was a paper tiger. They know better than to pull their results from Google.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "Murdoch"

Re:Seriously?

[mjwx]

Ever heard about News Corp or Mr. Murdock?

Wasn't Murdock MacGyver's arch nemesis. Unless you mean Murdoch.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr Murdock is with Universal, not Viacom...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_A-Team

Oooh I've got an idea!

[Ossifer]

Tonight I'm gonna sneak my TV onto my neighbor's yard, and then call the cops on him tomorrow morning.

Dirty thief!

Re:Oooh I've got an idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

You jest, but it's a credible theory that Viacom was in fact trying to frame YouTube for the hosting of actual pirated materials, with the eventual goal of shutting them down entirely, thereby (in Viacom's mind) removing a threat to their business model. (YouTube's post doesn't go beyond suggesting that Viacom was merely astroturfing for the free advertisement.)

As long as it's possible that Viacom was acting with malice towards YouTube, rather than with dishonest greed for publicity, this will obliterate their credibility in any future infringement lawsuits. Viacom has a motive to fabricate a copyright beef and they have now demonstrated the means and inclination; any claim they make about a future infringement on YouTube is automatically suspicious. IANAL, but it would be nice if, any time Viacom makes a legal claim against a YouTube video, the burden were on them to prove that they did not post it themselves before they can claim to have standing to sue. Is this too much fairness to hope from copyright law?

Re:Oooh I've got an idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tonight I'm gonna sneak my TV onto my neighbor's yard, and then call the cops on him tomorrow morning.

Face it towards the street. You'll have better chance of him getting sued for publicly broadcasting copyrighted material.

Re:Oooh I've got an idea!

[PRMan]

Also, you might offer to buy the TV from him for $1 billion.

Re:Oooh I've got an idea!

[imp]

To get the flavor of this right, you need to get all your neighbor's to sneak their TV into this neighbors yard. Then have them all call the cops and issue a press release that this neighbor is clearly the head of a TV theft gang. He has stolen so many he can't keep them all inside and has to litter his front yard with them. For bonus points get him arrested for littering and creating a pubic nuisance.
 

Re:Oooh I've got an idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

" ... Tonight I'm gonna sneak my TV onto my neighbor's yard, and then call the cops on him tomorrow morning. ..."

A perusal of the typical behavior of the average cop and the average PD would quickly reveal that this strategy would work perfectly; even if the facts came out, the cops would vigorously defend their actions and the DA would vigorously pursue charges. Given the evidence and the implausible excuse ("but he stole the TV from himself and blamed me, your honor!") we'd have a swift conviction to boot.

In fact, you could easily make an argument that Viacom expects YouTube to act exactly like a cop.

Re:Oooh I've got an idea!

[Compaqt]

It looks like Google can get them for

1) unclean hands. If you're accusing someone of doing something that did you harm, you can't have been acting in bad faith and doing a similar kind of evil.

2) mitigation. This means once you realize a harm has been done to you, you move to decrease the effect of the harm. Like if someone promised to sell you oil for your plant's machinery, you don't keep running the machinery without lubrication and then claim damages. You should shut down the plant.

Similarly, Viacon (sic) shouldn't have continued to upload YouTube video surreptitiously.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:prove it with documentation, and DMCA can be gu

[Anonymous Coward]

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. ?

I'm certain at least some of those words were English, but those were not sentences.

Throw a physical LoC at 'em

[magus_melchior]

I'm no lawyer, but if Google can substantiate this claim with evidence, at the very least it'll really hurt their ability to convince the judge:

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

At the very least, if Google can prove this, they have a battery of arguments that say Viacom acted in bad faith. It might not be proof of blunder on the order of SCO's vacuous litigation, but it will certainly piss the judge off against Viacom.

If I were the judge... well, see the comment title (LoC = Library of Congress).

