Viacom YT Filter

[chuft]

Re: Viacom YT Filter

:|

[StingX]

Re: Viacom YT Filter

They have never done a "Lazy Crusade" per se, but they have done a major Comedy Central one.

[xjocundxlilacx]

Re: Viacom YT Filter

This is the first I've heard of the filter, but it shows just how wanky Viacunt are.

[Locard]

Re: Viacom YT Filter

Dead to Viacom

[LazyTownWW]

Re: Viacom YT Filter

Death to Viacom

Sorry about that, but I had to.

[StingX]

Re: Viacom YT Filter

Thursday 18 March 2010 19.23 GMT

Viacom courted YouTube before launching $1bn piracy lawsuit

Faced with claims that it encourages piracy, YouTube accuses its rival of sour grapes - as well as claiming it ran covert operations to upload thousands of videos to the site

American media conglomerate Viacom considered buying YouTube just months before it launched a $1bn (£655m) piracy lawsuit against the video sharing site, according to court documents.

Files released today by a US court suggest that the television giant - which owns channels including MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central - had considered purchasing YouTube in 2006 in what executives said could prove a "transformative acquisition".

That deal was scotched when YouTube was bought later that year by internet leviathan Google for $1.65bn - shortly before Viacom launched its billion-dollar lawsuit accusing YouTube of "massive intentional copyright infringement".

The claims have come to light after the US court hearing the case unsealed hundreds of documents as it prepares to make a ruling on Viacom's claims. Lawyers have been arguing the case, which experts say could redefine the relationship between media and internet companies, behind closed doors since 2007 - but the court's move has made the astonishing revelations from both sides public for the first time.

Viacom's case hinges around the accusation that the video sharing site's founders - Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim - knew that copyright infringement was taking place, deliberately encouraged it and then failed to act properly when asked by rights holders.

In one filing, Viacom quotes an email from Chen who tells his colleagues to "concentrate all our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively as we can through whatever tactics, however evil".

The company also submitted evidence showing that Karim was among those who had submitted videos that infringed on the copyright of its owners - and that his colleagues were aware of the situation.

YouTube has consistently rejected the accusations, however, suggesting that it does not encourage illegal activity and that US copyright law means that it does have to police every uploaded to its servers.

It says that Viacom's evidence is largely used out of context - and that the entire court case could even be an outbreak of sour grapes.

One filing by YouTube suggests that Viacom had seriously entertained the possibility of buying the website in 2006, referring to an internal Viacom presentation which said that "we believe YouTube would make a transformative acquisition for MTV Networks/Viacom that would immediately make us the leading deliverer of video online, globally". It is not clear how serious this proposal was at the time.

In addition, YouTube argues that not only did Viacom "routinely" take the step of deliberately leaving pirated clips from ordinary users on the site because of their promotional value, but that it actually put up videos on YouTube - often surreptitiously.

"For years Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there," said Zahavah Levine, YouTube's chief counsel, in a blog post published today.

"It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately 'roughed up' the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses."

Faced with underground marketing efforts which had the stated aim of making video "look hijacked" in order to make sure it would "leak on YouTube", the site argues that it could never have been expected to accurately gauge whether or not had permission to post videos online.

Under American copyright law, internet service providers and websites are not directly responsible for the actions of their users and it is the duty of copyright holders to request that pirated versions of their be taken offline. However, the situation has become more complex in recent years with the advent of widespread file sharing and systems that make it easier to share copyrighted content without permission.

In the seminal Betamax case of 1984, a judge found that home video taping was legal because the technology could be used for legal purposes and not just piracy. But in 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled against file sharing site Grokster - whose lawyers had argued their case on the same basis - because it found that the company had deliberately encouraged users to infringe copyright.

Since launching in 2005, YouTube has become the world's most popular video website - garning hundreds of millions of users worldwide and having 20 hours of video uploaded to its system every minute.

A final ruling from US district court judge Louis Stanton, who is hearing the case, is not expected for several months.

[Buzz]

Re: Viacom YT Filter

get not really much due to the lot of business english...what's the main message?

[StingX]

Re: Viacom YT Filter

get not really much due to the lot of business english...what's the main message?

Viacom is the essence of douchebaggery