Forum Moderators: goodroi
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. In an e-mail, Chen talked about “concentrat[ing] all of our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively as we can through whatever tactics, however evil.”
"In response to YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley’s August 9, 2005 e-mail, YouTube co-founder Steve Chen stated: 'but we should just keep that stuff on the site. I really don’t see what will happen. what? someone from cnn sees it? he happens to be someone with power? he happens to want to take it down right away. he get in touch with cnn legal. 2 weeks later, we get a cease & desist letter. we take the video down.'"
"A month later, [YouTube manager Maryrose] Dunton told another senior YouTube employee in an instant message that 'the truth of the matter is probably 75-80 percent of our views come from copyrighted material.' She agreed with the other employee that YouTube has some 'good original content' but 'it’s just such a small percentage.'"
Viacom argues that the startup's strategy was, at its core, a decision to profit from copyright infringement. It doesn't matter whether YouTube showed ads on its video pages or not (for years, it did not, apparently concerned about just this issue); to Viacom, the entire business strategy was a way of profiting from infringement.
If YouTube isn't there, the thieves have no medium with which to share content.
Just like in real life, the police DON'T go after all the drug dealers, like you said it's too hard ,costs too much, and doesn't stop drug dealing.
we won't use our fingerprint technology to stop people uploading your files at all.
Are they required to?
Under the knowledge standard, a service provider is eligible for the limitation on liability only if it does not have actual knowledge of the infringement, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, or upon gaining such knowledge or awareness, responds expeditiously to take the material down or block access to it.
`(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing,
`(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, or
`(iii) if upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, the service provider acts expeditiously to remove or disable access to, the material;
`(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, where the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
`(C) in the instance of a notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
That invalidates safe harbor. eg: they are liable for the copyright violations regardless of the actions of Viacom.
That invalidates safe harbor. eg: they are liable for the copyright violations regardless of the actions of Viacom.
Common sense would agree, but I still feel that Google will find a way to wiggle out of this one, most likely with a huge payout to Viacom under the table.
If you pay a lot it's not a 'wiggle,' it's a loss.
If YouTube survives this lawsuit, it's a win.
The fact that Viacom uploaded some of their own material means nothing.
Look at it this way: if I have 2 books and post one for free on WebmasterWorld, doesn't mean that Brett can post my other one without my permission.
Are they required to?
Only if they want DMCA protection.
If YouTube survives this lawsuit, it's a win.
Multiply this scenario by 10,000,000 and that is what Youtube faces... some here want Youtube to automatically "assume" or "know" when something is violating even though in the scenario I laid out you can see how it would be difficult to determine what was allowed by a copyright holder and what wasn't, and is made even more complicated when the copyright holder is uploading the content to your site.
And that is invalidated due to the facts: a) they knowingly profited from pirated material b) founders were directly involved in placing the pirated material on the site. c) they admit in emails that they knew it was copyrighted material.
That invalidates safe harbor. eg: they are liable for the copyright violations regardless of the actions of Viacom.
"Hey I know that book, someone owns a copyright to that book, I will leave it up until I know that it wasn't the copyright holder that posted it."
Should he now lose his safe harbor status?