Re:Throw a physical LoC at 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

(I am not a lawyer, but from the looks of it, YouTube ain’t hurtin’ for damn good legal advice anyways.)

On the contrary, they have stated hundreds of times per day, that they: “have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorised by the copyright owner, his/her agent or the law”.

So if you can actually prove bad faith—as in, they did it themselves on a regular basis, explicitly asked external PR agencies to do this (records of such documentation would surely have been kept by the agency to cover their own backs) and should reasonably have known—then, well

Also, they “swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that [they are] the copyright owner or [are] authorised to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed”. [Emphasis mine.]

You’d better believe Google will have documentation backing this up; there is no way in hell a corporate counsel would have said this unless they held the smoking gun and it still smelled of cordite. This one should be fun. Viacom are, hopefully, about to get their ass kicked

Re:RTFA, perhaps? Nah, then you can't just say BS.

[PPH]

Grandpa is starting to have moments like this.

Re:There may be a darker side to this

[Anonymous Coward]

How many uploads classified as breaches of copyright may be attributable to the copyright holders, issued in an attempt to push through shutdown and enforcement legislation?
Also let us not forget that Google has just announced Google TV thus made some fresh enemies. I used to think Google was just pretending to be the good guys, but I have to admit that as of recent developments they deserve kudos.

Brin baby: I'm sorry I once stated you must be smoking crack, I was wrong.

viatube?

[leuk_he]

viatube.com still is for sale.

something like only 1 Billion dollar.

Re:There may be a darker side to this

[unity100]

he is probably both smoking crack, and doing these things, just like many of those who read these pages.

Three cheers for good writing

[goodmanj]

Wow. Facts aside, this is the clearest, most straightforward legal/PR writing I've read in years. Makes the point with no dodging and evasion, no complicated jargon, it's short, clear, and on point.

Kids, if you ever wonder why English 101 is mandatory at your college, this is why: so maybe someday you'll be able to write like this.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids, if you ever wonder why English 101 is mandatory at your college, this is why: so maybe someday you'll be able to write like this.

Unless it's supposed to be some kind of aversion therapy, the purpose of most English classes (college or any other level) I have observed/attended is to ensure you will not ever write like that.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[blair1q]

The primary factor in the clarity of this story is most likely that it's all true.

Things get weird when people are trying to bend light around the facts to hide them.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[bmo]

Off Topic, but whatever. If a mod wants to waste his points on this post, go right ahead. I maxed out on karma a decade ago.

English 101 doesn't teach you how to write.

I have never ever had an English class where I was taught how to write. It was always by the seat of my pants. All writing in high school was geared at writing the "term paper" resulting in my complete inability to write anything but the most boring, stultifying, coma-inducing drek on the planet. Indeed, we were taught something called the "term paper method." The only thing this taught me is that I could never have an original opinion unless I could cite someone else saying it, parrot it, and leave a listing in the bibliography.

This left me literate but crippled.

None of it was geared to how I could express myself. I had to be out of school for 5 years for that to happen; writing every day in the Marquis De Sade school of writing known as BBS networks (Fight-O-Net) hanging out in the debate oriented message bases. I can also credit the local BBSes that had things like "The Never Ending Story."

When I did eventually go back to school, I took College Writing and found all I had to do was defenstrate some bad habits to get an A on a paper. Thanks Fidonet!

--
BMO

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[SpeedyDX]

Off-topic:
While education certainly plays a big part in helping people learn how to write, I think that true progress has to be intrinsically motivated. Some people can write perfectly coherent basic essays, but once they're required to break out of the standard tripartite format, they are no longer able to write anything in a comprehensible way. Over and above education, I think we need to encourage children to read and write more (if done when they're young, we may succeed in creating intrinsic motivations within them to read/write). Reading is where you're exposed to different writing styles, and writing is where you develop your own. That's why I think that blogs are A Good Thing despite most of them being inane drivel. It encourages writing, which hopefully will have significant long term benefits in improving the quality of written communications.

