Slashdot Mirror


YouTube Was Evil, and Google Knew It

pcause writes "Silicon Alley Insider has the most damning evidence released in the Viacom/YouTube suit. It seems clear from these snippets that YouTube knew it was pirating content, and did it to grow fast and sell for a lot of money. It also seems clear that Google knew the site contained pirated content and bought it and continued the pirating."

5 of 419 comments (clear)

  1. Safe Harbor by butlerm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The ethical status of doing all this notwithstanding, and especially _knowingly_ relying on it as part of one's business plan, it would appear that Youtube had safe harbor to do all this under the online copyright liability limitations enacted as part of the DMCA.

  2. "Evil", maybe... but they were right by Endo13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They probably did need that infringing content to survive. But now, they've reached a point where that's no longer the case. If you really could remove all the stuff on YouTube that's unauthorized and doesn't qualify as fair use, it almost wouldn't matter any more. Nearly all the most-viewed videos now are some type of personal video, or something that's authorized and legit.

    It's also really hard to make a claim that YouTube has hurt content providers more than it has helped them. You don't see full TV episodes or movies for instance. All you find is short clips that, if anything, function as advertising and get more people to purchase them than would have otherwise. Perhaps the same is not entirely true for audio tracks and music videos, but those have been so trivially easy to acquire illegally for years now, I'm not convinced YouTube had a net negative impact for those kinds of content providers either.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
  3. Re:So... by Sique · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And... you know, until the end Viacom was up to buy YouTube. They just lost to Google.
    So Viacom also knew how evil YouTube was -- and they were still trying to buy it.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  4. Re:So... by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not seeing the "evil" until they either start ignoring take down notices (which they haven't) or start actively engaging in violations themselves (Which they apparently did at one point and which may end up getting them/google nailed).

    That is exactly my point. Everything that's public now is pretty damning, and I'm certain Viacom is going to be pursuing any and all internal records at Google that have any relation at all to this matter. Depending on what they find, it could be catastrophic. If they find nothing at all, it shows that Google failed at proper due diligence prior to buying YouTube. Either way, it's bad.

  5. Re:me too by jesset77 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The founding fathers supported the patent and copyright systems, to promote industrial and artistic creativity. They understood that without a way to protect the intellectual creations, such as books, music, architectural designs, inventions, et al, there would be less motivation for people to spend the time, and energy, to create them.

    I could argue against you here, but I cannot hope to be more eloquant than a founding father. :P

    England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

    - - Thomas Jefferson
    13 Aug. 1813

    --
    People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.