YouTube Scores Huge Victory in Copyright Case

[JMcEntegart]

Google-owned video sharing site, YouTube, has won a landmark copyright case against Viacom.

YouTube Scores Huge Victory in Copyright Case : Read more

 

[icepick314]

yeah....let's all shoot the messenger...

not to mention sue gun and weapons manufacturer for murder, McDs for making kids fat, and God for pedophile priests...

 

[lifelesspoet]

I still hold a grudge with viacom for bringing us MTV.

 

[HibyPrime]

Finally a win for us, and not a win for the people who sue their own consumers.

 

[skine]

Blaming Youtube for allowing copyright infringement is a bit like blaming WalMart for shoplifting.

 

[ubernoobie]

Yay!

 

[Ragnar-Kon]

Seems to me that the owners of the copyright should be policing the inter webs to find their illegal copies of their material...

...which is exactly what Viacom did, and they notified YouTube, and YouTube removed the videos the next day...

... so I fail the see what the issue is.

 

[Puns]

A dyslexic man walked into a bra.

 

[joe nate]

"mere knowledge of the prevalence of (copyright violations) in general is not enough"

Seems like this is a reasonable statement. Youtube does comply with removing things when requested. They do not tell the user to upload copyrighted videos. Simply lacking the man-power to remove all of them on a daily basis is not willful intent to infringe upon the copyright.

In most cases with intellectual property, it's the intellectual property's owner that's responsibility to protect that property. If you come out with the copyright "windows" then its your job to make sure no one else tries to sell their products with your name. The court will back you up. But if you don't care about your name, you can not take them to court. There are no "intellectual property police" that go around issuing "cease and desist" letters and charge people for using other people's intellectual property. That's the responsibility of the intellectual property holder. If they issue the complaint, youtube is and has been compliant with removing said issues.

Expecting more from youtube is like selling paper to someone and then being held liable for what someone printed or wrote on that piece of paper.

 

[micper]

Money grabbing @!$*^$*%(*&(&!!!
but it's good to know that there is still some justice left in this world !!!

 

[Pyroflea]

Okay, so YouTube hosting copyright material is legal, yet TPB and MiniNova hosting copyright material is illegal? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

 

[jevon]

I seem to recall there being a lot more to this story a year or two ago, something about how Youtube/Google actually had records showing Viacom themselves had uploaded some of the videos in question to Youtube. Anyway, glad to hear the Internets won this one!

 

[the_krasno]

Once I uploaded a video of Valve's "Meet the team" promos for Team Fortress 2. It got taken down due to a Viacom copyright claim. I appealed, remarking that those trailers are property of Valve and giving links proving it. My video was allowed then =)

 

[overclockingrocks]

So the copyright holder makes a claim and the infringing content is then promptly removed. Yet the entity that was informed of the infringment and took action is still somehow liable? WTF

 

[loomis86]

[citation][nom]Ragnar-Kon[/nom]Seems to me that the owners of the copyright should be policing the inter webs to find their illegal copies of their material......which is exactly what Viacom did, and they notified YouTube, and YouTube removed the videos the next day...... so I fail the see what the issue is.[/citation]


money

 

[h8syningup2comment]

"This is an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the web to communicate and share experiences with each other,"

How exactly does this affect "billions" of people?
Last time I checked, Youtube was not available in many countries outside the U.S. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but U.S. law is "U.S." law, not "World Law". Court decisions, landmark or otherwise, made in the United States don't affect law in other countries, especially since most of the world uses civil law as opposed to the U.S. which uses common law.

 

[zachary k]

well when mommy does not give you want you want, go to daddy.

 

[foxmulder_ms]

viacom, here is the finger you want....

 

[Trueno07]

Ah-ha screw you Viacom, no one likes you anyways.

 

[poseidon2112]

"How exactly does this affect "billions" of people?
Last time I checked, Youtube was not available in many countries outside the U.S. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but U.S. law is "U.S." law, not "World Law". Court decisions, landmark or otherwise, made in the United States don't affect law in other countries, especially since most of the world uses civil law as opposed to the U.S. which uses common law."


Wow....since you are obviously too stupid to figure it our for yourself, I'll spell it out for you.

Youtube is available in most countries. In fact so many countries, that billions of people have access to it.
http/mashable.com/2007/05/30/youtube-bans/

Also, when youtube is forced to take down one video by an american company (citing american law), then nobody can watch this video. Even those outside of america. So yes, american law can affect the rest of the world.