On-topic:
A lot of legal writing that I've been exposed to (I've been exposed to a reasonable amount, being a criminology/ethics/law student) have been pretty well written, mostly as clear as this blog post. The difference is that this particular topic includes language that is pretty familiar to /. and is relatively new to law. The reason why "legalese" is hard to read is because many legal definitions stretch back decades, and even more of them stretch back centuries. Legal writing tends to continue using old terms that have been established in the past, because a change in the word may be interpreted as a change in what's referenced.

At any event, Mr. Levine did a good job in expressing YT's side of the story. If true, I hope Viacom really gets what's coming from the presiding judge.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[Anonymous Coward]

Law schools have been teaching people to write this way for years. Poorly written boilerplate contracts have given legal writing a bad name.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[hobb0001]

I wish English 101 actually taught you to write this clearly.

"Advanced" writing classes in J-school will teach you to start off with an anecdote of someone affected by the story, which will get the reader to sympathize. You then bury the lead 5 paragraphs in and only get to the real point after the reader has continued on to page 5C. Pad with further anecdotes from people with similar and opposite views.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[bmo]

I think we need to encourage children to read and write more (if done when they're young, we may succeed in creating intrinsic motivations within them to read/write). Reading is where you're exposed to different writing styles, and writing is where you develop your own. That's why I think that blogs are A Good Thing despite most of them being inane drivel. It encourages writing, which hopefully will have significant long term benefits in improving the quality of written communications.

What blogs have shown is that writing doesn't have to be a chore or make-work for English classes. Writing should be fun, just like reading can be fun. The only way to get better at writing is to write more. Blogs (and BBSes and usenet before them) provide a way to do this. Elitists that look at blogs as some sort of dumbing down of writing need to shut up and see them for what they are - people interested in writing when they wouldn't be otherwise.

OT: Viacom is burned by Unclean Hands. Watch for a motion for dismissal with prejudice on these grounds. If anything, the SCO trials have taught me is that the likelihood of it being granted is next to nil, but that doesn't mean I can't be optimistic.

--
BMO

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[Qzukk]

Indeed, we were taught something called the "term paper method."

When I was in high school, we were taught to write essays using the "three-pronged thesis" method. The main reasons for this are because it produces short essays, the essays are easy to grade and it encourages creativity in coming up with bullshit to fill the third paragraph when used in situations where the third paragraph should be unnecessary.

Three-pronged thesis statements produce short essays because they encourage the writer to produce 5 paragraphs. One paragraph is used for the introduction to the essay. The next three are used to expand upon each "prong" of the thesis, one paragraph per prong. The final paragraph is used to conclude the essay, and usually is nothing more than the introductory paragraph re-worded.

In addition, these essays are easy to grade because teachers can check the essay by scanning it for key parts. Many teachers grade these essays by checking to see if the introductory paragraph does have a three-pronged thesis and that the opening sentence of the next three paragraphs each refers to one prong of that three-pronged thesis. Unfortunately, teachers who rely on this cursory grading may overlook that their students had inserted off-topic references to bananas in their essays.

Finally, three-pronged essays encourage making up bullshit like this paragraph when the essay's subject matter just doesn't require three paragraphs to cover. Seriously, who needs three paragraphs to explain why the kid in The Scarlet Ibis died? Kid had a weak heart and died of a heart attack. It was sad, the end.

In conclusion, three-pronged thesis statements lead to short essays that are easy to grade and full of bullshit. I spent entirely too long writing this thing, and if I never write anything like this again, it will be too soon.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[Albatrosses]

This!

This summarizes everything I hate about reading the newspaper - at least in my hometown (Calgary). There's no actual information in a newspaper article anymore. It's just endless paragraphs starting with "How did you feel when your neighbors house exploded?" "Well, slightly singed at first, but now I'm sad. It was a pretty house". That's the most important fact you could find about the story? Don't mention that it was a meth lab, or condemned, or that the house was full of big red explosive barrels - nope, it's the rushed (and edited) opinion of a neighbor.


