iFilm Infringement Could Blunt Viacom's YouTube Argument 119
Radio Silence writes "Infringing videos on iFilm could undermine Viacom's case against YouTube. Although it's arguably not a nest of infringement like YouTube, iFilm appears to host more than a handful of videos for which its corporate parent Viacom does not own the copyright. More importantly, Viacom isn't engaging in the kind of proactive infringement identification practices it expects of YouTube, which may cause problems for them in court. 'if Viacom isn't willing to take the same steps with iFilm that it wants YouTube to take with copyrighted content, Viacom may have a harder time making its case before the judge presiding over the case. "It would have some persuasive value with a judge if YouTube says 'look, they're ranting and raving about all this infringement occurring on my site and they're not doing anything about it themselves,'" said copyright attorney Greg Gabriel.'"
Re:I dont see this as an issue... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:do (Score:4, Interesting)
Daily Show RSS Feeds for iFilm Site (Score:3, Interesting)
One wonders why, but only for a short time. (Score:5, Interesting)
The media companies themselves aren't stupid. Look at the All-Time Most Viewed on YouTube [youtube.com]. We've got OK! Go (a band signed with Capitol Records/EMI, an RIAA member), Nike, SNL (NBC), My Chemical Romance (a band with Reprise, a Warner Bros. label, also an RIAA member). Record labels are on it, production companies/ film studios, and a heck of a lot of networks. Here's a short list of partners [youtube.com].
YouTube (and sites like it) should be treated a bit different than the Napster of old. It holds a lof of other advantages over "old piracy", all of which is extremely useful to owners of the copyright:
There's a lot more to this, of course. But networks (finally!) aren't being total idiots. As far as I know, the three major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) all let you stream shows for free through their sites. Other networks may be doing the same thing (to some extent, Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, Comedy Central, and the Sci-Fi channel do this). I don't think YouTube is the be-all and end-all in matters of online media. I'm speaking alot about them just because they're referenced in the article and they're the 'Video_blog Portal 2.0' (or whatever) that I'm most familiar with.
It gives me some hope that user response seems about as positive as Napster and the media conglomerate's response has been a hell of a lot more tempered; consumers get content for free, media creators/owners/distributors lose less control. Sure, crazy DRM schemes still pop-up, but this gives me hope that we're progressing positively. I'll take non-intrusive DRM as long as it does no harm and I get content for less (or free), not for the same price or more.
Re:Skeletons (Score:5, Interesting)
Incorrect. YouTube makes money by providing users with a medium of information exchange. YouTube does not violate the copyrights, the users who upload copyrighted content do.
YouTube is further protected from claims of copyright violation by the safe harbor laws of the DMCA. They honor all takedown notices, even when there is doubt. So, they actively obey the letter of the law, and as such do not violate copyright.
"Violate copyright" is a legal term, not a moral term. Legally, they are not guilty of this, as the courts will demonstrate.
Whether or not you think it is morally wrong for them to allow their users to upload copyrighted content is an entirely different issue, of course, though I am sure you and I would disagree on that one too.
The real reason for the suit (Score:1, Interesting)
Unlike most here, I read the above comments and must say that most of you guys are so full of crap it's coming out of your ears. I'm getting pretty damned tired of hearing copyright infringement referred to as "thieft". It is NOT thieft; not in the US, any way. The idea of "intellectual property" is, in the US, unconstitutional [cornell.edu] (Article 2 section 8). Nobody owns a creative work, not even its creator. You own NOTHING. What you posess (not "own") is is a limited time monopoly on copying, NOT the work itself. I do not own the song I just wrote this morning, I only own the right to copy it.
Intellectual "property" is a damned lie. It is not property in any sense of the word.
Unauthorized reproduction of a copyright work is illegal, but it is not theift any more than smoking pot is thieft (unless you stole the dope). Shoplifting a CD is thieft; posting it to Kazaa is not.
The (foreign owned) multinational corporations like Sony and Viacom want you to believe that freedom is slavery and war is peace. Orwell's 25 years late. Smile, you're on corporate-sponsored candid CCTV camera! Big corporation is watching you! And you fucking morons defend the evil Satan-worshiping sons of bitches. WTF is wrong with you????
Re:I don't agree (Score:5, Interesting)
The argument is not "You're one too".
Instead it is:
This is a new technology. What is legal and illegal has not yet been clearly declared.
You yourself are doing the same activity that you are claiming is illegal.
If you REALLY thought it was illegal, you would not do it yourself.
You are just trying to get us to stop competeing against your own legal actions, not actually claiming we are breaking the law.
Protest Viacom (Score:2, Interesting)
Upload infringing content to iFilm.
Well, someone has to say it.