tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post6801268732231547552..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: Did the parties move for summary judgment in Viacom v. YouTube? Not quite yet.Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-81502611910866077872010-01-17T00:11:30.760-08:002010-01-17T00:11:30.760-08:00Mr Riddick,
When I see, in comments regarding leg...Mr Riddick,<br /><br />When I see, in comments regarding legal cases, "Everyone knows that.", the case is usually that what "Everyone knows" is not in actuality, factual.<br /><br />If it was, there would be no need for the court appearance, would there?Rob (AU)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-48542575058001970002010-01-16T10:18:21.358-08:002010-01-16T10:18:21.358-08:00Mr Riddick,
If you have been following this case,...Mr Riddick,<br /><br />If you have been following this case, you would find that Viacom originally included, in its list of 'infringing works', videos which Viacom *itself* uploaded to YouTube.<br /><br />With that in mind, I ask you this:<br /> If Viacom cannot tell whether an uploaded video is authorized, how is Google supposed to be able to?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-42764024594177836402010-01-09T13:49:30.438-08:002010-01-09T13:49:30.438-08:00Hi Ben,
These mistakes and false interpretations ...Hi Ben,<br /><br />These mistakes and false interpretations don't surprise me at all. I doubt that very many people out here in the real world (aside from those of us who live and breath "copyight matters" every single day) have a clue what is about to happen to the world of copyrights and the Internet. If this judge rules for YouTube/Google (absent of some unclean hands theory I don't know any details about), why on earth would any "service provider" ever distribute anything other than stolen property, where there is little to no 'costs of goods sold'?<br /><br />Because they want to be good corporate citizens? I don't think so!<br /><br />Clearly, the DMCA "safe harbor" provisions were written into this law to protect "innocent" service providers who might not even be able to see the infringing materials in their servers if they looked, or when the infringing activity is taking place due to a technological process and not a human process.<br /><br />Neither is the case with YouTube/Google in this lawsuit. Everyone knows that.<br /><br />It is utterly amazing to me that this country of ours is only three pen strokes away from ending the world of copyright protection for what<br />is by far our largest copyright community (visual artists).<br /><br />With a win here against Viacom, and another in February in the Google Book Settlemnt debacle, all Google will need is their long-awaited Orphan Works legislation to pass and you will never see another legitimate copyright owner in court protecting their hard-earned property again ... at least not in this country.<br /><br />I know my digital graphic arts development company (we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary this year) won't spend the money to develop anything else new in an outlaw environment such as that. Why would we if it cannot be protected? Maybe China, Germany, or France will decide to protect it for us. They don't seem to bow over to mighty Google over there. We'll have to check into that. <br /><br />How is it, Ben, that obvious theft has now become such an debated "intellectual" subject matter in this country of ours? Frankly, I see Europe and Asia starting to protect their creative communities better than we now do here in the U.S.<br /><br />What a shame!<br /><br />George Riddick<br />Imageline, Inc.George Riddickhttp://www.imageline2.comnoreply@blogger.com