The only thing worse is the televised news' reinterpretation of this trope. The interviewer goes out, finds someone with no prior knowledge of events in question, and then interviews them. It usually goes something like this:

Reporter: Have you heard about your neighbor's house exploding?
Neighbor: My neighbor's house exploded!?
Reporter: How does your neighbor's house exploding make you feel?
Neighbor: OH GOD MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE EXPLODED!
[ cut back to stock footage ]
Reporter: Clearly blaming the fire department for their poor response times, neighbors are trying to rebuild. Back to you, (anchor name)

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[bmo]

That was brilliant.

By the time I got to the end, I began twitching.

Somebody help me.

--
BMO

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[Areyoukiddingme]

Slashdot definitely needs a comment Hall of Fame.

Instant classic.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[NoseSocks]

How do we mod a comment past +5? I don't usually chuckle out loud at a comment, but this one was genius.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[anaesthetica]

87 B+

Overall solid essay, clearly written and well organized. Needs a stronger introduction: lead with your thesis statement, not just a topic sentence. Needs citations! Can't get into A-range grade without citing your sources (Wikipedia, or really any encyclopedia, doesn't count). Seemed to go off on a tangent at one point about bananas--was this a typo? Proofread! Argument got weak toward the end--could have used some direct quotes to reinforce your position regarding Doodle's death. A straightforward reading is acceptable, but I think it would have been better if you could have expanded on the context leading you to this interpretation? It may be that the literal causal story is less important than the intent of the author--what emotions in the reader did Hurst try to evoke by telling the story with Doodle dying in the end?

Love,
Your TA

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[Chees0rz]

I don't believe I have ever gotten marked off for not meeting a required minimum page length, word count, or following a specific format (unless that was the purpose of the paper). You're right that the 3-pronged essay was usually given in the assignment instructions, but I never met a teacher who would penalize me for writing in a style more fitting to the topic.

<caveat>But the ideas and style must be good. </caveat>

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[nine-times]

Eeek. Yes, that's exactly what I was taught. I know my writing is still crappy, but at least I've managed to avoid letting all of those bad habits stick. Some food for thought:

The English language is derived from two main sources. One is Latin, the florid language of ancient Rome. The other is Anglo-Saxon, the plain languages of England and northern Europe. The words derived from Latin are the enemy—they will strangle and suffocate everything you write. The Anglo-Saxon words will set you free.

How do those Latin words do their strangling and suffocating? In general they are long, pompous nouns that end in -ion—like implementation and maximization and communication (five syllables long!)—or that end in -ent—like development and fulfillment. Those nouns express a vague concept or an abstract idea, not a specific action that we can picture—somebody doing something. Here’s a typical sentence: “Prior to the implementation of the financial enhancement.” That means “Before we fixed our money problems.”

Believe it or not, this is the language that people in authority in America routinely use—officials in government and business and education and social work and health care. They think those long Latin words make them sound important. It no longer rains in America; your TV weatherman will tell that you we’re experiencing a precipitation probability situation....

...Those long Latin usages have so infected everyday language in America that you might well think, “If that’s how people write who are running the country, that’s how I’m supposed to write.” It’s not.

- Writing English as a Second Language by William Zinsser

I don't agree with everything Mr. Zinsser says, but I agree with this much: we're all taught to use English very badly. Journalists and government officials set a bad example; teachers teach us the wrong things. It's a wonder there are good writers at all.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[reydeyo]

You owe me a new fucking keyboard. I salute you, sir.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[Anonymous Coward]

Some English teachers also check to see if the paragraphs are five sentences each. Since your paragraphs are less, you'd lose points. Pedantry at its best! :-)

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo, that was just pure genius

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[Anonymous Coward]

There is scholarpedia.org which is cite-proof :-)

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[Fantastic Lad]

Jeezuz.

I dropped out of high school largely because of that brain-damaging essay format. I rejected it from the subconscious all the way up, I think. I'd get furious without even fully understanding why. It certainly didn't help that half the time I patently disagreed with whatever point we'd been told to prove in a given paper. Being forced to argue some wrong stance using that monkey-brained essay format. . . Dante left that punishment out of his nine rings, probably because it was already installed in my high school.

One time I lost my temper and put my thoughts on the matter into one such essay, veering off topic half way through and blasting the system and the people who taught it. I remember the teachers were up in arms; it was being read around the teacher's lounge and when I found out that I'd really upset not just the asshat teachers, but also the ones I respected, I felt like dying. That was where I finally clicked to the notion that Teachers were also People. But while I learned that lesson in such a painful way, I also learned in the same stroke the raw power a piece of writing could have; a skinny little teen could humble and infuriate a host of adults just by scribbling on a piece of paper.

Of course, while I'd like to say that I fought the system with bravery and charm, being a kid meant that mostly I just thrashed around and embarrassed myself. I remember once even breaking down into tears at a pivotal moment after being dragged up before principals and vice principals and guidance counselors and various teachers, when what was called for was an inspired, lucid speech of ringing condemnation. But that didn't happen, and that's what it means to be a powerless kid. (I think I could have transformed into one of those old Kirby villains that afternoon, but luckily life moves on and there were no radioactive isotopes rolling about the corridors.)

Though, the result of such a disastrous high school experience was that I emerged from the excretion end with that most valuable of lessons: It wasn't just school that was a crock. ALL systems of population management contain the same elements and thus were similarly vile and demeaning. The system doesn't want people to learn and grow, but simply to fit into its infernal mechanism and shut up.

From that perspective, high school was enormously valuable; you could learn some of life's most heart-breaking lessons in an environment which was lacking the final knives and hard edges the world beyond contains.

-FL

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[aclarke]

Unfortunately, teachers who rely on this cursory grading may overlook that their students had inserted off-topic references to bananas in their essays.

I once got 117% on a History essay in high school. I got 97% on the essay, 10% extra credit for handing it in early, and 10% for typing it. Perhaps I lost those 3% by putting "Help I'm a bug" in the middle of the essay. Thanks, Calvin & Hobbes.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[multipartmixed]

> writing every day in the Marquis De Sade school of writing known as BBS networks
> (Fight-O-Net) hanging out in the debate oriented message bases. I can also credit
> the local BBSes that had things like "The Never Ending Story."

HA! I have been crediting BBSes for my writing skills for years, as well. I never took a single post-secondary writing course, but when I have to do yucky paperwork (proposals, documentation, etc.) I express myself at a level significantly above my peers. And when it's time to write a pissed-off "business e-mail", I can dial the flame-thrower to *just the right temperature*.

So, thanks, Tom Jennings, wherever you are!

1:249/128

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Politics and the English Language" is nothing compared to this.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[MightyDrunken]

Thanks guys and gals that was hilarious. Slashdot is still worth reading :)

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[Zerth]

FSM, just reading that made my blood pressure spike and worry if I had a paper due Monday.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[The End Of Days]

This!

Since we're busy criticizing writing style, cut this shit out already.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[Tubal-Cain]

That would be nice, but until then we have SeenOnSlash.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[metlin]

I don't necessarily think that writing complex sentences (or using long winded words) is a bad thing. If anything, the push for shorter sentences and easier words (with "flexible" spelling) probably encourages poor language and lowers the bar for everyone.

You should read Joseph Schumpeter -- his writing is complex, and you'd often take a good five minutes to read just one paragraph (his Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy is particularly beastly). But so much was conveyed so well in his one paragraph that you'd come away admiring his writing. The same goes for Amartya Sen, Orhan Pamuk, and many other fantastic writers of our time.

I feel that excessive emphasis on simplicity is often at the expense of elegance. Pithiness is wonderful, but it is quite overrated since not everyone is Saki.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[nine-times]

Like I said, I don't agree with everything Mr. Zinsser says. Still, I don't think the point was that writing complex sentences is necessarily a bad thing, but more that writing unnecessarily complex sentences is generally a bad thing.

It would be silly to claim that English speakers should never use words with Latin roots; it would mean throwing away too many wonderful word. I don't think the article I had cited was seriously advocating anything so radical as that. He was pointing out that English has a formal tone that we slip into when we're trying to sound important and official, and many people associate that tone with "good writing". However, writing in that tone is often much less clear, as well as being needlessly pompous.

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[Anonymous Coward]

please, go away

Re:Three cheers for good writing

[Fantastic Lad]

please, go away

Awwww. Is the world being all loud and full of sunlight again? Does it rankle your precious, misunderstood sensibilities? Why is that, do you think? I know I've dealt with most of my shit, so it probably means you're the one full of stuff you haven't worked up the courage to face yet. Or who knows? Maybe I'm just an incorrigible extrovert intent on being alive. That seems to upset some people. But rather than descend into misery and sulkiness in order to please them, I think rather I'll just continue being me. Seems altogether healthier, I think.

In the future, for your own benefit, you might attempt to exert a little will-power and not read my posts.

-FL

Re:RTFA, perhaps? Nah, then you can't just say BS.

[Locke2005]

I did RTFA. Viacom retracting a takedown request doesn't prove they put up the clip in the first place. It may also indicate that they were mistaken about the contents of the clip, or simply didn't know that the clip was actually authorized. The question of whether or not these clips damaged Viacom's business model is an open issue. On the one hand, it's free advertising for Viacom; on the other hand, it may be displacing some ad revenue. I don't think any sane person believes damages to Viacom are anywhere close to the $1 billion they are asking for.

ebbil jenius

[Anonymous Coward]

kudos, sir! I'd like to paypal you a beer

Re:RTFA, perhaps? Nah, then you can't just say BS.

[Todd Knarr]

If Viacom were just retracting their requests, Google's lawyers wouldn't be making the statement they did. It'd have to be one of Viacom's people writing Google saying "Hey, what happened to the videos we uploaded? The page says it was taken down because of a DMCA complaint.". And Google going "Oh reeeeeeally. That's odd, the DMCA complaint was from Viacom too. Left hand and right hand not talking much?". Followed by Google's lawyers getting together with Google's engineers to do a little data mining.

Re:RTFA, perhaps? Nah, then you can't just say BS.

[Dalambertian]

From the memorandum:

Viacom employees have made special trips away from the company’s premises (to places like Kinko’s) to upload videos to YouTube from computers not traceable to Viacom. See Schapiro Ex. 47 (158:2022); see also Schapiro Exs. 48, 49.

TFA is brilliant

[roc97007]

The article itself is brilliant. I don't see where Viacom has a leg to stand on. But strange things happen in lawsuits.

Re:RTFA, perhaps? Nah, then you can't just say BS.

[NotBornYesterday]

In the supplemantary acticle, Google also alleges that Viacom hired 18 marketing companies to upload clips, and took steps to make the content look pirated. Viacom allegedly even sent employees Kinko's to upload clips, so Youtube couldn't trace the origin back to Viacom. I don't know what evidence they have of this, but if we give them the benefit of the doubt (that's a pretty specific bunch of allegations to simply invent), that would indicate some pretty clear malfeasance on Viacom's part. They were trying to poison the well and not get caught.

The money paragraphs

[Fencepost]

Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

Given Viacom's own actions, there is no way YouTube could ever have known which Viacom content was and was not authorized to be on the site. But Viacom thinks YouTube should somehow have figured it out.

That combination right there is going to be very powerful, and there are at least two arguments to be based on it: first, if even the copyright owners can't figure out what material is supposed to be there, how are we expected to do so? A followup offer might be "Your honor, if you'll instruct Viacom that they must allow Google and its legal team to index and have access to all of their internal communications and financials, we'll use that information to remove only the Viacom-owned items that Viacom didn't upload or cause to have uploaded."

The second argument could easily be that Google made a strong effort to remove copyrighted materials but that their efficiency in doing so was severely degraded by Viacom's uploading materials in ways that effectively contaminated the identification of infringing materials. Remove all the red ones! OK, here they are. Whoops, I really meant all the red ones except this one, that one, that other one, the one over there and maybe a few more. And how are we supposed to know which ones you want removed? Figure it out yourselves or we'll sue you for one billyun dollars!

Three Strikes...

[Anonymous Coward]

So does this mean that Viacom is out?

Counter sue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can Google sue for harassment, or something, if they can prove what they say Viacom did?

Car analogy?

[mangu]

This is not unlike payola, where a record label pays a radio station to promote sales of music. Except without the payment. Maybe I need a car analogy...

No need for car analogies here because it's typical of what every person involved with sales do. Offer the thing to everybody, but always claim it's not really for sale, it's too precious to sell.

Like when you go to a used car lot and the salesman tells you he cannot hold that car for you unless you close the deal right then and there, because there are so many people ready to take that car at a much higher price.

Safe Harbor

[John Hasler]

> Figure it out yourselves or we'll sue you for one billyun dollars!

That is exactly the situation Google would be in were it not for the DMCA Safe Harbor clause (except, of course, there would be no YouTube. And no low-cost Web hosting. And no blogs.)

The very definition of unclean hands

[imp]

If these allegations are true, it is the very definition of unclean hands...

And people wonder why we need net neutrality. This should shine a bright light into why it is so needed.

Re:The very definition of unclean hands

[Midnight Thunder]

If these allegations are true, it is the very definition of unclean hands...

Sounds like typical marketing/advertising companies. Apparently they do this all the time with the TV stations, trying to find any reason not to pay for the commercial, even though it was aired.

Google rising. What does Viacom stand to gain?

[Teunis]

I think Google's figured out that for a company where information is it's primary commodity (and trading in such), that the free flow of information is in its best interest. Basically the gains they'd make over taking ownership of data the hold would cost them too many of their own customer base. Being trusted, basically, is good for their business model.
As long as that's remembered, Google's movements are actually pretty predictable.

I don't see what Viacom has to gain over this, long term.

no

[Presto Vivace]

this is Murdoching.

Re:Google rising. What does Viacom stand to gain?

[PitaBred]

That's the problem. Viacom isn't thinking long-term. They're thinking next quarter bonuses for execs to pad their golden parachutes before jumping ship in 2-3 years for greener pastures.

Re:prove it with documentation, and DMCA can be gu

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct on all counts. "Tango" most likely originates from a Niger-Congo language, and is not actually English.

Wait... what?

Re:Google rising. What does Viacom stand to gain?

[Vengeful weenie]

I always figured that Google's interest is in the free flow of your information. They seem to do a pretty good job keeping their own secrets.

Re:RTFA, perhaps? Nah, then you can't just say BS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is not the type of company to make allegations like that without specific proof waiting. Maybe Google should countersue.

Likely they wanted both

[Burz]

...have their cake and eat it too.

You *are* clueless.

[Anonymous Coward]

"All without so much as a speck of substantiating evidence"

And you know this because you're part of Google's legal team? Their statement was detailed that even the dimest of the dim could figure out it was all logged, that they have statements from employees, it's all there.

If you think they're talking out of their ass just to make PR points, I'd suggest that you really can't be that dumb to think that.

What YouTube should do...

[Anonymous Coward]

is remove any Viacom artists and redirect any searches on them to other similar artists. Pretty soon old media will wake up to the loss of revenue, or their artists will leave them.

From The Terms of Use

[Anonymous Coward]

10. Rights you licence

10.1 When you upload or post a User Submission to YouTube, you grant:

      1. to YouTube, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that User Submission in connection with the provision of the Services and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Website and YouTube's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels;
      2. to each user of the Website, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, licence to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Website and under these Terms.

10.2 The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate when you remove or delete your User Videos from the Website. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable, but are otherwise without prejudice to your ownerships rights, which are retained by you as set out in paragraph 8.2 above.

*Hilarious*

[Tei]

Man.. stuff like this that can be paid by money.

I am citing the youtube blog here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to
YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It
hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its
content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make
them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony
email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips
from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to
promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely
left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary
users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and
the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows
like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so
well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it
was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless
occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to
YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their
reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us
over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

Given Viacom's own actions, there is no way YouTube could ever have
known which Viacom content was and was not authorized to be on the
site. But Viacom thinks YouTube should somehow have figured it out.
The legal rule that Viacom seeks would require YouTube -- and every
Web platform -- to investigate and police all content users upload,
and would subject those web sites to crushing liability if they get it
wrong.

Charlie Bit My Finger

[Permutation Citizen]

In this blog post, Youtube cites the famous "Charlie Bit My Finger" video.

This video is exactly like what Viacom is doing, using bad faith as its extreme. How childish...

Re:Google rising. What does Viacom stand to gain?

[Hurricane78]

Basically the gains they'd make over taking ownership of data the hold would cost them too many of their own customer base.

I think they just understand the basic laws of physics: That there is no such thing as “ownership” of data.
Either you keep full control over it by not passing it on. In which case you can not even prove its existence.
Or you pass it on, and thereby split control with the destination(s).
It can not be taken away from whoever got hold of it. Hence it can not be stolen, but only copied.

So please keep the MAFIAA FUD down.
Thanks.

Re:RTFA, perhaps? Nah, then you can't just say BS.

[pbhj]

Assuming YouTube have the evidence, and it looks like they do, IMO the _executives_ at Viacom responsible should go to prison and the company should be fined an extremely damaging amount.

That is all.

Re:RTFA, perhaps? Nah, then you can't just say BS.

[helios17]

He is not...! Now get off my lawn.

Viacom is just upset because Blockbuster is...

[2obvious4u]

Viacom is the parent company of Blockbuster Video and they are just upset because Blockbuster is having to file Chapter 11. source.

Re:Google rising. What does Viacom stand to gain?

[Anonymous Coward]

Viacom is thinking long term. They are attempting to secure their long term rights to the content they distribute. The fact that you don't like their goal doesn't mean you have any idea what's going on with them.

You nerds and your business analysis. What makes you think your expertise in rolling 20 sided die transfers to anything else in life?

Re:RTFA, perhaps? Nah, then you can't just say BS.

[Tubal-Cain]

Viacom allegedly even sent employees Kinko's to upload clips, so Youtube couldn't trace the origin back to Viacom. I don't know what evidence they have of this, but if we give them the benefit of the doubt (that's a pretty specific bunch of allegations to simply invent), that would indicate some pretty clear malfeasance on Viacom's part. They were trying to poison the well and not get caught.

It only says that they uploaded videos from Kinko's. It doesn't say if these accounts were opened from there.

Re:Google rising. What does Viacom stand to gain?

[stiggle]

Some parts of Viacom are thinking long term....

Watch the clips of The Daily Show on YouTube and you're more likely to watch it on TV to get the whole show as it is rather good. This then increases the advertising revenue for those shows ad slots as the viewer figures increase.

Same reason why a lot of bands have their music videos up there - watch the video and you're more likely to go see the band or spend money on their merchandise & products.

Viacom should be thinking of YouTube as a large collection of trailers people explicitly want to go see. Perhaps that's the problem - they're not getting the user info feedback on those people who do watch the trailers.